Could you tell which ones you're thinking about ? I would definitely be interested in discussing them.
Two entirely off topic tales. I was visiting a friend who want help with a "Teen Crusade" sound system. While there one young boffin approached me with his Bible in hand asking if I would check him on the latest section he had memorized and sign off for it. I was about to say yes as my evil smile spread across my face, my friend spotted it and suggest to the youngster that we were a bit tied up and try someone else. How he knew I would have asked after the recitation "And now what does it mean?" I'll never know.
Then from the other thread how to meet... Thursday I was in an Episcopalian Church and sat in the last open seat, right next to a nice YL. But you know funerals aren't quite the place!
As one of your better-known countrymen once wrote, "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose."
Mathematically? Yes.
Ideally? Yes.
Practically? Well, maybe not so much. (note that there is a distinction between 'equivalent' and 'identical' in the language)
... but by the time you reach the practical limitations of various design options, I think you should be careful not to validate a mistaken and broad statement such as "all (global) feedback is bad" as proliferated by the audiophile press (who do not actually design amplifiers, of course). In other words, if your goal is to find new and unique ways to make the design challenges a little bit easier to pull off, then fine. But if you then go on to claim that everyone who designs amplifiers would do better if they all used the same technique, or that they'll necessarily do worse just because they use (global) feedback, then I say you're not really speaking from a scientific point of view.
Personally, it seems like there's too much catering to the "Evils of NFB" cult. Instead of discussing the cold, hard facts like Bruno does, some amp designers and marketers claim that they aren't using feedback so as to appease those who don't understand, rather than take the hard line and force everyone to get beyond the mistaken and simplistic phraseology.
Point taken. It could be harder or easier. Bruno actually makes the same point by stating that it's not the presence or type of feedback that causes an amplifier to be 'bad' or 'good' but the details of how well the implementation is carried out.
Last edited:
guys please don't get into any religious territory
GlenK and syn08 have left in disgust but Bob Cordell's amp is well thought out. This design process of taking an amp and removing the local feedback to get the OLG up maybe really is a straw man. I did forget straw men don't exist.
Self?
BTW, I was asked to pass along greetings from Doghead, who is now a subscriber to Linear Audio.
Really, had a Bonneaux du Martray 2000 Corton Charly and 1990 Ducru last weekend to reinforce the fact that the folks in California just don't get it.
It was great I told my daughter that this is what chardonnay tastes like and this is what cabernet tastes like, accept no substitutes.
Last edited:
I have much trepidation around showing that some of these circuit improvements do nothing. I don't want to be the anti-christ.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.