Historical look at amps

Hey Ar_t,
I cut & paste an exerpt from your earlier post:-

"The crux: "current-feedback" amps have a bandwidth that remains constant, regardless of gain. Traditional feedback amps do not: as the gain increases, their bandwidth goes down."

This does *not* read correct to me! AFAIK, the gain-bandwidth product of a voltage-mode amp is fixed for a certain topology implemented by the designer & with a fixed set of devices. What I have seen tho is that as one increases the gain, the dominant pole frequency goes down & when the gain decreases, the dominant pole frequency increases. (you've got to have compensation somewhere in there to counter-act the phase shift of the music signal as it propagates thru the amp). However, the unity gain frequency, often used as the bandwidth of the amp, remains fixed. The unity gain freq can be increased by reducing the in-circuit parasitic poles (better devices), cascoding & by increasing the bias current.
Maybe I understood incorrectly. Perhaps you can clarify?

BTW, there is a company called Comlinear that makes current-mode opamps & other electronics. I don't think that it's audio grade stuff (but then it might be!) A lot of their circuits are based on the current conveyor (CC II) concept. I've never used them personally but their architectures sure look different than traditional voltage-mode amps. They also seem to be perhaps the lone star player in that field.

Muralman1, while I can understand how you came to believe that Ar_t is "Expounding on a trait that is most damning", I believe that he has qualified that assertion.
As far as "class D amps on my (your) speakers." and "There are plenty of speakers, of all types being run by class D." in my previous post I said the jury is still out on the qualified generalization that Ar_t offered. Ar_t is entitled to his opinoin as much as anyone else here. I think my mention of sodium intake adressed that. Never the less it would appear that Ar_t may have more insight in these matters than most. Untill other manufacturers are as generous with their wisdom, we are unfortunately weighted in one direction. For that matter it sure would be nice if more users posted their experience as well. I'll take what's available and appreciate it. I'm not saying that any one is right or any one is wrong.
As far as why Ar_t doesn't build amps like Henry's, well, is Henry unable to keep up with the demand? I mean why would he? That's like saying why doesn't Krell make amps like c-j and visa versa. Ar_t has already said that his amps were originaly intended for the Home Theater crowd. He is obvioulsy found his market segment target. I may be extrapolating here, but, I suspect that Ar_t is himself surprised at how well this technology in his products overlap into the pure audio market and that perhaps there is an audience there as well.
I don't see any problem with Ar_t sharing his experience and qualifiactions. I think that's a good thing. As far as "I don't see any other amp builder doing that." Well I don't see many other amp builders posting here and that's a shame. I think it's in all our best interest to encourage this kind of input. That's the reason I'm posting this. I don't own and never have to my knowledge owned any of Ar_t's products. I have never met Ar_t. Before these recent Audiogon threads I never knew he existed. BTW, Ar_t has offered many compliments to other designers.
I think that Ar_t's opinon is that without the above mentioned designers skills these amps might have a tendency to be bright due to some inherent attributes. What may be lost is the compliment he is offering to these designers and their implamentations. This is something like the discussion on feed back in tradtional solid state amps. I'm not trying to re kindle a tube vs. solid state argument, but, this is much like the way that tube amp designers have had to work with and with out transformers in order to address those concerns that are more of an issue with that technology. That the qualtiy of an amp is system dependent seems to be accepted wisdom. Again the jury is still out on whether digital amps have a propensity for brightness. There is obviously a diference of opinion. My own very limted experience with digital amps raised this very question. I don't have enough experience to determine the answer.

I think that your cut and paste may be mistaken. Either that, or I did not explain it fully.

Voltage feedback.......the "normal" kind. As you increase the gain, the bandwidth DOES drop. The product remains constant, but that is not the same. Conversely, as you lower the gain, the bandwidth increases.

One of the reasons firms like Comlinear came up with "current-feedback" is that (within reason) you can change the gain and NOT affect the bandwidth.

OK.......more damning inside info!!!!!

Any one here have preamp based on the Burr-Brown PGA2310?? Anyone???

