Preference vs. audibility - please keep them separate.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bear in mind a cathode follower tube amp has enormous negative feedback, it's just local feedback.

Same for an emitter follower transistor. I don't know where the idea that negative feedback is evil came from, but it's just not true. Negative feedback is a valuable and necessary part of circuit design. At least it's necessary if you want to reduce distortion to inaudible levels! :D

--Ethan
 
Of course like Greg says whenever man solves a problem he creates another one. Negative feedback was misused b to solve problems that could have and should been dealt with a competent design.
 
Same for an emitter follower transistor. I don't know where the idea that negative feedback is evil came from, but it's just not true. Negative feedback is a valuable and necessary part of circuit design. At least it's necessary if you want to reduce distortion to inaudible levels! :D

--Ethan

The untrue idea that negative feedback is evil came from the poor sound of many old amplifiers that implemented it poorly. As far as remember there was a milestone in the use of feedback when Dr. Matti Otala presented his TIM-free audio amplifier design in AES in the low 70's.

No Tim, I am not joking! ;)
 
Forgive me for this extensive quote, but this article by Bruno Putzeys seems to cover a lot of what we have been discussing. Prior to this section , he discusses the technicalities of feedback in depth.
During my tender years, “Japanese Transistor Amps” were held up as prime examples of things that measured well and sounded terrible. Dare, even today, to extol the virtues of an amplifier as having really low distortion and some know-it-all will stand up and say “you know measurements don’t say it all; remember the 80’s when we were flooded with amps that had 0.00001% distortion and sounded all screechy”, bystanders nodding vigorously. One of them will go on, inevitably, to make the same point in another audio meeting, adding an extra zero. Such figures were never claimed by anyone at the time. That doesn’t mitigate that the leaflets were misleading. Sometimes subtly by stating only THD at 1kHz/1W, often more brutally through a technique called lying. These amps didn’t measure at all well and they sounded the part. Superb specs were claimed for the cheaper amps in the full expectation that no reviewer would bother to measure them, while more modest figures were given for top-of-the range products in the reasonable assumption that they would. Had the marketeers then realised what they were setting the industry up with, they would have committed seppuku.

The Backlash
The effect on the audio trade has been profound. Not only did negative feedback become the object of suspicion and ridicule, so did really good measured performance because good numbers were tainted by association with “large amounts of feedback”. If you had to use so much feedback to get those numbers, it couldn’t be good. Measurement reports became superfluous, opening the floodgates to claims of sonic excellence that had no support in physics whatsoever. The whole high-end trade standardized on making amplifiers with low amounts of loop gain and hence significant distortion. Of course, these amps all have a “character” of their own, adding another layer to the relativism by making any amplifier that sounded different from others worthy of consideration. Some designers became world famous because they managed, more by trial and error than by forethought, to make amplifiers that, in spite of having little or no error control and distortion levels in the 0.1% - 1% range, did not colour the sound excessively. The painstaking sculpting of the distortion spectrum of an amp by mixing and matching different makes of active devices and load conditions became a Zen-like activity that guaranteed guruship. Furthermore with low or no loop gain came bad power supply ripple rejection: it became a mark of competence to overdesign the power supply, even regulating it, and to mix and match esoteric supply capacitors to mitigate their impact on sound. Having to contend with the ones that are actually in the signal path isn’t enough for some. Designers who should know better pay lip service to the ideal of fast amps with moderate feedback, or “local feedback only”. The avoidance of feedback, specifically global feedback, also meant that longer signal chains quickly accumulated distortion products. A relentless drive for minimalist design ensued. If everything one adds to the signal path detracts from the result, only the smallest number of components will do. This resulted in the ludicrous situation where fantastic sounding recordings were made with signal chains numbering up to a hundred amplifying stages and replayed on audiophile systems where even a transparent buffer proved an impossibility.

Hi-fi review is a complete shambles. The few magazines that do measure are capable of reprinting the most frightening distortion spectra from amplifiers and actually call them good. “Objectivity” got downgraded from “independent of who’s doing the observing” to “not favouring particular brands”. For me personally the affair hit rock bottom when in 2009 two reviewers, one Dutch, one British, independently remarked of the same amplifier (a reasonably priced product with exemplary performance) that it sounded surprisingly musical for an amp with such low distortion. In the 21st century audio engineers build equipment while actively avoiding two of the most powerful tools available to the whole of science and engineering: measurement and error control. The damage to the audio industry and its reputation in the wider engineering world will remain immeasurable until we decide to take control.
www.linearaudio.nl/linearaudio.nl/images/pdf/Volume_1_BP.pdf
 
I have read it long ago and had tens of years to think about it, many thanks, as well as PW work and opinions that were published in Wireless World and other magazines. But I doubt that you even can understand it.

