What are the limiting factors of these op-amps?











up vote
9
down vote

favorite
4












I designed a multiple feedback band pass filter



input voltage = 100kHz sine wave, 80mV amplitude
gain = 2 AV,
center frequency = 100kHz
pass-band = 10kHz
output voltage => centered around +2.5V
supply voltage => +5V


Design restrictions are that I must use a single-supply operational amplifier.



Calculations were taken off Op-Amps For Everyone, and I got the desired result with two opamps: OP27 and OP355NA



Points to Note:




  • Tried multiple JFET op-amps as listed below

  • Used ideal op-amp to check that calculations are correct


The below circuit was constructed and tested on both Proteus and LTSpice software. Both yielding the same results, which were expected.





Circuit Design:



enter image description here



Analogue Analysis (Gain of 2, centered around 2.5V)



enter image description here



Frequency Response (Center Fre at 100kHz)



enter image description here





The issue is that these parts are either surface mount (OP355NA) or very expensive (OP27). I can't afford to pay more than 20 dollars for an op-amp.



These are the single-rail op amps I have available at my disposal, and none of them work as expected!





  • Tl 081


  • Tl 082


  • Tl 071


  • Tl 074


  • LM 358


  • LM 324


I will be using TL071 and TL074 to simulate from now one.



All op-amps are outputting a very similar result, the following output is from TL071, tested on both Proteus and LTSpice. Here, I present the LTSpice version.



Analogue Analysis



enter image description here (Decreased voltage p-p)



Frequency Response



enter image description here (Center Frequency shifted to the left)



As can be seen, the gain is incorrect and the central frequency is shifted to the left. This was a recurring theme for ALL op-amps I have available.



I know that the op-amps listed above are all different, but they should all be able to provide an output peak to peak voltage of 1V at 100kHz. The following characteristic graphs are for the TL071 and TL074, both of which give the same incorrect response.



The utility-gain bandwidth is 3MHz.



enter image description here



enter image description here





Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




  1. Why can I achieve correct results with OP27 (GBW = 8MHz) and not with
    Tl074 or Tl 081?




EDIT:



Thanks to the helpful comments and answers it looks like I underestimated my circuit requirements - Mainly the attenuation from the input resistance ratio (40dB)




Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.






  1. Why do I have a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW)
    or 100k/10k (=10) in my case.

  2. Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are
    there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?










share|improve this question
























  • Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 21:01






  • 2




    TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:11






  • 1




    TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:13






  • 3




    (oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:24






  • 1




    brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
    – LvW
    Nov 20 at 10:15















up vote
9
down vote

favorite
4












I designed a multiple feedback band pass filter



input voltage = 100kHz sine wave, 80mV amplitude
gain = 2 AV,
center frequency = 100kHz
pass-band = 10kHz
output voltage => centered around +2.5V
supply voltage => +5V


Design restrictions are that I must use a single-supply operational amplifier.



Calculations were taken off Op-Amps For Everyone, and I got the desired result with two opamps: OP27 and OP355NA



Points to Note:




  • Tried multiple JFET op-amps as listed below

  • Used ideal op-amp to check that calculations are correct


The below circuit was constructed and tested on both Proteus and LTSpice software. Both yielding the same results, which were expected.





Circuit Design:



enter image description here



Analogue Analysis (Gain of 2, centered around 2.5V)



enter image description here



Frequency Response (Center Fre at 100kHz)



enter image description here





The issue is that these parts are either surface mount (OP355NA) or very expensive (OP27). I can't afford to pay more than 20 dollars for an op-amp.



These are the single-rail op amps I have available at my disposal, and none of them work as expected!





  • Tl 081


  • Tl 082


  • Tl 071


  • Tl 074


  • LM 358


  • LM 324


I will be using TL071 and TL074 to simulate from now one.



All op-amps are outputting a very similar result, the following output is from TL071, tested on both Proteus and LTSpice. Here, I present the LTSpice version.



Analogue Analysis



enter image description here (Decreased voltage p-p)



Frequency Response



enter image description here (Center Frequency shifted to the left)



As can be seen, the gain is incorrect and the central frequency is shifted to the left. This was a recurring theme for ALL op-amps I have available.



I know that the op-amps listed above are all different, but they should all be able to provide an output peak to peak voltage of 1V at 100kHz. The following characteristic graphs are for the TL071 and TL074, both of which give the same incorrect response.



The utility-gain bandwidth is 3MHz.



enter image description here



enter image description here





Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




  1. Why can I achieve correct results with OP27 (GBW = 8MHz) and not with
    Tl074 or Tl 081?




EDIT:



Thanks to the helpful comments and answers it looks like I underestimated my circuit requirements - Mainly the attenuation from the input resistance ratio (40dB)




Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.






  1. Why do I have a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW)
    or 100k/10k (=10) in my case.

  2. Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are
    there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?










share|improve this question
























  • Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 21:01






  • 2




    TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:11






  • 1




    TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:13






  • 3




    (oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:24






  • 1




    brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
    – LvW
    Nov 20 at 10:15













up vote
9
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
9
down vote

favorite
4






4





I designed a multiple feedback band pass filter



input voltage = 100kHz sine wave, 80mV amplitude
gain = 2 AV,
center frequency = 100kHz
pass-band = 10kHz
output voltage => centered around +2.5V
supply voltage => +5V


Design restrictions are that I must use a single-supply operational amplifier.



