why are there so few discrete transformerless mic preamps?

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Dan, you are correct.
http://www.gordonaudio.com

It looked like a "really nice bit of kit", as our English friends would say. I talked to the designer for a while, and I learned that he had incorporated some unusual ideas into the design, particularly as regards varying the gain of the circuit.
http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3block.gif
 
http://www.gordonaudio.com/images/3preinta.jpg

All I can say is WOW. Impressive.

But somewhere in the back of my mind, I'm thinking "What about reliability? That's a lot of failure points.... lots of things that could go wrong. hmmmm"
 
OMG!

How in the world can the source signal find it's way through that thing without getting confused?!

I thought the best approach when designing a mic pre is to use the fewest number of components possible! The bill or materials on that thing probably spans 50 pages!

Shane
 
[quote author="FredForssell"]

So how do you define discrete when it comes to a mike preamp circuit? I wouldn't call it discrete if it uses IC opamps in the signal path, period. .[/quote]

Fred,

I´m 100% with you there. IC´s in the signal path is a no-go for discrete. In my book it has to be real transistors, tubes, caps, resistors, diodes..etc

Kind regards

Peter
 
> dearth of transformerless discrete mic preamps

discrete-mic-amp.gif

Hey, you didn't say it had to be balanced, any overload spec....

"Discrete" versus "IC"....

Of course nearly all current individual transistors are made on IC fabs. The electrons (and holes) don't know the difference.

OTOH, when you have to make all the transistors in one batch, you can't get very-different transistors for different functions.

To my mind the difference is "commercial". No audio product (until recently) sold in enough quantity to justify IC design. All our low-noise amps have to sell into instrumentation and other markets to get the sales volume needed to justify mask-making. And even inside Audio, not everybody agrees what is best. High input bias current is often part of low voltage noise. But high bias current upsets designers who hope to use high-value input resistors. And frankly there are more mediocre boxes (and chips) sold than really low-noise boxes. Also, once a suitable design begins to gel, the IC production engineers jump all over it. Once in production, profit is about how many chips fit on a wafer. They reduce feature size. In audio, in some places, this is good. In many places, a smaller transistor is bad for sound even if it meets spec. Also ICs have modest power handling ability so there is a strong incentive to run them Class AB. But it isn't all that easy to fix the Class AB idle current. If it is too high, it runs hot and also can't easily be told (on test) from a chip that is just leaky all over. IC production engineers like low power currents so leakers can easily be kicked-out. But if Class AB idle current is low, even a little low, it looks good on the scope but grates the ear.

If you slice all the possible planar transistors off the wafer and box them individually, a clever designer can mix-n-match and test and trim for the results s/he wants in a specific product, instead of some canned solution that maximizes total sales in many markets (industrial, military, instrumentation, telecom, etc).

But when you go far beyond my 1-transistor preamp into differential balanced controlled-gain low-THD, and want it to be stable against temperature and supply and parts variations, it gets to be a tough chore. Especially at the very high gains we like in dynamic-mike preamps. Using 2 or 3 high-gain low-offset push-pull-output chips really makes things easier, and unless you have brilliance or infinite time may give a perfectly acceptable (and salable) box better than you could design from pieces.

I happen to have an all-discrete balanced mike preamp design simmering. I may present it here in coming days. But it has "serious" flaws. It is a bit sloppy at gain=+60dB, it has a very odd unbalance quirk at low gain, and it runs hot as heck (like 6 Watts). I think it is useful in enough common situations that some folks here would find it useful, especially since it is brutally simple and could be visually elegant (pairs of fat heatsinks and resistors). But I would not present it as an all-purpose mike amp for all users. To do that would require many more parts and more thinking than I care to do for fun.
 
I'm not really sure what I'm getting at here, so please excuse my question if it's moronic. The Gordon preamp makes me wonder what would be the effect of having two (or more) of the same discrete amplifier stages running in parallel, assuming they were matched closely enough to avoid phase problems. Splitting the signal into two matching amps, and recombining the outputs and attenuating the gain at the output to a useful level. Would you just get more noise? Would there be any benefit to that configuration?

Thanks
 
> The Gordon preamp makes me wonder what would be the effect of having two (or more) of the same discrete amplifier stages running in parallel

The Gordon does not do that. It does look like the inside of each gain block is massively parallel, but one reason for that is TO-92 packages. A half-dozen 2N2222s makes one really big (low resistance, high power) 2N2222, and cheaper by the dozen. (This goes to my point about not skimping on square-yards of silicon.) I'm sure each "triangle" is a conceptually single amplifier.

> two (or more) of the same discrete amplifier stages running in parallel

In general: everything could be about the same, except output power could double (probably at a different optimum impedance). Input noise is hard to guess without specifics, but at best no better than using the same number of devices and same total current in a single amp. No change in distortion or bandwidth. And that assumes the two channels don't fight each other: in practice they will.

Parallel operation of ready-made power amps is practiced, though if you don't take special care they will fight each other into disaster. It would be better to build a single power amp around all the parts of both amps.

I think it is a dumb idea, but it needed asking, and I may well have missed a point. (But then why don't we see it done?)
 
