Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came
across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Ian Iveson wrote:
Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Cheers Ian |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Cheers Ian I quote all of Norman's talk and my comments are marked with ***. Introduction I've seen negative feedback attacked, reviled, denounced, and defamed for so long I can no longer stand idly by. Feedback may be as stylish as a ‘63 Dodge Dart, but it’s a dear friend who’s brought beauty and joy to my life. It may not be a saint, but we don’t expect Marilyn Monroe to be Mother Theresa, do we? It’s just misunderstood— often as much by its supporters as by its detractors. In the ten years I’ve been designing and building amplifiers I’ve learned how to bring out its best while respecting its limitations. The time has come to share that knowledge. In his January 1998 Stereophile article "A Future Without Feedback ," Martin Colloms asserts that "measurements do not fully describe sound quality," and goes on to suggest that "corrective feedback is fundamentally unmusical." He poses the question, "has anyone explored the implications of negative feedback for reproduced sound quality in the absolute sense?" What follows is the results of such an exploration. We shall describe new measurements that provide improved insight into the origins of audio quality, and we shall use these measurements to determine when and where to apply feedback to best advantage. Although we will use vacuum tube circuits as examples, all observations apply equally well to solid-state. We shall also revisit traditional measurements. One of them— harmonic distortion at rated power output— has an unexpected correlation with sound quality. Sometimes it seems that so much has been written about feedback’s harmful effects that it’s easy to forget its benefits. Why do engineers love it? Improved frequency response, reduced harmonic distortion, better gain control, increased input impedance (in many circuits), and decreased output impedance (in circuits with voltage feedback). So why do audiophiles hate it? Harsh, gritty, grainy, glaring sound. Reason enough. Now for the BIG question: Are these qualities intrinsic to negative feedback or do they arise from its improper application? From my experience it’s mostly the latter. Mostly. There are a few places where feedback runs into unavoidable problems, and it shouldn’t be a big surprise that one of them is the single-ended vacuum tube power amplifier. How can we know this? We have an instrument for looking deep into the heart of amplifiers— an instrument that may be within your reach this very moment. ***If only he could be brief, and get on with it! Computer modeling The idea of using the computer— the ultimate digital machine— to design old-fashioned vacuum tube circuits may seem more than a little incongruous. So it may be, but in the computer we have powerful tool that wasn’t available in the glory days of Dynaco, McIntosh, and Marantz; an affordable tool for anyone interested in high-end audio, and usable by anyone with modest engineering skill. More precisely, our tool is a computer program called SPICE— acronym for Simulation Program with Integrated Circuit Emphasis, originally developed at the University of California Berkeley. SPICE is widely used in industry to prove integrated circuit designs before they are cast in silicon, where fixing errors is far more costly than in concrete. There are several commercial versions of SPICE, all of which start with the Berkeley algorithms and add user-friendly front-ends and outputs. Probably the best-known of them is PSpice from Cadence Design Systems (http://www.orcad.com/Product/Analog/analog.asp). A free evaluation version that can simulate up to fifty parts is available on CD ROM or can be downloaded from the web. Fifty parts won’t get you far with semiconductors, but it’s sufficient for the design of surprisingly sophisticated vacuum tube circuits. Full versions of PSpice are very expensive. Another excellent program is Electronics Workbench from Interactive Image Technologies (1-800-263-5552; http://www.interactiv.com), which comes in a $299 package (sometimes on sale) that can do some serious simulation. Each of these programs has its learning curve, and since I’ve taken the trouble to learn PSpice, I’m stuck with it. I love it. I’m not the only one who values SPICE. When I escaped from Silicon Valley in 1985, I had a neighbor who was developing a version (HSpice) in his garage. While I was tinkering with tubes, he was quietly taking over the market for large-scale integrated circuit simulation. In August 1997 I read that he had sold his company— Meta Software— for one hundred and sixty million dollars. (That was before the dot com boom, when hardware still got some respect.) Can there be a lesson here? I suppose we tube lovers must be content to receive our reward in heavenly sound. None of us will become another Bill Gates. Besides, the only reproduced sound he ever hears is digital. ***But wait a sec, you don't have to be Bill Gates to hear "digital musiic". We all hear it routinely when we listen to anything with a digitised source somewhere, so 99% of ppl hear the effects of digital processing whether they like it or not. 1% listen to vinyl only, so they get pure analog, but there are plenty of vinyls that would have sonded far better had they never been recorded. Many readers may wonder how well digital simulation can unlock the secrets of analog electronics. In my experience it can do so astonishingly well. I never cease to be