Calculations were taken off Op-Amps For Everyone, and I got the desired result with two opamps: OP27 and OP355NA



Points to Note:




  • Tried multiple JFET op-amps as listed below

  • Used ideal op-amp to check that calculations are correct


The below circuit was constructed and tested on both Proteus and LTSpice software. Both yielding the same results, which were expected.





Circuit Design:



enter image description here



Analogue Analysis (Gain of 2, centered around 2.5V)



enter image description here



Frequency Response (Center Fre at 100kHz)



enter image description here





The issue is that these parts are either surface mount (OP355NA) or very expensive (OP27). I can't afford to pay more than 20 dollars for an op-amp.



These are the single-rail op amps I have available at my disposal, and none of them work as expected!





  • Tl 081


  • Tl 082


  • Tl 071


  • Tl 074


  • LM 358


  • LM 324


I will be using TL071 and TL074 to simulate from now one.



All op-amps are outputting a very similar result, the following output is from TL071, tested on both Proteus and LTSpice. Here, I present the LTSpice version.



Analogue Analysis



enter image description here (Decreased voltage p-p)



Frequency Response



enter image description here (Center Frequency shifted to the left)



As can be seen, the gain is incorrect and the central frequency is shifted to the left. This was a recurring theme for ALL op-amps I have available.



I know that the op-amps listed above are all different, but they should all be able to provide an output peak to peak voltage of 1V at 100kHz. The following characteristic graphs are for the TL071 and TL074, both of which give the same incorrect response.



The utility-gain bandwidth is 3MHz.



enter image description here



enter image description here





Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




  1. Why can I achieve correct results with OP27 (GBW = 8MHz) and not with
    Tl074 or Tl 081?




EDIT:



Thanks to the helpful comments and answers it looks like I underestimated my circuit requirements - Mainly the attenuation from the input resistance ratio (40dB)




Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.






  1. Why do I have a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW)
    or 100k/10k (=10) in my case.

  2. Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are
    there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?










share|improve this question















I designed a multiple feedback band pass filter



input voltage = 100kHz sine wave, 80mV amplitude
gain = 2 AV,
center frequency = 100kHz
pass-band = 10kHz
output voltage => centered around +2.5V
supply voltage => +5V


Design restrictions are that I must use a single-supply operational amplifier.



Calculations were taken off Op-Amps For Everyone, and I got the desired result with two opamps: OP27 and OP355NA



Points to Note:




  • Tried multiple JFET op-amps as listed below

  • Used ideal op-amp to check that calculations are correct


The below circuit was constructed and tested on both Proteus and LTSpice software. Both yielding the same results, which were expected.





Circuit Design:



enter image description here



Analogue Analysis (Gain of 2, centered around 2.5V)



enter image description here



Frequency Response (Center Fre at 100kHz)



enter image description here





The issue is that these parts are either surface mount (OP355NA) or very expensive (OP27). I can't afford to pay more than 20 dollars for an op-amp.



These are the single-rail op amps I have available at my disposal, and none of them work as expected!





  • Tl 081


  • Tl 082


  • Tl 071


  • Tl 074


  • LM 358


  • LM 324


I will be using TL071 and TL074 to simulate from now one.



All op-amps are outputting a very similar result, the following output is from TL071, tested on both Proteus and LTSpice. Here, I present the LTSpice version.



Analogue Analysis



enter image description here (Decreased voltage p-p)



Frequency Response



enter image description here (Center Frequency shifted to the left)



As can be seen, the gain is incorrect and the central frequency is shifted to the left. This was a recurring theme for ALL op-amps I have available.



I know that the op-amps listed above are all different, but they should all be able to provide an output peak to peak voltage of 1V at 100kHz. The following characteristic graphs are for the TL071 and TL074, both of which give the same incorrect response.



The utility-gain bandwidth is 3MHz.



enter image description here



enter image description here





Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




  1. Why can I achieve correct results with OP27 (GBW = 8MHz) and not with
    Tl074 or Tl 081?




EDIT:



Thanks to the helpful comments and answers it looks like I underestimated my circuit requirements - Mainly the attenuation from the input resistance ratio (40dB)




Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.






  1. Why do I have a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW)
    or 100k/10k (=10) in my case.

  2. Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are
    there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?







voltage op-amp transistors current circuit-analysis






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited yesterday

























asked Nov 19 at 20:40









Rrz0

939226




939226












  • Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 21:01






  • 2




    TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:11






  • 1




    TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:13






  • 3




    (oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:24






  • 1




    brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
    – LvW
    Nov 20 at 10:15


















  • Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 21:01






  • 2




    TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:11






  • 1




    TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:13






  • 3




    (oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:24






  • 1




    brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
    – LvW
    Nov 20 at 10:15
















Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
– TimWescott
Nov 19 at 21:01




Is the resistance of 79.9$Omega$ really correct for the resistor labeled "80.4" in your schematic?
– TimWescott
Nov 19 at 21:01




2




2




TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:11




TL071 data sheet literally starts with "SLOS080N – SEPTEMBER 1978 – REVISED JULY 2017"; so, it's 40 years old now :)
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:11




1




1




TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:13




TL08xx: "SLOS081I – FEBRUARY 1977 – REVISED MAY 2015", so nearly 42 years old.
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:13




3




3




(oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:24




(oh, and on a personal note: SMD packages like SOIC aren't really all that hard to solder; try it.You'll like it.)
– Marcus Müller
Nov 19 at 21:24




1




1




brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
– LvW
Nov 20 at 10:15




brhans....so what? Do you really think they cannot be used for single-supply applications?
– LvW
Nov 20 at 10:15










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.



