PAPERS

Feedforward Error Correction in Power ~ m ~ l i f i e r s *

JOHN \IANDERKOOY Al

University of Waterloo, Waterloo,' o n ? . ,Canada

 PAPERS

Feedforward Error Correction in power ~ m ~ l i f i e r s *

JOHN VANDERKOOY AND STANLEY P. LlPSHlTZ

University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont., Canada

The engineering community is presently putting much effort into designing low-distortion
amplifiers with techniques more sophisticated than ordinary feedback. To guide this effort a
detailed exposition of feedforward error nulling techniques is presented. and a recent commer-
cial design is analyzed with an illustration of significant modifications. The paper thus consists
of: 1) a brief history of errorfeedforward, why i t was eclipsed by feedback, and why the time is
now ripe to exploit its possibilities for total error nulling; 2) an analysis of Black's feedforward
configuration and how it relates to more recent circuit concepts such as Macdonald's active
error feedback. Sandman's error takeoff, Walker's "current dumping," and several new
topologies; 3) an illustration of the only commercially available error feedfonvard circuit. the
Quad "current dumping" amplifier; 4) significant modifications to the latter scheme using
practical amplifiers, and generalizations of the bridge system incorporated in this concept; 5) an
incorporation of error correction intoclass-D switching amplifiers with resulting relaxed design
criteria.

0 INTRODUCTION audio industry in particular? These are some of the ques-

tions which we shall attempt to answer in the sequel. It is
V e year 1977 marked the fiftieth anniversary of the
our belief, and we trust that we shall be able to substantiate
invention of negative feedback, as we know it today, by
it below. that error feedforward can bestow considerable
Harold S. Black in 1927. So contrary to intuition were the
advantages, and that the time is now ripe to begin to reap
claims made in his patent application, and so far-reaching in
8
some of these benefits. To our knowledge there is at present
their ilrnplications, that it took nine years before the patent
only one feedforward audio amplifier on the market, name-
was c.
nnally granted in 1937 [I]. It is enlightening to read the
ly, the Quad 405 "current dumping" power amplifier [4]-
inventor's own account [2] for the historical perspective in
[6], and we shall therefore use its design principle to il-
which it places the discovery. This is something that is very
lustrate the latter portion of this discussion. We also show
difficult to appreciate nowadays, since negative feedback as
wavs in which the principle can be extended to include
an error-reduction or control mechanism is now all-per-
even a fe 3 pulse-width modulation (class-D)
vasive and take:n for gnlnted in rnany areaIS of appl ica-
Power amF ]in its am1bit.
tion. I%en the rnore esotc:ric aspects of nega~tivefeedt)ack
-..-..-.. -..-L -. .!I!... -- - -- - -
systems, sucn as their'stabll~ty cnterla,
_ L A _ .
are. riow well un ue1-
stood as a result of the work of Nyquist and Bode, amlong 1
others; In fact, error feedforward as a distortion reduc,tion F
nrnppss distinct from negative feedback is now virtua l l v
y.Vb-0
The negatlve teeaback prlnclple 1s now so well known
unknown, and it is sobering to real ize that it s inventio iat it is sufficient to refer to Fig. I for its salient features.
1923 I(and patenting in 1928 [3]), also by 14arold Bl; iy feeding back to the input of amplifier A a fractic~nfl of its
-
vredates that of negative feedback h., v r $-., .,ears. Wh. .--I
Ulutput e, in antiphase to the input siglldl e l . ~ ~ overall
a *l.
i e
feedfolrward, hc~wdoes it differ fro; :k, why hasit ignal gain of the system is reduced by a factor ( 1 + GP)
been illmost tot ally negle:cted, and can its use benefit the elow the open-loop gain G of the amplifier; that is, an
excess gain factor of (1 + GP) is required in the amplifier.
Pn:senfed at Ithe 63rd ccmvention c)f the AES , Los Angc
1979 hday 15-11 3, under tkle title "E rror Correc:tion in PC n return 1'or throwiing away this gain when cl~ osing the
Ampliliers;" revised 1979 Ck t . 25. egative ft:edback I()op, we c~btaina number of powerful

