Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Solid State

Solid State Talk all about solid state amplification.

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
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 1st July 2012, 04:38 PM   #2671
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
I think that Wahab was talking about a different distortion mechanism, for example commode distortion of the IPS. Also remember that one half of the IPS stays outside the NFB loop. So, even with 1000dB loop gain, distortion stemming from this 'half' will not decreased.

Cheers,
E.
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 04:45 PM   #2672
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Yes, agreed, but if you read from the start, the issue was different.
In fact there were several, one being that nfb cannot lower distortion of a stage before the gain stage, which is not true.

But I think I made my point, so I have no desire for yet another discussion.
BTW Isn't it time for your daily beer

jan
__________________
Never explain - your friends don't need it and your enemies won't believe you anyway - E. Hubbart
Check out Linear Audio Vol 7
!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 04:53 PM   #2673
diyAudio Member
 
Lazy Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Input stage in SSA is in a deep class A, VAS input current is hundreds times lower than IPS quiescent current in that case both periods of a NFB signal completely affect/interact with the input signal in a linear manner. CFB has major advantage compared to other types of diff inputs and that is direct subtraction at the same junction as input. Input node is high impedance and CFB from the output low impedance, so naturally correct impedance matching as it should be. I don't see the need the output signal should be send to diff input via another high impedance device as with LTP-s.

All in all that natural impedance match and subtraction in a simplest possible way can be clearly heard as superior sound to more standard LTP IPS.

Last edited by Lazy Cat; 1st July 2012 at 04:59 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 05:28 PM   #2674
Jay is offline Jay  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
Quote:
Originally Posted by FdW View Post
And? is there anything else that matters? Maybe my point was that I totally agree to Jan's point.
Of course everyone will agree with Jan, even probably with everyone else. That's if you tried to read between the lines and never tried to find flaws in semantics. Once you tried to find flaws in somebody's statement, he might in turn try to find flaws in your statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FdW View Post
And? is there anything else that matters?
I don't know the point of your question, but of course there is something matters here. THD is measured after the final stage, right? But it doesn't tell you the open loop condition. 0.01% open loop can sometimes be better than 0.001% closed loop. I mean, the condition before the NFB is applied is very important, and it isn't showed in the standard THD figure. I already posted my opinion about JFET-input double LTP topology, why I don't like it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 06:31 PM   #2675
FdW is offline FdW  Netherlands
diyAudio Member
 
FdW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Both feet on the ground (near Gouda)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
Of course everyone will agree with Jan, even probably with everyone else. That's if you tried to read between the lines and never tried to find flaws in semantics. Once you tried to find flaws in somebody's statement, he might in turn try to find flaws in your statement.
This is poppycock, why would every one agree with Jan? Why would every one agree with everyone else? And why would that be probable? Why would you search for faults (alone) and not for truth... I will not discuss this any further. (these are questions for myth-busters).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay View Post
I don't know the point of your question, but of course there is something matters here. THD is measured after the final stage, right? But it doesn't tell you the open loop condition. 0.01% open loop can sometimes be better than 0.001% closed loop. I mean, the condition before the NFB is applied is very important, and it isn't showed in the standard THD figure. I already posted my opinion about JFET-input double LTP topology, why I don't like it.
In the end the only thing of interest is what comes out (in relation to what was put in) the observer (listener/judge) is not interested in the number and type of stages in-between. There are people that claim that zero (stages in-between) is the best (and they may have a point) but I would say that any number of undetectable stages is fine also. It has nothing to do with type, it has to do with detectability and desirability (or total THD). P.s. the questions where rhetorical.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 06:34 PM   #2676
diyAudio Member
 
Edmond Stuart's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Amsterdam
Default beer

Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
[...]
BTW Isn't it time for your daily beer

jan
After dropping my post I went right to Hoppe.
__________________
Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht, zal meer dan lijf en
goed verliezen dan dooft het licht…(H.M. van Randwijk)
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 06:40 PM   #2677
wahab is offline wahab  Algeria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edmond Stuart View Post
I think that Wahab was talking about a different distortion mechanism, for example commode distortion of the IPS. Also remember that one half of the IPS stays outside the NFB loop. So, even with 1000dB loop gain, distortion stemming from this 'half' will not decreased.

Cheers,
E.
Hi , Edmond

I was talking effectively of the impossibility for a GNFB loop
comprising several stages to reduce distorsion of a given stage
using available loop gain provided by the following stages.

To simplify , the IPS gain used for GNFB can reduce distorsion of the VAS
as well as the one produced by the OS , while eventual loop gain quantity
that originate from the VAS can reduce distorsion for the VAS and the OS.

