Sorry, should have been clearer:
I was talking about C3 in the schematic from post #79.
Right. So you could have changed ULGF by changing the capacitor's value as well as by degeneration of the input stage.
Don't forget that you need to do a bode plot of the miller loop as well as the global loop.
Ditto if you're sticking with TMC. I believe that with TMC one plot should look second-order and another should look first order. Both need to have decent stability margins.
Last edited:
You can have it with one shot, just do a bode plot of the global loop and connect TMC resistor after the Tian probe.
Nah I don't, but I can wish =) So far the measurements are just sims and the results are used as a guideline, not an absolute.
I've given my VAS a little break as I'm now at a point where I don't know well how to continue:
On one end, with a simple miller compensation from VAS-out to VAS-in of 56p, (and a small tweak to the buffer local feedback (82pf with 22Ohm series) I can get it rock stable. The THD is very bad this way; around 0.01%. When I take out the OPS and put back in an ideal OPS, the THD is back to 0.000055%.
It's clear that the OPS is the main contributor to THD and when excluded from the feedback, it rears its head bad.
If I use OPS inclusive feedback, I get this extra phase shift which leaves me with a phase margin of less than 30 degrees on two locations in the band. This is not acceptable.
So. I think I'm stuck. Using plain miller defeats the purpose of this VAS as I throw away all that loopgain.
I've tried TMC, TPC and variants, but no matter, where there is improvement in gain, there's a degradation in phase.
I've given my VAS a little break as I'm now at a point where I don't know well how to continue:
On one end, with a simple miller compensation from VAS-out to VAS-in of 56p, (and a small tweak to the buffer local feedback (82pf with 22Ohm series) I can get it rock stable. The THD is very bad this way; around 0.01%. When I take out the OPS and put back in an ideal OPS, the THD is back to 0.000055%.
It's clear that the OPS is the main contributor to THD and when excluded from the feedback, it rears its head bad.
If I use OPS inclusive feedback, I get this extra phase shift which leaves me with a phase margin of less than 30 degrees on two locations in the band. This is not acceptable.
So. I think I'm stuck. Using plain miller defeats the purpose of this VAS as I throw away all that loopgain.
I've tried TMC, TPC and variants, but no matter, where there is improvement in gain, there's a degradation in phase.
That's what compensation does in all circuits! You have to get the loop gain to cross zero before all your high-frequency singularities kick in and bring their evil phase shift.
haha yeah, I've experimented with this schematic like a mad-man. I think I made some improvements though. I now have a combination of both Cherry and TMC with the C/R path from VAS out to OPS out is rather low-ohmic.
The question though is what an acceptable phase margin is. When I assume the OPS series resistance (regardless of Cload) is at least 50mOhms, I can get so much more performance from the circuit than if I would stabilize it for an ideal C.
In this situation I now have around 0.000023% into 8Ohm and 0.000046% into 4Ohm. As long as the series resistance doesn't drop below 50mOhm it remains stable at all capacitances (within sensible range as they still load the OPS).
So what's practical?
The question though is what an acceptable phase margin is. When I assume the OPS series resistance (regardless of Cload) is at least 50mOhms, I can get so much more performance from the circuit than if I would stabilize it for an ideal C.
In this situation I now have around 0.000023% into 8Ohm and 0.000046% into 4Ohm. As long as the series resistance doesn't drop below 50mOhm it remains stable at all capacitances (within sensible range as they still load the OPS).
So what's practical?
You'll never get a perfect piece of wire so there will always be some resistance. In my sims I assume a series resistance of 0.1R with a C load (without output filter). I feel that is extreme enough. Also, you will probably have an L//R filter on the output.
Any chance you could post an updated schematic?
Paul
Any chance you could post an updated schematic?
Paul
Depends on what you mean by "obscure" and "results". If you're talking about closed-loop response, then I usually measure that with an output network in place and look at response both before and after the filter.
With loop-gain simulations, you should also have the output network in place. The whole point of the output network is to help achieve stability into capacitive loads without having to severely compromise loop gain.
Last edited:
I need to learn to be more precise in my posts.
For extreme load testing I put the load before the filter though.
Although, I haven't been looking at the results after the filter. Should do that really.
Last edited:
Alright guys, here an updated schematic. It's the 200W/4Ohm version that I intend to proto.
C10 (33p), R33 (56R), C22 (680p) and R38 (330R) are what makes up the TMC network. C31 (33p), together with the buffer local networks C1, C4 (82p), R37, R39 (82R), form the Cherry style network.
It's stable with a minimum series R of 50 mOhms. Here's the THD:
I think it's pretty good after all; I can chose to increase the TMC influence by increasing C10 to improve stability without sacrificing too much THD.
Something noteworthy is that the phase dips beyond 180 degrees mid-way band don't impact stability. It's where OLG == CLG where OLG phase becomes the determining factor, at least that's what I conclude from this
C10 (33p), R33 (56R), C22 (680p) and R38 (330R) are what makes up the TMC network. C31 (33p), together with the buffer local networks C1, C4 (82p), R37, R39 (82R), form the Cherry style network.
It's stable with a minimum series R of 50 mOhms. Here's the THD:
Code:
[SIZE=2]N-Period=1[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Fourier components of V(x)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]DC component:-0.0105172[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Harmonic Frequency Fourier Normalized Phase Normalized[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Number [Hz] Component Component [degree] Phase [deg][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]1 1.000e+03 4.000e+01 1.000e+00 179.98° 0.00°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]2 2.000e+03 4.291e-06 1.073e-07 19.53° -160.44°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]3 3.000e+03 8.081e-06 2.020e-07 20.44° -159.53°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]4 4.000e+03 1.920e-06 4.800e-08 -128.56° -308.54°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]5 5.000e+03 4.482e-06 1.121e-07 -139.40° -319.38°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]6 6.000e+03 1.124e-06 2.811e-08 55.93° -124.05°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]7 7.000e+03 2.903e-06 7.258e-08 58.38° -121.60°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]8 8.000e+03 7.815e-07 1.954e-08 -128.16° -308.14°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]9 9.000e+03 2.120e-06 5.301e-08 -104.80° -284.78°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]10 1.000e+04 5.741e-07 1.435e-08 47.54° -132.44°[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Total Harmonic Distortion: 0.000028%[/SIZE]I think it's pretty good after all; I can chose to increase the TMC influence by increasing C10 to improve stability without sacrificing too much THD.
Something noteworthy is that the phase dips beyond 180 degrees mid-way band don't impact stability. It's where OLG == CLG where OLG phase becomes the determining factor, at least that's what I conclude from this
Attachments
Last edited:
P.S. if you'd like to see specific plots just ask and I'll try to come up with them.
Edit: The output inductor with its parallel resistance still needs to be added. That might very well be a 'guard' against unrealistic loads. I'd have to see how such an output filter would influence stuff.
Edit: The output inductor with its parallel resistance still needs to be added. That might very well be a 'guard' against unrealistic loads. I'd have to see how such an output filter would influence stuff.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.