I'm having no trouble understanding what he said in that interview. It took tens of seconds. I also understand the quote from Bruno Putzeys above.

Tim
 
Last edited:
Unless it was an improvement in one or more of the following areas:
- cheaper to make
- smaller or lighter
- more reliable
- easier to set up
- absence of drift
- more stable into difficult loads

The idea that nothing new is designed without an absolute improvement in end performance seems... naive..?

Other manufacturers might also include fads, changing aesthetics, built-in obsolescence etc. to encourage customers to part with money but I don't think Quad have ever been accused of that! As the book points out, their models remained largely unchanged for many years.
To develop it was not cheap, and then the patenting.....
And that avoids his comment as there were plenty of amps at the same time according to what some quote to performing the same if used adequately.
You would not then go out of your way to add another to that list, the key point is good comparable amplifiers at the time, some of which were designed for the monster Apogee speakers.
As I mentioned it has taken a long time for current-dumping to really reach its pinnacle, and some engineers-manufacturers argue even now whether it is relevant in classic designs outside that of what Devialet did.

Interesting read of the Quad's first current-dumping model: http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/655/index.html
Sort of fits in with what I am saying.

Cheers
Orb
 
Current dumping was originally described by Peter Walker in the December 1975 issue of Wireless World*. While interesting and providing very good performance for its time, the measured performance claimed in the article has been far exceeded by conventional designs of today. There are other drawbacks with it, such as its ability to cancel distortion being a function of the tolerance of the value of the output inductor.

The high-quality, low-power amp was filling in the output current "dead zone" caused by the "dumper" transistors being operated in class C (both devices biased off). Modern designs use optimal class AB biasing of the output stage to achieve low distortion even in the absence of feedback.

Edit: You can find that article on this page.
 
Last edited:
Modern designs use optimal class AB biasing of the output stage to achieve low distortion even in the absence of feedback.

Do they have pots to set the bias currents, and need setting up?
 
One of the advantages of the current dumping idea is the lack of needing to use pots to set bias currents etc. I would imagine that to be quite an advantage to a manufacturer..? Plus it presumably doesn't drift with age and/or temperature. There's something pleasing about that.

What is your opinion of something like a $10 LM3886 IC which is Class AB but doesn't need any setting up?
http://www.ti.com/product/lm3886
Comprehensive data sheet: http://www.ti.com/lit/gpn/lm3886


Could you personally hear the difference between it (with adequate PSU, good PCB layout etc.) and a High End amplifier at modest power output? What would you be listening for, and does it show up in the specs?
 

Attachments

  • LM3886 THD+N.jpg
    LM3886 THD+N.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 522
Last edited:
Wow, what a great summary. That's a keeper. Thanks for posting it.

--Ethan

Just to add to make it complete, Bruno also states in his engineering class:
Bruno's Masterclass said:
Practical open-loop errors are too large for guaranteed transparency.
•Feedback is the most effective tool for reducing errors
•Moderate loop gain does more harm than good in realistic circuits.
•Improved open-loop linearity reduces NFB-related products by a greater extent.

Saying either go large on feedback or go very little.

Cheers
Orb
 
One of the advantages of the current dumping idea is the lack of needing to use pots to set bias currents etc. I would imagine that to be quite an advantage to a manufacturer..? Plus it presumably doesn't drift with age and/or temperature. There's something pleasing about that.

What is your opinion of something like a $10 LM3886 IC which is Class AB but doesn't need any setting up?
http://www.ti.com/product/lm3886
View attachment 12119

Could you personally hear the difference between it and a High End amplifier at modest power output? What would you be listening for, and does it show up in the specs?

The only experience I've had with a somewhat controlled listening test (and it was just a casual one) is the experiment described on one of Bob Cordell's pages. I couldn't tell the difference between the solid-state and tube amps (the latter of which was designed to have a low output impedance).

As far as the chip amp described above, I have no experience with it. Looks like it could be useful in some applications, like the high-frequency portion of an active system.

Also, Linear Technology makes the LT1166 bias controller, which eliminates the need for a bias adjust pot without a need for the complexity of current dumping.
 
Saying either go large on feedback or go very little.

