There was an amp sometime ago that had an optional third wire for feedback from the speaker + terminal . No idea what and how good .
I saw a valve amp guy define damping factor in a simple way . He said that if he had a damping factor of 4 then the average speaker had a 3 dB exaggeration at the resonate point . As he also said probably unnoticeable over the majority of the frequency range and perhaps nice at resonance to some ? I suspect to be able to go from 4 to 100 would be fun . If I build a bass guitar amp I think it will be used as my tests with that seemed positive . It wasn't boom so much as the ability to open the sound . I could well believe an under-damped amp and Acrostic suspension speakers might be fantastic . AR grew up with Dynaco's . Perhaps that is why they were so well liked ?
I take the idea of a series resistor assisting an amp as possible . A watershed to prevent back EMF entering the global feedback loop , if so could we use much more feedback ? This technique is common in power supplies to prevent hum loops . I think Martin Colloms is about to write about this soon . He will use tests more than ears . To have a very low impedance still seems ideal . If the additional resistance helps it might do even better with a brick-wall low impedance to assist ? It was said that 0R22 helped most amps drive a Quad ESL better .
I wonder also if a negative impedance output and a series resistor has anything to offer ? Using a speaker feedback system ( 3rd wire ) . Lets say 0R47 ? Try to resolve to 0 ohms with the benefit of making the load more restive in terms of VI . I would speculate that negative impedance needs that resistance so as not to over compensate . Compression horns mentioned as the only speakers to benefit . I didn't much like the RCA valve amp that had it . However that was the amp I think ? It was worth a fortune I am told .
I would speculate that Motional feedback only needs a 50 Hz pass band ? Perhaps less if a notch filter ? I think I saw an LED and silver foil reflector used as a way to get the feedback on the centre dome . Some use a feedback tap on the voice coil . If that was used with the Goodmans inductive tweeter idea something very cheap and nice could happen . The Goodmans was like a cheaper Tannoy with no conventional crossover . It was not a wizzer cone either . It looked like a dust cover . If the experience with the Servo Sound is universal the bass cone might need an error signal to work well ? A nice paper cone seems idea .
I saw a valve amp guy define damping factor in a simple way . He said that if he had a damping factor of 4 then the average speaker had a 3 dB exaggeration at the resonate point . As he also said probably unnoticeable over the majority of the frequency range and perhaps nice at resonance to some ? I suspect to be able to go from 4 to 100 would be fun . If I build a bass guitar amp I think it will be used as my tests with that seemed positive . It wasn't boom so much as the ability to open the sound . I could well believe an under-damped amp and Acrostic suspension speakers might be fantastic . AR grew up with Dynaco's . Perhaps that is why they were so well liked ?
I take the idea of a series resistor assisting an amp as possible . A watershed to prevent back EMF entering the global feedback loop , if so could we use much more feedback ? This technique is common in power supplies to prevent hum loops . I think Martin Colloms is about to write about this soon . He will use tests more than ears . To have a very low impedance still seems ideal . If the additional resistance helps it might do even better with a brick-wall low impedance to assist ? It was said that 0R22 helped most amps drive a Quad ESL better .
I wonder also if a negative impedance output and a series resistor has anything to offer ? Using a speaker feedback system ( 3rd wire ) . Lets say 0R47 ? Try to resolve to 0 ohms with the benefit of making the load more restive in terms of VI . I would speculate that negative impedance needs that resistance so as not to over compensate . Compression horns mentioned as the only speakers to benefit . I didn't much like the RCA valve amp that had it . However that was the amp I think ? It was worth a fortune I am told .
I would speculate that Motional feedback only needs a 50 Hz pass band ? Perhaps less if a notch filter ? I think I saw an LED and silver foil reflector used as a way to get the feedback on the centre dome . Some use a feedback tap on the voice coil . If that was used with the Goodmans inductive tweeter idea something very cheap and nice could happen . The Goodmans was like a cheaper Tannoy with no conventional crossover . It was not a wizzer cone either . It looked like a dust cover . If the experience with the Servo Sound is universal the bass cone might need an error signal to work well ? A nice paper cone seems idea .