.. - . - .,
..,-, -
-
JOURNAL OF THE AUDIC1ENGINEEF3ING SOCIETY. 1980 JANUARY/FEBRUARY. VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1/2
 PERS
tages. The iidvantages include signal g ain stabiliz
I/P for larg;e amounl:s of excess gain, c)utput iml
reduction by. .L-
u ~ e,leeuoacn
?--.I L--l- r--.-
ractor ( I +n\ --J
Gp), arlo aoove all
-1
lm our present point of view, a reduction in the distortion
the overall amplifier by the same factor over that of the
lplifier without feedback. Unfortunately these advan-
ages are available on ly in limil:ed amour~ t -limit
s ed, that
s, not by engineering considerations, t)ut by the:oretical
:onsiderations which iare appare~ntfrom tkle gain f omula
~ in
Fil:. 1. The open-loop gain G of any amplifier is frc
de1pendent [that is,G = G(w)] in both magnitude an(
ancd so the vanishing of the denominator, that is, I -
0, warns of the potential instability with which one 1s
flirting when negative feedback is being used. For stable
performance the magnitude and phase of the loop gain GP
must be carefully controlled, that is, JGPI must be reduced
to unity before <(GP) becomes 180". At high frequencies
the open-loop amplifier phase shift will increase due to
poles or propagation delay -so that the output will even-
tually be in antiphase with its input, at which frequencies
the loop gain must be less than unity, and feedback cannot
correct any errors. Below these ultimate limiting frequen-
cies there are generally two regimes, in both of which the
open-loop gain exceeds the closed-loop gain, and feedback
error reduction is possible. First, at frequencies below the
open-loop bandwidth, the error is simply reduced by the
low-frequency loop gain. Although there will be delay
error due to the low-pass filter that describes the &en-loop
bandwidth, at these frequencies a signal pulse, bandlimited
to this open-loop bandwidth, will cause almost totally over-
lapping butput and error pulses. There is no problem (as
mentioned in some circles) that the output cannot be syn-
chronized with the input to provide proper error reduction.
Second, the open-loop bandwidth is generally determined
One pole- and at higher frequencies*the for-
ward am~lifierueain has an integrating characteristic. A
u u
signal input step will still cause a proportional insranfane-
ous output slope change (except for true propagation de-
lays, which only have appreciable effect at the ultimate
frequencies referred to earlier). There will be significant
reduction of linear and nonlinear errors due to the speed
resulting from the reserve loop gain, even though the error
signal is substantial in this frequency region. The loop gain
must be reduced below unity at the ultimate frequencies
where the period is comparable to the propagation delay.
Thus only a finite amount of error reduction is possible, and
Fig. 1. Standard negative feedback amplifier with forward gain
G ( o ) and feedback attenuation P. The signal gain Gfbtends to I/P
as the loop gain G/3 tends to infinity. The distortion of A is reduced
by the factor ( l + GP). ,
JOURNAL OF THE AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY, 1980 JANUARY/FEBRUARY, VOLUME 28.NUMBER 1/2
4RD ERROR
11 1> 11 I princlurr I I I C U I C L I L ~ I II I~ I I ~ U S ~ I D
10I totally
~ null tne
error b!y means c)f negative feedback. We should perhaps
remark that we shall use the term "error" in the sense of
Black [L, rn - co,
p. JUJ and Sandman [7], [8] to include not onlv
new sit;nal components introduced by nonlineariiies irr
but alsc3 hum, noise, and gain, frequency response, 2
phase errors present in the output signal. For example, a!
+ 03 in1 Fig. 1, tlhe signal Igain stabillizes at th~ e value 1,'P.
Any delparture of the signal gain from iis desirecd value (dlue,
say, to 1~lariationsin the valile of G) ccbuld thus bbe considered
-- -- - -
as an error to be corrected.
In contradistinction to Fi~ g 1, . the tlasic prim:iple of erro r
feedforward' is exemplifit:d in Fig. 2., Igncring .for . the
. ..
moment the delay lines 7, ana 7,. tne concept 1s as orlglnaIlly
..
described by Black [3]. The attenuated output p e l of 1the
main amplifier A, is subtracted from the input signal e1,
leaving only an "error" signal to be amplified by r h 111L
~
auxiliary amplifier A,. This amplified error e, is then coIrn-
bined with the output of the main amplifier to produce the
output signal e,, in which the errors due to A, have bc:en
totally canceled. This immediately emphasizes one prim,
difference between error feedforward and negative fei
back. In error feedforward it is in principle possible
completely null all errors due to the main amp1ifier, leav ing
only those due to the auxiliary amplifier, vihich, be ing
"errors of the error signal," are second-order errors. Urith
negative feedback no error null is even theoretically achiev-
able. A second fundamental difference is also apparc:nt:
There is no closed loop to form a potential instability. 1The
sum/difference networks are assumed to be true biconjugare -A.
networks, so that closing the feedforward path does not
I We shall use the term feedforward-
to
feedfonvard error correction in Black's sense from "signal feed-
fonvard." a technique frequently used in operational amplifier
design as a compensation technique to improve closed-loop stabil-
ity when negative feedback is applied, but having nothing to do
witherrorcorrection.
Clearly, a number.of distinct permutations of amplifier and
sum/difference network polarities is possible in practice. Fig. 2
illustratesjust one such possibility,
ed
If7,=7,=0: e,=e,+e,
-- either G , P = I
if{
P I
and/or G a = I
Fig. 2. Error feedfonvard principle, with main amplifier A,
whose errors are nulled by the auxiliary amplifier A, provided G d
= I . The signal gain Gn is then also I/P.
3
 VANDERKOOY AND LlPSHlTZ PAPERS