amazed by how closely measurements match SPICE simulations. ***Well since measurements are so accurate, and are the Real Thing, then why simulate at all? Models and measurements No matter how strongly you believe that measurements don’t or can’t correlate with sound quality, you must agree that electrical signals inside circuits obey the laws of physics. If a computer program has accurate enough device models, it will simulate the signals with precision. If you examine the details of those signals with enough care, you may begin to find patterns that shed light on sound quality. What is wrong with conventional measurements? Two things. The first is that most of them are made in frequency domain. The real world happens in time domain. Frequency domain measurements are derived from a mathematical construct called the Fourier transform, which is defined for linear systems. When a system becomes seriously nonlinear— as an amplifier does when it saturates— frequency domain measurements their meaning. ***??????????????? Time domain measurements, such as pictures of clipped sine waves, are needed to tell the real story. The one time domain measurement frequently seen in equipment reviews is the 10kHz square wave. This measurement is usually made with a small signal— far from saturation— and provides the same information as the frequency response curve. SPICE produces output in both time and frequency domain. The second problem is that conventional measurements are taken only at an amplifier’s external connections: A signal is fed into the input terminals and measured at the output terminals. What happens inside the circuit can make the difference between sonic mediocrity and distinction. With SPICE, you can probe deep inside of circuits. I’ve made measurements that would be difficult, expensive, and time-consuming with hardware instruments; measurements rarely if ever seen in equipment reviews; measurements that correlate much more closely with sound quality than such old standbys as harmonic distortion and frequency response. We’ve known for a long time they didn’t hold the secrets. ***The "inside the amp signal" is called the "error signal" because it contains an an opposite phase of the distortion at the output which goes on to cancel the open loop distortion and reduce this to the lower amount we see when NFB is connected. ***Many people hace a real good look at this signal especially with a square wave to see just how the amp copes with trying to rid itself of its distortion. A program’s performance is only as good as its models— sets of equations that simulate device behavior— and SPICE does not have built-in models for vacuum tubes. External models must be added. For many years tubes were modeled by the Langmuir-Childs law [1,2], which represents a tube as a voltage-controlled current source whose current is proportional to the three-halves power of the voltage on the controlling elements. This model approximates tube performance fairly well in the middle of the operating range, but fails miserably near cutoff, a region particularly critical to the performance of class AB push-pull amplifiers. It works well for calculating frequency response but not for distortion. *** the non-linear cut off transfer curve doesn't matter much because all audiophiles using well made tube amps operate them with enough bias current they rarely ever move out of class A, so nothing cuts off. A new set of models, accurate enough to match experimental tube behavior in all critical regions, has recently been published [3] and applied to the design of a modified Dynaco PAS preamplifier [4] with stunning sonic results. We shall use the old and new PAS line amplifiers (figures 1 and 2) as examples of problems and solutions related to feedback. To you non-technical readers, I offer an apology. Feedback cannot be discussed intelligently without getting somewhat technical. I shall try to keep this exposition as readable as possible— There will be no heavy formulas, and you may safely skip over circuit descriptions and references to resistors and capacitors. *** Gee, so just how does NFB get explained without a sketch or two or some wave forms. The reader needs to be invited to see actually what happens with NFB in an amp. Formulas come later, when concepts are understood, and somebody wants to build something. Before we proceed, a few definitions are needed: There are two types of negative feedback, or degenerative feedback as it is sometimes called: local and global. Local feedback is connected within or around a single gain stage; global feedback is connected around several gain stages, usually from the amplifier’s output to its input. Local feedback is generally regarded as benign, and with this view I concur. The amount of feedback, expressed in decibels (dB), is the ratio of the gains without and with feedback (the open and closed-loop gains): 6dB is a factor of 2 in voltage (4 in power); 20dB is a factor of 10 in voltage (100 in power), etc. The trouble with feedback Despite its advantages, negative feedback can degrade amplifier sound quality in three ways: First, it can lead to instabilities that appear as response peaks or even oscillations at an amplifier’s frequency extremes. Second, it can increase susceptibility to RF interference. Third, it makes clipping more abrupt: This rarely affects preamplifiers, which have plenty of headroom, but it is always a concern in power amplifiers. With proper design, the first two problems can be eliminated and the third can be controlled. We shall examine each of them closely with the help of SPICE. *** But you don't need spice to examine