Last edited:
Back EMF is the voltage coming back from something as a consequence of the current signal you have put into it. Another name for this is impedance. There may be energy storage mechanisms (such as cone resonances) but these can be modelled by including LC tuned circuits in the impedance model.
If you drive something from a pure voltage source then you don't see any back EMF (by definition) but instead you see the current draw varying.
There may be an assumption in this that the equivalent circuit is not time varying, but that will be generally true except in pathological cases.
The simplest example of back EMF is a single pure inductor. The back EMF both defines and is perfectly modelled by the inductance.
If you drive something from a pure voltage source then you don't see any back EMF (by definition) but instead you see the current draw varying.
There may be an assumption in this that the equivalent circuit is not time varying, but that will be generally true except in pathological cases.
The simplest example of back EMF is a single pure inductor. The back EMF both defines and is perfectly modelled by the inductance.
Nige, 3 or 4 parallel/series power devices, especiall when run "hot" (i.e. with a larger bias current), should all by themselves produce a damping factor of 6 or more open loop. Add moderate NFB and you are home and dry in that respect.
True, the DF at 20 kHz will be lower than the DF at say 100 Hz, but then remember that like 90% of the energy used is done below 1 kHz, the energy requirements at 20 kHz are really much lower.
True, the DF at 20 kHz will be lower than the DF at say 100 Hz, but then remember that like 90% of the energy used is done below 1 kHz, the energy requirements at 20 kHz are really much lower.
There is an argument that the dead band of a class B is an issue . Someone called it free fall . I don't see it myself as the transition is fast . I see greater feedback with the lowest possible impedance as good . I suspect converting the load to a more resistive one would be adventurous . If the swings and roundabouts allow more to be gained than lost that is ?
If the free fall is possible then MOS FET's might be better . Class B as in Quad 405 is a sharper switch off . Anyone every put MOSFET's in a 405 ? I think it might have advantages ?
If the free fall is possible then MOS FET's might be better . Class B as in Quad 405 is a sharper switch off . Anyone every put MOSFET's in a 405 ? I think it might have advantages ?
DVV . Good to have some figures . If you get time maybe you could increase your global feedback and add 0R22 ( 12 dB perhaps ) . I have a hunch you will like it . I seem to remember you use a series resistor already ( no choke ) . Years ago a damping factor of 16 was said to be the point where the punch of a speaker is already optimum ( no idea if true ) .
Most high quality op amps sound great at unity gain ( if it is in their design to do it ) . Why not power amps ? I know why not , however is there a sweet spot where feedback is greater and sound better . My hunch is it needs a more restive load to enjoy more feedback .
I read about ricochet effect in studios years ago . To quote ESP on this .
On the other hand, the transformer serves as a 'buffer' between loudspeaker and amp proper. This can be advantageous with practical loudspeakers in avoiding the 'ricochet' effect of transistorised amplifiers faced with back-EMF from loudspeakers resulting from unwanted diaphragm motion. This output from the loudspeaker can, in some circumstances, penetrate back to interfere with a signal passing out toward the speaker; a consequence of the inherently low impedance of transistorised amplifying circuits. Valves are inherently high impedance devices, and the effects of back-EMF from the speaker are therefore far less likely to achieve significant penetration at sufficient level to degrade performance. This must not be confused with damping factor per se which is generally rather better in transistorised amplifiers than in valved models.
Valve Amplifiers
Sometimes ricochet effect was due to the room I think ? The first time I read about it was in that context . The time delay not the same as back EMF . I am not sure if it is a genuine problem .
Nigel, Quad ESL is electrostatic. No back EMF there.
Instead, it is a capacitive load for the output stages. They don’t like the elliptical shaped load “line”(current lead voltage) which they face with electrostatics, thus the "isolating" (makes the ellipse a bit thinner) effect of the series 0R22 is beneficial.