The "attenuation" that others are talking about is the resistor ratio that you need to get that high Q so I don't think you can avoid that.






share|improve this answer

















  • 1




    yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:55












  • Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 22:13






  • 1




    @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
    – Rrz0
    Nov 19 at 22:36






  • 1




    @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
    – Rrz0
    Nov 20 at 15:12








  • 1




    If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 20 at 19:16


















up vote
2
down vote













I agree with Tim; don't attenuate the input signal unnecessarily much.



Then, your only choice is something with more gain at and around 100 kHz.



Luckily, all the opamps you've tested are pretty low-bandwidth (some of them are more than 40 years old). With 10 MHz gain-bandwidth-product alternatives, you should probably be pretty fine:



E.g. the TL972 should be OK for this application and can be had for (free shipping) $0.67 apiece at reputable distributors. But it's not a JFET input – my suspicion is that you don't actually care as long as the input current is low enough.






share|improve this answer






























    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Rrz0....let me answer your last two questions:



    (1) If the gain-bandwidth-product is not sufficiently large you will have additional (opamp caused) phase shift. Typical effect: Unwanted Q-enhancement. The additional phase shift reduces the phase margin and will shift the pole further to the imaginary axis - which enlarges the pole-Q (identical to the bandpass-Q).



    (2) When the GBW is 10MHz the open-loop gain at 100kHz will be app. 40 dB (100). This is not sufficient. However, all the calculations are based on an IDEAL opamp without any unwanted phase shift, see my comment above under (1). Even an additional phase shift of 5 deg. will cause a severe Q-enhancement.



    (3) Please note that the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain). There are other filter structures (Sallen-Key or GIC-based) which are less sensitive to non-ideal opamp parameters.



    (4) It is worth mentioning that you will be NOT required to use so-called "single-supply" opamps. All opamps can be operated with one single supply voltage only. Most important data: GBW (as large as possible) and sufficient slew rate (large signal operation).



    EDIT/UPDATE



    The following paper contains a mathematical treatment for the influence of the finite and frequency open-loop gain upon an MFB-bandpass circuit.



    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281437214_INVERTING_BAND-PASS_FILTER_WITH_REAL_OPERATIONAL_AMPLIFIER



    Result: A factor of 100 between the GBW and the design peak frequency leads to a frequency deviation of app. 15 % (correction from 85 to 15%)






    share|improve this answer























    • thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 9:16












    • Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 9:18












    • Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
      – LvW
      Nov 20 at 9:21










    • I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
      – LvW
      Nov 20 at 9:30


















    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    I got some excellent comments and answers to my question, however I would like to add what I managed to grasp from different answers and several text books in one whole answer. The below information helped me to solve my the issues at hand.



    In order to understand the op-amp requirements, first one must understand how a multiple feedback filter is designed. The MFB band-pass allows to adjust $Q$, $A_v$
    , and $f_m$
    independently.



    Usually the peak gain for a MFB is given by is $A_v= -2Q^2$ and so, for a $Q = 10$, the voltage gain will be $200$. We observe that $A_v$ increases quadratically with $Q$.



    Going with the initial design presented above, for this circuit to function properly, the openloop
    gain of the op amp used must be greater than $100$ at the chosen center
    frequency.




    Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?




    Usually, a safety factor (sf) between 5 and 10 is included in order to keep stability high
    and distortion low.



    To calculate the GBW:



    $GBW > sf*f_oA_v$



    $GBW > sf*100k*102$



    Therefore GBW should be in the range of 50-100MHz.



    It is not possible to use this type of filter for high-frequency, high- Q
    work, as standard op amps soon “run out of steam”. This difficulty aside, the high
    gains produced by even moderate values for Q may well be impractical. Therefore we must attenuate the input signal.



    So, since we need $A_v=-2$
    and $Q=10$, we need an input attenuator. This was the attenuation that the other answers were referring to.



    We attenuate by a resistor ratio of 100 (R7/R5) to make up for this.






    Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




    For the circuit presented above, the resistor ratio attenuates the signal by $40dB$ (100Av) so my gain requirements of $6dB$ are added on top of that. All the calculations that I was performing did not take the initial 40dB attenuation into consideration.



    As @Markus Müller pointed out, I was using ancient op-amps. There are much better alternative such as the TL972.



    As @LvW mentions, when the gain-bandwidth is not large enough, the frequency response experiences a phase shift. Also, correctly mentioned is the fact that "the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain)."





