Amplifier Sound - What Are The Influences?

Introduction
The sound of an amplifier is one of those ethereal things that seems to defy
description. I will attempt to cover the influences I know about, and describe
the effects as best I can. This is largely hypothesis on my part, since there
are so many influences that, although present and audible, are almost
impossible to quantify. Especially in combination, some of the effects will make
one amp sound better, and another worse - I doubt that I will be able to even
think of all the possibilities, but this article might help some of you a little at least to decipher some of the possibilities.
I don't claim to have all the answers, and it is quite conceivable that I don't
have any (although I do hope this is not the case). This entire topic is subject
to considerable interpretation, and I will try very hard to be completely
objective.
Reader input is encouraged, as I doubt that I will manage to get everything
right first time, and there are some areas where I do not really know what the
answers are. The only joy I can get from this is that I doubt that anyone else
can do much better. If you can, let me know.
The Components of Sound
When people talk about the sound of an amplifier, there are many different
terms used. For a typical (high quality) amplifier, the sound may be described
as "smeared", or having "air" or "authoritative" bass. These terms - although
describing a listener's experience - have no direct meaning in electrical terms.
Electrically, we can discuss distortion, phase shift, current capability, slew
rate and a myriad of other known phenomena. I don't have any real idea as to
how we can directly link these to the common terms used by reviewers and
listeners.

Some writers have claimed that all amplifiers actually sound the same, and to
some extent (comparing apples with apples) this is "proven" in double-blind
listening tests. I am a great believer in this technique, but there are some
differences that cannot be readily explained. An amp that is deemed
"identical" to another in a test situation, may sound completely different in a
normal listening environment. It is these differences that are the hardest to
deal with, since we do not always measure some of the things that can have a
big influence on the sound.
For example; It is rare that testing is done on an amplifier's clipping
performance - how the amp recovers from a brief transient overload. I have
stated elsewhere that a hi-fi amplifier should never clip in normal usage - nice
try, but it IS going to happen, and often is more common than we might think.
Use a good clipping indicator on the amp, and this can be eliminated, but at
what cost? It might be necessary to reduce the volume (and SPL) to a level
that is much lower than you are used to, to eliminate a problem that you were
unaware existed.
Different amplifiers react in different ways to these momentary overloads,
where their overall performance is otherwise almost identical. I have tested
IC power amps, and was dismayed by the overload recovery waveform. My
faithful old 60W design measures about the same as the IC in some areas, a
little better in some, a little worse in others (as one would expect).
Were these two amps compared in a double blind test (avoiding clipping), it is
probable that no-one would be able to tell the difference. Advance the level so
that transients started clipping, and a fence post would be able to hear the
difference between them. What terms would describe the sound? I have no
idea. The sound might be "smeared" due to the loss of detail during the
recovery time of the IC amp. Imaging might suffer as well, since much of the
signal that provides directional cues would be lost for periods of time.
Measurable Performance Characteristics

A detailed description of the more important (from a sound perspective) of

the various amplifier parameters is given later in this article, but a brief
description is warranted first. Items marked with a * are problem areas, and
the effect should be minimised wherever possible. The parameters that
should normally be measured (although for those marked # this is rare
indeed) are as follows:
*

Important

parameter

# Rarely measured

Input Sensitivity : The signal level required to obtain full power at the
amplifier's output. This is determined by the gain and power rating of
the amp. A 10W amplifier requires far less gain than a 200W amplifier
to obtain full power for the same input voltage. It would be useful if all
amplifiers had the same gain regardless of power, but this is not the
case. Sensitivities vary widely, ranging from about 500mV up to 1.5V or
more.

Total Harmonic Distortion (THD) * : This is a measure of the amount

of distortion (modification) of the input signal, which adds additional
signal frequencies to the output that are not present in the input signal.
THD is commonly measured as a percentage, and can range from 0.001%
to 0.1% for typical hi-fi amplifiers. A theoretically perfect amplifier
contributes no distortion.

Transient Intermodulation Distortion (TIM) * : Also sometimes called

slew induced distortion, this is a form of distortion said to occur when
the input signal changes so fast that the output cannot keep up with it.
When this happens, feedback ceases to be effective, since the output
signal is delayed too long. This remains somewhat contentious, and most
modern amplifiers are quite capable of handling the normal programme
amplitude and frequency range without difficulty.

Crossover Distortion *# : A form of distortion caused by the power

output devices in a push-pull amplifier operating in Class-AB. This occurs

in valve and solid state designs, and is caused by one device switching
off as the other takes over for its half of the waveform. There are
some designs that claim to eliminate this distortion by never turning off
the power devices, but in reality, only Class-A amplifiers have zero
crossover distortion. This is generally measured as a part of the THD of
an amplifier, and becomes worse as power is reduced from the
maximum.

Frequency Response * : The amount of frequency versus amplitude

distortion in an amplifier. A perfect amplifier will amplify all signals
equally, regardless of frequency. Realistically, an amplifier needs a
response of about 5Hz to 50kHz to ensure that all audible signals are
catered for with minimal modification.

