Welcome to EDAboard.com

Welcome to our site! EDAboard.com is an international Electronic Discussion Forum focused on EDA software, circuits, schematics, books, theory, papers, asic, pld, 8051, DSP, Network, RF, Analog Design, PCB, Service Manuals... and a whole lot more! To participate you need to register. Registration is free. Click here to register now.

Register Log in

Differential Pair Negative Feedback for audio amp

Status
Not open for further replies.

pha0001m

Junior Member level 1
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
16
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
1
Trophy points
3
Activity points
138
Hi all, I am currently working on a phase splitter for my valve audio amplifier. However, I wanted to design the phase splitter stage with transistors instead of traditional valves.

The original circuit, which was implemented with vacumm tubes is attached in figure 1. My LTspice attemped is attached in figure 2. The attempted failed, does anyone has any idea on how to implement a BJT phase splitter.

Thanks,
figure 1.jpgNFB.jpg
 

FvM

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
47,667
Helped
14,078
Reputation
28,413
Reaction score
12,742
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Bochum, Germany
Activity points
276,933
You didn't tell in which sense the circuit fails. I guess it's because you erroneously implemented positive instead of negative feedback.

Did you omit the feedback signal attenuation of the original circuit intentionally?
 

chuckey

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Dec 26, 2010
Messages
4,863
Helped
1,308
Reputation
2,622
Reaction score
1,281
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Southampton and holiday cottage in Wensleydale (UK
Activity points
31,695
R3 and R4 in your simulator figure are too low. I can not see why a long tailed pair would not work, there are problems with
impedance matching to the existing circuits and I wonder if the Miller affect could be problematic.
Frank
 

crutschow

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
3,771
Helped
900
Reputation
1,798
Reaction score
881
Trophy points
1,393
Location
L.A. USA Zulu -8
Activity points
21,227
Below is my simulation of your circuit, which looks okay to me.
What is the problem with yours?
The feedback phase is confusing because you labeled the inverted signal as + and the non-inverted as -.

Why are R3 and R4 such a low value?

Phase Splitter.gif
 

pha0001m

Junior Member level 1
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
16
Helped
1
Reputation
2
Reaction score
1
Trophy points
3
Activity points
138
R3 and R4 in your simulator figure are too low. I can not see why a long tailed pair would not work, there are problems with
impedance matching to the existing circuits and I wonder if the Miller affect could be problematic.
Frank
Below is my simulation of your circuit, which looks okay to me.
What is the problem with yours?
The feedback phase is confusing because you labeled the inverted signal as + and the non-inverted as -.

Why are R3 and R4 such a low value?

View attachment 113287
Thank guys! and thanks for the verification, crutschow! You are right I got mix up with the + and -. Thus I was doing a positive feedback instead of a negative feedback.

R3 and R4 are indeed too low, and they will be increased. I was not thinking properly when I selected these values.

- - - Updated - - -

You didn't tell in which sense the circuit fails. I guess it's because you erroneously implemented positive instead of negative feedback.
Thanks, and yes, you are right! My bad, I was doing a positive feedback, no wonder it was giving me some odd looking results.


Did you omit the feedback signal attenuation of the original circuit intentionally?
Do you mean the feedback connected below R6 in the original schematic?. I omitted it because I am not sure how to included it when the tail resistors are replaced by a constant current sink.
 

FvM

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
47,667
Helped
14,078
Reputation
28,413
Reaction score
12,742
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Bochum, Germany
Activity points
276,933
Do you mean the feedback connected below R6 in the original schematic?
Either if it's connected to R6 or elsewhere, there's a voltage divider with 1:20 or even larger voltage reduction.

As a special point, the feedback is also frequency dependant, optionally achieving medium and high frequency ("Presence") enhancement. I would ignore this feature at first sight.
 

Audioguru

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Jan 19, 2008
Messages
9,085
Helped
2,112
Reputation
4,218
Reaction score
1,938
Trophy points
1,393
Location
Toronto area of Canada
Activity points
57,066
The "presence" control on the original old amplifier boosted midrange frequencies that caused the output to sound like a telephone with reduced bass and reduced highs.
 

crutschow

Advanced Member level 5
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
3,771
Helped
900
Reputation
1,798
Reaction score
881
Trophy points
1,393
Location
L.A. USA Zulu -8
Activity points
21,227
Very curious. The circuit simulation works for either polarity of the NFB signal (as my previous post shows for positive feedback). The only difference is that the polarity of the differential output signal also reverses, even though it's amplitude is essentially unchanged.

After some testing it turns out that the simulator finds a quasi-stable state where the circuit will operate with a value of 0.1 positive feedback. If you Skip the initial operating point solution (UIC) then the circuit oscillates as expected. It works properly with negative feedback.

An interesting case where the simulator gives a result that would be difficult (if not impossible) to achieve in the real world. So always beware if the simulator is giving a result that appears incorrect.
 
Last edited:

Status
Not open for further replies.
Toggle Sidebar

Part and Inventory Search

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Top