    Here I provide an excerpt from Opamps for Everyone.



    enter image description here



    The component values are identical since in my case the capacitors are smaller by a factor of $100$ while the center frequency is also larger by the $100$.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 1




      Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
      – LvW
      Nov 20 at 17:30












    • On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
      – WhatRoughBeast
      13 hours ago










    • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
      – Rrz0
      13 hours ago




















    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Here is a prior discussion of bandpass filters. The answer using the Signal Chain Explorer tool presents the effects of various Unity Gain Bandwidth Opamps.



    Simulating and Building a Multiple Feedback Band-Pass Filter






    share|improve this answer

















    • 3




      This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
      – Scott Seidman
      Nov 20 at 15:20













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("schematics", function () {
    StackExchange.schematics.init();
    });
    }, "cicuitlab");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "135"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407714%2fwhat-are-the-limiting-factors-of-these-op-amps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes








    5 Answers
    5






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.



    The "attenuation" that others are talking about is the resistor ratio that you need to get that high Q so I don't think you can avoid that.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
      – Marcus Müller
      Nov 19 at 21:55












    • Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 19 at 22:13






    • 1




      @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
      – Rrz0
      Nov 19 at 22:36






    • 1




      @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 15:12








    • 1




      If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 20 at 19:16















    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.



    The "attenuation" that others are talking about is the resistor ratio that you need to get that high Q so I don't think you can avoid that.






    share|improve this answer

















    • 1




      yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
      – Marcus Müller
      Nov 19 at 21:55












    • Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 19 at 22:13






    • 1




      @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
      – Rrz0
      Nov 19 at 22:36






    • 1




      @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 15:12








    • 1




      If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 20 at 19:16













    up vote
    5
    down vote










    up vote
    5
    down vote









    Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.



    The "attenuation" that others are talking about is the resistor ratio that you need to get that high Q so I don't think you can avoid that.






    share|improve this answer












    Looks like you're trying to get a Q of around 20-40, just eyeballing it, so the GBW is going to have to be that much higher than the center frequency, and preferably 5-10x that, so more like 10-40MHz.



    The "attenuation" that others are talking about is the resistor ratio that you need to get that high Q so I don't think you can avoid that.







    share|improve this answer












    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer










    answered Nov 19 at 21:48









    Spehro Pefhany

    200k4145397




    200k4145397








    • 1




      yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
      – Marcus Müller
      Nov 19 at 21:55












    • Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 19 at 22:13






    • 1




      @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
      – Rrz0
      Nov 19 at 22:36






    • 1




      @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 15:12








    • 1




      If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 20 at 19:16














    • 1




      yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
      – Marcus Müller
      Nov 19 at 21:55












    • Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 19 at 22:13






    • 1




      @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
      – Rrz0
      Nov 19 at 22:36






    • 1




      @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
      – Rrz0
      Nov 20 at 15:12








    • 1




      If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
      – TimWescott
      Nov 20 at 19:16








    1




    1




    yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:55






    yep, that's what I meant. Thanks. People don't realize how hard making the words come out of my thinkthing is :D And yes, that high-impedance source was a red herring, if not even completely wrong. Will remove.
    – Marcus Müller
    Nov 19 at 21:55














    Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 22:13




    Dangit, you're right, and my answer was entirely wrong. I just deleted it.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 19 at 22:13




    1




    1




    @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
    – Rrz0
    Nov 19 at 22:36




    @Spehro Pefhany thanks for your answer. How do you conclude that I'm trying to get a Q of around 20-40? Isn't Q the (center frequency/BW) or 100k/10k in my case. Also, how do you get to a GBW which is 5-10x the center frequency? Is there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?
    – Rrz0
    Nov 19 at 22:36




    1




    1




    @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
    – Rrz0
    Nov 20 at 15:12






    @TimWescott, he concluded I wanted a Q of around 20-40, no? Also, that's exactly why I'm asking. How can someone who's not been doing this forever arrive to a similar conclusion.
    – Rrz0
    Nov 20 at 15:12






    1




    1




    If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 20 at 19:16




    If not by looking at the circuit, you find the Q by looking at the frequency response. When you've been doing it forever, you just look. When you haven't been doing it forever you put tick marks (real or virtual) on the response 3dB down from the peak, then you measure (or eyeball) the frequency span between them. (Center frequency) / (3dB bandwidth) more or less equals Q.
    – TimWescott
    Nov 20 at 19:16












    up vote
    2
    down vote













    I agree with Tim; don't attenuate the input signal unnecessarily much.



    Then, your only choice is something with more gain at and around 100 kHz.



    Luckily, all the opamps you've tested are pretty low-bandwidth (some of them are more than 40 years old). With 10 MHz gain-bandwidth-product alternatives, you should probably be pretty fine:



    E.g. the TL972 should be OK for this application and can be had for (free shipping) $0.67 apiece at reputable distributors. But it's not a JFET input – my suspicion is that you don't actually care as long as the input current is low enough.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      I agree with Tim; don't attenuate the input signal unnecessarily much.



      Then, your only choice is something with more gain at and around 100 kHz.



      Luckily, all the opamps you've tested are pretty low-bandwidth (some of them are more than 40 years old). With 10 MHz gain-bandwidth-product alternatives, you should probably be pretty fine:



      E.g. the TL972 should be OK for this application and can be had for (free shipping) $0.67 apiece at reputable distributors. But it's not a JFET input – my suspicion is that you don't actually care as long as the input current is low enough.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        2
        down vote










        up vote
        2
        down vote









        I agree with Tim; don't attenuate the input signal unnecessarily much.



