MECC--A Novel Control Method for High End Switching Audio Power Amplification 4839 (E-5)

Karsten Nielsen
Bang & Olufsen A/S, Street, Denmark
and
Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark

Presented at ^uo,
the 105th Convention
1998 September 26_29
San Francisco Calmfornia
Thispreprinthas been reproducedfrom the author'sadvance
manuscript,withoutediting,correctionsor considerationby the
Review Board. The AES takes no responsibilityfor the contents.

Additiona/preprintsmay be obtainedby sendingrequestand

remittanceto the AudioEngineeringSociety,60 East 42nd St., Suite2520,
New York,New York 10165-2520, USA.

All rightsreserved. Reproductionof thispreprint,or anyportionthereof,is

not permitted withoutdirectpermissionfrom the Journalof theAudio
EngineeringSociety.

AN AUDIO ENGINEERING SOCIETY PREPRINT

 MECC - A Novel Control Method
for
High End Switching Audio Power Amplification

Karsten Nielsen, M.Sc.E.E, Ph.D

Bang & OlufsenA/S, Denmark

&
IAE, Technical University of Denmark

E-mail: kstChbang_olu£sen.dk

Abstract

The paper presents a new control topology that is dedicated to switching power
amplifier systems - Multivariable Enhanced Cascade Control (MECC). MECC
provides powerful and flexible control over all essential system parameters as
distortion, noise, output impedance, frequency response etc. by simple means,
using standard active and passive components. A 400W/4_ MECC based power
amplifier module is shown to implement state-of-the-art performance.
Exceptional linearity with below -100dB (0.001%) pure THD at typical output
powers is combined with >120dBA dynamic range and 93% power stage
efficiency.
1. Introduction
Any power amplifier system using switching power conversion can be
decomposed into three fundamental blocks: (1) the pulse modulator (analog or
digital), (2) the switching power conversion stage with a passive demodulation
filter and (3) the control block. A general system block diagram is shown in Fig.
I. Throughout the years this principle of power amplification using switching
technology has been known as class D power amplifiers [1], PWM amplifiers
[2], [4], [9] or just switching power amplifiers [7], [8]. In the case where digital
pulse modulation has been investigated, digital power amplification or. Power
DAC has been widely used as designation for the basic topology [5], [13] in Fig.
1. Here the more general designation - Pulse Modulation Amplifier (PMA) will
be used, as introduced in [12]. The pulse modulation may be either analog (i.e.
analog PMA) or digital (i.e. digital PMA). Independent on the use of analog or
digital pulse modulation, the pulse modulator output, power stage output and
filter output are inherently analog signals, and thus sensitive to jitter, pulse
amplitude distortion or any form of non-ideal behavior [15]. Subsequently, open
loop operation has proven to be irrational from any point of view (performance,
complexity, power supply requirements .... ), and the control system is thus an
essential part of apy PMA system. Recently, a suite of control methods for
analog PMAs were investigated in [11]. Also, control topologies specifically for
high quality digital PMA systems have been presented [10], [13], [ 14].

This paper continues previous research with focus on optimal control for analog
PMA systems. Ideally, a control system topology that would allow perfect
control of any system parameter is desirable. The paper proposes a novel general
feedback control method - Multivariable Enhanced Cascade Control (MECC) -
that has been devised by a detailed considerations of all the specific design
problems in audio power amplifier systems founded on switching technology.
The objectives of the control system is to minimize all effects of non-linear
behavior in terms of distortion, noise and intermodulation that are inevitably
introduced within the fundamental elements of the system, i.e. the modulator,
power stage or demodulation filter. Furthermore, the control system should
stabilize the frequency response and the amplifier gain, and leave the system
unaffected by perturbations on the power supply and variations of load
impedance. The MECC topology overcomes the constraints of traditional
feedback control methods, and realizes all these objectives by remarkably
simple means.

