In Reply to: Re: transient test - Part II posted by Scott Frankland on August 2, 2003 at 01:40:08:
Hi,> > "So what about at the hi-feedback end of the spectrum. Say we are
> > careful about TIM and stability, what other problems are there in
> > this case?"> That is what we are cooking here this month.
and we probably need to cook on CCS'd versions of the EFs we
have been looking at, as well as FET versions. Then there are
hybrid approaches.Yikes!
As far as the lots-o-feedback case...it seems like 3 practical
variations.a) Lots of local feedback, with a small amount of global feedback.
So 38dB of local feedback and 2-3dB of global feedback for
instance. This shouldn't cause problems because the 38dB will
linearize the individual stages so much...the 2-3dB will not have
much to multiply even though it isn't over the multiplication hump.b) Lots of local feedback and no global feedback. Sounds promising.
c) No local feedback and lots of global feedback...don't like this
approach sonically especially if it spans more than 2 stages.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: transient test - Part II - mfc 08/2/0314:20:19 08/2/03 (6)
- Re: transient test - Part II - Scott Frankland 17:19:26 08/2/03 (5)
- Re: transient test - Part II - mfc 18:33:54 08/2/03 (4)
- Re: transient test - Part II - Scott Frankland 19:36:14 08/2/03 (3)
- Re: transient test - Part II - mfc 20:00:19 08/2/03 (2)
- Re: transient test - Part II - Scott Frankland 20:31:20 08/2/03 (1)
- Caution - detour ahead - mfc 21:44:19 08/2/03 (0)