Pros and Cons of current feedback amplifier. - Page 2 - diyAudio
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 15th March 2013, 02:46 PM   #11
diyAudio Member
 
Osvaldo de Banfield's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Barrio Garay,Almirante Brown, Buenos Aires, Argentina
I see the circuit in an old printed manual, in this page it is say to be "low cost" because of lower component bill, but I never try this wiring. As I say in other thread, it is anti-theory to drive a loudspeaker in high impedance.
__________________
LW1DSE
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 02:51 PM   #12
forr is offline forr  France
diyAudio Member
 
forr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Next door
Quote:
Originally Posted by hahfran View Post
That entirely misses the point
So do Gilbert, Wurcer, Self, Horowtiz and Hill and many other audio designers who all certainly agree with the Wikipedia extract ?
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 03:43 PM   #13
JMFahey is offline JMFahey  Argentina
diyAudio Member
 
JMFahey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Buenos Aires - Argentina
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waly View Post
The schematic, page 2 in the ST datasheet.
You must have a different datasheet, because the one I checked http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/data...cs/mXutuqt.pdf
says nothing of the kind in page 2.
The actual "official" application circuit (which by the way is the one followed by 99.999% of users) is the one on page 6, labelled as "Figure 16. Typical application circuit" and it clearly shows
Quote:
The typical low value resistor network shown provides Voltage fedback.
composed of a 220 ohms resistor and a 2.2 ohms one.

Of course you may use it *without* NFB , a.k.a. "open loop" for some unfathomable reason which is up to you.

That's not what Bruno Murari, the original TDA2002 designer wanted, by the way, and he went to great lengths to avoid it, that's why the low impedance *voltage* feedback network was implemented.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 03:54 PM   #14
diyAudio Member
 
abraxalito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hangzhou - Marco Polo's 'most beautiful city'. 700yrs is a long time though...
Blog Entries: 102
Send a message via MSN to abraxalito Send a message via Yahoo to abraxalito Send a message via Skype™ to abraxalito
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMFahey View Post
You must have a different datasheet, because the one I checked http://www.datasheetcatalog.org/data...cs/mXutuqt.pdf
says nothing of the kind in page 2.
Perhaps the amp's operation mode is opaque to you? If you care to examine the schematic, the negative feedback is provided to Q4's emitter. That's by nature a low impedance node, hence the feedback is by means of current. For a voltage feedback amplifier, the -ve input is high impedance, normally the base of an LTP.
__________________
No matter if we meanwhile surrender every value for which we stand, we must strive to cajole the majority into imagining itself on our side - Everett Dean Martin
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 04:17 PM   #15
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
There might be a semantic issue here. Traditionally, the name 'current feedback' has been given to the kind of feedback that returns a sample of the output current. This could be for instance the voltage across a small resistor in series with the load. Current feedback thus makes the output impedance very high.

With the new so-called 'CFA' opamps that appears to have taken on a new meaning (blame it on the marketeers) namely: feedback to a low impedance node. Personally I think this is an ambiguous way to name it because, what's a low impedance node? The emitter impedance of a starved BJT can be pretty high, while 'voltage feedback' to an invering input fed from a low-impedance source may be pretty low impedance.

But whatever you fancy, you should at least be clear which definition you want to use in this particular discussion.

As to pros and cons: like always in engineering, you can make very good or very bad amps with either technology.....

jan
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 05:47 PM   #16
wg_ski is offline wg_ski  United States
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
A lot of earlier (and nice-sounding) amps used second collector to first emitter feedback. Output followers of course don't count. They didn't need a well-matched and balanced diff pair to see all the benefit of the feedback applied. I'd imagine that the thermal feedback on a TDA20x0 is pretty severe and relying on a diff pair staying balanced was pretty iffy when that device was designed. Doesn't surprise me the choice of input toploogy.
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 06:16 PM   #17
Waly is offline Waly  United Kingdom
diyAudio Member
 
Waly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: London
Quote:
Originally Posted by jan.didden View Post
There might be a semantic issue here. Traditionally, the name 'current feedback' has been given to the kind of feedback that returns a sample of the output current. This could be for instance the voltage across a small resistor in series with the load. Current feedback thus makes the output impedance very high.