2. Multivariable Enhanced Cascade Control (MECC)

MECC has two fundamental variants henceforth referred to as MECC(N) and
MECC(M,N). A general block diagram for the N-loop MECC(N) topology is
shown in Fig. 2, and Fig. 3 shows the extended general (N+M)-loop MECC(N,M)

2
topology. Fundamentally, MECC is a recursive structure of N loops formed as
an enhanced cascade from a single feedback source. MECC(N) is founded on
feedback of % to one or several loops feeding into one or several pre-amplifier
stages preceding the modulator and power switch. It may not seem obvious at
first that MECC(N) should add any obvious advantages over a local feedback
[8], [11]. However, it will become apparent that this simple "extension" offer
significant advantages with optimized compensator realization. MECC(N) is
characterized by the following distinct points:
· A single feedback source.
· A single feedback path A(s) independent upon the number of loops N,
providing a minimal system complexity.
· The feedback path has a low-pass characteristic, to filter the noise from %
and compensate the demodulation filter.
· An initializing B_(s) compensator block with special characteristics.
· A recursive structure with a set of preferably identical forward path
compensator blocks B,(s).

Thus, the Enhanced Cascade refers to these special cascade control

characteristics or this dedication of the cascade to the PMA control problem.
Cascade control methods have previously been applied to linear power amplifier
systems, in terms of e.g. the well known Nested Differential Feedback Loop
method (NDFL's) [3]. This cascade structure has some resemblance with
MECC(N) in that it uses only one feedback element with a differentiating
characteristic. However, differentiating the HF- feedback source % in this case
is clearly impossible, since it would cause the feedback compensator output to
produce a severe amount of HF-output with amplitudes approaching infinity (!).
Cherry's motivation for developing the NDFL control method was to realize
improved control of the linear power amplification stage. The motivation for
developing MECC for PMA system has been similar.

The MECC(N,M) topology shown in Fig. 3 is an extension in that an additional

enhanced cascade is established from Voto one or several chained pre-amplifier
stages. MECC(N,M) encloses the PMA by two connected enhanced cascades,
providing optimized control of all system parameters as distortion, noise, output
impedance, PSRR etc. The connection between the enhanced cascades is
established by the inherent compensation that is provided by unique A-block in
the local enhance cascade. A fundamental constraint within MECC(N,M)
system design is thus:

M_>l_N_>l (1)
MECC(N) provides optimized control in dedicated applications where filter
linearity is unproblematic and the load is known. The MECC(N,M) provides
optimized control in all general applications. Both topologies have their place.

2.1 Loop prototype based MECC(N) synthesis

In the following, general N-loop MECC(N) controller synthesis is addressed,
with the proposal of a general recursive design procedure. The foundation is a
loop prototype based design approach. Prototype based design leads to a highly
regular and flexible structure where the resulting performance is easily evaluated
independent of the number of loops in the system. Consider the simple
MECC(N) loop prototype specified:

L(L,)
*" 1 (2)
_'ttN TtlS + l

The bandwidth of the loop prototype is determined by r,,N. The MECC(N)

topology itself does not inherently provide an improved control of the PMA
system, as the comparison with the topologically similar NDFL method clearly
illustrated. A crucial aspect is the implementation of the loop prototype is the
forward and feedback path compensators. The prototype is realized with the
following A-compensator block characteristic:

A(s)- I i (3)
K rls+l

Where i determines the resulting closed loop gain within the target bandwidth of
the system. The advantages of this A-block characteristic is the filtering of HF-
noise from the vp-generator in the case that carrier based modulation is used.
Furthermore, the characteristic effectively prepares the local enhanced cascade
for the application of a further global enhanced cascade by implementing a
closed loop compensation effect. With ri(s) determined the following initial
compensator Bt will realize the desired loop prototype:

&(s) = K rtl *1 s+l (4)

