Simple error correction amp ?

forr · 22nd September 2009, 01:04 PM

This circuit was proposed by K H Ellis in Electronics World "Circuit ideas" in December 1996 and then almost entirely quoted again by William de Bruyn in a short review of EC amps in the following June issue (a resistor seems to be missing between points P and R).
Has anybody tried it ?
As Ellis praised, any comments welcome.

jan.didden · 22nd September 2009, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forr

This circuit was proposed by K H Ellis in Electronics World "Circuit ideas" in December 1996 and then almost entirely quoted again by William de Bruyn in a short review of EC amps in the following June issue (a resistor seems to be missing between points P and R).
Has anybody tried it ?
As Ellis praised, any comments welcome.

The idea is nice, but looking at the impedances around the ec circuit, it appears the author hasn't grasped the significant details

.
The way it is implementad it is an addition of both neg and pos feedback, but not in the correct proportions to qualify as Hawksford ec.

Do you have the full article, forr?

jd

forr · 22nd September 2009, 04:26 PM

The Ellis's article is very short. I'll send it to you.
Press ENTER to look up in Wiktionary or CTRL+ENTER to look up in Wikipedia

jan.didden · 22nd September 2009, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by forr

The Ellis's article is very short. I'll send it to you.
Press ENTER to look up in Wiktionary or CTRL+ENTER to look up in Wikipedia

Merci beaucoup!

jd

darkfenriz · 23rd September 2009, 07:22 AM

Seems like a resistor from point P to R is missing. As it is the lousy version of feedback loop.

jan.didden · 23rd September 2009, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfenriz

Seems like a resistor from point P to R is missing. As it is the lousy version of feedback loop.

Yes that R is surely missing. But with 3.9K there, if you do the calculations for an Hawksford ec loop, he gets close, but not quite. I'm pretty sure that the adjustment pot is necessary to avoid instability, but it also destroys the error cancellation.

jd

Lumba Ogir · 23rd September 2009, 08:16 AM

Howdy,
there`s no need for that horrible "error canceling" circuit here. This output stage would produce less errors without the ICs and the other polluting parts.

jan.didden · 23rd September 2009, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumba Ogir

Howdy,
there`s no need for that horrible "error canceling" circuit here. This output stage would produce less errors without the ICs and the other polluting parts.

Lumba,

Instead of showing everybody here that you are not up to speed on Hawksford error correction, you may want to read this:

http://www.essex.ac.uk/csee/research...amplifiers.pdf

Then we can talk intelligently.

jd

Lumba Ogir · 26th September 2009, 07:05 AM

Thank you, Jan. The substance of this paper is in harmony with my basic views. Things like the importance of wide bandwidth and the devastating impact of feedback from the output to the driving stages are pointed out. I`m still reading it.
Error feedforward (by H. Black, the inventor of negative feedback) offers some attractive features, such as a more extensive cancellation of residual distortions than negative feedback, no closed loop, no excess gain requirement, furthermore the main amplifier`s input is theoretically independent from the output. On the other hand, it requires matched components, the impedance seen by the error amplifier varies with signal amplitude and switching distortion may occur.
Quite a few proposals for error correction have been presented, but don`t expect any effortless practical implementation. Error correction circuits do harm as well, whereby the disadvantages can easily exceed the advantages. A careful functional and subjective performance evaluation is indispensable.
After properly assigned goals, a realization with discrete parts could be interesting. I strongly dislike the approach in post #1.
The CFP implies a mildly harmful error correction technique, working in a direct, efficient and precise manner.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
error correction in discrete I/V	Onvinyl	Digital Source	4	9th January 2012 02:35 PM
New error correction amp	PMA	Solid State	101	3rd January 2011 11:00 PM
Re: New error correction amp	mefistofelez	Solid State	12	7th October 2010 06:55 AM
error correction et al'	sq225917	Digital Source	4	7th August 2007 10:16 AM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

22nd September 2009, 04:26 PM	#3
forr diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Next door	The Ellis's article is very short. I'll send it to you. Press ENTER to look up in Wiktionary or CTRL+ENTER to look up in Wikipedia

23rd September 2009, 07:22 AM	#5
darkfenriz diyAudio Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Warsaw	Seems like a resistor from point P to R is missing. As it is the lousy version of feedback loop.

23rd September 2009, 08:16 AM	#7
Lumba Ogir Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Stockholm	Howdy, there`s no need for that horrible "error canceling" circuit here. This output stage would produce less errors without the ICs and the other polluting parts.

26th September 2009, 07:05 AM	#9
Lumba Ogir Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Stockholm	Thank you, Jan. The substance of this paper is in harmony with my basic views. Things like the importance of wide bandwidth and the devastating impact of feedback from the output to the driving stages are pointed out. I`m still reading it. Error feedforward (by H. Black, the inventor of negative feedback) offers some attractive features, such as a more extensive cancellation of residual distortions than negative feedback, no closed loop, no excess gain requirement, furthermore the main amplifier`s input is theoretically independent from the output. On the other hand, it requires matched components, the impedance seen by the error amplifier varies with signal amplitude and switching distortion may occur. Quite a few proposals for error correction have been presented, but don`t expect any effortless practical implementation. Error correction circuits do harm as well, whereby the disadvantages can easily exceed the advantages. A careful functional and subjective performance evaluation is indispensable. After properly assigned goals, a realization with discrete parts could be interesting. I strongly dislike the approach in post #1. The CFP implies a mildly harmful error correction technique, working in a direct, efficient and precise manner.