[quote author="PRR"]>
discrete-mic-amp.gif

Hey, you didn't say it had to be balanced, any overload spec....[/quote]

I haven't seen that biasing scheme in a while. It was fairly common in the '60s and early '70s, but I believe it fell out of favor because it relies too heavily on the transistor having a particular value of beta.
 
Hi!

That Gordan Pre is a crazy beast!! Has anyone heard one? It looks as if he has caps made for him as well!

As far as other discrete transfomerless designs, I think the CraneSong Flamingo and Martech MSS10 are......

Cheers Tom
 
Coefficient of stabilization is nearly 0.
It is saturation beta stabilized amp.
Maximal output voltage is kind of 0,4 V peak to peak.

Rather use 100 k resistor in series with LED diode from collector
to base instead of hard base 1 meg.
You will have 4 V peak to peak output swing. It is 20 dB of headroom
only by one added component.

xvlk
 
In audio, in some places, this is good. In many places, a smaller transistor is bad for sound even if it meets spec. Also ICs have modest power handling ability so there is a strong incentive to run them Class AB.

True. Don't forget that most of IC fabrication processes today focus on MOS devices performance. They are getting smaller and smaller for cost reduction Even in the BiCMOS (bipolar+cmos) processes (which used to be bipolar processes with cmos devices and now are cmos processes with bipolar devices...), the bipolar devices are bad for audio use... designers use them as diodes!!! :)

cheers!
Fabio
 
I think that circuit was a test from PRR. The gain changes alot as Ic moves due to the signal level. With the C at 1/2 of 9V you should have a small signal gain of about 180 as the collector voltage goes more to ground the gain goes up(Ic goes up) and as the collector voltage goes more to +9 the gain goes down(Ic goes down). A good harmonic generator.

I think PRR is hinting at a warm preamp.
 
> I think PRR is hinting at a warm preamp.

No. I am trying to make the point that there is NO "dearth of transformerless discrete mic preamps". They are everywhere. Jay needs to list what features he expects before we can really discuss it on-point.

> Coefficient of stabilization is nearly 0.

Right. It fails Shea's Stability Criteria, badly.

> It is saturation beta stabilized amp.

The simulator gave me a transistor with Beta=116, and showed the Collector sitting about 3 or 4 volts. Well out of saturation.

Change the transistor (or even heat it), and the Beta and bias change dramatically. (Good thermometer.)

With a hi-Beta transistor, yes, it will slap its Collector down near Ground, actually Vbe. Undistorted output will be small (but quite clean).

> use 100 k resistor in series with LED diode from collector to base... only by one added component

Use an extra part??? The designers who do circuits like this would be out of a job.

The "right" fix is just 500K from Base to Collector. Now feedback sets the bias point while Beta drifts. It can be remarkably stable, if your supply voltage is well above your signal voltage. Gain-shift over parts and temperature isn't too large either. But input resistance drops from about 3K to about 1.5K.

> The gain changes alot as Ic moves due to the signal level.

No, the bias and average gain won't change significantly (a dB or two) until you get up over 20% distortion. At "full un-clipped swing" it runs around 26% 2nd Harmonic. Then it will clip and you get rectification shift in bias. With a little fooling you can make it produce big half-waves of signal that don't sound quite as bad as they look.

> hinting at a warm preamp.

No, I am showing a "transformerless discrete preamp" in which you just do not know how it will work or sound with different parts or on different days, with zero CMRR, with poor efficiency.
 
First off thank you for all the responses. To clarify, maybe I should state "why is there a dearth of schematics available for balanced discrete low noise mic preamps". I don't mean clones per say. I don't seem to see any original designs either(although you did mention one PRR). And no, I don't dislike transformers, I'm just curious about the sound/design of these high end transformerless designs such as the gordon and forsell



-jay
 
One of the (many) projects I am working on is a mic preamp based on the AES Paper #2106, all discrete just for the fun of it. I doubt that it will sound better than using NE5532 chips, but my brains cannot rest until I have done it. On the input I am using 16 of the BC550C (or MPSA18) transistors for the LTP. It would be much easier to use an LM394 or an SSM2210, but that is just no longer cool in my twisted world. As always I am stuck on the dreaded PCB design for ages. Perhaps one of my problems is that I am trying to fit 56 transistors and about seventy resistors on a 3.8x2.5 inch board.

Tamas
 
[quote author="PRR"]
It fails Shea's Stability Criteria, badly.
[/quote]
PRR and others,
Shea is nice book, I recomend it for everyone.
But difficult to first reading.

Transistor amp in common emitter with omitted h22 have
gain determined by collector voltage and is biggest in
maximal collector resistor voltage drop.
Au=Rc*Gm = 40*Rc*Ic,
R=Ucc/ic.
Au = 40* Ucc.
If you have Ucc= 10 V, gain is 400.
Beacouse Ri=Ue/Ic, where Ue is Early voltage (60V).
limiting gain is 40*60 =2400.
You can make simply Ucc bigger and then gain is bigger.
But still smaller than Early s gain.

Old good Shea.
xvlk
 

Latest posts

Back
Top