KpN _rI _'tlS+l

ii, N is the nominal gain of the power conversion stage. Its axiomatic that the
realization of Z(s) itl each loop, combined with the unique feedback path
compensator A(s) results in a system transfer function that is independent on N,
i.e. a closed loop prototype for the local enhanced cascade:
 HN(s)= K L(s)
1+ L(s) (5)
=K ¢'lS+ 1
TuNS + l

The realization of Z(s) in all succeeding loops requires the following

compensator characteristic:

BAs)= *,l ,,,Ns+l (6)

TuN TtlS+ ]

With the loop prototype based approach, MECC(N) optimization only requires
optimization of a few fundamental parameters, independent upon the number of
loops N. Furthermore, each compensator is simple and straightforward to
implement. Both issues are pleasant features. Alternative loop prototypes arc of
second order [ 12].

2.2 MECC(N) properties

The analysis of MECC(N) now proceeds with a more fundamental investigation
of the system properties, based on the loop prototype and compensator
characteristics. General expressions are derived for the effective sensitivity
function and the resulting closed loop transfer function. We have from Fig. 2:

vp = K?NBi(B2(B3('"BN( Vr -Ave) .... Av p)- Av p)- Av p) (7)

This leads to the closed loop expression:

N

KPN H B,
_,_ _ ,=, (8)
I + KpN A
[0 B, + H B, + H Bi +'"+
I=l t=l
B2Bi + Bi
]
Which reduces to:

KPN I'I Bi
,=, (9)
HN- N-lIN-)
I+KpNAY_/HB, /
j=O{. i=l J

The significant importance of (9) becomes evident when investigating the

effective system that is implemented by the MECC(N) topology. The effective
loop transfer function LN and - equivalently - the effective sensitivity function
,s'Nare defined as:

N-IFN-J'7 (10)
LN= X_N'?0[,_B' j

SN - N-IFN-J
E/HB,[
J=OL t=[ J
(1l)

Every loop in the MECC(N) topology considered individually exhibits excellent

stability, so adding or removing (identical) compensator blocks does not
influence stability. Another important aspect is the successive improvement
afforded by the enhanced cascade configuration as opposed to a higher order
single loop approach.

Control signal characteristics

Another important aspect is the control signal level throughout the system, in
terms of the response of the individual compensator blocks to the reference
input. The control signal transfer functions are easily derived:

- (12)
ttlj,,N vr u_( vb,) =II,

Hn, N =%=1 (13)

Vr

The "balanced" control signals are another advantage gained by the loop
prototype based design. Systems with non-balanced control signal may be
limited by the compensator performance.

2.3 MECC(N) loop shaping

In general, the process of MECC system design covers the same fundamental
steps as for other linear control systems. The actual parameter optimization
involving the specification of loop prototype and selection of the fundamental
parameters is addressed in the following. Table 1 proposes a general set of
parameters that serve as guideline to optimized MECC(N) design. It should be
emphasized that the parameters are optimized for the MECC(N) topology
specifically, i.e. the parameters change if the system is extended to
MECC(N,M). The fundamental parameter *n is chosen to realize the desired
characteristic of the loop prototype.
 Parameter Value Comment
ft- - 2_7_-p_
t fo A-block parameter
1 I Polefrequency for loop prototype L(s)

N N _<4 Limit on necessary (and practical) number of loops

ill the MECC(N) structure.
fo 2 Demodulation filter natural frequency
QoN 1 Demodulation filter Q (Bessel)
,5
Table I Proposed general MECC(N) parameter values.