introduce the potential regeneration present in negative
, feedback,'bir~uits~here is no stability criterion to be sat-
, isfied,:~ird, ,no excess gain or bandwidth is required in the
,main amplifier.. he delay line (or phase correction network)
7 , is designed ,to ,correct for the time delay of the main
amplifier channel A, ,in order tq alloy proper synchronous
subtraction of its attenuated butput ,signal from the input
signal. similarly, I., corrects for the time delay of the
auxiliary amplifier A,. It is important to note, however, that
the absence of time-delay correction does not introduce any
form of potential instability into the circuit. It merely leads
to less accurate error detection and cancellation than would
otherwise be possible. In this sense, it is,totally different
from phase compensation as used in, a negative feedback
amplifier.to enhance stability. Another important distinc-
tion between error feedforward and negative feedback is
that,
. . since
. the former acts additively, whereas the latter
correctsby a multiplicative process, gain matching accu-
Facy in,the various paths in an error feedforward amplifier is
of,paramount importance. This is apparent from.Fig. 2 and
the overall system's gain formula.. Let us suppose that at
aii,ins'tantthere is present at the output Pof amplifier A,, in
addition,to the linearly amplified portion G,e, of the input
sign,al e,,adisto~ion,component&,,say,so that e l = Gle, +
6, The error term is attenuated. by a factor P , but does not
back amplifier, while a measure of redundancy is intro-
duced, in that the failure of either Al or A, does not render
the amplifier inoperative, but merely lets it revert to the
same performance as a single (unstabilized) amplifier of
about the same gain but of reduced output capability. This
''fail safe" advantage can be of considerable importance in
certain applications.
It is instructive at this juncture to examine in somewhat
greater detail the nature of the gain stabilization and distor-
tion reduction furnished by both error feedforward and
negative feedback systems. For instance, it may not be
obvious that an error feedforward amplifier even affords
gain stabilization. As usual, the sensitivity of the overall
gain G , to a parameter x, denoted by S,"l, is defined by
It represents the percentage change in G, caused by a 1%
change in x. In terms of these sensitivities, the actual
change AGn in Gffcaused by changes AG, in the gain G I of
amplifier A, and AG, in the gain G,of amplifier A, in Fig. 2
is given by
. .
I . . I ,

cancel in the input summing network, and so appears at the to first order,. using the overall gain formula f r o ' m , ~ i 2.
~.
output . , . of A, ase, = :-G,P&. It thus follows thatthe 6 terms we find (see Klaassen et al. [9]) that fbr the feedforward
wil],exactly.cancel i n theoutput summing-network,and e, case. :.. . . .
I , II : . I . ..
i
1 4 ,. !