such matters, just built the amp, measure and trim it. Instability Negative feedback operates by subtracting a portion of an amplifier’s output signal from its input. This is quite straightforward for the middle frequencies where an amplifier’s open-loop gain is relatively flat. Bode’s theorem tells us that there is very little phase shift in this region. But things can get ugly at the frequency extremes. Every RC (resistor-capacitor) network that contributes to an amplifier’s rolloff adds up to 6dB per octave to the rolloff and up to 90 degrees to the phase shift. Not all of these RC networks are obvious in the schematic: Many involve stray capacitances within the tubes. If the total phase shift exceeds 180 degrees at any frequency where the loop gain (A/G-1, where A is the open-loop gain and G is the closed-loop gain) is greater than one, the amplifier will oscillate [5]. If it merely approaches 180 degrees, a peak will appear in the frequency response curve that corresponds to ringing in the time-domain. This will definitely degrade sound quality. ***It depends where the peaks are. If they are within the audio band in an appallingly made amp, then the F response will be upset. But when they appear well outside the AF band, there is little audible effect because there is little signal content below 20Hz and above 20kHz. To make matters worse, capacitance in shunt with the load increases the phase shift. *** To be sure that there will be no oscillations due to added phase shift of a capacitive load, we trim gain and phase shift in the OLG. Then any value of C can be connected, and the amp won't oscillate. It won't provide full MF power up to 50kHz either, but then it doesn't have to. Interconnect cables have around 20pF per foot, and electrostatic loudspeakers are nothing more than big honking capacitors-- as large as 2 microfarads-- that know how to move. ***ESL can have a lot more than 2uF in the reflected C of their panels. And they can have 2uF just in the C of the step up tranny if its designed badly, as many are. But a series R in the form of added R of say 1.5ohms or allowing the winding resistances to be high will provide a load never lower than the R. The R damps the circuit. The leakage inductances of the step up trannies provide some series L. So saying ESL are "big honking capacitors" is not quite a correct thing to ever say. So load capacitance is always present. An amplifier that performs nicely with a purely resistive load (widely used in equipment reviews) may misbehave in the real world. Amplifiers have a property called phase margin— the difference between the maximum phase shift and 180 degrees— that indicates how well they can tolerate capacitive loads. A qualitative estimate of phase margin may be obtained by measuring the response with capacitance in shunt with the load. This is particularly easy with SPICE. *** And easier and faster to examine with an amp and CRO.... To keep phase shift under control, a single RC network must dominate the rolloff. For global feedback loops, this usually involves adding a capacitor to the circuit. This is accomplished in the original PAS line amplifier (fig. 1) with 33pF capacitor CLFB connected in parallel with feedback resistor RLFB, and in the new design (fig. 2), with 7pF capacitor C3M in the input circuit. Although these capacitors reduce the high frequency cutoff (-3dB point), it is still around 100kHz in both circuits— well beyond the limits of human hearing. Most well-designed preamplifiers achieve good frequency response and stability at the same time— but this is not always the case for power amplifiers with output transformers. ***I have ommitted the section on PAS line level amps using bucketfulls of NFB and having tone controls. *** Its difficult to comment here because we cannot reproduce schematics. *** See my webpages for far simpler ways of doing things. The Parts Connection Catalog & Resource Guide (1-800-769-0747; http://www.sonicfrontiers.com/tpc) contains an excellent collection of schematic diagrams of classic tube preamplifiers and power amplifiers. Nearly every amplifier with feedback— and that’s almost all of them— uses the traditional compensation technique with the capacitor in parallel with the feedback resistor. In all fairness, this technique is easy to apply and provides good stability with minimum frequency response loss. The new technique, Miller compensation in the input stage, requires two capacitors (C3M and C3C in fig. 2) to achieve good frequency response extension. *** This Miller C should not be needed, but the additional C of then 7Pf x tube gain is in shunt with 27k as local shunt NFB. I prefer to use a gain stepping network. But I don't use 12AX7 with low current and limit NFB in preamps to simple shunt NFB around 1 satge only. With the proper component values, difficult to obtain without SPICE, the new technique has improved stability, i.e., less of a response peak with capacitance in shunt with the load. Compensating a feedback loop at the input stage also reduces response peaks at intermediate gain stages that can occasionally cause such problems as unexpected saturation. ***The more common idea used to reduce HF OLG gain is to have a HPF at the amp input, and not more C from V1 to grid. In part 2 we discuss feedback in power amplifiers. *** Rather than plough through part 2 I'll only voice my casual opinions after a brief read. I don't like the modified Dynaco MkIII revised schematic. IMHO, 12AX7s don't belong in any power amp. The NFB is in two loops from the OPT sec which is shown as a winding with CT. Its applied as balanced NFB to the cathodes of the two driver 12AU7 triodes. Some C = 680pF between cathodes reduces FB but tends to force the 12AU7 triodes to work more like an LTP at HF. 6CG7 or a pair of EL84 would be better trodes to use. There is added miller C = 180pF in shunt with 10k series for added Miller C to reduce OLG gain of 12AU7 drivers. I am not so sure of any benefits. The OPT load is a nominal 4.3k a-a only. It'd be better at 8k. Patrick Turner. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... snip Now for the BIG question: Are these qualities intrinsic to negative feedback or do they arise from its improper application? From my experience it's mostly the latter. Mostly. There are a few places where feedback runs into unavoidable problems, and it shouldn't be a big surprise that one of them is the single-ended vacuum tube power amplifier. How can we know this? We have an instrument for looking deep into the heart of amplifiers- an instrument that may be within your reach this very moment. ***If only he could be brief, and get on with it! come on Patrick, you aren't exactly known for your berevity. snip So load capacitance is always present. An amplifier that performs nicely with a purely resistive load (widely used in equipment reviews) may misbehave in the real world. Amplifiers have a property called phase margin- the difference between the maximum phase shift and 180 degrees- that indicates how well they can tolerate capacitive loads. A qualitative estimate of phase margin may be obtained by measuring the response with capacitance in shunt with the load. This is particularly easy with SPICE. *** And easier and faster to examine with an amp and CRO.... True, but it is a lot quicker to set up a simulator than to build an amp, and a hell of a lot quicker to change the circuit around in the simulator. A free simulator is also a lot cheaper than a scope if you don't have one. Keith |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Patrick Turner wrote:
***But wait a sec, you don't have to be Bill Gates to hear "digital musiic". We all hear it routinely when we listen to anything with a digitised source somewhere, so 99% of ppl hear the effects of digital processing whether they like it or not. 1% listen to vinyl only, so they get pure analog, but there are plenty of vinyls that would have sonded far better had they never been recorded. Don't forget us tape heads who listen mostly to analogue tape - we must make another 1% at least!!! Cheers Ian |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. Are you suggesting the world of photography is LESS weird??? Cheers Ian |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. Are you suggesting the world of photography is LESS weird??? An old friend of mine Iain McMillain, who took the photo used on the sleeve of the Beatles album "Abbey Road" told me once that he took up photography because he couldn't solder! Iain |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Iain Churches wrote:
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. Are you suggesting the world of photography is LESS weird??? An old friend of mine Iain McMillain, who took the photo used on the sleeve of the Beatles album "Abbey Road" told me once that he took up photography because he couldn't solder! Iain But he was presumably quite happy being closeted in a small, dark room with nowt but a red light, some trays of chemicals and a pair of rubber gloves??? Cheers Ian |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. Are you suggesting the world of photography is LESS weird??? An old friend of mine Iain McMillain, who took the photo used on the sleeve of the Beatles album "Abbey Road" told me once that he took up photography because he couldn't solder! Iain But he was presumably quite happy being closeted in a small, dark room with nowt but a red light, some trays of chemicals and a pair of rubber gloves??? Cheers Ian Ah those were the days, the smell of the stop bath and fixer, but I have to admit, in my old age, Photoshop is a whole lot more convenient, and , in the long run, cheaper. Keith |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... snip Now for the BIG question: Are these qualities intrinsic to negative feedback or do they arise from its improper application? From my experience it's mostly the latter. Mostly. There are a few places where feedback runs into unavoidable problems, and it shouldn't be a big surprise that one of them is the single-ended vacuum tube power amplifier. How can we know this? We have an instrument for looking deep into the heart of amplifiers- an instrument that may be within your reach this very moment. ***If only he could be brief, and get on with it! come on Patrick, you aren't exactly known for your berevity. Indeed, because when I explain something, I EXPLAIN, OK. snip So load capacitance is always present. An amplifier that performs nicely with a purely resistive load (widely used in equipment reviews) may misbehave in the real world. Amplifiers have a property called phase margin- the difference between the maximum phase shift and 180 degrees- that indicates how well they can tolerate capacitive loads. A qualitative estimate of phase margin may be obtained by measuring the response with capacitance in shunt with the load. This is particularly easy with SPICE. *** And easier and faster to examine with an amp and CRO.... True, but it is a lot quicker to set up a simulator than to build an amp, and a hell of a lot quicker to change the circuit around in the simulator. A free simulator is also a lot cheaper than a scope if you don't have one. If I took up art, and began painting pictures of