With the new so-called 'CFA' opamps that appears to have taken on a new meaning (blame it on the marketeers) namely: feedback to a low impedance node. Personally I think this is an ambiguous way to name it because, what's a low impedance node? The emitter impedance of a starved BJT can be pretty high, while 'voltage feedback' to an invering input fed from a low-impedance source may be pretty low impedance.
No, nothing to do with marketing. It's an illustration of the four types of feedback circuits. Each of these types has it's own formalism, in either h, g, y or m parameters. These are chosen "naturally", based on the impedances, "low" means current, "high" means voltage (at the input) and the other way around for the output. Actually, these formalisms are not bringing anything special, you can analytically evaluate any of the four topologies using e.g. only voltages and impedances (but, you or the computer, be prepared to handle some stupid numbers).

Your simulator doesn't give a rat's *** if the curcuit is voltage or current feedback, it just determines the transfer function you need (U/U, I/U, U/I, I/I).

There are only circuits with inputs and outputs. Some of them can be conveniently analyzed using the feedback concept. For humans, when analyzing (or designing) a new circuit, it is easier to go through an euristic phase and perhaps identify if the circuit functionlity could be understood using some pre-fabricated methodology (like feedback theory).
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 06:52 PM   #18
diyAudio Member
 
jan.didden's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Great City of Turnhout, Belgium
Blog Entries: 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waly View Post
These are chosen "naturally", based on the impedances, "low" means current, "high" means voltage (at the input) and the other way around for the output. .
My point was that the 'traditional' terms were named after what sample you returned, iow voltage feedback meant you took (a sample of) the output voltage and returned that as feedback, while if you sampled the output current you would call that current feedback. It had nothing to do with the impedance of the node to where you send the feedback.

Your interpretation is the newer interpretation that came into swing after the 'CFA' came onto the market.

Neither is intrinsically right or wrong - you agree to the definition and that's it. It's just that there are two types of definitions afoot and I just wanted to flag that.

jan
__________________
If you don't change your beliefs, your life will be like this forever. Is that good news? - W. S. Maugham
Check out Linear Audio!
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 10:30 PM   #19
ontoaba is offline ontoaba  Indonesia
diyAudio Member
 
ontoaba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Kudus, Malang, Dieng
Current feedback uses different way compared to VFB. The output comes from current measurement at the input devices, so there is no market name there. Also current feedback basically work in half (+ or - side only).
  Reply With Quote
Old 15th March 2013, 11:03 PM   #20
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Eastern Pennsylvania
Hi, Guys:

The distinction between voltage feedback (VFB), and current feedback (CFB) seems interesting to ponder. We could say that a distinction is that CFB samples the output current back to the input, while VFB does not. Except that, VFB using a long-tailed input pair constructed of bipolar transistors also samples the output current - since bipolar transistors operate on current conducted through their base electrodes.

Alternately, we could argue that VFB samples the output voltage, while CFB does not. Except that, one can measure a small, but present, signal voltage presented to the non-zero ohm feedback input electrode. The impedances of the respective feedback networks of VFB and CFB reflect the relative impedances of their respective feedback input electrodes. So, I don't feel that distinction get's us at the root of the distinction either.

To me, perhaps, the most relevant operational distinction is that in VFB, the feedback input electrode typically drives the base/gate of a grounded emitter/source stage. In CFB, the feedback input electrode typically drives the emitter/source of a grounded base/gate stage. So, with CFB, we get all of the expected benefits of grounded base/gate operation, such as wide bandwidth and better open loop linearity. However, we also get the expected difficulties, such as low input impedance. We are all describing this core distinction, I think, but just from varying perspectives.
__________________
Ken

Last edited by Ken Newton; 15th March 2013 at 11:12 PM.
  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
Constant Current Pros and Cons GregH2 Solid State 196 5th April 2011 11:46 PM
What are the pros and the cons of those 3 vas ? tessier Solid State 72 6th December 2010 12:34 PM
Cons / Pros Borat Tubes / Valves 34 1st September 2009 12:52 PM
2 way + active sub in same cabinet pros and cons? FE3T Multi-Way 6 12th September 2008 10:34 PM
Pros and Cons of this technique? G Tubes / Valves 35 23rd October 2003 05:37 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:36 PM.


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