.will . . be
. .free of disto~ion due to A,, provided that G& = I , a
condition.which ye.shall refer to as,.'-'outputpath balance.:'
.I; this, condition,is satisfied,:we areguaranteed that, within
the accuracy of amplifie; A,, all errors caused by amplifier
A will. be nulled at the output. egl, Another independent
.;.,.!11 ,:,,I:; , ,,... , : , .. .
, . < . I '..'
cer)&,tiqqrelat~'the.gaiii'~f,~hplifier.~l to th=jttenuation
6;If,forexample, we'choose G,P = -1 ;that is, P = .I/G,;
*;ti a l l @ m ~ , ; i g ? i l components w,ill be cinceledin the
input.s"m&ifig network; andLily errdr components will be
left to pass through the auxiliary amplifier A,. We'shall call
ihi$;'condition "inputpath balance." 1t"ensures that, . the
.._... . ,
auxiliary channel carries only "'pure dihtbAidn7'and not
primary signal, and so minimizes the load on A,. If, how-
ever, we set the input path.balance somewhat differently
fro&'G1/3 = 1, say,tocorrect the overall amplifier gainto a
value different fro;n' that of A, itself, then A, will carry
some primary (gain error correction) signal in addition to
the distortion components. Its 'signal-hanaling capability
must now be proportionately greater, a s it is i;ow being
used, not solely as a distortion-nulling amplifier, but also
for gain re~iormalization,.,With practical output summing I "
r;

networks for power arnplifi$$~&e may be good reasons ollow$.,th~ it: . .

I ) output path bala nce (^G# = I) mak& S,,,ff= 0 (that
(as we shall see) for unbalancing input path. Note, at . I.I I S C."
is, gall1 .----
. . LOC GI). ..
.....-.-
I~~IL~V
1
-
-/
this stage, that it is pbHsible to ichieirebiitA!inputand output
path balances simultaneously by setting G, = G2 = 1/P. It 2) Input path balance ( G I P .=,I) makes SczGff= 0 (that
.
should be clear that the maintenance ofrpath balance is a is, gain insensitive to- G2),.- ,

3) Both paths balanced makes the overall gain insensi- .

crucial requirement of an y m r feedforwhd amplifier, as its
error nulling accuracy, is vitally dependent on proper sub- tivie to borh G, and C so that, . to first orcler, AGfr = 0.In
tractio~ I and subsequent addition.,-11soverall gain stability
fac:I, under tl~ e s condi
e ~tions,it c;an be shovvn that, to second
In,-
nlorr rln
ur;~endson these same conditions, as we shall see. We -,:,. :,,,!I,