Ever stop to think how they get such a large range of attenuation, all the way down from......I dunno.......-90 or more.....all the way up to a gain of.......30 dB or so. A lot of range, right. How do they do that? It must be some sort of miracle, because competing digital potentiometers have ranges less than half as much. Right?

Wrong! Here is what they do:

It uses some sort of digital pot, just like the others, to give a narrow range of adjustment. (I forget what....I measured it one day.) But at a certain point, as you slowly bring the level up or down, they suddenly switch the gain on the internal op-amp. Easy to do by changing the resistors in the feedback path.

OK.......what does this have to what the subject at hand?

If you measure the noise on the output, you will see that it jumps when they switch the resistors in the feedback loop.

And the bandwidth changes too! The -3 dB point changes. It changes so radically that at full gain, the response at 20 kHz is down quite a bit. I forget what, but it was quite a lot. It may have been -2 dB. Don't quote me, because I did not write it down. if you want to know the exact number, ask me and I will measure it.

As for my amps, would you rather that I lie and say that they are the greatest ever? Would that make you want to rush out and buy one? I bet it wouldn't. But if you did, and it sounded bright next to your SS amp, you might be mad. Look, as far as I know, no one who is posting in this thread has design experience comparable to me. So why do you feel threatened when I tell the dark secrets of the world of amp design. I would think that frank and open discussion would be welcome. When you are asking someone to fork over $3k or more on something that they are gong to put in their sound room, and stare at it for (hopefully) years to come, is trying to pull the wool over their eyes going to make them want to keep it?? I would rather be upfront about the strengths and weaknesses of my products. Much better than hyping them to death, getting a handful of quick sales, only to see them here in the "used amps for sale" section 6 months later. That kind of advertising does not make for a long-lived business.

But the truth is, most listeners "think" that a "digital" amp, with the same - 3 dB as a conventional SS amp, will "sound" bright.

Oh......I almost forgot........this is important......sorry.....but:

The guys who think that they sound bright all have cone transducer speakers. The ones who don't think that it sounds bright.........drum roll........have planar speakers! Sorry, I forgot to mention that. Probably because I had already sold amps to everyone that I could who owned planar speakers, and now I am trying to sell to the rest of the world. And they have cone loudspeakers. Now I have headaches.

Calm down, Vince.......it was an honest omission.

In fact, I recently sent out an evaluation unit. The guy spoke very highly of it. He liked it better than the "Brand N" amp that he was a dealer for. I knew that it was a winner because he and his girl friend were able to listen to it for hours on end. Then he complained about the binding posts. And said that I might want to "tone down" the HF a little, as he felt that most people with a cone speaker system would find it a bit bright. He said it, not me. Remember, he liked it.

Oh......btw......I do know how mine stack up against Rowland, Ear, and H2O. Wanna guess how??????? I'll give you a hint: guess which one they bought. Frankly, I'm not sure why. Maybe they wanted something that looked almost as cool as the Rowland, but less expensive. Or they did not want to have to fight trying to get big fat speaker cables up inside some crazy looking triangular gizmo with Speakon connectors.

Well, it has been very informative but I think my time spent on this topic has come to an end. I still think Ayre is being deceptive by using the term "zero feedback," but unless we get some more information on their amplifier design I'll never know for sure. Ayre never responded to my email asking them to clarify and I did not expect they would.

I sure don't expect Hansen to jump in at this point and clear it up even though you can be sure he is watching this thread (I'm suprised he answered Keis' question at all even though it didn't tell us anything), and Ar_t evidently knows something that he can't or doesn't wish to share about the design. I understand that.

In any case, thanks for the history lesson Ar_t. I know more about amplifier design and the business of bringing them to market now than I did a few days ago so I suppose it was time well spent.

Ar_t you won't find the H2O at a dealership, nor the eAR. Being they are rare, the odds they both are in the same room with your amp, and a Rowland, sounds like the stuff of fiction. Who, and how, did this shootout come about?

Let's settle this. Send your amps to California for review. I will pay shipping both ways. What have you got to lose?

BTW, The Gallo is not a planar, neither is the Meadowlark, nor German Physics... etc. etc. Like I said, do a search.