Print

Feedback, feedforward & Error Correction

Posted in My library

Small-Signal Distortion in Feedback Amplifiers for Audio, James Boyk and Gerald J Sussman, April 2003

Combining positive and negative feedback - John M. Miller, Electronics, March 1950. First commercial successful design using a combination of positive and negative feedback to lower distortion that I know of. Tubes, of course.

Feedback Amplifier Analysis Tools by TI's Ron Mancini. Clear expose on amp stability issues and how to avoid them.

Generalized op-amp model simplifies analysis of complex feedback schemes - Jerald Graeme, Burr-Brown Corporation. EDN, April 1993

Negative feedback and non-linearity - Exploring the fallacy that nfb reduces all harmonics equally - Cathode Ray, Wireless World Oct 1978. (Cathode Ray was a nom de plume of M. G. Scroggie).

Un ingénieux dispositif réducteurde distortion pour amplificateurs de puissances, Revue du Son, No 242, Juin 1973. This is an early realization that in my opinion is identical in concept to Hawksford's error correction scheme. In French, but it refers to an article in Wireless World.

A new distortion mechanism in class B amplifiers - Edward M. Cherry, AES Engineering Report, May 1981

A very old paper on Transient response, ringing and the role of feedback, from a Mr. Roddam from 1952! The oldest I have ever seen related to audio amplifiers. Courtesy of Leo Sahlsten from Finland.

Several vintage documents on thermal distortion in power stages, resulting from signal-related die temperature changes. Also called 'memory distortion': 'La distorsion thermique' Part I, Part II, by Héphaïtos (from L'Audiophile, 1984), and 'Amplifier transient crossover distortion resulting from temperature change of output power transistors', AES preprint 1896 (October 1982)

Edward Cherry's Nested Differential Feedback Concept and the NDFL Amp from ETI (1983).

A great article by Bruno Putzeys from Linear Audio Vol 1 - The F-word, or, why there is no such thing as too much feedback. No nonsense, factual, and technical, but also giving some historical perspectives to the often-heard notion that 'feedback sucks the life out of music'.

 

The continuing story about what is voltage feedback and what is voltage feedback. It used to be so clear until someone started to call a specific type of opamp 'CFA' or 'CFB opamp'. As far as I know, the original patent was for a wideband amplifier topology. Then the marketing department got their hands on it and christened it 'CFA' One misunderstanding is that when you feed a signal back to a emittor that there is appreciable current flowing into or out of that emitter, and therefor it should be called 'current feedback'. Of course, with working feedback there is NO appreciable current - the emittor does present a low impedance, but 'the other side' of that impedance is the input voltage and with feedback the difference between input and feedback voltage is ideally zero. And zero voltage across whatever impedance is zero current. In practise, there is always an error current, which in typical cases is a fraction of a uA.

The traditional terms for the various feedback topologies have been very clearly defined, and I found a very clear explanation by, of course, W, Marchal Leach.

But it doesn't end there. The term CFA didn't just appear overnight. There's a nice trail in the famous Analog Dialog journal of the 80-ies and 90-ies. The first mention of a opamp with a low impedance inverting input is from Analog Dialog 21-1 from beginning of 1987. The correct technical term is used: transimpedance amp (current in - voltage out). The article explains in engineering terms the different behaviour of the inverting input node in the two topologies.

Then in Analog Dialog 23-3 the editor answers a reader letter about 'Current feedback and Transimpedance'. He starts with an example of an FET in a source follower configuration being a current feeedback amplifier. Then finally the naming breaks out in the open in Analog Dialog 24-1 of early 1990.

Want to build one of my designs?

I am flattered but would also like us to agree on a few rules.

My designs are the best I can make them, including reliability and safety. A lot of effort, time and money goes into them, and I enjoy doing it.

Nevertheless, I have obviously no control over how, where or when somebody would use a design of me. Therefore, I cannot guarantee that it will do as advertised in all cases and circumstances. I also have to decline any and all responsibility for any damages, direct or consequential, resulting from the use of my designs. Sorry about that, but that's how my lawyer wants it...

If you want to build one for your own use, go ahead. It would be nice if you would let me know how it all works out.

If you like to use one of my designs for a commercial product, we can discuss the terms of such use. If you plan to make money out of them, I would like to have some compensation for my work and effort as well. Or, if you are in need of a design consultant for a project, let me know. I’m sure we can work something out to mutual benefit.