should ste'that th e of 'an erMi. 4

'feehko, ~lifieris n~ egative,feed-

- -
IUARY. VOLl WBER 1/2
VAN
211 "Threshold Model 'Stasi is 1' Powe:r Amplifier Pro-
ject Brief," Threshold Corp., S:icramento CA. I,
...L221 N. S. Pass, "Constant \i'oltage
-
- C:onstant Current
,h Fidelity Amplifier," U.S. Patent 4 107 619 (1978
:. 15).
231 N. Sano, T. Hayashi, a! awa, "Hi gh Ef-
.
ficiency Class A Audio Power A m p l ~ n e r( u a s s n-I-. -Arn-
,r(...-
----
ier)," presented at the 61st Co of the Auclie En-
:ering Society, New York, 1' mber 3 - I6, pre-
~t1382.
241 W. W. Macalpine, "Distortionless ransnllsslon
tem," U.S. Patent 2 043 587 (1936 Junbe 9).
251 R. W. Ketchledge. "Distonionles:s Feedback Am-
, ~er," ._,
U.S. Patent 2 751 442 (1956 June 19). .
[26] "Class-B Output Stages without Quiescent Current
(Adjustment)," Elektor, iss. 20, pp. 26- 27 (1976 Dec.).
[27] G. Schmidt, "Current Dumping Amplifier," Elek-
tor, iss. 51/52, p. 37 (1979 July/Aug.).
[28] G. Stocchino, "Feedforward Amp1lifier," W,ireless
World, vol. 84, p. 70 ( 1978 May).
[29] J. C. H. Davis, "Total Differentla1 .:-I
reeuoacn,
n.-->I . - - I . 9 9
Electron. & Radio Eng., vol. 35, pp. 40-44 (l958 Feb.).
[30] A. M. Sandman, Wireless World (Letters to the.
Editor), vol . 82, p. 54 ( 1976 Apr.) .
[31] J. G. Bennett, Wireless World (Letters to the
Editor), vol. 82, p. 55 (1976 Apr.).
[32] J. Halliday, Wireless World (Leners to the Editor),
vol. 82, p. 55 (1976 Apr.).
[33] B. G. Olsson, Wireless World (Letters to the
Editor), vol. 82, pp. 61 - 62 (1976 July).
THE AUTHORS
J. Vanderkooy
John Vanderkooy was born in Maasland, the Nether-
lands in 1941. He and his family emigrated to Canada in
1947. He was educated in Hamilton. Ontario. receiving
an undergraduate degree in engineering physics, and went
on to obtain a Ph.D. in physics from McMaster University
in 1967, studying low temperature magnetic properties of
metals. He spent two years in Cambridge, England, on a
postdoctoral fellowship in the same area of research, and
since then he has been at the University of Waterloo in
the Department of Physics, now as an associate professor.
His interest in high fidelity has developed in these latter'
years, and he has always been involved in electronic tink-
ering and design.
Dr. Vanderkooy is amember of the Canadian Associa-
tion of Physics, and has published papers dealing with low
temperature metals research. He has contributed some arti-
cles on electronics dealing with oscillators and compan-
ders. Currently he is teaching a course on the physical
principles involved in audio and he is interested in the
JOURNAL 1b F THE AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY, 1980 JANUARY/FEBRUARY, VOLUME 28, NUMBER 1/2
PAPER
[34] P. J. Baxanaal~,Wireless World (Let]ters to th
Editor), vol. 82, pp. 60-61 (1976 July).
[35] T. C. Stancliffe, Wireless World (Letters ru m
Editor), vol. 82, pp. 52- 53 (1976 NoIV.).
[36] D. M. Divan and V. V. Ghate, Wireless World
..
(Letters to the Editor), vol. 83, p. 76 ( 1977 Apr .I.
,-
[37] D. T. Ovens, Wireless Woria (Letters to trip
Editor), vol. 83, p. 49 (197;
[38] "Quadi-Complimer
1220- 1222 (1975 Dec.).
[39] "Quadi-Complimentary Complemented." Elek-
tor, iss. 21, p. 39 (1977 Jan.).
[40] "Quad 405," Funkschau, vol. 48, pp. 2
( 1976 July 30).
[41] L. Le Quinquis, "Analyse d'un SchCma pa
comme les Autres: le Quad 405," L'Audiophile, pp
53-60(1977O~t.).
[42] J . Vanderkooy and S. P. Lipshitz, "Current
Dumping --Does It Really Work? Parts 1 and 2," Wireless
World, vol. 84, pp. 38- 40 (1978 June); pp. 83- 85 (1978
July):
[43] T. Hevreng, "Distortionless Current Dumping,'
Wireless World (Letters to the Editor), vol. 85, p. 7 1 ( 197
May).
[44] J. Vanderkooy and S. P. Lipshitz, reply to T. Hev-
reng, "Distortionless Current Dumping," Wireless World
(Letters to the Editor), vol. 85, p. 7 1 ( 1979 May).
[45] -D.M. Divan and V. V. Ghate,,"A Novel ro roach
to Switching Regulator Design," Wireless World, vol. 84,
pp. 42-44 (1978 May).
S. P. Lipshitz
ever-changing nature of audio electronics and in recording
techniques.
Stanley P. Lipshitz was born in Cape Town, South Af-
rica, in 1943. He was educated in Durban and Pretoria. and
received his Ph.D. in mathematics from the University of
the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg, in 1970. Since then he
has been assistant professor in the Department of Applied
Mathematics at the University of Waterloo. Waterloo, On-
tario. He has always had a keen interest in the whole field of
audio and electroacoustics, and has recently become in-
terested in some of the mathematical problems raised by the
subject.
Dr.' Lipshitz is a member of the Audio Engineering
Society, and is the author of a previous Journal paper on
pickup arm dynamics. Other current research ranges over a
wide area, including error feed-fonvard audio amplifier
circuit analysis, the improved characterization of amplifier
distortions, and stereophonic recording techniques.