        Then, your only choice is something with more gain at and around 100 kHz.



        Luckily, all the opamps you've tested are pretty low-bandwidth (some of them are more than 40 years old). With 10 MHz gain-bandwidth-product alternatives, you should probably be pretty fine:



        E.g. the TL972 should be OK for this application and can be had for (free shipping) $0.67 apiece at reputable distributors. But it's not a JFET input – my suspicion is that you don't actually care as long as the input current is low enough.






        share|improve this answer














        I agree with Tim; don't attenuate the input signal unnecessarily much.



        Then, your only choice is something with more gain at and around 100 kHz.



        Luckily, all the opamps you've tested are pretty low-bandwidth (some of them are more than 40 years old). With 10 MHz gain-bandwidth-product alternatives, you should probably be pretty fine:



        E.g. the TL972 should be OK for this application and can be had for (free shipping) $0.67 apiece at reputable distributors. But it's not a JFET input – my suspicion is that you don't actually care as long as the input current is low enough.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 19 at 21:56

























        answered Nov 19 at 21:36









        Marcus Müller

        30.2k35691




        30.2k35691






















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Rrz0....let me answer your last two questions:



            (1) If the gain-bandwidth-product is not sufficiently large you will have additional (opamp caused) phase shift. Typical effect: Unwanted Q-enhancement. The additional phase shift reduces the phase margin and will shift the pole further to the imaginary axis - which enlarges the pole-Q (identical to the bandpass-Q).



            (2) When the GBW is 10MHz the open-loop gain at 100kHz will be app. 40 dB (100). This is not sufficient. However, all the calculations are based on an IDEAL opamp without any unwanted phase shift, see my comment above under (1). Even an additional phase shift of 5 deg. will cause a severe Q-enhancement.



            (3) Please note that the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain). There are other filter structures (Sallen-Key or GIC-based) which are less sensitive to non-ideal opamp parameters.



            (4) It is worth mentioning that you will be NOT required to use so-called "single-supply" opamps. All opamps can be operated with one single supply voltage only. Most important data: GBW (as large as possible) and sufficient slew rate (large signal operation).



            EDIT/UPDATE



            The following paper contains a mathematical treatment for the influence of the finite and frequency open-loop gain upon an MFB-bandpass circuit.



            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281437214_INVERTING_BAND-PASS_FILTER_WITH_REAL_OPERATIONAL_AMPLIFIER



            Result: A factor of 100 between the GBW and the design peak frequency leads to a frequency deviation of app. 15 % (correction from 85 to 15%)






            share|improve this answer























            • thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:16












            • Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:18












            • Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:21










            • I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:30















            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Rrz0....let me answer your last two questions:



            (1) If the gain-bandwidth-product is not sufficiently large you will have additional (opamp caused) phase shift. Typical effect: Unwanted Q-enhancement. The additional phase shift reduces the phase margin and will shift the pole further to the imaginary axis - which enlarges the pole-Q (identical to the bandpass-Q).



            (2) When the GBW is 10MHz the open-loop gain at 100kHz will be app. 40 dB (100). This is not sufficient. However, all the calculations are based on an IDEAL opamp without any unwanted phase shift, see my comment above under (1). Even an additional phase shift of 5 deg. will cause a severe Q-enhancement.



            (3) Please note that the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain). There are other filter structures (Sallen-Key or GIC-based) which are less sensitive to non-ideal opamp parameters.



            (4) It is worth mentioning that you will be NOT required to use so-called "single-supply" opamps. All opamps can be operated with one single supply voltage only. Most important data: GBW (as large as possible) and sufficient slew rate (large signal operation).



            EDIT/UPDATE



            The following paper contains a mathematical treatment for the influence of the finite and frequency open-loop gain upon an MFB-bandpass circuit.



            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281437214_INVERTING_BAND-PASS_FILTER_WITH_REAL_OPERATIONAL_AMPLIFIER



            Result: A factor of 100 between the GBW and the design peak frequency leads to a frequency deviation of app. 15 % (correction from 85 to 15%)






            share|improve this answer























            • thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:16












            • Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:18












            • Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:21










            • I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:30













            up vote
            1
            down vote










            up vote
            1
            down vote









            Rrz0....let me answer your last two questions:



            (1) If the gain-bandwidth-product is not sufficiently large you will have additional (opamp caused) phase shift. Typical effect: Unwanted Q-enhancement. The additional phase shift reduces the phase margin and will shift the pole further to the imaginary axis - which enlarges the pole-Q (identical to the bandpass-Q).



            (2) When the GBW is 10MHz the open-loop gain at 100kHz will be app. 40 dB (100). This is not sufficient. However, all the calculations are based on an IDEAL opamp without any unwanted phase shift, see my comment above under (1). Even an additional phase shift of 5 deg. will cause a severe Q-enhancement.



            (3) Please note that the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain). There are other filter structures (Sallen-Key or GIC-based) which are less sensitive to non-ideal opamp parameters.



            (4) It is worth mentioning that you will be NOT required to use so-called "single-supply" opamps. All opamps can be operated with one single supply voltage only. Most important data: GBW (as large as possible) and sufficient slew rate (large signal operation).