It may only reduce the EMF back signal, unfortunatelly reducing too the amp output signal feeding the speakers).
Ref. techniques for separating the back EMF speaker signal from the amp output signal, there were 2-3 articles (tube circuits) on one of the early “Audio Anthology Volumes”. I don’t remember which one. On the same volume there should be an article for a tube amp with variable output impedance.
Regards
George
Thanks for that, as you say back EMF not an issue , nor damping factor I presume ? .
EMI never got back over Callas . The name Peter Andre was given when I phoned , he seemed a bit young . Also he was Australian , if so he had no obvious accent .
Strange we all know George Martin , we don't know the equally important classical man . I should point out it was the archive department ( Gary ) . Surprised they didn't know . I write some risky things here . I try very hard to open conversations . I get paid nothing and do it out of the need to know . Others are paid and seem to know nothing ! I often do know nothing , I am very willing to learn .
I suspect back EMF is not the issue . I have always doubted it amounted to much power ?
EMI never got back over Callas . The name Peter Andre was given when I phoned , he seemed a bit young . Also he was Australian , if so he had no obvious accent .
Strange we all know George Martin , we don't know the equally important classical man . I should point out it was the archive department ( Gary ) . Surprised they didn't know . I write some risky things here . I try very hard to open conversations . I get paid nothing and do it out of the need to know . Others are paid and seem to know nothing ! I often do know nothing , I am very willing to learn .
I suspect back EMF is not the issue . I have always doubted it amounted to much power ?
Last edited:
Aaaaaaaarrrrggghjhhhhh!
Nige, I don't WANT to increase my global feedback over the 26 dB limit. Not that it's too hard to do, I simply have to decrease local stage degeneration and increase overall NFB, but in my FIRM view, it's easier to get the amp to sound good when you do not use more than 26 dB of global NFB.
As for parallelled power resistors in series with the amp output, I saw that for the first time in a project by John Lindsley Hood, in the early 80ies, a project which used IGBT transistors from Toshiba. He claimed that three 0.22 Ohm resistors in parallel helped "significantly" regarding what the loudspeaker may choose to send back to the amp. I am a bit baffled, as 3 time 0.22 in parallel equals just 0.07 Ohms, and to me, that is low, low, low.
The other take on this is to use two diodes from the amp output to the plus and minus power supply line. US designers hardly ever use it, European designers use it almost by default - as do I. Assuming you agree with Harman Kardon that nothing ever sent back will exceed 5 Amps worst impulse case, you can use humble 1N4004/5/6/7 diodes as they do, but I prefer to use 1N5604, I like to overdo it whenever convenient.
Lastly, here I am, trying hard as hell to eliminate all capacitors and inductors from the direct signal path, and then I should stick in resistors I don't really need slap bang in the middle of my signal path? I'll do that when you Brits start serving cold beer.
Last edited:
DVV . I am saying feedback is always good and global the very best . Now I know that will ruffle a few feathers . The reason " none " of us use large amounts of global is we find it passes an optimum point .
A power amp mostly these days is an op amp . Why should a power op amp be different ?
I have found having very high feedback around what is very like an op amp with a current buffer outside the loop works well . The output stage would have a reasonable damping factor as you say with a few output pairs . I realize you prefer a slightly higher output emitter resistor than Douglas Self . He says 0R1 is not dangerous . Myself I would use 6 x 0R1 and 0R47 output . The 0R47 would also drive my protection circuit .
I noticed sometime ago that MOSFET's ( Exicon 10N/P20 ) are happy with very high feedback factors . This helps them produce lower distrotion than some think . They have high Ron which can be reduced by multiple pairs . These often need no source resistors for balance ( Exicon supply matched sets free of charge ) .
I remember years ago discussing racing car engines with a Williams engineer . He said the Honda engines were fitted with a handle . Each passing engineer was asked to turn the handle . This prevented the valve springs from taking a set . We discussed Desmodromic valves as these would go to perhaps 14 000 RPM . Now the F1 cars use Air driven Desmodromics ( Ducati had them for years ) . Old Mr Honda thought any engine that revved to 20 000 RPM past a magic point where the air entering the engine would almost seem as in a jet engine . I think that is where we are with feedback . The valves are too slow ?
