On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 19:28:03 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 12:39:34 -0500, John Fields
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Aug 2004 18:07:06 +0100, Paul Burridge
wrote:


Actually I've built *several* class C RF amps, John.

---
Intentionally???

Aha! very amusing. Most of them have been intentional, yes, but who
here can say they haven't ended up at some point with something they
hadn't bargained for?

However, I
wouldn't call any of them linear. You will be aware than linearity
starts to go out of the window when Class A slides into Class AB and
beyond.

---
Really? I'd _love_ to hear your explanation for why that "happens".

I won't bore you with explanations you're already well acquainted
with.

---
On the contrary, I'd like to hear why you think class AB or B isn't
(or can't be) linear, input-to-output.
---

But I'm still reeling from the revelation that you confused AM
with Class C. :-/

---
Go back and read it again in the context of "is that a smart thing to
do?" with your tongue-in-cheek detector energized.
---


I've heard a lot of amps that sounded pretty good at both low and high
volumes, and in between, and they've almost all had class AB outputs.

I'm sure you have. But even class A isn't perfect. The pitfalls of
large-signal handling and all that. Do you know of an active device
with a *perfectly* linear transconductance between say 0 and 20V? No?
I thought not...

---
We weren't talking about components with perfectly linear transfer
functions, _you_ were alluding to deterioration of input-to-output
linearity in systems using different driver biasing schemes. Or so I
thought, when you said:

"You will be aware than linearity starts to go out of the window when
Class A slides into Class AB and beyond."

And I'll repeat:

"I'd _love_ to hear your explanation for why that "happens".".


But never mind, now that Woodgate's cleared it up there's no need for
you to embarrass yourself further.

--
John Fields