Nicole, and perhaps Kylie, I would NOT use a ****ing simulator. I get the paint, the canvas, the brushes, a nice lounge for the girls, and I paint, right? Or I travel out into the hills and set up for some real brush strokes in the Great Outdoors, and paint. No simulations. I am hopelessly and wilfully, and utterly addicted reality. Patrick Turner. Keith |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Ian Thompson-Bell wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: ***But wait a sec, you don't have to be Bill Gates to hear "digital musiic". We all hear it routinely when we listen to anything with a digitised source somewhere, so 99% of ppl hear the effects of digital processing whether they like it or not. 1% listen to vinyl only, so they get pure analog, but there are plenty of vinyls that would have sonded far better had they never been recorded. Don't forget us tape heads who listen mostly to analogue tape - we must make another 1% at least!!! So 98% are into mainly digital. Even vinyls and tape source often has content that has been digitised somewhere in the chain. If you live in the past and am sure there have never been any digits poked up your analog, then indeed you are lucky, because analog when its goog is GOOD. Patrick Turner. Cheers Ian |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... snip Now for the BIG question: Are these qualities intrinsic to negative feedback or do they arise from its improper application? From my experience it's mostly the latter. Mostly. There are a few places where feedback runs into unavoidable problems, and it shouldn't be a big surprise that one of them is the single-ended vacuum tube power amplifier. How can we know this? We have an instrument for looking deep into the heart of amplifiers- an instrument that may be within your reach this very moment. ***If only he could be brief, and get on with it! come on Patrick, you aren't exactly known for your berevity. Indeed, because when I explain something, I EXPLAIN, OK. I rather think tha that is what the guy was trying to do. snip So load capacitance is always present. An amplifier that performs nicely with a purely resistive load (widely used in equipment reviews) may misbehave in the real world. Amplifiers have a property called phase margin- the difference between the maximum phase shift and 180 degrees- that indicates how well they can tolerate capacitive loads. A qualitative estimate of phase margin may be obtained by measuring the response with capacitance in shunt with the load. This is particularly easy with SPICE. *** And easier and faster to examine with an amp and CRO.... True, but it is a lot quicker to set up a simulator than to build an amp, and a hell of a lot quicker to change the circuit around in the simulator. A free simulator is also a lot cheaper than a scope if you don't have one. If I took up art, and began painting pictures of Nicole, and perhaps Kylie, I would NOT use a ****ing simulator. You ought to see someone about this hangup about Kylie and Nickole. But a Kylie or Nikole ****ing simulator - would that the inflatable? I get the paint, the canvas, the brushes, a nice lounge for the girls, and I paint, right? Or I travel out into the hills and set up for some real brush strokes in the Great Outdoors, and paint. No simulations. So what do you think about photography then? That would be seen by some as a painting simulator. I am hopelessly and wilfully, and utterly addicted reality. You've obviously never worked in the world of commercial electronic design where the job has to be done quickly and accurately. You don't want to stop a production line because after tinkering you find that R16 should be a 4K7 not a 1K8, there you use any tool that you can. |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... keithr wrote: "Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... snip Now for the BIG question: Are these qualities intrinsic to negative feedback or do they arise from its improper application? From my experience it's mostly the latter. Mostly. There are a few places where feedback runs into unavoidable problems, and it shouldn't be a big surprise that one of them is the single-ended vacuum tube power amplifier. How can we know this? We have an instrument for looking deep into the heart of amplifiers- an instrument that may be within your reach this very moment. ***If only he could be brief, and get on with it! come on Patrick, you aren't exactly known for your berevity. Indeed, because when I explain something, I EXPLAIN, OK. I rather think tha that is what the guy was trying to do. Trying he was. snip So load capacitance is always present. An amplifier that performs nicely with a purely resistive load (widely used in equipment reviews) may misbehave in the real world. Amplifiers have a property called phase margin- the difference between the maximum phase shift and 180 degrees- that indicates how well they can tolerate capacitive loads. A qualitative estimate of phase margin may be obtained by measuring the response with capacitance in shunt with the load. This is particularly easy with SPICE. *** And easier and faster to examine with an amp and CRO.... True, but it is a lot quicker to set up a simulator than to build an amp, and a hell of a lot quicker to change the circuit around in the simulator. A free simulator is also a lot cheaper than a scope if you don't have one. If I took up art, and began painting pictures of Nicole, and perhaps Kylie, I would NOT use a ****ing simulator. You ought to see someone about this hangup about Kylie and Nickole. But a Kylie or Nikole ****ing simulator - would that the