A power amp mostly these days is an op amp . Why should a power op amp be different ?
I have found having very high feedback around what is very like an op amp with a current buffer outside the loop works well . The output stage would have a reasonable damping factor as you say with a few output pairs . I realize you prefer a slightly higher output emitter resistor than Douglas Self . He says 0R1 is not dangerous . Myself I would use 6 x 0R1 and 0R47 output . The 0R47 would also drive my protection circuit .
I noticed sometime ago that MOSFET's ( Exicon 10N/P20 ) are happy with very high feedback factors . This helps them produce lower distrotion than some think . They have high Ron which can be reduced by multiple pairs . These often need no source resistors for balance ( Exicon supply matched sets free of charge ) .
I remember years ago discussing racing car engines with a Williams engineer . He said the Honda engines were fitted with a handle . Each passing engineer was asked to turn the handle . This prevented the valve springs from taking a set . We discussed Desmodromic valves as these would go to perhaps 14 000 RPM . Now the F1 cars use Air driven Desmodromics ( Ducati had them for years ) . Old Mr Honda thought any engine that revved to 20 000 RPM past a magic point where the air entering the engine would almost seem as in a jet engine . I think that is where we are with feedback . The valves are too slow ?
Disagreed on global feedback. I would never call it the very best. Necessary - yes, beneficial if moderate - yes, but "best"? Never! I think it was pronounced that way by factory engineers who simply had no time and no resources for research into the local vs global debate, so the easiest method available to them was to use high amounts of global feedback. In its heyday, I have seen global NFB figures of 60...80 dB. To me, that's called rape.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the zero global NFB camp. In all my years in audio, I have yet to hear an amp, no matter whether solid state or tube, which does not sound a bit loose and which does not leave me with a feeling of a job not quite finished.
Also, over the years, I have closely followed Harman/Kardon's work and models and I find they sometimes get the balance between local and global feedback just right. The problem why so many of their otherwise very good designs fall short is their philosophy of using unbelievably poor quality pots, which seem to gobble up any and all benefits of otherwise good designs. I still have trouble believing just how much better my own HK 6550 sounds once I dumped their awful volume pot and substituted it for a regular ALPS Blue pot - believe me, it's really hard to believe, but it amply proves the point that the devil is in the details. EVERYTHING matters.
Anyway, that's a nominally 50/70 WPC 8/4 Ohms SEPP design, which uses only 17 dB of global NFB, yet manages to box way above its price class. Now, after the pot change (and capacitor change, using HK's Korean made caps sold as regular spare/service parts), it truly majors on ambience and ambient detail as I have never heard a zero global NFB device do. Of the ones I have heard, of course, which - oddly enough - were all to the one more expensive than that HK, some by several times over.
I believe that everything in life, including audio, is best served by a balanced approach between the two extremes. Even our own history teaches us that once balance is lost, odd and unpleasant things start to happen. Entire societies go sideways.
My own 26 dB global NFB mark is a very subjective one, I have built models which worked better with both less and more, but the excursion sideways was never more than +/- 6 dB, so I take 26 dB as the central hinge point, not as God's own truth carved in stone. Audio electronics are fun precisely because there are no design absolutes, it always boils down to try it and see/hear. Of course, you can sometimes bend some rules, but mostly the basic rules hold true each and every time.
This applies to output impedance as well. It's not how big it is - I think once you go over 20:1, there is little (if anything) to be gained in real world terms, but much in commercial terms, because the consumers have been brainwashed over the last few decades to believe in extremely high damping factors.
