Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers?
I know it is a question that . . . . -_- sigh But still, what do you think? I think we can't live without feedback, so what is ur feedback? |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Lost'n Found wrote: Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? I know it is a question that . . . . -_- sigh But still, what do you think? I think we can't live without feedback, so what is ur feedback? Say one forgets to mow the lawns. Wife says, "lawns are looking a bit ragged dear" Youse start thinkin, "Hmm, no sex tonight if I don't mow the lawns..." So you go mow the lawns. The natural order if for man to not mow lawns as often as the audience around him wishes, and this is his mistake. The error is pointed out by someone close to him, and action is taken to correct the mistake and mow the fukkin lawn. The lawns which are the signal now looks clean and tidy; the audience is happy. However such error corrections in electronic NFB are so fast, and happen with such rapidity that the corrections of errors occur while errors are made, and it as if the wife is intimately in contact with the man's brain and has him cutting each blade of grass shorter while it grows longer, so the apearance of the lawn is always beautiful. The negativity of such feedback may seem indeed to be horridly negative, nobody likes to be henpecked that much, but in ampifiers that's what occurs, only ithe reality is that the mistakes the amp makes are fed back in opposite phase to oppose their own creation as they are created so less of a mistake occurs. Under such circumstances, and considering that no correction system is perfect because it includes the forward path of the misbehaving amp then there are mistakes in this mistake fixing process and it results in some ""second order"" harmonic products being formed which under some circumstances make the amp sound worse than if no NFB was applied. But where the distortion is less than 10%, the bandwidth without NFB is adequate, phase shift low, and applied NFB about over 14dB, the reduction of THD is going to sound better than had nothing been done and no FB applied. There are many books on the subject of NFB. Have you read any? Patrick Turner. |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Lost'n Found wrote
Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? I know it is a question that . . . . -_- sigh But still, what do you think? I think we can't live without feedback, so what is ur feedback? Ah, well, erm...we seem to like arguing about it, anyway. Firstly, on the definition of feedback. Every real dynamic system contains feedback in the sense of regulation due to load, or dynamic equilibrium. This sense is trivial for our purposes. Engineers have a particular meaning, however, which comes from and is precisely defined by control system theory. One part of this definition is the "canonical system diagram", which represents a system as a forward function, whose output is summed with (or subtracted from) the system input, and whose input is that sum. There is no function in the feedback path. The implication is that the forward and feedback paths must be separate and distinct. If there is in reality only one path from input to output, then the analysis becomes trivial, and there is no point in considering it as a system with feedback. Feedback in the trivial sense cannot be a bad thing because it is in everything. Hence if it is bad, there is no such thing as good, in which case bad becomes as trivial as the feedback: it doesn't exist. Feedback in the engineering sense is a bad thing, IMHO. Often, however, it is less bad than its absence in a particular real circuit. Think of it like medicine. Never a good thing, but better than being sick. Bad because it is a complication. Because it is problematic and the problems require solutions at the expense of further complication. Because the complication is not euphonic and so, because the solutions are never perfect, the inevitable faults aren't musical. The issue is strongly linked to another. Some believe that domestic audio systems should be excluded from the category of musical instrument, on the grounds that their function is merely to reproduce. It follows from this premise that performance can be measured in terms of deviations from some original music that happened somewhere else, or at a different time, or both. Performance measured by such criteria is always improved by any reduction in the sum of deviations. Perfection is guaranteed if every deviation is zero, and hence the sum of deviations is also zero. Such perfection cannot be achieved without feedback, and in reality so far feedback has been found necessary to get even close. Several problems arise from that view. Such perfection is not actually possible: deviation is never quite zero. On the simple face of this, there is no agreed method of combining various deviations, or kinds of distortion, into a single measure. Hence there is no single measure of quality. As a simple example, if I can reduce 2H distortion by 20dB at the expense of creating 3dB of extra 7H and a spot of crossover distortion, is that an improvement? Or a matter of taste...perhaps even statistically average taste? Second, rather less simply, it is close to self-evident to say that the idea of reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock concert in my room is impossible. Two speakers in this room is just never going to do that. Now, it is possible to see this in terms of error, as an engineer might, and end up with another matter of taste. I believe there is a serious philosophical question behind all this. I don't actually *want* a reproduction. Music is music...it is indubitably