Phase Response : This indicates the amount of time that the input
signal is delayed before reaching the output, based on the signal
frequency. Variations in absolute phase are not audible in an amplifier
system, but are generally considered undesirable by the hi-fi press.
Since it is not difficult to ensure phase linearity, this is not generally a
design issue except with valve amplifiers.

Output Power : This is most commonly measured into a non-inductive

resistive load. This is not done to improve the figures or disguise any
possible shortcomings, but to ensure that measurements are accurate
and repeatable. Power should only ever be quoted as "RMS", which
although is not strictly correct, is accepted in the industry, and may be
measured into 8 Ohms, or other impedances that the amplifier is
capable of driving.

Output Current # : Not often measured, but sometimes quoted by

manufacturers, this represents the maximum current the amplifier can
supply into any load. It is rare that any amplifier will be called upon to
deliver any current greater than about 3 to 5 times the maximum that
the nominal speaker impedance would allow for the amplifier's supply

voltage. Greater variations may be possible with some speaker designs,

but (IMO) this represents a flaw in the design of the loudspeaker.

Power Bandwidth : This is usually taken as the maximum frequency at

which the amplifier can produce 1/2 of its rated output power (this is
the -3dB frequency). A 100W amplifier that can produce 50W at 50kHz
will be deemed as having a 50kHz power bandwidth.

Slew Rate # : Closely related to power bandwidth, the slew rate is the
maximum rate of change (measured in Volts per microsecond) of the
amplifier output. The higher the amplifier power, the higher the slew
rate must be to obtain the same power bandwidth.

Open Loop Bandwidth # : The bandwidth of the amplifier with no AC

feedback applied. Very few amplifiers will have an open loop bandwidth
greater than a few kilo-Hertz, but valve amps and some solid state
designs have a comparatively high open loop bandwidth.

Open Loop Gain # : Rarely quoted except for DIY amps (and few of
them as well), this is the gain of the amplifier without any AC signal
feedback. It is not really a helpful parameter for most people, but can
be used to determine the ...

Open Loop Distortion #* : The THD of the amplifier with no feedback

applied. This should be as low as possible, but realistically will usually be
quite high by normal standards. The open loop distortion is reduced by
an amount approximately equal to the feedback ratio.

Open Loop Output Impedance # : The output impedance of the

amplifier with no AC feedback applied. This may range from a few Ohms
to 10 or more Ohms, depending on the design of the amplifier. Valve
amplifiers will normally have an open loop output impedance of 0.7 of the
designed speaker impedance.

Feedback Ratio # : How much of the open loop gain is fed back to the
amplifier's input to obtain the sensitivity figure quoted for the amp.
For example if an amplifier has an open loop gain of 100dB, and a gain of
20dB, then the feedback ratio is 80dB. The application of feedback will
o Increase bandwidth
o Reduce phase shift
o Reduce distortion
o Reduce output impedance

Output Impedance * : This is the actual output impedance of the

amplifier, and has no bearing on the amount of current that can be
supplied by the output stage. Valve amplifiers usually have a relatively
high output impedance (typically 1 to 6 Ohms), while solid state amps
will normally have an output impedance of a fraction of an Ohm. By use
of feedback, it is possible to increase output impedance (> 200 Ohms is
quite easy), or it can be made negative. Negative impedance has been
tried by many designers (including the author), but has never gained
popularity - possibly because most speakers react very poorly to
negative impedances and tend to sound awful.

Every amplifier design on the planet has the same set of constraints, and will
exhibit all of the above problems to some degree. The only exception is a
Class-A amplifier, which does not have crossover distortion, but is still limited
by all other parameters.
The difficulty is determining just how much of any of the problem items is
tolerable, and under what conditions. For example, there are many single
ended triode valve designs which have very high distortion figures
(comparatively speaking), high output impedance and low output current
capability. There are many audio enthusiasts who claim that these sound
superior to all other amplifiers, so does this mean that the parameters where

they perform badly (or at least not as well as other amps) can be considered
unimportant? Not at all!
If a conventional (i.e. not Class-A) solid state amplifier gave similar figures, it
would be considered terrible, and would undoubtedly sound dreadful.
Although all the issues described above are separate in their own right, many
can be lumped together under a single general category....
Distortion
Technically, distortion is any change that takes place to a signal as it travels
from source to destination. If some of the signal "goes missing", this is
distortion just as much as when additional harmonics are generated.
We tend to classify distortion in different ways - the imperfect frequency
response of an amplifier is not generally referred to as distortion, but it is.
Instead, we talk about frequency response, phase shift, and various other
parameters, but in reality they are all a form of distortion.
The bottom line is that amplifiers all suffer from some degree of distortion,
but if two amplifiers were to be compared that had no distortion at all, they
must (by definition) be identical in both measured and perceived sound.
Naturally, there is no such thing as a perfect amplifier, but there are quite a
few that come perilously close, at least within the audible frequency range.
What I shall attempt to do is look at the differences that do exist, and try to
determine what effect these differences have on the perceived "sonic
quality" of different amplifiers. I will not be the first to try to unravel this
mystery, and I doubt that I will be the last. I also doubt that I will succeed, in
the sense that success in this particular area would only be achieved if
everyone agreed that I was right - and of that there is not a chance!
(However, one lives in hope.)