But, here we come to a crossroads. Two things. The first is HOW was that DF obtained, by making the amp with a good DF in open loop or by feeding it inordinate amounts of global feedback. The second is how does it stand in comparison with what you see as the minimum load impedance your amp must be able to negotiate without losing control. In my case, I see 2 Ohms as the minimum it must be able to work steadystate into, but 20:1/2 Ohms is 40:1/4 Ohms and 80:1/8 Ohms. Arguably, one could halve all these figures and still be just fine, but as ever, I like working with a healthy safety margin. With Wayne, double all the figures, others may be quite happy with half values.
I use DC Servo for the simple reason that it allows me to avoid capacitors in the signal path, and I do my best to get rid of that output inductor as well. In short, I try hard to make my signal path as clean as possible. And now I should put in series resistors? Granted, there may well be loudspeakers out there which will perform better with those resistors, and while I will include the space and the holes for them, my sample will NOT have them.
As for emittor resistors, as far as I know they are mostly determined by temperature considerations and serve to avoid thermal runaway. At least, that's what National Semiconductor "Audio Cookbook" says. And I actually wore out my initial copy from the early 80ies to shreds, but fortunately, I recommended it to an acquaintance from Seattle, he bought it and loved it, and then bought a second copy which he mailed to me - good man, I'm very grateful. I imagine just about everybody here has at least seen it, and probably owns a copy.
The point is, D. Self's recommendation for 0.1 Ohm resistors is downright suicidal unless he expects the amp to work at low level power only, has incredibly large heat sinks well above the 20 lb mark for relatively low power levels, or has an aggressive protection circuit.
The lowest value I have ever seen in a mass produced product is 0.15 Ohms, and that in a Dual CV1700 integrated amp only - BUT, in it, a SEPP design using Motorola 250W TO3 output trannies for nominally 80/120W into 8/4 Ohms, EACH transistor has its own dedicated heat sink, or in other words, it has an unusually beefy cooling system for a series product (and while it wasn't cheap in its time, it wasn't very expensive either). Typically, TOP-3 modern power transistors use emmitter resistors with values ranging from 0.22 to 0.47 Ohms, but I have NEVER seen anyone dare to go below 0.22 Ohms. For why, well, look at their thermal data and the heatsinks they use and you can work it out yourself. I find that many Japanese manufacturers tend to be VERY optimistic in this respect; all too often, push their amps a little harder and the overheat protection triggers.
So, good luck to D. Self with his logic, but he has been involved mostly with highly commercial products, where every penny counts, and that logic is obvious here and there in his reasoning.
MOSFETs are a completely different story, and I am not the one to tell it.
On the other side of the spectrum, we have the zero global NFB camp. In all my years in audio, I have yet to hear an amp, no matter whether solid state or tube, which does not sound a bit loose and which does not leave me with a feeling of a job not quite finished.
Also, over the years, I have closely followed Harman/Kardon's work and models and I find they sometimes get the balance between local and global feedback just right. The problem why so many of their otherwise very good designs fall short is their philosophy of using unbelievably poor quality pots, which seem to gobble up any and all benefits of otherwise good designs. I still have trouble believing just how much better my own HK 6550 sounds once I dumped their awful volume pot and substituted it for a regular ALPS Blue pot - believe me, it's really hard to believe, but it amply proves the point that the devil is in the details. EVERYTHING matters.
Anyway, that's a nominally 50/70 WPC 8/4 Ohms SEPP design, which uses only 17 dB of global NFB, yet manages to box way above its price class. Now, after the pot change (and capacitor change, using HK's Korean made caps sold as regular spare/service parts), it truly majors on ambience and ambient detail as I have never heard a zero global NFB device do. Of the ones I have heard, of course, which - oddly enough - were all to the one more expensive than that HK, some by several times over.
I believe that everything in life, including audio, is best served by a balanced approach between the two extremes. Even our own history teaches us that once balance is lost, odd and unpleasant things start to happen. Entire societies go sideways.
My own 26 dB global NFB mark is a very subjective one, I have built models which worked better with both less and more, but the excursion sideways was never more than +/- 6 dB, so I take 26 dB as the central hinge point, not as God's own truth carved in stone. Audio electronics are fun precisely because there are no design absolutes, it always boils down to try it and see/hear. Of course, you can sometimes bend some rules, but mostly the basic rules hold true each and every time.
