In Reply to: Re: Help wanted with low power SS amp design from amp gurus posted by kurt s on June 22, 2003 at 21:18:12:
Very good point. I can drive them high-pass and do this using cap coupling. It needs about 100uF and then I can just not worry about the DC. I forget there is a way to get a quality electrolytic coupling cap in there, those BG's. This also allows the use of one 12V battery for power - can't make the power any cleaner than a car battery. Cool idea. I even have a couple of 100uF 50V BG caps around here somewhere. I can also bypass with some teflon caps I have. It will require cap coupling coming in and going out. Not too bad. It should be worth a shot. Thanks for the suggestion.Sure.
Though if you're going to go with a single supply, don't use the N series Black Gates. Nonpolars don't do so well with high bias voltages on them. Use the polarized FK series instead. Otherwise I'd stick with the split supply and the N series BGs.
By the way, why do you need cap coupling on the input as well? Isn't your preamp already cap coupled on the output?
Now for the FET recommendation. Maybe a parallel set of JFETs can do the job, or one MOSFET.
Personally I'm not much of a fan of FETs. At least as followers.
However you might want to have a look at the followers (MOSFET and MOSFET/Bipolar) by Pavel Macura.
But that 9k output impedance from your autoformer could be problematic with MOSFETs.
I've had good results with single-ended Sziklai pair followers. A Toshiba 2SC4793/2SA1837 pair would work well for your application.
Do you have any preference for active or passive loading for the follower?
By the way, are you Kurt Strain?
se
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Help wanted with low power SS amp design from amp gurus - Steve Eddy 21:40:27 06/22/03 (18)
- Re: Help wanted with low power SS amp design from amp gurus - kurt s 22:47:34 06/22/03 (1)
- Re: Help wanted with low power SS amp design from amp gurus - Steve Eddy 23:09:02 06/22/03 (0)
- And now for a completely different point of view... - Charles Hansen 22:24:30 06/22/03 (15)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Jon Risch 10:51:12 06/24/03 (1)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Steve Eddy 12:47:16 06/24/03 (0)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - kurt s 22:57:21 06/22/03 (5)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Charles Hansen 23:59:52 06/22/03 (1)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - kurt s 08:03:30 06/23/03 (0)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Steve Eddy 23:13:25 06/22/03 (2)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - kurt s 07:54:11 06/23/03 (1)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Steve Eddy 09:04:22 06/23/03 (0)
- Re: And now for a completely different point of view... - Steve Eddy 22:45:20 06/22/03 (6)
- Re: This I do not understand, 110 db and the 5 mV - jensw 00:29:40 06/23/03 (1)
- Re: This I do not understand, 110 db and the 5 mV - Steve Eddy 00:49:42 06/23/03 (0)
- Well... - Charles Hansen 23:48:40 06/22/03 (3)
- Re: Well... - Steve Eddy 00:46:01 06/23/03 (2)
- OK, I'll walk you through the math... - Charles Hansen 15:43:32 06/24/03 (0)
- P.S. - Steve Eddy 01:10:48 06/23/03 (0)