In this article I use the somewhat outdated term "solid state" to

differentiate between valve amps, and those built using bipolar transistors,
MOSFETs or other non-vacuum tube devices.
I have also introduced a new (?) test method, which I have called a SIM
(Sound Impairment Monitor), the general concept of which is described in the
appendix to this article.
Clipping Distortion
How can one amplifier's clipping distortion sound different from that of
another? Most of the hi-fi fraternity will tend to think that clipping is
undesirable in any form at any time. While this is undeniably true, many of the
amps used in a typical high end setup will be found to be clipping during normal
programme sessions. I'm not referring to gross overload - this is quite
unmistakable and invariably sounds awful - regardless of the amplifier.
There are subtle differences between the way amplifiers clip, that can make a
very great impact on the sound. Valve amps are the most respectable of all,
having a "soft" clipping characteristic which is comparatively unobtrusive. Low
feedback Class-A amplifiers are next, with slightly more "edge", but otherwise
are usually free from any really nasty additions to the overall sound.
Then there are the myriad of Class-AB discrete amps. Most of these (but by
no means all) are reasonably well behaved, and while the clipping is "hard" it
does not have significant overhang - this is to say that once the output signal
is lower than the supply voltage again it just carries on as normal. This is the
ideal case - when any amp clips, it should add no more nastiness to the sound
than is absolutely necessary. Clipping refers to the fact that when the
instantaneous value of output signal attempts to exceed the amplifier's power
supply voltage, it simply stops, because it cannot be greater than the supply.
We know it must stop, but what is of interest is how it stops, and what the
amplifier does in the brief period during and immediately after the clipping
has occurred.

Figure 1 - Comparison of Basic Clipping Waveforms

In Figure 1, you can see the different clipping waveforms I am referring to,
with "A" being representative of typical push-pull valve amps, "B" is the
waveform from a conventional discrete Class-AB solid state amp, and "C"
shows the overhang that is typical of some IC power amps as well as quite a
few discrete designs. This is a most insidious behaviour for an amp, because
while the supply is "stuck" to the power rail, any signal that might have been
present in the programme material is lost, and a 100Hz (or 120Hz) component
is added if the clipping + "stuck to rail" period lasts long enough. This comes
from the power supply, and is only avoidable by using a regulated supply or
batteries. Neither of these is cheap to implement, and they are rarely found
in amplifier designs.
Although Figure 1 shows the signal as a sinewave for ease of identification, in
a real music signal it will be a sharp transient that will clip, and if the amp
behaves itself, this will be (or should be) more or less inaudible. Should it stick
to the supply rail, the resulting description of the effect is unlikely to
accurately describe the actual problem, but describe what it has done to the
sound - from that listener's perspective. A simple clipped transient should not
be audible in isolation, but will have an overall effect on the sound quality.
Again, the description of this is unlikely to indicate that the amp was clipping,
and regrettably few amps have clipping indicators so most of the time we
simply don't know it is happening.
To be able to visualise the real effect of clipping, we need to see a section of
"real" signal waveform, with the lowest and highest signal frequencies present

at the same time. If the amp is clipped because of a bass transient (this is the
most common), the period of the waveform is long. even if the signal is clipped
for only 5 milliseconds, this means that 5 complete cycles of any signal at
1000Hz is removed completely, or 50 complete cycles at 10kHz. This
represents a significant loss of intended information, which is replaced by a
series of harmonics of the clipped frequency (if clipping lasts for long enough),
or more typically a series of harmonics that is not especially related to
anything (musically speaking - all harmonics are related to something, but this
is not necessarily musical!)
I think that no review of any amplifier should ever be performed without some
method of indicating that the amp is clipping (or is subject to some other form
of signal impairment), and this can be added to the reviewer's notes - along
the lines of:
"This amplifier was flawless when kept below clipping (or as long as the SIM
failed to show any noticeable impairment), but even the smallest amount of
overload caused the amp to sound very hard. Transparency was completely
lost, imaging was impaired badly, and it created listener fatigue very quickly."
Now, wouldn't that be cool? Instead of us being unaware (as was the reviewer
in many cases) that the amp in review was being overdriven - however slightly we now (all of us) have that missing piece of information that is not included at
the moment. I have never seen a review of an amp where the output was
monitored with an accurate clipping indicator to ensure that the reviewer was
not listening to a signal that was undistorted. I'm not saying that no-one does
this, just none that I have read.
The next type of overload behaviour is dramatically worse, and I have seen
this in various amps over the years. Most commonly associated with overload
protection circuits, the sound is gross. I do not know the exact mechanism
that allows this to happen, but it can be surmised that the protection system
has "hysteresis", a term that is more commonly associated with thermal
controllers, steel transformer laminations and Schmitt trigger devices.
Basically, a circuit with hysteresis will operate once a certain trigger point is

reached, but will not reset until the input signal has fallen below a threshold
that is lower than the trigger point. The typical waveform of an amplifier with
this problem is shown in Figure 2, and I believe it IS a problem, and should be
checked for as a normal part of the test process. This type of overload
characteristic is not desirable in any way, shape or form.

Figure 2 - Hysteresis Overload Waveform

In this case, the additional harmonic components added to the original sound
will be more prominent than with "normal" clipping. As before, I cannot even
begin to imagine how the sound might be described - all the more reason to
ensure that testing includes informing the reader if the amp was clipping or
not during the listening tests. The loss of signal with this type of distortion
will generally be much greater than simple clipping, and the added harmonic
content will be much more pronounced, especially in the upper frequencies.
Clipping

Synopsis

Tests conducted as a part of any review would be far more revealing if the
clipping waveform were shown as a matter of course. After some learning on
our behalf, we would get to know what various of the hi-fi press meant when
they described the sound while the amp was clipping, versus not clipping, or
what the amp sounded like when its overload protection circuits came into
action.
To this end I have designed a new distortion indicator circuit, which not only
indicates clipping, but will show when the amp is producing distortion of any
kind beyond an acceptable level. One version has been published as a project,

and I have chosen the acronym SIM (Signal Impairment Monitor) for this
circuit.
The SIM will react to any form of signal modification, and this includes phase
distortion and frequency response distortion. I do not believe that this
approach has been used before in this way. It is not an uncommon method for
distortion measurement, but has not been seen anywhere as a visual indicator
for identifying problem areas that an amp may show in use. This circuit will
also show when an amplifier's protection circuit has come into effect.
Although the detector has no idea what type of problem is indicated, it does
indicate when the input and output signals no longer match each other - for
whatever reason. Oscilloscope analysis would be very useful using this circuit,
as with a little practice we would be able to identify many of the currently
unknown effects of various amplifier aberrations. Note that it is unable to
reveal crossover distortion unless it becomes quite high, which is extremely
unlikely in any modern amplifier design.
Crossover Distortion
Class-A amplifiers have no crossover distortion at all, because they maintain
conduction in the output device(s) for the entire waveform cycle and never
turn off. Class-A is specifically excluded from this section for that reason.
For the rest, a similar question as the one before - how can one amplifier's
crossover distortion sound different from another? Surely if there is
crossover distortion it will sound much the same? Not so at all. Again, valve
amplifiers are much better in this area than solid state amps (at least in open
loop conditions). When valves cross over from one output device to the next
(standard push-pull circuit is assumed), the harmonic structure is comprised
of mainly low order odd harmonics. There will be some 3rd harmonics, a
smaller amount of 5th, and so on.
Solid state amps tend to create high order odd harmonics, so there will be the
3rd harmonic, only a tiny bit less of the 5th harmonic, and the harmonics will

extend across the full audio bandwidth. Transistor and MOSFET amps have
very high open loop gains, and use feedback to reduce distortion. In all cases,
the crossover distortion is caused because the power output devices are nonlinear. At the low currents at which the changeover occurs, these nonlinearities are worse, as well, the devices usually have a lower gain at these
currents.
This has two effects. The open loop gain of the amplifier is reduced because
of the lower output device gain, so there is less negative feedback where it is
most needed. Secondly, the feedback tries to compensate for the lower gain
(and tries to eliminate the crossover distortion), but is limited by the overall
speed of the internal circuitry of the amplifier. This results in sharp
transitions in the crossover region, and any sharp transition means high order
harmonics are produced (however small they might be).
One method to minimise this is to increase the quiescent (no signal) current in
the output transistors. With a linear output stage in a well designed circuit,
crossover distortion should be all but non-existent with any current above
about 50 to 100mA (but note that if the quiescent current is increased too
far, overall distortion may actually get worse). Figure 3 shows the crossover
distortion (at the centre of the red trace) and the residue as seen on an
oscilloscope (green trace, amplified by 10 for clarity) - this is the typical
output from a distortion meter, with an amplifier that has noticeable
crossover distortion. If measured properly, the distortion is highly visible,
even though it may be barely audible. Note that the waveform below would not
qualify for the last statement - this amount of crossover distortion would be
very audible indeed.

Figure 3 - Crossover Distortion Waveform

If THD is quoted without reference to its harmonic content, then it is quite
possible that two amplifiers may indicate identical distortion figures, but one
will sound much worse than the other. Distortion at a level of 1W should
always be quoted, and the waveform shown. Once the waveform can be seen, it
is easy to determine whether it will sound acceptable or dreadful - before we
even listen to the amp. Listening tests will confirm the measured results with
great accuracy, although the descriptive terms used will vary, and may not
indicate the real problem.
Crossover

Distortion

Synopsis

Although this is one area where modern amplifiers rarely perform badly, it is
still important, and should be measured and described with more care than is
usually the case. While few amplifiers will show up badly in this test now,
crossover distortion was one of the main culprits that gave solid state a bad
name when transistors were first used in amplifiers.
I do not believe that we can simply ignore crossover distortion on the basis
the "everyone knows how to fix it, and it is not a problem any more". I would
suggest that it is still a real problem, only the magnitude has been reduced -

the problem is still alive and well. Will you be able to hear it with most good
quality amp? Almost certainly not.
Frequency And Phase Distortion
Distortion of the frequency response should not be an issue with modern
amplifiers, but with some (such as single ended triode valve designs), it does
pose some problems. The effect is that not all frequencies are amplified
equally, and the first to go are the extremes at both ends of the spectrum. It
is uncommon for solid state amps to have a frequency response at low powers
that extends to anything less than the full bandwidth from 20Hz to 20kHz.
This is not the case with some of the simple designs, and single ended triode
(SET) Class-A - as well as inductance loaded solid state Class-A amps - will
often have a less than ideal response.
I would expect any amplifier today should be no more than 0.5dB down at
20Hz and 20kHz, referred to the mid-band frequency (usually taken as 1kHz,
but is actually about 905Hz). (My preferred test frequency is 440Hz (concert
pitch A, below middle C), but none of this is of great consequence.) 0.5dB loss
is acceptable in that it is basically inaudible, but most amps will do much
better than this, with virtually no droop in the response from 10Hz to over
50kHz.
For reference, the octaves included for "normal" sound are:
20 40 80 160 320 640 1,280 2,560 5,120 10,240 20,480 (all in
Hertz)
To determine the halfway point between two frequencies one octave apart, we
multiply the lower frequency by the square root of 2 (1.414). The halfway
point is between 650 and 1280Hz, or 904.96Hz. You must be so pleased to
have been provided with this piece of completely useless information! Just
think yourselves lucky that I didn't tell you how to calculate the distance
between the frets on a guitar.

Most amplifiers will manage well beyond the range necessary for accurate
reproduction, at all power levels required to cater for the requirements of
music. So why are some amps described as having poor rendition of the high
frequencies? They may be described a "veiled" or something similar, but there
is no measurement that can be applied to reveal this when an amplifier is
tested. Interestingly, some of the simpler amplifiers (again, such as the single
ended triode amps) have poorer response than most of the solid state designs,
yet will regularly be described as having highs that "sparkle", and are
"transparent".
These terms are not immediately translatable, since they are subjective, and
there is no known measurement that reveals this quality. We must try to
determine what measurable effect might cause such a phenomenon. There are
few real clues, since amplifiers that should not be classified as exceptional in
this area are often described as such. Other amps may be similarly described,
and these will not have the distortion of a single ended triode and will have a
far better response.
We can (almost) rule out distortion as a factor in this equation, since amps
with comparatively high distortion can be comparable to others with negligible
distortion. Phase shift is also out of the question, since amps with a lot of
phase shift can be favourably compared to others with virtually none. One
major difference is that typical SET amplifiers have quite high levels of low
order even harmonics. Although these will give the sound a unique character, I
doubt that this is the sole reason for the perceived high frequency
performance - I could also be wrong.
Phase distortion occurs in many amplifiers, and is worst in designs using an
output transformer or inductor (sometimes called a choke). The effect is that
some frequencies are effectively delayed by a small amount. This delay is
usually less than that caused by moving one's head closer to the loudspeakers
by a few millimetres. It is generally thought to be inaudible, and tests that I
(and many others) have conducted seem to bear this out.

Frequency

And

Phase

Distortion

Synopsis

There must be some mechanism that causes multiple reviewers to describe an

amplifier as having a poor high frequency performance, such as (for example) a
lack of transparency. There are few real clues that allow us to determine
exactly what is happening to cause these reviewers to describe the sound of
the amp in such terms, and one may be tempted to put it all down to
imagination or "experimenter expectancy". This is likely to be a mistake, and
regardless what we might think about reviewers as a species, they do get to
listen to many more amplifiers than most of us.
One of the few variables is a phenomenon called slew rate. This is discussed
fully in the next section.
Slew Rate Distortion
This has always been somewhat controversial, but no-one has ever been able to
confirm satisfactorily that slew rate (within certain sensible limits) has any
real effect on the sound. Figure 4 is a nomograph that shows the required slew
rate for any given power output to allow full power at any frequency. To use it,
determine the power and calculate the peak voltage, and place the edge of a
ruler at that voltage level. Tilt the ruler until the edge also aligns with the
maximum full power frequency on the top scale. The slew rate is indicated on
the bottom scale.
For example, if the peak voltage is 50V (a 150W/8 ohm amp) and you expect
full power to 20kHz, the required slew rate is 6V/s. Bear in mind that no
amplifier is ever expected to provide full power at 20kHz, and if it did the
tweeters would fail very quickly.

Figure 4 - Slew Rate Nomograph

Slew rate distortion is caused when a signal frequency and amplitude is such
that the amplifier is unable to reproduce the signal as a sine wave. Instead,
the input sine wave is "converted" into a triangle wave by the amplifier. This is
shown in Figure 5, and is indicative of this behaviour in any amplifier with a
limited slew rate. The basic problem is caused by the "dominant pole" filter
included in most amplifiers to maintain stability and prevent high frequency
oscillation. While very few amplifiers even come close to slew rate induced
distortion (AKA Transient Intermodulation Distortion) with a normal signal,
this is one of the very few possibilities left to explain why some amps seem to
have a less than enthusiastic response from the reviewers' perspective.
If you don't like the nomograph, you can calculate the maximum slewrate if a
sinewave easily. The formula is ...
SR

Vp

Where SR is slewrate in V/s and Vp is the peak voltage of the sinewave

(VRMS * 1.414)
For example, 20kHz at 28V RMS (100W/ 8 ohms) requires a slewrate of ...
SR

20,000

40

SR = 5,026,548 V/s = 5.03V/s

We already know absolutely that no music source will ever provide a full power
signal at 20kHz, but to allow it the amp needs a slewrate of 5V/s (close

enough). Should someone claim that you need 100V/s or better, that their
amp can do just that and you'll miss out on much of your music, then you know
that the claims are fallacious. Having a higher slewrate than strictly necessary
does no harm, provided that the design's stability hasn't been compromised to
achieve the claimed figure. All design is the art of compromise, and some
compromises can be a giant leap backwards if the designer concentrates on
one

issue

and

ignores

others.

happen

to

think

that

stability

is extremely important - no amp should oscillate when operated normally into

any likely speaker load ... ever!

Figure 5 - Slew Rate Limiting In An Amplifier

The red trace shows the amp operating normally, and the green trace shows
what happens if the slew rate is deliberately reduced. Is this the answer,
then? I wish it were, since we could all sleep soundly knowing exactly what
caused one amp to sound the way it did, compared to another, which should
have sounded almost identical.
A further test is to apply a low frequency square wave at about half to 3/4
power, mixed with a low-level high frequency sinewave to the amplifier. At the
transitions of the squarewave, the sinewave should simply move up and down "riding" the squarewave. If there is any mis-behaviour in the amp, the

sinewave may be seen to be compressed so its shape will change, or a few

cycles may even go missing entirely. Either is unacceptable, and should not
occur.
This is an extremely savage test, but most amplifiers should be able to cope
with it quite well. Those that don't will modify the music signal in an
unacceptable way in extreme cases (which this test simulates). Again, this is
an uncommon test to perform, but may be quite revealing of differences
between amps.
Frequency

And

Slew

Rate

Distortion

Synopsis

We need to delve deeper, and although there seems to be little (if any) useful
evidence we can use to explain this particular problem, there is an answer, and
it therefore possible to measure the mechanism that causes the problem to
exist.
Open Loop Responses
The performance of a feedback amplifier is determined by two primary
factors. These are

Open loop performance

Feedback ratio

If the amp has a poor open loop gain and high distortion, then sensible
amounts of feedback will not be able to correct the deficiencies, because
there is not sufficient gain reserve. By the time the performance is
acceptable, it may mean that the amplifier has unity gain, and is now
impossible to drive with any normal preamp.
Many amplifiers have a very high open loop gain, but may have a restricted
frequency response. Let's assume an amp that has a gain of 100dB at 20Hz,
and 40dB gain at 20kHz. If we want 30dB of overall gain (which is about
standard), then there is 70dB of feedback at 20Hz, but only 10dB at 20kHz.
As a very rough calculation, distortion and output impedance are reduced by

the feedback ratio, so if open loop distortion were 3% (not an unreasonable

figure), then at 20Hz, this is reduced to 0.0015%, but will be only just under
1% at 20kHz.
Because these figures are so rarely quoted (and I must admit, I have not
really measured all the characteristics of the 60W amp in Project 03 - open
loop measurements are difficult to make accurately), we have no idea if
amplifiers with poor open loop responses are responsible for so many of the
failings we hear about. It is logical to assume that there must be some
correlation, but we don't really know for sure.
Ideally, an amplifier should have wide bandwidth and low distortion before
global feedback is applied, which will just make a good amp better. Or will it? I
have read reviews where a very simple amp was deemed one of the best around
(this was quite a few years ago), and I was astonished when I finally saw the
circuit - it was almost identical to the "El Cheapo" amplifier (see the projects
pages for more info on this amp).
The only major difference between this amp and most of the others at the
time was the comparatively low open loop gain, and a somewhat wider
bandwidth than was typical at the time, because it does not need a miller
capacitor for stability. So the amp was better in one respect, worse in
another.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what the open loop response is like, as long
as closed loop (i.e. with feedback applied) performance does not degrade the
sound. Again, we have the same quandary as before - unless we can monitor the
difference between input and output at all levels and with normal signal
applied, we really don't know what is going on. The usual tests are useful, but
cannot predict how an amp will sound. I have heard countless stories about
amps that measure up extremely well, but sound "hard and dry", and have no
"music" in them.

Unless these measurements are made (or at least some modified form), we will
still be no further in understanding why so many people prefer one brand of
amp over another (other than peer pressure or advertising hype).
One possibility is to measure the amp with a gain of 40dB. This is an easy
enough modification to make for testing, and the performance is far easier to
measure than if we attempt open loop testing. The difference between
measured performance at 30dB gain (about 32) versus 40dB (100) would be an
excellent indicator of the amp's performance, and it is not too hard to predict
the approximate open loop response from the different measurements. To be
able to do this requires that all measurements be very accurate.
Would these results have any correlation with the review results? We will
never know if someone doesn't try it - work the techniques discussed here
thoroughly, with a number of different amps. It would be useful to ensure
that the reviewer was unaware of the test results before listening, to guard
against experimenter expectancy or sub-conscious prejudice.
It is very hard to do a synopsis of this topic, since I have too little data to
work with. Only by adopting new ideas and test methods will we be able to
determine if the "golden-ear" brigade really does have golden ears, or that
they actually hear much the same "stuff" as the rest of us, but have a better
vocabulary. That is not intended as a slur, just a comment that we have to find
out if there is anything happening that we (the "engineering" types) don't
know about, or not. Unless we can get a match between measured and
described performance, we get nowhere (which is to say that we stay where
we are, on opposite sides of the fence).
Speaker - Amplifier Interface
Many is the claim that the ear is one of the most finely tuned and sensitive
measuring instrument known. I am not going to dispute this - not so that I will
not offend anyone (I seem to have done this many times already), but because
in some respects it is true. Having said that, I must also point out that
although extremely sensitive, the ear (or to be more correct, the brain) is also

easily fooled. We can imagine that we can hear things that absolutely do not
exist, and can just as easily imagine that one amplifier sounds better than
another, only to discover that the reverse is true under different
circumstances. Listeners have even declared one amp to be clearly superior to
another when the amp hasn't been changed at all.
Could it be the influence of speaker cables, or even loudspeakers themselves?
This is quite possible, since when amps are reviewed it is generally with the
reviewer's favourite speaker and lead combination. This might suit one
amplifier perfectly, while the capacitance and inductance of the cable might
cause minute instabilities in other otherwise perfectly good amplifiers.
Although it a fine theory to suggest that a speaker lead should not affect the
performance of a well designed amplifier, there are likely to be some
combinations of cable characteristics that simply freak out some amps.
Likewise, some amps just might not like the impedance presented by some
loudspeakers - this is an area that has been the subject of many studies, and
entire amplifiers have been designed specifically to combat these very
problems [1].
Many published designs never get the chance of a review, at least not in the
same sense as a manufactured amplifier, so it can be difficult (if not
impossible) to make worthwhile comparisons. In addition, we sometimes have
different reviewers making contradictory remarks about the same amp. Some
might think it is wonderful, while others are less enthusiastic. Is this because
of different speakers, cables, or some other influence? The answer (of
course) is that we have no idea.
We come back to the same problem I described earlier, which is that the
standard tests are not necessarily appropriate. A frequency response graph
showing that an amp is ruler flat from DC to daylight is of absolutely no use if
everyone says that the highs are "veiled", or that imaging is poor. Compare
this with another amp that is also ruler flat, and (nearly) everyone agrees that
the highs are detailed, transparent, and that imaging is superb.

We need to employ different testing methodologies to see if there is a way to

determine from bench (i.e. objective) testing, what a listening (i.e. subjective)
test might reveal. This is a daunting task, but is one that must be sought
vigorously if we are to learn the secrets of amplifier sound. It is there - we
just don't know where to look, or what to look for ... yet. Until we have
correlation between the two testing methods, we are at the mercy of the
purveyors of amplifier snake oil and other magic potions.
The SIM distortion indicator is one possible method that might help us, but it
may also react to the wrong stimulus. Perhaps we need to add the ability to
detect small amounts of high frequencies with greater sensitivity, but now a
simple idea becomes quite complex, possibly to no avail. It is also important
that such a device has zero effect on the incoming signal itself, so some care
is needed to ensure that there is negligible loading on the source preamplifier.
This is not the only avenue open to us to correlate subjective versus objective
testing. Both are important, the problem is that one is purely concerned with
the way an amplifier behaves on the test bench, and a whole series of more or
less identical results can be expected. The other is veiled in "reviewer speak",
and although it might be useful if the reviewer is known and trusted, is not
measurable or repeatable. The whole object is to try to determine what
physical factors cause amplifiers to sound different, despite that fact that
conventional testing indicates that they should sound the same.
Impedance
The output impedance of any amplifier is finite. There is no such thing as an
amplifier with zero output impedance, so all amps are influenced to some
degree by the load. An ideal load is perfectly resistive, and has no reactive
elements (inductance or capacitance) at all. Just as there is no such thing as a
perfect amplifier, there is also no such thing as a perfect load. Speakers are
especially gruesome in this respect, having significant reactance, which varies
with frequency.

A genuine zero impedance source is completely unaffected by the load, and it

does not matter if it is reactive or not. If such a source were to be connected
to a loudspeaker load, the influence of the load will be zero, regardless of
frequency, load impedance variations, or anything else.
Since this is not the case in the real world, the goal (or at least one of them)
is generally to make the amplifier have the lowest output impedance possible,
in the somewhat futile hope that the amp will not be adversely affected by
the variable load impedance. In essence, this is futile, since there will always
be some output impedance, and therefore the load will always have some
influence on the behaviour of the amp.
Another approach might be to make the output impedance infinite, and again,
the load will have zero effect on the amplifier itself. Alas, this too is
impossible. Given that the conventional approaches obviously cannot work, we
are faced with the problem that all amplifiers are affected by the load, and
therefore all amplifiers must show some degree of sensitivity to the speaker
lead and speaker.
The biggest problem is that no-one really knows what an amplifier will do when
a reactive load reflects some of the power back into the amp's output. We can
hope (without success) that the effects will be negligible, or we can try to
make speakers appear as pure resistance (again, without success).
A test method already exists for this, and uses one channel of an amp to drive
a signal back into the output of another. The passive amplifier is the one under
test. It is also possible to use a different source amplifier altogether, since
there is no need for it to be identical to the test amp. Use of a "standard"
amplifier whose characteristics are well known is useful, since the source will
be a constant in all tests. Differences may then be seen clearly from one test
to the next.
The method is shown in Figure 6, and is a useful test of the behaviour of an
amp when a signal is driven into its output. This is exactly what speakers do the reactive part of the loudspeaker impedance causes some of the power to

be "reflected" back into the amplifier. Since one amplifier in this test is the
source, the device under test can be considered a "sink"

Figure 6 - Amplifier Power Sink Test

I have used this test, and although it does show some interesting results, the
test is essentially not useful unless used as a comparative test method. The
amplifier under test is also subjected to very high dissipation (well above that
expected with any loudspeaker load), because the transistors are expected to
'dump' a possibly large current while they have the full rail voltage across
them. There is a real risk of damaging the amplifier, and I suggest that you
don't try this unless you are very sure of the driven amplifier's abilities.
We may now ask "Why is this not a standard test for amplifiers, then?". The
answer is that no-one has really thought about it enough to decide that this
will (or should) be part of the standard set of tests for objective testing of
an amplifier. The results might be quite revealing, showing a signal that may be
non-linear (i.e. distorted), or perhaps showing a wide variation in measured
signal versus frequency. The result of this test with amps having extensive
protection circuits will be a lottery - most will react (often very) badly at only
moderate current.
If there is high distortion or a large frequency dependence, then we have
some more information about the amplifier that was previously unknown. It
might be possible to correlate this with subjective assessments of the amp,
and gain further understanding of why some amps supposedly sound better

than others. We might discover that amps with certain characteristics using
this test are subjectively judged as sounding better than others ... or not.
If this test became standard, and was routinely allied with the SIM tester
described above, we may become aware of many of the problems that
currently are (apparently and/or allegedly) audible, but for which there is no
known measurement technique.
Conclusion
This article has described some tests that although not new, are possibly the
answer to so many questions we have about amplifiers. The tests themselves
have been known for some time, but their application is potentially of benefit.
We may be able to finally perform an objective test, and be able to predict
with a degree of confidence how the amp will sound. It may also happen that
these tests are not sufficient to reveal all the subtleties of amplifier sound,
but will certainly be more useful than a simple frequency response and
distortion test.
Any change to the testing methods used is not going to happen overnight, and
nor are we going to be able to see immediately which problems cause a
difference, and which ones have little apparent effect. Time, patience, and
careful correlation of the data are essential if this is to succeed. There are
laws of physics, and there are ears. Somewhere the two must meet in common
ground. We already know that this happens, since there are amplifiers that
sound excellent - according to a large number of owners, reviewers, etc. - now
we need to know why.
There is a test method (or a series of methods) that will allow us to obtain a
suite of tests that makes sense to designers and listeners alike, so we can get
closer to the ideal amplifier, namely the mythical "straight wire with gain", but
from the listener perspective rather than the senseless repetition of tests
that seem to have no bearing on the perceived quality of the amp. This is not
to say that the standard tests are redundant (far from it), but they do not
seem to reveal enough information.

For this to succeed, the subjectivists must be convinced, as must the

"objectivists". We are all looking for the same thing - the flawless
reproduction of sound - but the two camps have drifted further and further
apart over the years.
These are my musings, and I am open to suggestions for other testing
methods that may reveal the subtle differences that undeniably exist
between amplifiers. At the moment we have a chasm between those who can
(or think they can) hear the difference between a valve and an opamp, a
bipolar junction transistor and a MOSFET, or Brand "A" versus Brand "B", and
those who claim that there is no difference at all.
The fact that there are differences is obvious. The degree of difference and
why there are differences is not. It would be nice for all lovers of music (and
the accurate reproduction of same) if we can arrive at a mutually agreeable
explanation for these differences, that is accurate, repeatable, and
measurable.
If these criteria are not met, then the assessment is not useful to either
camp, and the chasm will simply widen. This is bad news for all - it is high time
we all get together and stop arguing amongst ourselves whether (for example)
it is better to use one brand of capacitor in the signal path or another.
These testing methods can also be applied to the measurement of individual
components, speaker cables, interconnects and preamps, particularly the SIM
tester. Using the amplifier power sink test with different cables and speakers
might give us some clues as to why so many people are adamant that one
speaker cable sounds better than another, even though there is no measurable
difference using conventional means.
The greatest benefit of these tests is that they will reveal things we have not
been looking at (or for) in the past, and may show differences that come as a
very great surprise to designers and listeners alike.

For information on the use of the SIM, and an initial article describing how it
works and my results so far, please see "Sound Impairment Monitor - The
Answer?"