What is wrong with negative feedback?


I am not talking about the kind you get as a flaky seller, but as used in amplifier design. It just seems to me that a lot of amp designs advertise "zero negative feedback" as a selling point.

As I understand, NFB is a loop taken from the amplifier output and fed back into the input to keep the amp stable. This sounds like it should be a good thing. So what are the negative trade-offs involved, if any?
solman989

Showing 7 responses by kijanki

Negative feedback extends bandwidth, lowers Harmonic and Intermodulation Distortions and lowers output impedance.

Unfortunately, if not used wisely, is increasing TIM - Transient Intermodulation. In time domain it will show as just small overshoot on fast changing signal like square wave. In frequency domain it shows as exaggerated odd harmonics that our ears are very sensitive to (especially higher order - responsible for perception of loudness). In really bad case it can momentary saturate output transistors that will stop responding for a short time since charge is trapped at the output transistor junctions. Our brain fills small gaps like that but it will make us tired. Whole thing (overshoot) happens because of limited bandwidth that is causing delay thru the amp. Delayed signal when summed (in opposite phase) with input signal that is changing rapidly is coming too late and amp for a moment has much higher gain. Class A amps don't require a lot of global feedback and gain (without feedback) is often as low as 200 but class AB has gains reaching 4000.

How amp should be designed? I would pick the most linear transistors I can find. I would use a lot of local feedbacks. I would measure bandwidth without global feedback and would limit bandwidth of the input stage to that bandwidth (necessary condition). Harmonic distortion would be probably 5-10%. I would use just enough feedback to get distortion below 1%. That would be great sounding amp that nobody would buy because of poor spects (distortion, bandwidth).

No feedback (or low feedback) design might sound more alive because distortion gives this effect (like distorted vs clean guitar) but mostly it would sound pleasant and not tiring instead of sounding brightly Hi-Fiish.

TIM was discovered in 70s. Before that designers went crazy with negative feedback - still claiming that it has to be sounding better than tubes. Logic says that if you see numbers like THD=0.000001% something else has to give. I believe that spects are pretty much useless since amp with greatest spects might sound the worse. People often use amps exact power doubling with 4 ohm load vs. 8 ohm load as a sign of great amplifier. I'm not so sure. It will show that power supply is strong but it will also show that a lot of negative feedback is used (since power supply is most likely unregulated).
Mapman - Moderation is the word. Instead of feedback or no feedback we can settle for moderate feedback. Sound coloration comes from dynamic nonlinearity of the system with the feedback. Amplifier itself is far from being first order low-pass filter and feedback creates loss of stability - hence dynamic nonlinearity. Part of the problem is speaker - being complex load. That would suggest to me that things are really complicated and listening instead of reading will bring better results. Speaker choice and synergy with amplifier appears to be very important.
Atmasphere - concept is beautiful. Tube class A balanced operation without output transformer. The only problem I can see is that this design requires a lot of tubes and each one has about 2.5A heater current - a lot of wasted power. On the other hand any class A has as low as 12.5% efficiency.

Have you ever investigated ultra high vacuum tubes. Military division of Tesla made them before communism fell and Stereophile posted great review of amp built with them. Such tubes can deliver large currents.

I'm not sure if DF>100 makes much sense since inductor in series with the woofer has resistance in order of 0.08ohm.

8/0.08=100
"These amps are high damping factor which matches well to the OHMs, so I suspect there is NF applied, but not sure"

Mapman - Not only NFB is applied but it is mulitiple (two) called Mulivariable Enhanced Cascade Control. It is in the Karsten Nielsen doctorate work available on the web (Icepower). Feedback doesn't have to be deep since class D amp has inherently low output impedance even without feedback. Speaker is always connected to +Vs and GND and only direction changes (very low resistance Mosfet Bridge). Output impedance increases with frequency but DF is still about 1000 at 1kHz.

Unsound - Feedback in Icepower amps is called Multivariable because it consists of two feedbacks controling voltage and time.

I suspect that feedback in class D is less evil for few reasons:

Amp cannot become unstable (oscillate) since it is already oscillating.

Response can be very fast limited only by Mosfet's max current and resistance (sort of Hysteretic converter)

Voltage feedback is shallow because duty cycle is more linear than transistor characteristic(less feedback required) and also because "time feedback" already corrected most of nonlinearities. I suspect that voltage feedback is helping to deal with load regulation. Early class D amps (Tact) had no voltage feedback at all and were sensitive to load conditions.

Momentary saturation of output stage (charge trapped at the junction) that happens in bad cases of class AB is irrelevant since time (duty cycle) and not the voltage is analog quantity.

Unsound - I remember Ar_t posting on the subject of switching amps. I don't know about TacT now. At the time I bough my Icepower based amp I read opinions on Icepower and Hypex. Both configurations (Full Bridge vs Half Bridge) have good implementation for instance Hypex based Channel Island amps.

Mapman - I also observed that listening at low volumes with Icepower is very good. I know that part of the problem is our hearing but I enjoy very good and clean sound (with very articulate bass) at low levels without any loudness correction. I cannot explain it. Do you experience the same?