John Woodgate wrote:
I read in sci.electronics.design that Kevin Aylward
kevindotaylwardEXTR wrote (in
.net) about 'A little
feedback worse than none at all?', on Wed, 19 Nov 2003:
Err.. John and me are arguable, friends. My comment was not at him
personally, but at what he said. What he said was crap.

No, Kevin, it isn't. What happens when you apply lots of feedback
around an amplifier of poor linearity is that you swap maybe 5% of
low-order distortion (2nd, 3rd, 5th.) for 0.05% or so of every
harmonic up to the upper band limit of the amplifier.

What part of "large amounts of feedback" are you having trouble with
John?

The latter
sounds FAR worse,

Why don't you read what I actually wrote.

because of the multiplicity of intermodulation
products, some of which are much larger in amplitude than the
adjacent harmonics.

I have *already* explained, that yes, if the feedback is *low*, than it
can sound much worse. However, if one gets into the *total* THD/IMD
figures of 0.01%, then feedback is great. End of story.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Understanding, is itself an emotion, i.e. a feeling.
Emotions or feelings can only be "understood" by
consciousness. "Understanding" consciousness can
therefore only be understood by consciousness itself,
therefore the "hard problem" of consciousness, is
intrinsically unsolvable.

Physics is proven incomplete, that is, no
understanding of the parts of a system can
explain all aspects of the whole of such system.