Douglas Self on Negative feedback and distortion


I've been reading Douglas Self book on amplifier design and something he said that really makes me think twice.

As you have seen most amplifier makers claim that their amps either does not use global NFB at all or very little of it to improve dynamic (or transient response).

According to Self, the only parameter that matters is distortion and nothing else. I supposed he measures the extra harmonics that the amp produces given a sinusoidal input. In other words, distortion is measured in the frequency domain.

If I remember correctly in my Control Theory course way back in my college days, the frequency domain reponse cannot tell how the amp will response for a given step input. And the STEP RESPONSE is what can tell a lot about the behavior of an amp dynamic and transient response.

In his book, he is very adamant about his position that the only thing that matters is the amp frequency response.

I don't thing frequency response contains information about how any amp would respond to a step input but I could be wrong. Frequency response is only a steady state behavior of the amp. It cannot tell how much the amp would over-shoot, under-shoot, tendency to ringing, and so and so, given a step response. I don't think you can look at the frequency response and make any conclusion about the amp tendency to overshoot, undershoot, ringing and so on...

What do you think?

By the way, I think his book is excellent read into the theory an amplifier design if you can ignore some of his more dogmatic position.
andy2
Audioengr...You may be clever enough to design "an amp that has bandwidth to 1 MHz, but has lousy step reponse (overdamped). " But why would you, or anyone else, do that. In practice there is correllation.
I think that what Audioengr was getting at is that there are loop-holes to every generalization. That is, something can deliver flat response over a wide bandwidth at a given amplitude on a steady-state basis, but that doesn't mean that it will respond correctly to changes in amplitude in a linear manner. While i agree with that, it all boils down to speed and impedances. If you've got the speed, the circuitry can respond as fast or slow as needed. If the impedances are right, power transfer is maximized and dynamic variations in amplitude don't present a problem. It really is simple if you think about it and that's why i can't understand why most of the products on the market are the way that they are i.e. under-designed and over-priced.

All of this stuff was talked about and dealt with 30 years ago by a designer that never got the credit he deserved. That person's name is David Spiegel. Too bad he only ever marketed one product as i'm sure that he would be an "audio legend" had he kept at it. His ideas were light-years ahead of most, yet he was humble enough to admit that his ideas weren't original at all when i spoke to him about them. Sean
>
Marakanetz- you are missing my point. The Yamaha doesn't sound as good at 20 watts. Or 5 watts. Or 1 watt. I'm trying to point out you can't hear specs, but IF YOU ENGINEER A PRODUCT TO SPEC OUT WELL (because that is what the buying public is looking for) YOU MAY SACRIFICE MUSICALITY.

For example, there may be trade-offs in ANY design. If there are 100 things that make up a musical amplifier, a good designer, like a good physician, first "tries to do no harm." When you sacrifice 40 elements of good design to get low THD (as you said, on a resistor at one freq.) and a low pricepoint, you are going to wind up with poor equipment. Even at the same price, the product that is engineered to sell well will not sound as good as the one that is engineered to sound great. One engineer spend his money on bells, whistles remote gadgets- the other spends it on good power transformers, mil. spec. transistors/ resistors/ capacitors/...point to point wiring....The first guy covers up his deficiences with lots of zero negative feedback and buys good articles in Stereo Review. Marketing over substance. Specmania is a good way to fall into that trap.