This applies to output impedance as well. It's not how big it is - I think once you go over 20:1, there is little (if anything) to be gained in real world terms, but much in commercial terms, because the consumers have been brainwashed over the last few decades to believe in extremely high damping factors.
But, here we come to a crossroads. Two things. The first is HOW was that DF obtained, by making the amp with a good DF in open loop or by feeding it inordinate amounts of global feedback. The second is how does it stand in comparison with what you see as the minimum load impedance your amp must be able to negotiate without losing control. In my case, I see 2 Ohms as the minimum it must be able to work steadystate into, but 20:1/2 Ohms is 40:1/4 Ohms and 80:1/8 Ohms. Arguably, one could halve all these figures and still be just fine, but as ever, I like working with a healthy safety margin. With Wayne, double all the figures, others may be quite happy with half values.
I use DC Servo for the simple reason that it allows me to avoid capacitors in the signal path, and I do my best to get rid of that output inductor as well. In short, I try hard to make my signal path as clean as possible. And now I should put in series resistors? Granted, there may well be loudspeakers out there which will perform better with those resistors, and while I will include the space and the holes for them, my sample will NOT have them.
As for emittor resistors, as far as I know they are mostly determined by temperature considerations and serve to avoid thermal runaway. At least, that's what National Semiconductor "Audio Cookbook" says. And I actually wore out my initial copy from the early 80ies to shreds, but fortunately, I recommended it to an acquaintance from Seattle, he bought it and loved it, and then bought a second copy which he mailed to me - good man, I'm very grateful. I imagine just about everybody here has at least seen it, and probably owns a copy.
The point is, D. Self's recommendation for 0.1 Ohm resistors is downright suicidal unless he expects the amp to work at low level power only, has incredibly large heat sinks well above the 20 lb mark for relatively low power levels, or has an aggressive protection circuit.
The lowest value I have ever seen in a mass produced product is 0.15 Ohms, and that in a Dual CV1700 integrated amp only - BUT, in it, a SEPP design using Motorola 250W TO3 output trannies for nominally 80/120W into 8/4 Ohms, EACH transistor has its own dedicated heat sink, or in other words, it has an unusually beefy cooling system for a series product (and while it wasn't cheap in its time, it wasn't very expensive either). Typically, TOP-3 modern power transistors use emmitter resistors with values ranging from 0.22 to 0.47 Ohms, but I have NEVER seen anyone dare to go below 0.22 Ohms. For why, well, look at their thermal data and the heatsinks they use and you can work it out yourself. I find that many Japanese manufacturers tend to be VERY optimistic in this respect; all too often, push their amps a little harder and the overheat protection triggers.
So, good luck to D. Self with his logic, but he has been involved mostly with highly commercial products, where every penny counts, and that logic is obvious here and there in his reasoning.
MOSFETs are a completely different story, and I am not the one to tell it.
I think 26 dB feedback is a very good level .
I have not seen less than 0R22 is any amplifier I have repaired .
I still feel that global feedback is best . I agree it has to be used with caution . I have to say my oscilloscope spots problems before my ears or speakers do thank goodness .
I think given a damping factor of 6 there is an opportunity to use high global feedback to the driver stage and no global feedback to the output current buffer . I have built this amplifier and enjoyed it . In the end I had a little global feedback ( 1/7 of the total ) . It started life as a OPA 604 and Complimentary Feedback Pair output stage . I then designed a driver stage . The OPA 604 can be configured as a unity gain stage without problems . I didn't scale this up above 8 V rms 4 ohms . I see no reason why it shouldn't be universally true . 16 Vrms 4 ohms is possible in bridge .
BTW , no criticism of usual practice . One day devices might come along to change how we think . As said MOSFET's do seem happier with high feedback ( and nice ) .
I have not seen less than 0R22 is any amplifier I have repaired .
I still feel that global feedback is best . I agree it has to be used with caution . I have to say my oscilloscope spots problems before my ears or speakers do thank goodness .