inflatable? I might be tempted to **** a well designed simulator. Maybe its better than a real sheila. As you age, many things can become better than the real thing. In 20 years, nobody will want to care about me at all when i might need some care. A robot that simulated a sheila might be just what nearly every old man might need, and it may become available, and affordable, and extend the time you can stay in your own home before you die. I finally had to tell one gal of 57, after an enormous amount of time wasted wooing her that I'd rather ride a bicycle for 4 hours than ride her for 4 hours. At least the bicycle would get me somewhere. The alternative is to spend 4 hours painting a picture of her. Nobody would buy it though, so this option is out. I wouldn't even be thinking of a simulator at any time. I get the paint, the canvas, the brushes, a nice lounge for the girls, and I paint, right? Or I travel out into the hills and set up for some real brush strokes in the Great Outdoors, and paint. No simulations. So what do you think about photography then? That would be seen by some as a painting simulator. I am hopelessly and wilfully, and utterly addicted reality. You've obviously never worked in the world of commercial electronic design where the job has to be done quickly and accurately. You don't want to stop a production line because after tinkering you find that R16 should be a 4K7 not a 1K8, there you use any tool that you can. Yeah, but I need to be sure the 4k7 will work and the best way is to try it and see, when the item is simple, like a tube amp. An SS amp can be horribly complex. many other things are as well, and sure, if design was all i did I would have a simulator program. But I don't need one for tube amps. I don't even want one. Patrick Turner. |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Patrick Turner wrote:
Ignoring irrelevant sniping: ***The "inside the amp signal" is called the "error signal" because it contains an an opposite phase of the distortion at the output which goes on to cancel the open loop distortion and reduce this to the lower amount we see when NFB is connected. Er...eh? An error signal is called an error signal because it is derived by subtracting the output from the input. The difference between the two is the error, obviously. Compensating a feedback loop at the input stage also reduces response peaks at intermediate gain stages that can occasionally cause such problems as unexpected saturation. ***The more common idea used to reduce HF OLG gain is to have a HPF at the amp input, and not more C from V1 to grid. Perhaps you should read more carefully and with a more constructive attitude. If you learn about feedback (simulation would help), you should be able to see a *fundamental* difference between the two. Ian |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in
message ... Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Yes, and his power amp is good representative of a particular breed. I've cited it a couple of times here, and remember a discussion about the merit of using one of the four output valves as a reference for the servo bias. The concensus was that an independent reference should be used, on the grounds that, otherwise, if the reference valve fails it might take the others with it. I wasn't convinced and still aren't. On the subject of feedback, I think he tells the common story quite well. I found myself wanting to insert, at a particular point in his narrative, the rule: "Loop gain may be as large as the ratio of the two most dominant time constants" (Quoted from Morgan Jones "Valve Amplifiers"), because there is an easy and satisfying bit of maths that makes it obvious. While I have Morgan in front of me, you just have to laugh at his dry wit sometimes. Feedback "is a powerful weapon cabable of oppressing anything." Still with Morgan, here is a passage tinged with that wit, and worthy of note for some: "Many practical amplifiers, having exhausted the two possible methods of achieving stability described (above), resort to manoeuvering the amplitude response independently of phase response using step networks. Traditionally, these were adjusted on test, but if we are forced to use this method, computer aided AC analysis is an excellent tool for observing the effects of changes..." Ian |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
"Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Iain Churches wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message ... Arny Krueger wrote: "Ian Thompson-Bell" wrote in message Ian Iveson wrote: Whilst searching for a 6550 for my circlotron Mk7, I came across this http://www.normankoren.com/Audio/FeedbackFidelity.html Norman, being a hard-core reproductionist, defected to photography and took a lot of very accurate pictures that you can see on his main pages if you like that kind of thing. His other valve stuff is worth a read. Ian I know this site well. A pity he took up photography as he was doing some good tube work. Looks like he saw the errors of his ways and pulled away from the tubed weirdness. Are you suggesting the world of photography is LESS weird??? An old friend of mine Iain McMillain, who took the photo used on the sleeve of the Beatles album "Abbey Road" told me once that he took up photography because he couldn't solder! But he was presumably quite happy being closeted in a small, dark room with nowt but a red light, some trays of chemicals and a pair of rubber gloves??? Indeed. Makes tube audio seem very mundane:-) |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Ian Iveson wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ignoring irrelevant sniping: ***The "inside the amp signal" is called the "error signal" because it contains an an opposite phase of the distortion at the output which goes on to cancel the open loop distortion and reduce this to the lower amount we see when NFB is connected. Er...eh? An error signal is called an error signal because it is derived by subtracting the output from the input. The difference between the two is the error, obviously. You really have no clue do you? What actually happens in the real world needs to be considered. In any amp with NFB connected there IS some distortion at the output. Consider most tube amps with global series voltage negative feedback. Let us consider a typical tube amp example where Open Loop Gain, OLG = Vo / Vin = 20V / 0.2V = 100. Let us suppose there is a gain reduction of 1/6 times due to the use of the NFB and that Closed Loop Gain, CLG, gain which is enclosed by a loop of FB, = 16. So to make 20V at the output, we need 20V / 16 applied at the input, = 1.25V. Therefore the feedback voltage is 1.25V - 0.2V = 1.05V. The fraction of the output fed back = 1.05 / 20 = 0.05 and is called ß. The output signal of 20V is reduced by a resistance divider to 1.05V and applied to the input tube's second input point, the cathode. Let us suppose there is 0.2% THD at the output when NFB is applied, ie, CLG THD = 0.2%. This amounts to 20V x 0.2/100 = 0.04V. The resistance divider reduces this THD from 0.04V to 0.04 x ß = 0.002V. There is NO distortion in the input grid signal or 1.25V. At the cathode, there is an undistorted signal of 1.05V PLUS a sample of the amp's distortion = 0.002V. The distortion is amplified by the OLG of 100 to become 0.2V at the output. But we must remember phase relationships, so must nominate input signal phase at 0 degrees and being +. The amp is arranged so the output signal is the same phase as input phase, so its phase is also +. But any signal aplied to the input triode cathode will produce a phase that is opposite to the grid made signal, so output from the cathode is 180 degrees different and -. So the grid input is a "non-invering input". The cathode is an "inverting input". So, we have +1.25V at input grid, and this makes +20V at output. There is +0.04V of THD at the output, reduced to +0.002V by R divider and applied to cathode. This applied signal becomes -0.2V at the output. This seems to be an incomprehensible situation because we MEASURED +0.04V of THD at the output. How the hell can we say that -0.2V of THD exists where we know there is +0.04V?????????????????????????????????????????? We have not taken into account the distortion without NFB applied. The 0.04V THD we measured is the DIFFERENCE between the OLG THD and the CLG THD. So if the difference = +0.04V, and we can prove we have -0.2V of inverted THD at the output, then there must be also a non inverted THD signal present at well. This signal = +.04V - ( -0.2V ) = +0.24V. IE, we have +0.04V THD measured residual or difference at the output plus -0.2V THD "correction signal", so the distortion without NFB produced by the amp must have been +0.24V. 0.24V of THD existant within 20V of signal = 100 x 0.24/20 % = 1.2% without NFB The OLG THD has been reduced by 1/6 times, the same amount as the amount of OLG gain reduction due to applied NFB. Every amp or amp stage is subject to the same behaviour if it has any FB. And my explanation is the simplest way for the Ian Ivesons of this world to understand. My method allows anyone to work out what the OLG THD might be without measuring it or disconnecting the loop NFB resistances. In an SS amp, OLG might be 20,000, and CLG = 20, same as our tube amp. If the THD with NFB = 0.002%, and ß = 0.04, then what must the OLG distortion have been? If you have followed my reasoning, you'll be able to work it out. If you simulate it, because you are ****in lazy, and can't calculate or can't/won't measure anything, then the answers should be the same. If you have an amp you can measure, what do you measure? The above reasoning of mine is somewhat simplistic though. The amplified sample of distortion is also distorted by the slightly mon-linear OLG character of the amp, so other harmonic products are generated and "sent around the loop". These products are also reduced by the NFB action depending on the phase response of the amp, ie, its OLG F response profile. Not only that, as VO increases the OLG THD% becomes larger and there are IMD products generated which become significant. But in most amps where OLG THD is low such as in the case of the above tube amp with OLG THD = 1.2%, the "second order" generation of additional harmonics are negligible. If the same tube amp is operated mainly at an average of 2V output instead of 20V, the second order products are indeed utterly inaudible. Therefore, my simplistic description and reasoning is valid ENOUGH. Compensating a feedback loop at the input stage also reduces response peaks at intermediate gain stages that can occasionally cause such problems as unexpected saturation. ***The more common idea used to reduce HF OLG gain is to have a HPF at the amp input, and not more C from V1 to grid. Perhaps you should read more carefully and with a more constructive attitude. If you learn about feedback (simulation would help), you should be able to see a *fundamental* difference between the two. I KNOW the difference, clot-head. I have also tried the idea of local shunt FB to reduce the OLG of the amp. I know why I prefer my way. Patrick Turner. Ian |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Patrick Turner wriggled, squirmed and obfuscated, to no