            EDIT/UPDATE



            The following paper contains a mathematical treatment for the influence of the finite and frequency open-loop gain upon an MFB-bandpass circuit.



            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281437214_INVERTING_BAND-PASS_FILTER_WITH_REAL_OPERATIONAL_AMPLIFIER



            Result: A factor of 100 between the GBW and the design peak frequency leads to a frequency deviation of app. 15 % (correction from 85 to 15%)






            share|improve this answer














            Rrz0....let me answer your last two questions:



            (1) If the gain-bandwidth-product is not sufficiently large you will have additional (opamp caused) phase shift. Typical effect: Unwanted Q-enhancement. The additional phase shift reduces the phase margin and will shift the pole further to the imaginary axis - which enlarges the pole-Q (identical to the bandpass-Q).



            (2) When the GBW is 10MHz the open-loop gain at 100kHz will be app. 40 dB (100). This is not sufficient. However, all the calculations are based on an IDEAL opamp without any unwanted phase shift, see my comment above under (1). Even an additional phase shift of 5 deg. will cause a severe Q-enhancement.



            (3) Please note that the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain). There are other filter structures (Sallen-Key or GIC-based) which are less sensitive to non-ideal opamp parameters.



            (4) It is worth mentioning that you will be NOT required to use so-called "single-supply" opamps. All opamps can be operated with one single supply voltage only. Most important data: GBW (as large as possible) and sufficient slew rate (large signal operation).



            EDIT/UPDATE



            The following paper contains a mathematical treatment for the influence of the finite and frequency open-loop gain upon an MFB-bandpass circuit.



            https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281437214_INVERTING_BAND-PASS_FILTER_WITH_REAL_OPERATIONAL_AMPLIFIER



            Result: A factor of 100 between the GBW and the design peak frequency leads to a frequency deviation of app. 15 % (correction from 85 to 15%)







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited Nov 21 at 8:15

























            answered Nov 20 at 9:03









            LvW

            13.8k21129




            13.8k21129












            • thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:16












            • Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:18












            • Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:21










            • I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:30


















            • thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:16












            • Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
              – Rrz0
              Nov 20 at 9:18












            • Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:21










            • I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 9:30
















            thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
            – Rrz0
            Nov 20 at 9:16






            thanks for answering my last two questions. Excuse this basic question but regarding point 4, if I decide to use OP27 which is listed as a "dual-supply" op-amp would I still be able to operate with a normal 0-5 V power supply. ? If so why isn't it listed as both a single and dual supply opamp?
            – Rrz0
            Nov 20 at 9:16














            Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
            – Rrz0
            Nov 20 at 9:18






            Also OP27 only has a GBW of 8MHz but works well on simulation (unlike op-amps tested with greater GBW). Therefore it may be that as you mention in Point 3, there are other bigger problems my circuit faces which is not the GBW but non-ideal opamp data
            – Rrz0
            Nov 20 at 9:18














            Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 9:21




            Because it is basic knowledge that each opamp can be operated with single oder dual supply. The only difference is the DC bias point. Some opamps are designed so that the output amplitude (nearly) reaches the power rail limits - and, therefore, are suited - as good as possible - for "single-supply" operation. That is the only difference.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 9:21












            I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 9:30




            I did a simulation (PSpice) of your circuit with OP-27. Result: 89.4 kHz.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 9:30










            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            I got some excellent comments and answers to my question, however I would like to add what I managed to grasp from different answers and several text books in one whole answer. The below information helped me to solve my the issues at hand.



            In order to understand the op-amp requirements, first one must understand how a multiple feedback filter is designed. The MFB band-pass allows to adjust $Q$, $A_v$
            , and $f_m$
            independently.



            Usually the peak gain for a MFB is given by is $A_v= -2Q^2$ and so, for a $Q = 10$, the voltage gain will be $200$. We observe that $A_v$ increases quadratically with $Q$.



            Going with the initial design presented above, for this circuit to function properly, the openloop
            gain of the op amp used must be greater than $100$ at the chosen center
            frequency.




            Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?




            Usually, a safety factor (sf) between 5 and 10 is included in order to keep stability high
            and distortion low.



            To calculate the GBW:



            $GBW > sf*f_oA_v$



            $GBW > sf*100k*102$



            Therefore GBW should be in the range of 50-100MHz.



            It is not possible to use this type of filter for high-frequency, high- Q
            work, as standard op amps soon “run out of steam”. This difficulty aside, the high
            gains produced by even moderate values for Q may well be impractical. Therefore we must attenuate the input signal.



            So, since we need $A_v=-2$
            and $Q=10$, we need an input attenuator. This was the attenuation that the other answers were referring to.



            We attenuate by a resistor ratio of 100 (R7/R5) to make up for this.






            Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




            For the circuit presented above, the resistor ratio attenuates the signal by $40dB$ (100Av) so my gain requirements of $6dB$ are added on top of that. All the calculations that I was performing did not take the initial 40dB attenuation into consideration.



            As @Markus Müller pointed out, I was using ancient op-amps. There are much better alternative such as the TL972.



            As @LvW mentions, when the gain-bandwidth is not large enough, the frequency response experiences a phase shift. Also, correctly mentioned is the fact that "the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain)."