here in my room...my system is making actual real music. Judging it by the sum of differences is just not appropriate. Fidelity is not the same thing as precision. I want my music to be coherent *in its own right*, to have its own spirit and life. I want to hear the music the musicians play, not what they measure. That is not a matter of taste, but one that begs philosophical interpretation. The same question arises in a different form if I ask whether there is a single, perfectly right and proper way of playing, say, Beethoven's 5th? Obviously not, so is every performance, regardless of any measure of quality, of equal merit? Obviously not. How do we define fidelity? How do we judge performance? When it seems just right, just now. It is a single feeling, not a sum of differences. It is unlikely to come from a system with lots of feedback, which is aimed at the sum of differences. Some report it is possible, more or less just about nearly, with none. Or very little. You'll know when, or not. cheers, Ian "in message . .. |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Ian Iveson wrote: Lost'n Found wrote Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? I know it is a question that . . . . -_- sigh But still, what do you think? I think we can't live without feedback, so what is ur feedback? Ah, well, erm...we seem to like arguing about it, anyway. Firstly, on the definition of feedback. Every real dynamic system contains feedback in the sense of regulation due to load, or dynamic equilibrium. This sense is trivial for our purposes. Engineers have a particular meaning, however, which comes from and is precisely defined by control system theory. One part of this definition is the "canonical system diagram", which represents a system as a forward function, whose output is summed with (or subtracted from) the system input, and whose input is that sum. There is no function in the feedback path. The implication is that the forward and feedback paths must be separate and distinct. If there is in reality only one path from input to output, then the analysis becomes trivial, and there is no point in considering it as a system with feedback. Feedback in the trivial sense cannot be a bad thing because it is in everything. Absolute BS. NFB is NOT in everything. Really, Ian, you should wash your brain with soap because its full of BS. You cannot accept that NFB exists in a triode, so now NFB is in evrything. All who read Ian's posts should have their BS detectors turned on, and air conditioning set to deal with the blast of hot air. Patrick Turner. Hence if it is bad, there is no such thing as good, in which case bad becomes as trivial as the feedback: it doesn't exist. Feedback in the engineering sense is a bad thing, IMHO. Often, however, it is less bad than its absence in a particular real circuit. Think of it like medicine. Never a good thing, but better than being sick. Bad because it is a complication. Because it is problematic and the problems require solutions at the expense of further complication. Because the complication is not euphonic and so, because the solutions are never perfect, the inevitable faults aren't musical. The issue is strongly linked to another. Some believe that domestic audio systems should be excluded from the category of musical instrument, on the grounds that their function is merely to reproduce. It follows from this premise that performance can be measured in terms of deviations from some original music that happened somewhere else, or at a different time, or both. Performance measured by such criteria is always improved by any reduction in the sum of deviations. Perfection is guaranteed if every deviation is zero, and hence the sum of deviations is also zero. Such perfection cannot be achieved without feedback, and in reality so far feedback has been found necessary to get even close. Several problems arise from that view. Such perfection is not actually possible: deviation is never quite zero. On the simple face of this, there is no agreed method of combining various deviations, or kinds of distortion, into a single measure. Hence there is no single measure of quality. As a simple example, if I can reduce 2H distortion by 20dB at the expense of creating 3dB of extra 7H and a spot of crossover distortion, is that an improvement? Or a matter of taste...perhaps even statistically average taste? Second, rather less simply, it is close to self-evident to say that the idea of reproducing the sound of a symphony orchestra or a rock concert in my room is impossible. Two speakers in this room is just never going to do that. Now, it is possible to see this in terms of error, as an engineer might, and end up with another matter of taste. I believe there is a serious philosophical question behind all this. I don't actually *want* a reproduction. Music is music...it is indubitably here in my room...my system is making actual real music. Judging it by the sum of differences is just not appropriate. Fidelity is not the same thing as precision. I want my music to be coherent *in its own right*, to have its own spirit and life. I want to hear the music the musicians play, not what they measure. That is not a matter of taste, but one that begs philosophical interpretation. The same question arises in a different form if I ask whether there is a single, perfectly right and proper way of playing, say, Beethoven's 5th? Obviously not, so is every performance, regardless of any measure of quality, of equal merit? Obviously not. How do we define fidelity? How do we judge performance? When it seems just right, just now. It is a single feeling, not a sum of differences. It is unlikely to come from a system with lots of feedback, which is aimed at the sum of differences. Some report it is possible, more or less just about nearly, with none. Or very little. You'll know when, or not. cheers, Ian "in message . .. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Daft Patrick blurted
