HUG - here for all audio enthusiasts

At its inception ten years ago, the Harbeth User Group's ambition was to create a lasting knowledge archive. Knowledge is based on facts and observations. Knowledge is timeless, independent of the observer and can be replicated. However, we live in new world in which objective facts have become flexible, personal and debatable. HUG operates in that real world, and that has now been reflected in the structure of HUG.

HUG has two approaches to contributor's Posts. If you, like us, have a scientific mind and are curious about how the ear works, how it can lead us to make the right - and wrong - decisions, and about the technical ins and outs of audio equipment, how it's designed and what choices the designer makes, then the factual Science of Audio sub-forum area of HUG is your place. The objective methods of comparing audio equipment under controlled conditions has been thoroughly examined here on HUG and elsewhere and can be readily understood by non-experts and tried-out at home without deep technical knowledge.

Alternatively, if you just like chatting about audio and subjectivity rules for you, then the Subjective Soundings area is you. If upon examination we think that Posts are better suited to one sub-forum than than the other, they will be redirected during Moderation, which is applied throughout the site.

Questions and Posts about, for example, 'does amplifier A sounds better than amplifier B' or 'which speaker stands or cables are best' are suitable for the Subjective Soundings area. From Oct. 2016, Posts in the Subjective Soundings area will not be spell checked or adjusted for layout clarity. We regret that but we are unable to accept Posts that present what we consider to be free advertising for products that Harbeth does not make.

The Moderators' decision is final in all matters and Harbeth does not necessarily agree with the contents of any member contributions and has no control over external content.

That's it! Enjoy!

{Updated Jan. 2017}
See more
See less

Amplifier harmonics and load stability

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46

    Originally posted by A.S. View Post
    Ummm. That's not what I expected you'd say although I can image a reason why you deduced that.

    What I was hoping you'd say was that in Ex. 14 (Pure tone with 10% 2nd harmonic and 10% 3rd harmonics) that the dominant distortion appeared to be the 3rd harmonic one, and that the 2nd harmonic was buried 'under' the third harmonic. Agree?

    Can we just bring a little theory of music in at this point?

    The 2nd harmonic of A 440 Hz is 880 Hz which is another A but an octave up.

    The 3rd harmonic is 1320 Hz which is an E above the 2nd harmonic A and in musical terms is another fifth up (and in musical terminology is actually called the dominant.)

    An A major chord would consist of A, C sharp and E - a major chord is probably the most 'normal' chord that we hear and in this context the combination of A and E doesn't have any of the negative sounds that we associate with 3rd harmonics in a hifi context.

    (the 3rd video in post 37 shows this nicely)

    Playing A 440 with it's third harmonic - 1320 Hz is a relatively large interval - an octave plus a fifth. Adding in the 2nd 'bridges the gap' to an extent.

    Sounding notes an octave apart will always sound as normal as it gets - otherwise they wouldn't be the same note. Any other interval will always sound more 'odd', ie. more distorted in this context.

    So, yes I agree with you but looked at in musical terms rather than plain 'harmonic distortion' terms.

    One further thought: the 6th harmonic will be 2640 Hz which is actually another E - so now 'E' gets to be an even order harmonic as well!


    • #47
      Dominant 3rd harmonic

      Originally posted by A.S. View Post
      What I was hoping you'd say was that in Ex. 14 (Pure tone with 10% 2nd harmonic and 10% 3rd harmonics) that the dominant distortion appeared to be the 3rd harmonic one, and that the 2nd harmonic was buried 'under' the third harmonic. Agree?

      That was definitely my initial perception, although as I went back and kept re-listening to the samples, I started to second-guess myself a bit. Perhaps I was gradually becoming more sensitized to the presence of the second harmonic "under" the third. But yes, the third harmonic was definitely dominant: it had a sharper tone, with a greater sense of "presence".


      • #48
        Chasing an ever lower audio electronics distortion?

        Ok. So it seems that the odd-order third harmonic (and this is also true for 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th etc.) draw more attention to themselves than the even order harmonics (2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, 10th etc.). So as a general guide, minimising the odd-order harmonics even if it means that the even-order harmonics inevitably increase (a little) may be an attractive design goal.