            Here I provide an excerpt from Opamps for Everyone.



            enter image description here



            The component values are identical since in my case the capacitors are smaller by a factor of $100$ while the center frequency is also larger by the $100$.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 17:30












            • On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
              – WhatRoughBeast
              13 hours ago










            • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
              – Rrz0
              13 hours ago

















            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted










            I got some excellent comments and answers to my question, however I would like to add what I managed to grasp from different answers and several text books in one whole answer. The below information helped me to solve my the issues at hand.



            In order to understand the op-amp requirements, first one must understand how a multiple feedback filter is designed. The MFB band-pass allows to adjust $Q$, $A_v$
            , and $f_m$
            independently.



            Usually the peak gain for a MFB is given by is $A_v= -2Q^2$ and so, for a $Q = 10$, the voltage gain will be $200$. We observe that $A_v$ increases quadratically with $Q$.



            Going with the initial design presented above, for this circuit to function properly, the openloop
            gain of the op amp used must be greater than $100$ at the chosen center
            frequency.




            Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?




            Usually, a safety factor (sf) between 5 and 10 is included in order to keep stability high
            and distortion low.



            To calculate the GBW:



            $GBW > sf*f_oA_v$



            $GBW > sf*100k*102$



            Therefore GBW should be in the range of 50-100MHz.



            It is not possible to use this type of filter for high-frequency, high- Q
            work, as standard op amps soon “run out of steam”. This difficulty aside, the high
            gains produced by even moderate values for Q may well be impractical. Therefore we must attenuate the input signal.



            So, since we need $A_v=-2$
            and $Q=10$, we need an input attenuator. This was the attenuation that the other answers were referring to.



            We attenuate by a resistor ratio of 100 (R7/R5) to make up for this.






            Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




            For the circuit presented above, the resistor ratio attenuates the signal by $40dB$ (100Av) so my gain requirements of $6dB$ are added on top of that. All the calculations that I was performing did not take the initial 40dB attenuation into consideration.



            As @Markus Müller pointed out, I was using ancient op-amps. There are much better alternative such as the TL972.



            As @LvW mentions, when the gain-bandwidth is not large enough, the frequency response experiences a phase shift. Also, correctly mentioned is the fact that "the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain)."





            Here I provide an excerpt from Opamps for Everyone.



            enter image description here



            The component values are identical since in my case the capacitors are smaller by a factor of $100$ while the center frequency is also larger by the $100$.






            share|improve this answer



















            • 1




              Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 17:30












            • On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
              – WhatRoughBeast
              13 hours ago










            • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
              – Rrz0
              13 hours ago















            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            1
            down vote



            accepted






            I got some excellent comments and answers to my question, however I would like to add what I managed to grasp from different answers and several text books in one whole answer. The below information helped me to solve my the issues at hand.



            In order to understand the op-amp requirements, first one must understand how a multiple feedback filter is designed. The MFB band-pass allows to adjust $Q$, $A_v$
            , and $f_m$
            independently.



            Usually the peak gain for a MFB is given by is $A_v= -2Q^2$ and so, for a $Q = 10$, the voltage gain will be $200$. We observe that $A_v$ increases quadratically with $Q$.



            Going with the initial design presented above, for this circuit to function properly, the openloop
            gain of the op amp used must be greater than $100$ at the chosen center
            frequency.




            Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?




            Usually, a safety factor (sf) between 5 and 10 is included in order to keep stability high
            and distortion low.



            To calculate the GBW:



            $GBW > sf*f_oA_v$



            $GBW > sf*100k*102$



            Therefore GBW should be in the range of 50-100MHz.



            It is not possible to use this type of filter for high-frequency, high- Q
            work, as standard op amps soon “run out of steam”. This difficulty aside, the high
            gains produced by even moderate values for Q may well be impractical. Therefore we must attenuate the input signal.



            So, since we need $A_v=-2$
            and $Q=10$, we need an input attenuator. This was the attenuation that the other answers were referring to.



            We attenuate by a resistor ratio of 100 (R7/R5) to make up for this.






            Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




            For the circuit presented above, the resistor ratio attenuates the signal by $40dB$ (100Av) so my gain requirements of $6dB$ are added on top of that. All the calculations that I was performing did not take the initial 40dB attenuation into consideration.



            As @Markus Müller pointed out, I was using ancient op-amps. There are much better alternative such as the TL972.



            As @LvW mentions, when the gain-bandwidth is not large enough, the frequency response experiences a phase shift. Also, correctly mentioned is the fact that "the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain)."





            Here I provide an excerpt from Opamps for Everyone.



            enter image description here



            The component values are identical since in my case the capacitors are smaller by a factor of $100$ while the center frequency is also larger by the $100$.






            share|improve this answer














            I got some excellent comments and answers to my question, however I would like to add what I managed to grasp from different answers and several text books in one whole answer. The below information helped me to solve my the issues at hand.



            In order to understand the op-amp requirements, first one must understand how a multiple feedback filter is designed. The MFB band-pass allows to adjust $Q$, $A_v$
            , and $f_m$
            independently.