I think given a damping factor of 6 there is an opportunity to use high global feedback to the driver stage and no global feedback to the output current buffer . I have built this amplifier and enjoyed it . In the end I had a little global feedback ( 1/7 of the total ) . It started life as a OPA 604 and Complimentary Feedback Pair output stage . I then designed a driver stage . The OPA 604 can be configured as a unity gain stage without problems . I didn't scale this up above 8 V rms 4 ohms . I see no reason why it shouldn't be universally true . 16 Vrms 4 ohms is possible in bridge .
BTW , no criticism of usual practice . One day devices might come along to change how we think . As said MOSFET's do seem happier with high feedback ( and nice ) .
Although, I must say, my experience shows that what Lavardine stated in their patent application, is generally (mostly) quite true.
In essence, they claim that NFB is good and you should apply it liberally, provided you previously did everyting you could to minimise distortion, have at least some local degeneration and that your open loop bandwidth is 20 kHz or more.
In essence, they claim that NFB is good and you should apply it liberally, provided you previously did everyting you could to minimise distortion, have at least some local degeneration and that your open loop bandwidth is 20 kHz or more.
BTW Nige, was it myself who talked you into using Burr-Brown's OP604/2604?
I ask because that's the only BB op amp the sound of which I find very pleasing, the rest which I have tried I find either screechy, or dull, including their most touted models, like the 627/637. To me, they either screech at you, or are very bland and sound totally uninterested in working at all.
I could almost say that the 604/2604 is a misbegotten renegade in their ranks.
I ask because that's the only BB op amp the sound of which I find very pleasing, the rest which I have tried I find either screechy, or dull, including their most touted models, like the 627/637. To me, they either screech at you, or are very bland and sound totally uninterested in working at all.
I could almost say that the 604/2604 is a misbegotten renegade in their ranks.
Just to throw in an anomaly here: my ancient NAD 3020 afaik has NO emitter resistors, just big heat dissipators for each TO-3 device (2N3055, MJ2955?) for the very low rated power. There is a thermal cutout switch, which has never tripped for me. And the only thing that has gone wrong with the power amp section over the substantial number of years is one of the auxiliary rail supply bulk caps failed open. The main bulk caps are still fine, despite my being assured by someone in here that the adhesive that affixes them to the PCB is corrosive and must be removed as soon as possible.
Of course the cheap switches and pot started failing ages ago, so I just bypassed them using the convenient direct inputs in the back. And I use the piece nowadays to drive low-sensitivity headphones, connected directly to the speaker outputs.
It sounds good, although my expectations are low
Just to throw in an anomaly here: my ancient NAD 3020 afaik has NO emitter resistors, just big heat dissipators for each TO-3 device (2N3055, MJ2955?) for the very low rated power. There is a thermal cutout switch, which has never tripped for me. And the only thing that has gone wrong with the power amp section over the substantial number of years is one of the auxiliary rail supply bulk caps failed open. The main bulk caps are still fine, despite my being assured by someone in here that the adhesive that affixes them to the PCB is corrosive and must be removed as soon as possible.
Of course the cheap switches and pot started failing ages ago, so I just bypassed them using the convenient direct inputs in the back. And I use the piece nowadays to drive low-sensitivity headphones, connected directly to the speaker outputs.
It sounds good, although my expectations are low
You said it yourself - anomaly.
That amp was made to work at very low power levels indeed, at least relative to its output power transistor capabilities. I am willing to bet that if it was asked to work at any greater power level for any period of time, it's thermal protection would soon cut it off.
Think, Brad - if you want your amp to be capable of large power delivery into lower impedances, say sub4 Ohms, you will necessarily have to assume pretty large power dissipations, like it or not. After all, say 10 W contiuous into say 3 Ohms is about the equivalent of 3.7W into 8 Ohms, same voltage but more current, and hence more heating of the output stage. Where is this heat to go? Into flimsy U shaped heat sinks? Not for long, trust me.