        But as an audiophile chasing every last degree of performance (cables, stands, room tuning) aren't you even a little shocked that a highly respected speaker system can generate 10% or more second harmonic? 10% is so significant that you can actually observe the distortion of the waveform on a 'scope (picture later): a pure sine wave no longer looks pure. If the speaker generates 10% distortion, is it really a worthwhile goal to engineer an amplifier with 0.1 or 0.01 or 0.001% distortion? Isn't it logical that 10% speaker distortion completely swamps the much lower distortion of the electronics?

        Those with a long memory may recall the Leak 'Point One' tube amplifier - from the 1950s (or was it 60s?). The point one name referred to a the target specification of achieving 0.1% distortion (total? harmonic?). And at the time, it was concluded that 0.1% amplifier distortion was a really worthwhile (and low) target to achieve.
        Alan A. Shaw
        Designer, owner
        Harbeth Audio UK


        • #49
          THD and weighting?

          Try this

          Not sure I understand it all, and I cannot find details of the distortion-weighting arguments referenced.

          This seems to be the core of the matter:

          The problem with using THD as a yardstick of quality is the order of the distortion term has a far more audible effect than its absolute magnitude. When you have 3 or more fundamental tones, the number of IM sum-and-difference terms are much worse when you have to contend with a large number of harmonics past the third. This was first discussed by Norman Crowhurst and D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC in the mid-Fifties, so it's hardly a new or radical concept.

          Regrettably, the single-tone additive THD . . . tests in common use today do not take this into account, thus ignoring the far more audible effects of the upper harmonics with real musical sources . . .

          The market-driven pursuit of the ever-lower THD number is why the audio industry progressively abandoned of linear amplifying devices in favor of less linear devices with more gain, and turned to circuits that used greater and greater amounts of feedback. With each step the THD figure moved downward, while the harmonic structure became less predictable and more complex . . .
          The thrust of the argument seems to be that for a generation we have been measuring the wrong things, which may account (in part) for subjectivists maintaining their choice sounds better in spite of the science.


          • #50
            The make-up of distortion and its trend with increasing frequency

            Originally posted by Labarum View Post
            ...The thrust of the argument seems to be that for a generation we have been measuring the wrong things, which may account (in part) for subjectivists maintaining their choice sounds better in spite of the science.
            Well, of course, you are pre-supposing that the subjectivists can/will be proven right under objective blind listening tests. In other words, that they are hearing something which we ordinary mortals are not hearing or measuring. I seriously doubt that is true. Once the loudness of A is equalised with the loudness of B, I really don't believe these night and day differences are still audible. Of course, they are audible in an uncalibrated, any-old-loudness comparison, even an instantaneous A-B one.

            I'm glad you introduces the distortion weighting point. You will notice that in my audio clips #16 and 17, that I introduced an equal amount of 2nd (or 3rd harmonic) distortion. So, for example #16, I took the fundamental at 100% and added in with it 10% of 2nd harmonic plus 10% 4th and 10% 6th. That was to make a point. You are most unlikely to find that equivalence of distortion (10% fixed) as you step up through the harmonics. In the real world, the harmonics of the fundamental tend to diminish in quantity (percentage) as the frequency increases. So an audio signal with fundamental 100% and 10% + 10% + 10% harmonics doesn't exist in the real world. A more likely scenario is 100% + 10% + 5% + 2% + 0.5% as frequency increases. You can see that generally downward sloping trend in harmonics if you look at the harmonic make-up of musical instruments and audio amplifiers. Do you have an example?
            Alan A. Shaw
            Designer, owner
            Harbeth Audio UK


            • #51
              Harmonic and non-harmonic distortion

              1. I should have known better that to reference the subjectivist/objectivist debate!

              2. Do you, Alan, have access to the work of "Norman Crowhurst and D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC". It would be fascinating to see that, and their reasons for proposing that distortion figures should be weighted.

              3. I have not yet seen any reference in this thread to non-harmonic distortion - when an amp adds components not found in the natural harmonic series - components that cannot hide in the timbre of the instruments. I can find it no more simply described than here


              These spurious noises are the nasty ones.


              • #52
                More on Shorter and Crowhurst BBC research on harmonics



                so still not the original source.

                Areas of the "Soul of Sound" site leave me uneasy, but this quote gets us closer to the BBC work.

