1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Where we are now: The site is back up and running! The character set encoding issue has been fixed so old posts should now look ok. I am currently working on themes/skins etc and I will be deleting the temporary green skin very soon as it has many issues. I will do a very quick variation on the stock blue skin first just to get a light-grey background and san-serif font, and I will set this as default. Later this week I will hopefully add a professional third-party skin in pfm colours (life is way too short to do this crap myself, and I've found one I really like than needs next to no tweaking). We are getting there slowly...
    Dismiss Notice
  3. May I please request people check and update their email address if it is out if date. I ask as I’m getting countless bounce errors as the server fails to send notifications through etc. I’ll eventually figure out how to send these to a black hole somewhere, but it makes sense to address it at source as quite a few folk are obviously not getting the thread and conversations notifications they have set in their preferences.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Very interesting article on negative feedback

Discussion in 'd.i.y.' started by hacker, May 6, 2006.

  1. hacker

    hacker Delicious and nutritious

  2. Paul L

    Paul L coffee lounge for me

    So why did Vereker and others carry on with gobfuls of negative feedback anyway and ignore their own listening results? I expect our resident Euphoniphobe will be along to tell us in due course.
     
  3. martin clark

    martin clark pinko bodger

    Articles like the one linked are a bit teleological, in that with most valve designs you simply don't have enough gain in the first place to make high levels of feedback possible. The other misdirection is that they are talking of *globally* applied feedback - if your using an active device, there's inherently lots of local feedback you can't do away with - and wouldn't want to.

    None of this is to say that feedback can't be applied badly though... and doing-away with ill-ythought-out f/back arrangements is probably a good thing.
     
  4. markt

    markt hello

    "So why did Vereker and others carry on with gobfuls of negative feedback anyway and ignore their own listening results? I expect our resident Euphoniphobe will be along to tell us in due course."


    I think that's a little unfair, doubtful that they ignored their listening results, and if anything had identified this very problem at the start, Martin colloms points out that the problem isn't feedback itself but it's application to circuits that have not been optimised first i.e. making the circuit shorter to keep time domain errors as small as possible then using feedback to clear up what is left, no, Mr Colloms was probably pointing to the misuse of feedback to overcome design flaws, the more intelligent designs being faster and needing less of it, so the diss of Naim is absurd.

    I've listened to the 321 stage without feedback, it does indeed sound less smeared, noisy though :)
     
  5. david ellwood

    david ellwood Kirabosi Kognoscente

    I am reading doug selfs book on amplifier design at the moment and it is a great read. I am finding it interesting sorting the useful and substantiated theory from his vitriolic hatred of all things subjective.

    His take on the low negative feedback brigade is particularly interesting and he shows a clarksonesque disregard for their ideas on its merits.

    Anyone else any opinions on dougs ramblings?
     
  6. martin clark

    martin clark pinko bodger

    It's a great book, and contains lots of hard work, investigation and some thought -provoking (and very readable) commentary. The strength of the book is that it is an exhaustive investigation of one particular (though dominant) power amp topology. However this necesarily means there are some intrigung possibilites for further investigation completely missed - such as the matter of compensation. Self assumes a straightforward dominant-pole with 'miller' cap , and there's no investigation of the way this can (negatively) affect HF performance - or of the alternatives (both outlined in J L Hoods writings for instance).

    Actually I think Selfs rants are pretty-well judged, even amusing ripostes to some of the claims from the other side of the fence...
     
  7. martin clark

    martin clark pinko bodger

  8. markt

    markt hello

    The Avondale NCC200 for instance, it's that well known circuit, but with a few extra feedbackback loops to tighten things up nicely, yet it has the good naturalness associated with valves to my ears, probably the increased parts quality which is another thing associated with high cost valve amps, good parts certainly help a good design IMO.
     
  9. trancera

    trancera pfm Member

    Rods articles are excellent, and so are a lot of his projects.

    Its his P09 Active crossover board I use and I'll never go passive X Over again, tremendous.
     
  10. James

    James Lord of the Erg\o/s

    Is that why Densen amps sound so good?

    James
     
  11. BobMaximus

    BobMaximus pfm Member

    I seem to remember someone here saying they had tried building some of the Self power-amp circuits. I think they came to the conclusion that, although the theory looks very persuasive, they did not sound at all good. It could have been Andy Weeks, but searching on this site doesn't exactly facilitate the finding!
     

Share This Page