Mic Pre Doodles - Bits and Bobs

GroupDIY Audio Forum

Help Support GroupDIY Audio Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jean Clochet

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 25, 2011
Messages
387
Location
Currently taking a break to smell roses and the co
I've been working on a low noise, low distortion mic-amp design and thought it might be of interest to one or two people.
Warning:  It's a long post so feel free to ignore if time/patience/life's too short!

I've attached a PDF of the input stage.  The complete mic pre schematic is a large PDF (Maybe I'll post it later) so I've just shown the basic idea for this section which I thought was quite interesting.  I added the signal In/Out connections only for illustration in this post but of course, there are the typical input bias & protection components etc. on the real thing.
The gain btw is split between this 1st stage and the 2nd stage (1 X dual pot controlling both gains simultaneously) with the 1st stage holding about 44dB gain and the 2nd about 22dB.  There's also an output driver with level control which has 10dB in hand.

A lot of the folks here will be able to see what's going on with just a quick glance at the PDF picture but, for anyone that wants a bit of a description, I wrote something up. 


So:
The parallel 2N4403's (Q1-3 & Q4-6) and respective BC550's (Q7& Q8) are connected as complimentary-feedback-pairs (CFP) for the purpose of reducing distortion.  However, sometimes there is a compromise decision to be made with a CFP when adopting the usual method of supplying the bias current for the input devices via a resistor (See the project here: http://sound.westhost.com/project66.htm for an example of this).  The trade off is one of finding the right balance between noise and distortion reduction:-  The resistor value that ensures the appropriate current for the input devices (for the lowest noise at the design-centre input impedance) might also lower the gain available for linearisation via the feedback action of the CFP.
Here, the resistor is eliminated entirely and the 2N4403 collectors are supplied with bias current via constant current sources (bottom of picture). The current here is 3mA for approx. 1mA per input device.  Of course, the CCS's need to be quiet ones.
Anyway, we now have maximum feedback action happening for reducing distortions but we also get to pick the optimum current at which the input devices operate.  I'd suggest that it's important if you are modeling this in Spice that you model the actual CCS that you'd plan on using rather than an ideal one.  Otherwise, you may not pick up on how much or how little noise the CCS is adding to the signal.

The other aspect which I thought was interesting with this input stage addreses Common-Mode-Rejection.
With variable-gain diff-amp stages such as this, CMMR is generally fine at high gains (smaller emitter to emitter resistance values) but degrades at low gains when the emitter to emitter R value is quite high.  This is due to early effect of the input transistors.
Here, a cascode is used (the BC560's - Q9 & Q10) to mostly eliminate these effects by keeping the collector/emitter voltage of the input transistors constant - which goes some way, but not all the way, to keeping CMMR constant for all conditions. 
The cascode is the enhanced type, as explained by Prof. Malcolm Hawksford (I'll look for the paper and post a link), but, instead of the usual zener or string of LED's to establish the cascode stand-off voltage, a resistor is used here (the 10K R's - R7 & R8) which is generally a bit quieter than if using a diode instead. 
The 10K cascode bias resistors are supplied with about .6mA of current via another CCS so, basic maths ohms's law tells us that there's about 6V of cascode bias.
CMMR at all gains is now pretty darn good (mostly dependant on matching) and also quite a bit better at higher frequencies regardless.  Tests show that THD is also further reduced with the cascode connection and is independant of frequency (for audio purposes anyway!).  The small caps (15pF) in parallel with the 10K cascode bias R's look a bit silly but they do ensure stability.

Since the current to the emitters of the 2N4403's is supplied via resistors (R1 & R2) directly from the positive rail rather than more CCS's (this is for noise reasons) as well as the fact that the 825R load resistors (R3 & R4) are connected directly to the negative rail, PSSR is not exactly stellar for a low noise pre-amp.  This is true of all stages such as this and isn't peculiar to this design. 
In the version I'm working on, I have the main incoming voltage LM317/LM337 regulated at +/-24V and these then feed fairly simple capacitor multipliers for each channel which drops the supply down to +/- 22V.  They ensure the rails are quiet enough for low noise performance.
Additionally, individual cap. multipliers per channel would also give good channel to channel crosstalk measuements.