                The Sound of Different Harmonic Spectra

                As mentioned above, odd and even harmonics can be recast as asymmetric distortion and symmetric distortion, thus the very different effects seen with IM distortion tests. As D.E.L. Shorter of the BBC pointed out in the April 1950 Issue of Electrical Engineering, real music is dominated by a great many closely-spaced tones - a choir or massed violins having the most dense spectra of all. Shorter showed that with a few as three closely spaced tones, IM sum-and-difference sidebands outnumber the much simpler harmonic series. In effect, as the number of tones increase, the number of IM sidebands increase at much faster rate than simple harmonics. The boundary case is 3 tones of equal magnitude; for 2 tones, IM is about the same as harmonic distortion, for 4 tones, IM is far greater than harmonic distortion. I leave it to the imagination of the reader to figure out how many simultaneous tones are present in real music — a lot more than three!

                The influence of IM vs THD has additional consequences for the type of music we listen to. Jazz and folk music have sparse spectra, thus THD will play a larger role in subjective coloration. By contrast, a cappela singers, large choirs, and massed violins have very dense spectra, with many closely-spaced tones drifting in and out of phase-lock all the time. This type of music will be strongly degraded by even small amounts of IM, but not as sensitive to relatively small amounts of low-order harmonic distortion. Thus the origin of the endless audiophile wrangles that are actually based on the type of music the listener prefers . . .

                The Effects of Feedback on Harmonic Structure

                The Williamson amplifier of 1947 was the design that did the most to popularise the "feedback cures all ills" philosophy. It is interesting during the period from 1948 to 1956, almost all commercial hi-fi amplifiers were Williamson topologies (with minor exceptions for Quad II, McIntosh, and EV Circlotron). During this formative period the mantra of "more power, lower THD" became the driving force in the industry. By 1960, ultra-wide bandwidth, heavy feedback, and Class AB EL34 and 6550 UL circuits ruled the industry.

                In the span of twelve years, the traditional audio-engineering prejudice against high-distortion devices faded, opening the door to high-power pentodes and Class AB operation. Each "improvement" was characterized by an increase in device distortion, which was then "corrected" by more and more feedback. Transistors circuits with even higher feedback ratios were the next obvious step - after all, they had more power, lower THD, more bandwidth, and most important of all, cost less to build.

                Norman Crowhurst wrote a fascinating analysis of feedback multiplying the order of harmonics, which has been reprinted in "Glass Audio," Vol 7-6, pp. 20 through 30. He starts with one tube generating only 2nd harmonic, adds a second tube in series (resulting in 2nd, 3rd, and 4th), and then makes the whole thing push-pull (resulting in 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th), and last but not least, adds feedback to the circuit, which creates a series of harmonics out to the 81st. All of this complexity from "ideal" tubes that only create 2nd harmonic!

                With real devices there are even more harmonics. In terms of IM, actual amplifiers have complex and dynamic noise floors thanks to the hundreds of sum-and-difference IM terms. That's not even counting the effects of reactive loads, which adds a frequency dependency to the harmonic structure! (With reactive loads, additional harmonics appear due to the elliptical loadline seen by the power tubes. The elliptical load-line dips into the very nonlinear low-current region, resulting in an instantaneous increase in upper harmonics. This spectral "roughening" is most audible with strong low frequency program material and hard-to-drive horn or vented bass drivers.)

                As Crowhurst noted, feedback mostly reduces the 2nd and 3rd harmonics, leaving the upper ones more or less alone, or sometimes even greater than before. Feedback fools the simple THD meter, but the spectrum analyzer sees through the shell game. Too bad raw power and almost useless THD measurements became the end-all and be-all for more than 50 years. If more engineers and reviewers had access to spectrum analyzers, the misleading nature of raw THD measurements would have been discovered earlier, and amplifier design might have taken a different course.


                • #53
                  A new distortion measurement: Wireless World, May 1978 (R.A. Belcher)

                  A fascinating paper from Wireless World by a BBC engineer is found here

                  A new distortion measurement
                  Better subjective-objective correlation than given by t.h.d.
                  by R. A. Belcher, B. Sc., Ph.D., M.I.E.E., BBC Research Department


                  This article gets quite technical, but even skipping the bits not understood would make for an interesting read.