avail: Ian Iveson wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ignoring irrelevant sniping: ***The "inside the amp signal" is called the "error signal" because it contains an an opposite phase of the distortion at the output which goes on to cancel the open loop distortion and reduce this to the lower amount we see when NFB is connected. Er...eh? An error signal is called an error signal because it is derived by subtracting the output from the input. The difference between the two is the error, obviously. You really have no clue do you? Don't you believe me? What actually happens in the real world needs to be considered. Not necessary in order to know why an error signal is so called. As for what an error signal may contain, which is another matter, I dare say that Norman covers that, so I don't know why you're batting on about it here. You've been "explaining" this stuff for years and years and none of your devotees are any the wiser, in case you haven't noticed. Why do so many ppl feel the need to demonstrate to the world that they know something about feedback? [cut lengthy obfuscation] Compensating a feedback loop at the input stage also reduces response peaks at intermediate gain stages that can occasionally cause such problems as unexpected saturation. ***The more common idea used to reduce HF OLG gain is to have a HPF at the amp input, and not more C from V1 to grid. Perhaps you should read more carefully and with a more constructive attitude. If you learn about feedback (simulation would help), you should be able to see a *fundamental* difference between the two. I KNOW the difference, clot-head. It's obvious from what you wrote that you don't. I have also tried the idea of local shunt FB to reduce the OLG of the amp. Very impressive. Wow. I know why I prefer my way. Because you can grope your way to a compromise, and because you and your stupid customers are all half deaf. Ian |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback and stability in valve amplifiers
Ian Iveson wrote: Patrick Turner wriggled, squirmed and obfuscated, to no avail: Ian Iveson wrote: Patrick Turner wrote: Ignoring irrelevant sniping: ***The "inside the amp signal" is called the "error signal" because it contains an an opposite phase of the distortion at the output which goes on to cancel the open loop distortion and reduce this to the lower amount we see when NFB is connected. Er...eh? An error signal is called an error signal because it is derived by subtracting the output from the input. The difference between the two is the error, obviously. You really have no clue do you? Don't you believe me? Very rarely do I ever believe you. This is often because you are so obsure and long winded about everything and anything. Your'e getting worse as you drift towards the grave, and I have less time myself to contemplate your bull****.... Just letting you know how many ppl here feel about you... What actually happens in the real world needs to be considered. Not necessary in order to know why an error signal is so called. As for what an error signal may contain, which is another matter, I dare say that Norman covers that, so I don't know why you're batting on about it here. You've been "explaining" this stuff for years and years and none of your devotees are any the wiser, in case you haven't noticed. Why do so many ppl feel the need to demonstrate to the world that they know something about feedback? YOU are the only **** here who says such utter garbage. About 450 ppl visit my website daily, to learn, to read, to assist themselves towards sonic bliss using vacuum tubes. [cut lengthy obfuscation] Compensating a feedback loop at the input stage also reduces response peaks at intermediate gain stages that can occasionally cause such problems as unexpected saturation. ***The more common idea used to reduce HF OLG gain is to have a HPF at the amp input, and not more C from V1 to grid. Perhaps you should read more carefully and with a more constructive attitude. If you learn about feedback (simulation would help), you should be able to see a *fundamental* difference between the two. I KNOW the difference, clot-head. It's obvious from what you wrote that you don't. You really are a ****ing dumb ****. This utter fuctard denounces what I have said but won't take the trouble to quote withinh ALL OF MY TEXT to proove I'm wrong. So, apart from the appalling netiquette, he doesn't know how to debate properly. Why does he hang around? he's like a fart in a phone box. Someone please open the door and let the smell outa here. I have also tried the idea of local shunt FB to reduce the OLG of the amp. Very impressive. Wow. I know why I prefer my way. Because you can grope your way to a compromise, and because you and your stupid customers are all half deaf. Unfortunately, your experience in building and testing amplifiers and repairing them is probably only 1% of mine. AFAIK, you have constructed 1 amplifier in the last 8 years. AFAIK, Iveson has ZERO customers who treasure his amps above all others. Does anyone else here want to take any notice of such an unexperienced long winded obstinate, ignorant idiot as Iveson? Patrick Turner. Ian |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers Part 3 The Curse of the External Eternal | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part Deux-A | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers Part 2B with badly needed corrections! | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers, Part 2B | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Stability in Feedback Amplifiers | Vacuum Tubes |