Ian Iveson
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:11 pm Post subject:
Re: Value of coupling cap's |
|
|
Chris Hornbeck" <chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote
| Quote: | I guess you'd have to start to deciding on the phase
margin you'd be comfortable with, which determines the
spacing between the poles (at least the top two;
open loop gain may be low enough between later
pole pairs to ignore them).
Then you'd have to pick a dominant pole. Personally,
I have no trouble with about 16 Hz.
Not really certain why you're wanting to do this,
though...?
The logical place to put this chosen RC pole is at
the grid of the stage most likely to be clipped.
Because overload recovery time is inversely related
to the RC pole frequency. The C bleeds down through
the same R that sets the pole, or close enough to it.
|
Right, thanks. I'm trying to work back to the principle of starting
narrow and getting wider. If overload recovery is the only objection
then it can be avoided by direct coupling. In fact even with cap
coupling, a *very* big cap would never need to recover because it
would take too long to get into trouble in the first place.
When I've done some more reading I'll post a simulation of what I
mean, comparing the effects of arranging the same set of poles and
zeros in different places.
| Quote: | Haven't read Morgan Jones though.
|
He's good. Nothing much groundbreaking, but lots of detailed
observations and considerations. Professional audio background I
believe, and quite sensible and trustworthy.
Thanks for now,
cheers, Ian
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in