There was a time, say late 70ies and early 80ies, when the industry worked on the assumption of sub 1W continuous power dissipation in most homes, and thus skipped the tedious work of installing anything that looked half serious in terms of heat sinking. Also saved costs. Even the presumably better makers, such as for example Kenwood, who used simple U shaped aluminum tunnels for heat sinks, right after installing twin power transformers for a true dual mono operation (e.g. models 6100, 7100, etc), played the low power average continuous game.
No offence Brad, but NAD have always gone for the El Cheapo approach in those days, so I am not surprised at such a turn of events. But try finding a Sansui, or a Pioneer amp from those days, including the lowest models in the range, and you will see proper heat sinking and proper emitter resistors without fail.
No offense taken of course. I was frankly shocked when I saw the schematic. And it was indeed cheap, but a rather clever cost-optimized design for which the designer, Bjørn Erik Edvardsen, was justly celebrated. And of all the unlikely people to recommend it, the inveterate innovator Keith O. Johnson of Reference Recordings, Spectral, et al., who told me he was tired of not hearing any music since his own amplifiers had died and he didn't have the time to repair them. So he got one, used, from a friend, and in KOJ's words, "I didn't have to do anything to it to make it sound right".
No offense taken of course. I was frankly shocked when I saw the schematic. And it was indeed cheap, but a rather clever cost-optimized design for which the designer, Bjørn Erik Edvardsen, was justly celebrated. And of all the unlikely people to recommend it, the inveterate innovator Keith O. Johnson of Reference Recordings, Spectral, et al., who told me he was tired of not hearing any music since his own amplifiers had died and he didn't have the time to repair them. So he got one, used, from a friend, and in KOJ's words, "I didn't have to do anything to it to make it sound right".
With that, and in those days, I have no argument.
However, that model was NAD's star product, which propelled them to glory and vast sales. For the time, it WAS better than most, and for the price, it ruled.
Let me put it this way - it was a great deal for the price.
Soon enough, others came along (e.g. Rotel, Proton, Vector Research, etc) and did similar things, but on a higher level, both in terms of power output AND general performance, so it was eclipsed soon enough. To be sure, NAD could always fall back on its receivers, which were also rather good at the time (e.g. model 160), but their first foray into higher performance, higher cost products, in form of a 90 WRMS/8 Ohms integrated amp, with Dolby coding/encoding included on board, didn't outlast the year it appeared in.
There was nothing wrong with it, it had no obvious or even less obvious faults, the problem was it had no obvious or less obvious aspects to recommend it either. A very much "me too" product, about the same as the average of its power and price group.
To be fair to NAD, others were trying hard with the same formula as well, for example, Leak tried with a biggie integrated amp as well (actually custom manufactured by Rotel), I think it was model 3900 or some such, but didn't make it either. The Japanese were far too deeply entrenched.
For the next giant killer, we had to wait another 13-14 years, until Pioneer and Marantz did a similar minimalist design in the early 90ies. Again, both were good for the time and price, but were still quickly forgotten anyway.
No offense taken of course. I was frankly shocked when I saw the schematic. And it was indeed cheap, but a rather clever cost-optimized design for which the designer, Bjørn Erik Edvardsen, was justly celebrated. And of all the unlikely people to recommend it, the inveterate innovator Keith O. Johnson of Reference Recordings, Spectral, et al., who told me he was tired of not hearing any music since his own amplifiers had died and he didn't have the time to repair them. So he got one, used, from a friend, and in KOJ's words, "I didn't have to do anything to it to make it sound right".
Strange thing is Proton who made them tried to market an improved version when their contract was up . It was a pale imitation . 3020 would drive 2 ohms and attempt 92 watts briefly ( Hi Fi Choice test ) . I was told 3020 is full of junk that was selected carefully . Other amps are filled with treasure that often doesn't work . 2 x 3020's is ideal . One as pre and the other as power amp .
A new Germanium device !
Contouring Vest With Germanium Fabric 82% off
- Status
- Not open for further replies.