Feedback in the trivial sense cannot be a bad thing because it is in everything. Absolute BS. NFB is NOT in everything. Really, Ian, you should wash your brain with soap because its full of BS. You cannot accept that NFB exists in a triode, so now NFB is in evrything. All who read Ian's posts should have their BS detectors turned on, and air conditioning set to deal with the blast of hot air. The whole world, and everything in it, is in a state of shifting dynamic equilibrium, or dynamic not-quite-equilibrium. Everything suffers its own consequences, and those of everything else, to some degree. Even you. And, incidentally, not all quacking things are ducks, as many ducks have found to their cost. Ian |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Ian Iveson wrote: Daft Patrick blurted Feedback in the trivial sense cannot be a bad thing because it is in everything. Absolute BS. NFB is NOT in everything. Really, Ian, you should wash your brain with soap because its full of BS. You cannot accept that NFB exists in a triode, so now NFB is in evrything. All who read Ian's posts should have their BS detectors turned on, and air conditioning set to deal with the blast of hot air. The whole world, and everything in it, is in a state of shifting dynamic equilibrium, or dynamic not-quite-equilibrium. Everything suffers its own consequences, and those of everything else, to some degree. Even you. And, incidentally, not all quacking things are ducks, as many ducks have found to their cost. Ian Ian, you are really trying hard to be the Prince of Fools. If BS was music, you'd be a brass band. You have no grip on reality. Patrick Turner. |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Lost'n Found wrote: Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? It's not really a case of liking or disliking it. You can't make a very linear amplifier without using it. Case closed. A LOT of nonsense is talked about feedback, mostly by the uninformed / foolish / gullible / wannabe crowd. Graham |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
"Eeyore" Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? It's not really a case of liking or disliking it. You can't make a very linear amplifier without using it. Case closed. ** This pommy lass has had some success using class A, mosfets & transformers. http://www.susan-parker.co.uk/zeus.htm Good to see she finally figured out the difference between a "lateral" and "vertical" mosfet. http://www.susan-parker.co.uk/zeus-t...9-fft-1khz.htm ........ Phil |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
"Lost'n Found" said:
Do you guys like or dislike feedback in amplifiers? I know it is a question that . . . . -_- sigh But still, what do you think? I think we can't live without feedback, so what is ur feedback? Every amplifier uses feedback, but us tubies usually only use the "local feedback" variety. A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. So it's not a matter of liking or not liking, it;s just there. Now loop feedback, that's something different. If possible, I try to avoid it in my tube amps, usually because they apparently don't need it. But when they do, I don't hesitate to use it with care. I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Sander deWaal wrote: A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. Strictly speaking that's an *unbypassed* cathode resistor but I know what you're driving at. snip I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Graham |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
In article ,
Eeyore wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. Strictly speaking that's an *unbypassed* cathode resistor but I know what you're driving at. snip I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Wasn't it done about a year ago right here in this group, although it wasn't commercial which I assume is the reason for the disclaimer. Regards, John Byrns |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
John Byrns said:
A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. Strictly speaking that's an *unbypassed* cathode resistor but I know what you're driving at. That's what I meant, sorry. It's njust not a habit of mine to bypass cathodes ;-) I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Wasn't it done about a year ago right here in this group, although it wasn't commercial which I assume is the reason for the disclaimer. Yup. I've tried it with BJTs, and even my hybrid (MOSFET out) amps don't use global feedback for AC (there is a DC servo loop, though). But commercially, I have not seen it. Densen claimed they did it, but it turned out there *was* global feedback in there.......... But we're digressing into silicon again, gentlemen, some readers will punish us for that ;-) -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