If the OS has also some gain that is used for GNFB , this loop gain
quantity could only reduce the distorsion of the OS.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 06:43 PM   #2678
wahab is offline wahab  Algeria
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: algeria/france
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
In fact there were several, one being that nfb cannot lower distortion of a stage before the gain stage, which is not true.
That was the point , indeed , and we do not agree about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janneman View Post
But I think I made my point, so I have no desire for yet another discussion.
BTW Isn't it time for your daily beer

jan
Well , i did settle for coffee , do not see any will of contradiction in it...
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st July 2012, 08:08 PM   #2679
Jay is offline Jay  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Jakarta
Quote:
Originally Posted by FdW View Post
P.s. the questions where rhetorical.
I know it was rhetorical. And now I know your point, exactly as I guessed.

This is nothing new. There has been 2 camps since long time ago. I belong to one camp, and you the other one . Trying to find out which is wrong is useless. Trying to find out the truth is useful (such intention can be seen from open mindset, questioning own self).

Quote:
Originally Posted by FdW View Post
In the end the only thing of interest is what comes out (in relation to what was put in)
The problem is that THD has nothing to do (not 100%) with what is perceived or heard. Yes, we care only with what comes out in relation with what was put in. But remember, in music we never put in pure sine waves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FdW View Post
the observer (listener/judge) is not interested in the number and type of stages in-between. There are people that claim that zero (stages in-between) is the best (and they may have a point) but I would say that any number of undetectable stages is fine also. It has nothing to do with type, it has to do with detectability and desirability (or total THD). P.s. the questions where rhetorical.
Yes, the observer is only interested in the quality of the sound. But observers have different experience in observing the sound. Some people find certain phenomena and have hard times to find the answer/reason for the existence of the phenomena, while some others do not find the phenomena exist.

So the blame is on those who see the phenomena because they cannot find the proper explanation. Sometimes, complex minds just make mistakes, and they can look like idiot minds, just because they stretch their mind.
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd July 2012, 02:55 AM   #2680
Bigun is offline Bigun  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Bigun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Blog Entries: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by wahab View Post
I was talking effectively of the impossibility for a GNFB loop
comprising several stages to reduce distorsion of a given stage
using available loop gain provided by the following stages.

To simplify , the IPS gain used for GNFB can reduce distorsion of the VAS
as well as the one produced by the OS , while eventual loop gain quantity
that originate from the VAS can reduce distorsion for the VAS and the OS.

If the OS has also some gain that is used for GNFB , this loop gain
quantity could only reduce the distorsion of the OS.
I'm afraid that according to my understanding (I don't claim to have a perfect understanding of anything in this world) most, if not all of this, is completely wrong and will be confusing.

The thing about nfb is that it acts to reduce distortion from the composite of everything inside it's loop. The feedback loop is 'blind' to what is inside the loop, it 'cares' only about the net result of everything inside the loop that affects the signal at the output (i.e. wherever the nfb take off point is). There is no merit in discussion about the levels of distortion of some pieces of what is inside the loop when the loop is closed. It only makes sense to talk about the distortion of what each piece inside the loop contributes to the result when the feedback loop is open.

When the nfb loop is closed, the distortion produced by each piece inside the loop doesn't change since nothing physically has changed to these pieces (no doubt there are exemptions, but perhaps only under circumstances such as clipping). If the middle piece of the circuit adds 1% distortion to the signal passing through it with nfb loop open, it will still add 1% distortion to the signal passing through it with the nfb closed.

As has already been said, the nfb changes the input signal to the circuitry inside the nfb loop. Once that signal progresses through the circuitry inside the loop the nfb, closed or not, has no influence.

A rather unscientific way of thinking about it, although not entirely accurate, is to say that the gnu loop 'looks' at the distortion at the output, then applies a reverse copy of this distortion back to the input so as to cancel out the distortion generated by the circuitry inside the nfb loop. It doesn't 'see' or know what is inside the loop, it only 'sees' what appears at the output. Because it has to 'look' at the distortion at the output there must be some distortion at the output for it to work - so paradoxically it can never remove all the distortion (feedforward can pull that trick off, but it's harder to do).
__________________
"The test of the machine is the satisfaction it gives you. There isn't any other test. If the machine produces tranquility it's right. If it disturbs you it's wrong until either the machine or your mind is changed." Robert M Pirsig.

Last edited by Bigun; 2nd July 2012 at 03:04 AM.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Symetrical schematics are alike plague in Brazil, do you like them? destroyer X Solid State 151 1st July 2010 02:09 PM
Symetrical out low Zout karsten21 Tubes / Valves 5 1st February 2010 10:19 PM
going balanced/symetrical - what benefits? weissi Solid State 15 20th October 2007 08:06 AM
Symetrical field, is this? Raka Multi-Way 6 14th September 2003 01:21 PM
Non-symetrical SMPS output cm961 Parts 4 21st August 2003 10:27 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:33 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2