I'm happy so far with how the complete mic amp is coming along but I'm still learning as I go...
More later maybe but I think that's enough blurbage for now,
cheers.


Edit:  Q7/Q8 connections corrected on PDF.
 

Attachments

  • MicAmpDiffAmpCorrected.pdf
    130.1 KB · Views: 120
ricardo said:
Have you got Base & Collector interchanged on Q7/8 in the schematic?

:)

I absolutely have  :eek:

I was getting frustrated trying to upload the JPG... I must have messed up when I redid it and posted as PDF instead.
Well spotted and thanks, I'll correct it and replace,
cheers Ricardo

Edit: Corrected and reposted in 1st post. 
Sorry about the rather messy drawing in general, but you get the idea...


 
Interesting...  The darlington formed by 4403-550 will improve linearity of input stage with the current gain of the 550 reducing the current change and therefore Vbe change of the input 4403s with audio signal, so this will (likely) exhibit higher distortion than topologies that hold the current completely constant in the input devices.

I think I've seen a topology similar to this, where there are resistors from base to emitter of Q7 and Q8 which would tend to hold the current constant in the input 4403s. The emitter of the 550s then becomes the voltage output of that first stage. Of course that approach has it's own issues. 

The bottom line is if it sounds good it is good, while it's nice to measure good too..

JR
 
JohnRoberts said:
I think I've seen a topology similar to this, where there are resistors from base to emitter of Q7 and Q8 which would tend to hold the current constant in the input 4403s. The emitter of the 550s then becomes the voltage output of that first stage.

Thanks John.
Yes, I've seen a resistor there before but not sure with an added cascode (my BC560's) but it's probably been done before somewhere?
Anyway, you got me curious so I thought I'd run a couple of basic tests to see what difference there'd be with and without a CCS and/or resistor in that spot.

The tests also included the second stage as I didn't have the means to measure just this stage in isolation without major surgery and replacement of limbs.  The second stage BTW is a variable gain diff-amp, pretty much just pinched right out of a Doug Self book (I'll post a sketch some other time) except with lower value resistors in mine for lower noise.  It's pretty clean and quiet (LM4562 Op-Amps) and I think it's still a valid test to have done. ? 

I set the overall gain at 40dB (most of this comes from the input stage) and for a 1.2V signal output. 

With the CCS feeding the 2N4403's, THD was .000028%  and signal to noise was 105dB.
With 221R resistors from Q7 & Q8 emitters to bases instead, THD was .0001% and signal to noise was 106dB.

The 221R resistors sourced about the same amount of current per input device - 1mA (3mA total) - as my CCS.

I'd also tried higher values of resistors in place of the CCS and while THD got better than with the 221R's .0001%, noise got progressively worse, and no value of resistor came that close to the .000028% THD of the CCS. 

I do think the cascode is helping here by bootstrapping up some of the error signals from the 2N4403 emitters in a kind of error correction scheme.  Need to go read a bit more to get clear on  this  :eek:

One last thing, I tried a cascode J-FET (2N5486) on top of the CCS, expecting noise to be a bit better.  Noise was actually ever so slightly worse but distortion was ever so slightly better.  Not worth spending the extra £0.20 then.
Thanks.

















 
PDF of 2nd stage attached.  Again, this part is basically just a rip-off of Douglas Self's "Padless Mic-Amp" from his small-signal amplifiers book.  Difference being that the resistors I'm using are lower in value for lower noise.  I also found that a little cap on each leg (22pF) was needed for absolute stability.  Might not need it with a tighter layout than I have for my working proto but ? 

The load on the single-ended output is already a bit over 1K from VR1B etc., so the following output buffer/fader etc. should not be lower than about 2K2 - or the LM4562 will start to complain.


P.S.  The dual pot I have marked for the gain adjust on both stages is a 1K Reverse Audio type.  I didn't have one lying around so used a 1K audio in reverse.  Clockwise rotation is therefore attenuation!  Doesn't really bother me but I'll change it out at some point when/if I do a layout etc.
 

Attachments

  • 2nd Stage Diff To Single-Ended.pdf
    124 KB · Views: 50
JohnRoberts said:
Those distortion figures are quite good... 

Yep.  I was/am actually a bit suspicious that I was off by a decimal place on the calculator, although I don't think so  ;) 
There was some cheating in that I had grabbed some 100 X baggies of transistors and very closely matched all pairs, as well as the relevant R's, C's when I soldered up the proto. so the even orders are well cancelled.  The extra effort/time involved wouldn't work for a product though.
Still, even with unmatched pairs/1% parts the differences with topology are still relevant.

JohnRoberts said:
I wonder if there are any microphones that clean?

As you said in your "Long-Tail" thread, it's a bit like chasing your tail. 

Cheers.



 
Jean Clochet said:
I also found that a little cap on each leg (22pF) was needed for absolute stability.  Might not need it with a tighter layout than I have for my working proto but ? 
I would leave them in.  They help CMRR.  You need something like this even for normal OPA circuits to account for eg capacitance from i/p pins to ground planes etc.

< 2nd Stage Diff To Single-Ended.pdf > (124.04 kB)

If you operate both 1st & 2nd stages on the same rails, you can probably get rid of U1A & B with their bits including R3/4 in 2nd stage

Connect Signal Outs from 1st stage directly to +/- pins of U2A.  R3 & R4 on 1st stage provide the resistance for the diff amp.

But need to be careful U2A i/p don't get too close to -ve rail cos LM4562 is prone to latching like TL072 etc.
 
> Long link!

Yeah.... you included all the Google garbage, probably including some ID tracable to you.

The actual link is:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/csee/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/J10%20Enhanced%20cascode.pdf

This can be displayed more neatly as--

link

-- with this code:

Code:
[url=http://www.essex.ac.uk/csee/research/audio_lab/malcolmspubdocs/J10%20Enhanced%20cascode.pdf]link[/url]
 
ricardo said:
...I would leave them in... even for normal OPA circuits to account for eg capacitance from i/p pins to ground planes etc.


Yes, that's what I thought (capacitance to ground) although the facts that: 1/ the time constant ended up that high, 2/ Self doesn't show any used and 3/ that my proto has a few inches between the sections made me wonder if it would be necessary with a good layout.  No harm though, I'll leave them in.  Cheers.

ricardo said:
If you operate both 1st & 2nd stages on the same rails, you can probably get rid of U1A & B with their bits including R3/4 in 2nd stage

Actually, at first this was how it was  :) -  lower V+/- on 1st stage though  -  but distortion was higher.  I don't have the details but I can try and repeat the experiment.  I also thought about an ability to switch from mic to line and bring line into the U1 buffers. 
I'll do the comparison again though or, at least, plop it in Spice.


ricardo said:
But need to be careful U2A i/p don't get too close to -ve rail cos LM4562 is prone to latching like TL072 etc.

I didn't know that!  I'm well aware of this with the TL072's etc. but not much experience with the newer National Part.  Also thought about using the +/- 22V version of the LM4562 to keep votage rail management simpler.  The extra 2dB of headroom doesn't hurt either I suppose.

Thanks dude!  8)

 
Ricardo, John, et al. and anyone else reading  - besides the crickets!  ;),
I finally got around to plugging this into Spice over the weekend.  I was better able to see some potential stability problems with stage 1's CFP and cascoding.  Hadn't noticed anything with the real thing but my Spice fixes shouldn't harm anything either so...

THD was not too far off what I measured on the proto and, for what Spice THD measurements are worth? (I never really trust them!), they were quite good but I still think I messed up on the actual measurements and they're not as good as posted earlier.

ricardo said:
...you can probably get rid of U1A & B with their bits including R3/4 in 2nd stage

Connect Signal Outs from 1st stage directly to +/- pins of U2A.  R3 & R4 on 1st stage provide the resistance for the diff amp.

Relatively speaking,  in "Spice World", eliminating the AC coupled buffers and directly connecting Stage 1 to 2,  I couldn't optimise gains and operating points to get a THD sim as low as having buffers there.  I tried a few ways of direct connecting including even double-balancing before the "vari-gain" diff. amp. (stage 2).

Also looked like I was able to bank on some additional phase margin with the AC coupled buffers in place.  My brain and eyes gave up at this point but, updated pictures later maybe...
Cheers.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top