That conclusion has been drawn often, and was drawn in Bruno's case before Bob Cordell published his power amplifier design book. It comes from the graph of distortion products vs. feedback factor originally provided by Baxandall. In it, Baxandall assumed the open-loop amplifier had distortion consisting entirely of the second harmonic. The feedback caused additional higher-order components to appear, which for moderate amounts of feedback actually increased as feedback increased. This has come to be known as spectral growth distortion or SGD.

The question is, can this result be generalized? Cordell recognized that the dominant distortion of class AB power amplifiers is from the output stage. Furthermore, this type of distortion is rich in high-order harmonics even in the absence of feedback. So what happens when you apply feedback around a nonlinearity that produces many high-order products to begin with? Here's his result.

cordell_1.jpg

cordell_2.jpg
 
Devialet are the ones who really perfected that design, but without original Quad theory-design I am not sure it would had been done.

It sounds fascinating. The Devialet white paper is here:
www.dynamicaudio.jp/file/110125/201101DevialetWhitePaper.pdf

The principle of Analog Digital Hybrid is simple:
• A genuine class A amplifier directly connected to the speaker drives the output voltage: as the master, it sets the sound of the whole ADH core, that’s how what we hear is an analog amplifier.
• A digital amplifier is added in parallel to provide most of the current to the speaker. It is «slaved» to the analog amplifier so that it minimizes the current of the class A.

So how close is this to Class H, which sounds a bit similar?
Class-H amplifiers take the idea of class G one step further creating an infinitely variable supply rail. This is done by modulating the supply rails so that the rails are only a few volts larger than the output signal at any given time. [sounds like the supply is "slaved" to the output signal, wouldn't you say?] . The output stage operates at its maximum efficiency all the time. Switched-mode power supplies can be used to create the tracking rails.
 
Andy,
when did Bob come out with the book, was it after 2008?
I must admit I have not followed DIYAudio for quite a few years now.
I need to look at Nelson Pass graphs-measurments as well to see how they correspond but I did no not remember Bruno making any assumptions (appreciate we also have the Peter Baxandall/John Linsley-Hood/etc models most of this is based upon).
Edit:
Also trying to think which papers-articles by Walt Jung may be applicable without digressing this too much as he has gone into detail in the past on nfb.
Thanks
Orb
 
Last edited:
It sounds fascinating. The Devialet white paper is here:
www.dynamicaudio.jp/file/110125/201101DevialetWhitePaper.pdf



So how close is this to Class H, which sounds a bit similar?

Yes, the Devialet concept is fascinating. However the perfection was just recently perfected in order to please the "subjective" audiophiles. :)

I had the pleasure of hosting a D-Premier for some weeks sometime ago. It sounded impressive - great and articulate bass, scale and soundstage were some of the best I have listened with classic music, huge dynamics, but I found it lacking in finesse and most of all, voices shouted and lacked emotion and rhythm - IMHO poor perceived micro dynamics. I remember I reported on WBF how fantastic the Perahia Beethoven Piano concertos sounded and how deceiving was the reproduction of the Buena Vista Social Clube recording.

You can guess my surprise when I recently read that Devialet seems to have heard my prayers (taken from the Paul Miller HifiNews review of the new D170 - if you are allergic to blackness and velvet silences, please skip the insert! :rolleyes: )

Surely, I now want to listen to the D240 in my system!
 

Attachments

  • a1.jpg
    a1.jpg
    480.3 KB · Views: 256
Groucho,
Not sure how one could compare a current-dumping topology (even if Devialet is using aspects of Class D and Class A) to class "G/H" that is closer to AB architecture IMO .
The actual design patents (at least 4) are also on the web for Devialet (well I read them somewhere anyway at one point :) ), and yeah totally agree it is a beautiful design.

Thanks
Orb
 
Coming back to distortion and patterns/structure
Andy, did you try the Keith Howard add distortion software?
I appreciate you are aware of it and was just wondering your experiences, caveat for others being thd can only be accurately applicable to a full-scale tone/sinewave input and so does not reflect real world behaviour as it will fluctuate with complex tones/dynamics.
But then that was also part of Keith's case against thd in some articles and how it is used as a measurement but has limited application in the real world of equipment and critically music due to its limited scope.

If anyone interested here is the link, not easy to use but it means you can add distortion patterns to real music; might be best to use both types of music with reasonable dynamics (thd will spike in these) and also those with limited/compressed dynamics (thd fluctuate less).
Look down for Nonlinear distortion simulation.
http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/freeware.html

Anyway an interesting tool for those who have an opinion about preference is based on X% or type-structure of distortion.
Keiths article on SP: http://www.stereophile.com/reference/406howard/index.html
Cheers
Orb
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing