In Reply to: So try this and see what happens posted by tomservo on August 18, 2006 at 13:29:32:
...at an idle output voltage of 0V.
But you need to know the PA's behavior at any voltage within its specified range.Note
So, I should prefer the following procedure:
- Apply 1,000Hz to the amplifier under test,
- 50/60Hz to a test amplifier,
- each of which drives opposite ends of an 8-ohms resistor.
- A spectrum analyser is then used to measure distorsion products at the output of the amplifier under test.
- Both amplifiers be operated at half the rated power of the amplifier under test,
- distorsion products be referred to the 1KHz level at the output of the amplifier under test.
The procedure I describe here is to measure the Interface Intermodulation Distorsion (IID).
Our ancestors knew this one, described by R.R.Cordell in"Open Loop Output Impedance and Interface Intermodulation Distorsion In Audio Power Amplifiers", 64th Convention of the AES, pp#1537, November 1979.
Nothings new under the sun...
Note: When you make the amplifier work under the 4th quadrant (that is absorbing energy instead of generating it), the more interesting behaviors are to happen at the lowest of highest output voltage.
But, much more important, an amplifier, even well designed, can behave badly if fed a too long time in its 4th quadrant.
For example for class A-B, excessive heating of output transistors in one branch, but not the other one, which would jeopardize bias current.
Or excessive voltage building upon one branch of the power supply in classD amps.
However, those conditions are irrealistic, and never in its music-reproducing job will the PA have to deal with back-EMF when idle more than a few milliseconds.
Which is the main reason i do prefer the old IID method above.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- If you try this, you'll see what happens... - Jacques 17:10:57 08/18/06 (23)
- Missed a variable or two.... - Jon Risch 21:03:44 08/18/06 (22)
- Set of agreements and disagreements - Jacques 04:25:49 08/19/06 (21)
- At least two more things - Jon Risch 16:27:57 08/20/06 (20)
- and again - Jacques 09:22:08 08/21/06 (19)
- Re: and again - Jon Risch 20:58:31 08/22/06 (18)
- Re: and again - jneutron 06:34:38 08/23/06 (17)
- Nope. - Jon Risch 21:13:52 08/23/06 (7)
- silly response. but, consistent.. - jneutron 07:46:49 08/24/06 (6)
- Sad - Jon Risch 21:26:52 08/24/06 (2)
- Again, you with your "look it's halleys comet" routine. - jneutron 08:35:12 09/05/06 (0)
- Re: Sad - jneutron 06:19:38 09/05/06 (0)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - john curl 13:16:17 08/24/06 (2)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - jneutron 13:37:01 08/24/06 (1)
- Re: silly response. but, consistent.. - john curl 14:50:32 08/24/06 (0)
- Re: and again - john curl 10:13:49 08/23/06 (8)
- Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - jneutron 10:45:28 08/23/06 (6)
- Re: Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - john curl 12:06:45 08/23/06 (5)
- Re: Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - jneutron 12:57:11 08/23/06 (4)
- Re: Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - john curl 16:35:29 08/23/06 (3)
- Re: Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - jneutron 05:46:25 08/24/06 (2)
- Re: Hey JC..what is " vector stimulus on the VI space."..do you know? - john curl 15:33:15 08/24/06 (1)
- another jc post..fluff and nuttin else. - jneutron 07:06:55 09/05/06 (0)
- Re: and again - jneutron 10:42:17 08/23/06 (0)