Sander deWaal wrote: John Byrns said: A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. Strictly speaking that's an *unbypassed* cathode resistor but I know what you're driving at. That's what I meant, sorry. It's njust not a habit of mine to bypass cathodes ;-) I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Wasn't it done about a year ago right here in this group, although it wasn't commercial which I assume is the reason for the disclaimer. Yup. I've tried it with BJTs, and even my hybrid (MOSFET out) amps don't use global feedback for AC (there is a DC servo loop, though). But commercially, I have not seen it. Densen claimed they did it, but it turned out there *was* global feedback in there.......... But we're digressing into silicon again, gentlemen, some readers will punish us for that ;-) There are plenty of people who have used only emitter or source follower connected output stages which is a localised application of perhaps anything from 15 to 50 dB of series voltage NFB. Some of these ppl then try to jump on the bandwagon to gain approval and sales with ppl who hate global NFB. By not including global NFB, they try to con us into thinking there isn't any NFB, but we know the truth here. Now providing the output stages are in class A, then the local follower NFB is enough to render the silicon output stage to be as linear as any triode output stage of the same power. Typically, a single complememntary source follower couple of NPN and PNP power mosfets can give less than 1% THD into 16 ohms at 25 watts at clipping in pure class A. The THD is a combination of mainly 2H and 3H and fairly benign THD at low levels where such an amp would typically be used to make less than a watt of average power, and where the THD is typically less than 0.2%. Using 6 mosfets instead of 2 gives 1/3 of the THD because the load each mosfet sees in class A rises from 32 ohms to 96 ohms and the amount of follower FB is increased 3 times. Bias can be reduced to keep the sixpack cool, and the AB transition is tolerable. But you have to provide a drive voltage slightly greater than the speaker voltage. So the driver amp using BJTs has to be linear, and a ziclai pair with its own NFB and a +70V supply is a nice candidate, or else a tubed driver stage with a couple of triodes and FB loop. The simplest driver would be say a pair of EL84 in triode in parallel with choke loading and this should give 20Vrms at less than 0.5%, or a lot less than the output stage of mosfets, and the Rout of the triode drive stage will be only about 1k, have gain at about 18, have no NFB and give sufficient bandwidth in the face of the input capacitance of the mosfets which is reduced from the Cg-s stated in the data due to the follower connection. Better results are obtained when the mosfet amp uses an OPT and is driven with a PP LTP because the output device symmetry acts to keep the THD much lower than N and P devices. The OPT allows load matching. See my page on class A mosfets with a combination of shunt NFB and global FB at http://www.turneraudio.com.au/solids...no-mosfet.html My intended improvement to my ciruitry is to replace the bjts at the input with 2SK369 high gm j-fets which then should drive the mosfet output stage without the bjt N&D of the present set up. In case you were not aware of what simplicity really was, try having a look at the ZEUS amplifier at Sue Parker's website at http://www.susan-parker.co.uk/zeus.htm The only problem for us tubies with Sue's amp is the low input resistance because of the step up input tranny. Hence a PP triode LTP driving the mosfet gates should make a lot of sense to those of us who are not fond of input trannies, even when they are wide band toroidals. I am not worried by people wanting yo lynch me on a stout oak tree branch because i dare to recommend silicon as a means to an end. I like blondes, brunettes, AND redheads. Patrick Turner. -- "Due knot trussed yore spell chequer two fined awl miss steaks." |
#14
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Feedback
John Byrns wrote: Eeyore wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: A cathode resistor is local feedback, and some even argue that a triode has inherent feedback. Strictly speaking that's an *unbypassed* cathode resistor but I know what you're driving at. snip I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Wasn't it done about a year ago right here in this group, although it wasn't commercial which I assume is the reason for the disclaimer. I'm not sure. It's entirely possible I made the same claim a year ago though. I know exactly how to do it. It's almost trivial in fact. I guess it might actually be commercially viable given the crazy claims being made about feedback. Graham |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
The Longears ZNFB Silicon Amp (LZSA or Elzilsa) Feedback
Eeyore wrote: John Byrns wrote: Eeyore wrote: Sander deWaal wrote: I know of no (commercial) transistor amp that can work without loop feedback. It could be done though. It's simply not conventional to do so. Wasn't it done about a year ago right here in this group, although it wasn't commercial which I assume is the reason for the disclaimer. I'm not sure. It's entirely possible I made the same claim a year ago though. You're tripping over your ego again, Poopie, thinking everything everyone says relates to you. But Mr Byrns is referring to an outstanding solid state amplifier designed by that great post office engineer Stewart Pinkerton. I know exactly how to do it. It's almost trivial in fact. Go for it, Longears. We'll agree the spec and then you can draw, develop and publish the design, running a thread here all the time with an account of how you're going. Be a way for you to regain some respect. I guess the first parameter should be ZNFB, though we might have to be a bit flexible about that. I guess it might actually be commercially viable given the crazy claims being made about feedback. Forget a commercial deal. That's too tough a test to set; designing the thing to a ZNFB parameter is a tough enough nut to crack. Graham Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ "wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Diodes, triodes, and negative feedback | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Negative Feedback and the Criminal Assets Recovery Bureau | Vacuum Tubes | |||
The Catch-22 of Negative Feedback aka NFB | Audio Opinions |