            Usually the peak gain for a MFB is given by is $A_v= -2Q^2$ and so, for a $Q = 10$, the voltage gain will be $200$. We observe that $A_v$ increases quadratically with $Q$.



            Going with the initial design presented above, for this circuit to function properly, the openloop
            gain of the op amp used must be greater than $100$ at the chosen center
            frequency.




            Also, why should my GBW be around 5-10x the center frequency? Are there any calculations one should refer to or anything of the sort?




            Usually, a safety factor (sf) between 5 and 10 is included in order to keep stability high
            and distortion low.



            To calculate the GBW:



            $GBW > sf*f_oA_v$



            $GBW > sf*100k*102$



            Therefore GBW should be in the range of 50-100MHz.



            It is not possible to use this type of filter for high-frequency, high- Q
            work, as standard op amps soon “run out of steam”. This difficulty aside, the high
            gains produced by even moderate values for Q may well be impractical. Therefore we must attenuate the input signal.



            So, since we need $A_v=-2$
            and $Q=10$, we need an input attenuator. This was the attenuation that the other answers were referring to.



            We attenuate by a resistor ratio of 100 (R7/R5) to make up for this.






            Surely I am missing some important specification, which I'm not taking into consideration, but I find it very strange that none of the above op-amps work properly for my current task.




            For the circuit presented above, the resistor ratio attenuates the signal by $40dB$ (100Av) so my gain requirements of $6dB$ are added on top of that. All the calculations that I was performing did not take the initial 40dB attenuation into consideration.



            As @Markus Müller pointed out, I was using ancient op-amps. There are much better alternative such as the TL972.



            As @LvW mentions, when the gain-bandwidth is not large enough, the frequency response experiences a phase shift. Also, correctly mentioned is the fact that "the selected filter topology is very sensitive to non-ideal opamp data (because it is based on the open-loop gain)."





            Here I provide an excerpt from Opamps for Everyone.



            enter image description here



            The component values are identical since in my case the capacitors are smaller by a factor of $100$ while the center frequency is also larger by the $100$.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 13 hours ago

























            answered Nov 20 at 16:57









            Rrz0

            939226




            939226








            • 1




              Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 17:30












            • On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
              – WhatRoughBeast
              13 hours ago










            • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
              – Rrz0
              13 hours ago
















            • 1




              Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
              – LvW
              Nov 20 at 17:30












            • On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
              – WhatRoughBeast
              13 hours ago










            • @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
              – Rrz0
              13 hours ago










            1




            1




            Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 17:30






            Rrz0_one additional comment: For larger Q-values, it is a well-known method to use a small positive (resistive) feedback in addition to the negative RC-feedback path. This extension of the classical MFB-bandpass is due to Deliyannis. In this case, the midband gain is only Am=2*SQRT(2)*Q - 1. In this case, R5 is deleted.
            – LvW
            Nov 20 at 17:30














            On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
            – WhatRoughBeast
            13 hours ago




            On the one hand, instead of "in my case the capacitors are larger by a factor of 100" you mean smaller, but that's OK. Your answer is close enough to correct, but you should have read section 16.8.4, which covers your issues. It suggests a GBW of about 20 MHz minimum for your circuit (assuming 1% accuracy required). And that, of course, is way beyond any of the op amps you were looking at.
            – WhatRoughBeast
            13 hours ago












            @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
            – Rrz0
            13 hours ago






            @WhatRoughBeast Yes, you are right, corrected. I came across that section after starting my design, instead of before as it should have been. Thanks for the pointers.
            – Rrz0
            13 hours ago












            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Here is a prior discussion of bandpass filters. The answer using the Signal Chain Explorer tool presents the effects of various Unity Gain Bandwidth Opamps.



            Simulating and Building a Multiple Feedback Band-Pass Filter






            share|improve this answer

















            • 3




              This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
              – Scott Seidman
              Nov 20 at 15:20

















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Here is a prior discussion of bandpass filters. The answer using the Signal Chain Explorer tool presents the effects of various Unity Gain Bandwidth Opamps.



            Simulating and Building a Multiple Feedback Band-Pass Filter






            share|improve this answer

















            • 3




              This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
              – Scott Seidman
              Nov 20 at 15:20















            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Here is a prior discussion of bandpass filters. The answer using the Signal Chain Explorer tool presents the effects of various Unity Gain Bandwidth Opamps.



            Simulating and Building a Multiple Feedback Band-Pass Filter






            share|improve this answer












            Here is a prior discussion of bandpass filters. The answer using the Signal Chain Explorer tool presents the effects of various Unity Gain Bandwidth Opamps.



            Simulating and Building a Multiple Feedback Band-Pass Filter







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered Nov 20 at 3:26









            analogsystemsrf

            12.9k2616




            12.9k2616








            • 3




              This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
              – Scott Seidman
              Nov 20 at 15:20
















            • 3




              This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
              – Scott Seidman
              Nov 20 at 15:20










            3




            3




            This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
            – Scott Seidman
            Nov 20 at 15:20






            This would make a fine comment, but it's a pretty bad answer. Suggest converting to a comment, and deleting the answer. Alternatively, please expand.
            – Scott Seidman
            Nov 20 at 15:20




















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2felectronics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f407714%2fwhat-are-the-limiting-factors-of-these-op-amps%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

            ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

            Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?