Bob Cordell Interview: Error Correction

RMAF show report and pictures

For those interested, I've put a Rocky Mountain Audio Fest show report and a number of pictures up on my web site at www.cordellaudio.com under the RMAF Workshops tab. Peter and Darren and I had a blast there, both giving the workshops and seeing the show. It is a great show to go to, if you ever get a chance.

I also discovered that I had left off Part Two of my paper, "Another View of TIM" under Published Papers, and that is now corrected.

Bob
 
Bob Cordell said:



Yes, it seems that IC's do make a difference, perhaps for reasons that we don't understand. I'm not talking about PIM here. The 25-year-old NE5534 family of IC's has remarkably low distortion (including virtually unmeasurable PIM), yet there is a lot of evidence that newer op amps sound better.
Bob

I would suggest this has more to do with the old psychological mechanism: ''newer is always better''.

I have had an OPA627-based preamp compared with an otherwise identical NE5534-equipped version in casual blind listening tests; no difference could be detected.
 
Re: Folded emitter followers

Bob Cordell said:

Note also that the collector-base capacitance of the driver is then bootstrapped by the signal. Obviously, don't try this at home if you are not familiar with HF stability issues in such a connection. This circuit also has some very big advantages under fault conditions.

I am not familiar with it in practice.
What is surprising or unexpected in HF behaviuor of this circuit?

regards
Adam
 
lumanauw said:
Hi, Bob Cordell,

In your opinion, what makes a non-global feedback sounds different than a global feedback amp? Non-global feedback amp (a good design) can sound more relaxed to our ears.

Usually it comes to output impedance (global feedback amp has low output impedance). But is this all the difference, or there is something else that differs from global feedback amp and non-global feedback amp, that our ear can hear?

How about this : a non global feedback amp, but has a Hawksford EC on the output stage (=low output impedance without global feedback). Will this sounds like global feedback amp or non-global feedback amp?

Here is another, perhaps better way to do the experiment: Take a very good non-feedback design like the Ayre and compare it to a good feedback design of slightly higher power rating with the following changes made to it: add an output resistance to make the damping factors about the same, and add a soft clip circuit to the input of the feedback amplifier and adjust it so that both amplifiers hit, say, 0.3% 1 kHz THD at the same power level. Then do a listening comparison of these two amplifiers where the levels, as read at the speaker's terminals, are matched to within 0.1 dB. Also be sure that the small-signal frequency responses, as measured at the loudspeaker terminals, are within about 0.1 dB of each other for both amplifiers across the band. This latter may or may not be possible if the Non-feedback amplifier's damping factor changes a lot in-band.

We all know, of course, that something sounding different is not necessarily better, and that something sounding better is not necessarily the same as being more faithful. This is where the matter of taste and initial sonic impressions come in.

Whenever I try to think of why classic vacuum tube amplifiers (e.g., Class AB push-pull) may sound different from solid state amplifiers, I think of differences in damping factor and clipping behavior first.

Bob
 
Bob Cordell said:

Also be sure that the small-signal frequency responses, as measured at the loudspeaker terminals, are within about 0.1 dB of each other for both amplifiers across the band. This latter may or may not be possible if the Non-feedback amplifier's damping factor changes a lot in-band.
...
Whenever I try to think of why classic vacuum tube amplifiers (e.g., Class AB push-pull) may sound different from solid state amplifiers, I think of differences in damping factor and clipping behavior first.

Bob


I think this damping factor is pretty much overrated. The voice coil is accelerated and stopped by current (hopefuly, and as far as the amplifier is concerned), and an average 8 Ohm speaker has abt. 4-6 Ohm DC resistance. Now let your amplifier have 1 mOhm or 10 or 100 mOhm source impedance, -- it makes no difference. A value as bad as 100 mOhm would count as confession of incompetence.

regards, Gerhard

As a factoid, my B&W 804 S features 4.4 Ohms at DC (just checked), and although not measured myself, it won't drop below that over frequency IIR the data sheet correctly.
 
vuki said:
Why not take good sounding NFB tube amplifier and add switchable FB path?
In my expirience the sound is worse with FB and I can easily hear it as slight loss of low level details (piano tone decay, cymbal shimmer etc.). :confused:

What do you mean with NFB, NoFeedback or NegativeFeedback?
Anyway, this won't work, because in order to apply feedback you need to have a lot of excess gain and this won't be there in a finished amplifier.

Gerhard
 
Bob Cordell said:




Whenever I try to think of why classic vacuum tube amplifiers (e.g., Class AB push-pull) may sound different from solid state amplifiers, I think of differences in damping factor and clipping behavior first.

Bob

Bob, such clipping factor that causes higher audible IMD on high power is the price we pay for low distortions on low power, especially on high end of the audio spectrum. Well designed single ended class A amplifier may sound "tubey" without such "clipping factor", that is the proof, at least for me and some audio engineers who agree with me, that low order clipping factor is not what characterizes the tube sound. However, diode limiters I use on inputs of my amps may clip similarly, but I mean the sound on levels below the clipping level.
 
gerhard said:



I think this damping factor is pretty much overrated. The voice coil is accelerated and stopped by current (hopefuly, and as far as the amplifier is concerned), and an average 8 Ohm speaker has abt. 4-6 Ohm DC resistance. Now let your amplifier have 1 mOhm or 10 or 100 mOhm source impedance, -- it makes no difference. A value as bad as 100 mOhm would count as confession of incompetence.

regards, Gerhard

As a factoid, my B&W 804 S features 4.4 Ohms at DC (just checked), and although not measured myself, it won't drop below that over frequency IIR the data sheet correctly.

Maybe not that simple...

Have a look at http://www.mhsoft.nl/spk_calc.asp , go down to "New Qts with series inductor", enter the datas from your woofer, and a series resistor. Observe how quick the Qts changes and messes up the tuning of your speaker.

But please, leat us not start the DF-war here...

Mike
 
MikeB said:


This is the worst way to use feedback ! Of course your amp will sound worse... If feedback, do it correctly and use at least maybe 40db.
A common mistake with feedback is using not enough of it, or too much of it making the amp only conditionally stable.

Mike

:yes:

And even in this case some small details help drammatically, for example 2 mA bias from positive power rail to the output of 5532.
 
Administrator
Joined 2004
Paid Member
Hi Wavebourn,
The old uA739 / uA749 IC's used a pull down resistor or current source depending on the model.

Loading the output of an op amp was a fashion a while ago, no doubt there are still people who do that. I don't recommend it unless you have an op amp that suffers from crossover distortion. The 5532 doesn't.

-Chris
 
Whenever I try to think of why classic vacuum tube amplifiers (e.g., Class AB push-pull) may sound different from solid state amplifiers, I think of differences in damping factor and clipping behavior first.

Hi, Bob Cordell,

Thanks for the info :D

, and add a soft clip circuit to the input of the feedback amplifier
What is a soft clip cct in input of feedback amp looks like? Do you have a drawing of this?
 
lumanauw said:



What is a soft clip cct in input of feedback amp looks like? Do you have a drawing of this?

I don't think it is different from mine:

input_limiter.gif