A case example system is considered for the full audio bandwidth with a desired
system gain of x = 26dB. The equivalent nominal power stage gain is assumed
KpN = 26dB. A parametric analysis of the achievable performance vs. N is carried
out. The prototype bandwidth is selected to J;,N= 5. The proposed parameters in
Table 1 are used, and all sub-controllers in the MECC(N) structure are now
defined. Fig. 4 shows the components of first loop and the realization of the loop
prototype £(s). Following loops in the enhanced cascade are realized by the
addition of further B, blocks as shown in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Fig. 6 and Fig. 7
illustrates the effective loop transfer function LN and sensitivity function xN
with the specified parameters. The Nth order transition caused by N poles and
N-1 zeros in effective loop transfer is pronounced from the parametric analysis.
The parametric investigation of the effective sensitivity function sN verifies the
excellent stability characteristics for the MECC(N) topology:

IIs_L<_ vo,,N (14)

This is a general property of MECC(N) with the proposed parameter values. The
system response is shown in Fig. 8. The response is dominated by the post filter.
With the specified parameters, the resulting system frequency response is
acceptable in the nominal load.

Robustness properties
With the given first order prototype based design there is no theoretical limit to
the number of loops that can be implemented in the MECC(N) structure. In
practice however, there will be restrictions on the number of loops in the local
enhanced cascade arising from uncertainty on e.g. the power stage gain KpN and
the modulator / power stage propagation delay tv [12]. The effects on
perturbations on KpN and tv can be isolated in the set of perturbed loop transfer
functions:
 N-IFN-j -
_ -ll,s
EIlI B,.,,
7=OL_= J (lS)
= rKe-tpSLN

As shown in [12], the MECC(N) system is a very robust higher order control
system. Additional uncertainty arises from the compensator itself. The
compensator poles will affect the target band performance but only marginally
influence the stability characteristics that are determined by the characteristics
well beyond the target frequency band. Investigations have shown that even
10% tolerance on the compensator zeros will only marginally influence stability
and performance.

3. The MECC(N,M) topology

The focus now tums to the extended topology with N local and M global loop
formed in two linked enhanced cascades, shown in Fig. 3. The topology is
founded on a MECC(N) design and should be seen as a direct extension of this
topology. The MECC(N,M) topology is characterized by:
· A MECC(N) system, that is optimized specifically for the global enhanced
cascade.
* A single feedback source Vo.
* A single feedback path compensator c.
· An Dj compensator to initialize the cascade.
· A recursive structure with a set of preferably identical compensator blocks
D t·

The topological resemblance between MECC(N) and MECC(N,M) also leads to

similarities in the synthesis of the two cascade structures. However,
MECC(N,M) is constituted of two closely connected enhanced cascades, where
the global enhanced cascade relies on the compensation from the local cascade.
The following section will address the essential aspects MECC(N,M) design.

3.1 Loop prototype based MECC(N,M) synthesis

The control plant for the global enhance cascade is the MECC(N) controlled
system HN(s) in series with the demodulation filter F(s), which is assumed to
have a standard second order characteristic:

HN(s)_ r _1s+l (16)

TuNS + l

2 (17)
F(s) - mo
S2 ro 2
+ Q_'NS + (Oo
MECC(N,M) synthesis will be based on the specification of a unique loop
prototype consistent with the approach for MECC(N) synthesis. A desirable
loop prototype is again a leaky integrator characteristic:

L(s)- rt2 1 (18)

_'zl,¥! Tt2 S + I

Clearly, the unity gain frequency (bandwidth) of the loop prototype is

determined by r,^_. The requirement for a system gain K locks the compensator
characteristic of the feedback path:

C(s) = --I (19)

K

A connection between the local system and the global system is established by
the following parameter assignments:

ri =-- and f,,,v> fuM (20)

o)0

This specific parameter assignment causes nN(s)F(s) to have a first order

characteristic within the bandwidth of the of the local loop prototype for
MECC(N). The initial compensator Dj that will realize the global loop prototype
can now be specified:

Di(3)_ _r,2 _rl3'+l (21)

TuM _i2._ + I

Assuming that f,m >>f,,M, the general MECC(N,M) system response will be:

(s) =K--- 1
H;_.M (22)
rums+ I

HN.M should be considered as a closed loop prototype that is synthesized

independent upon m. This is axiomatic with a unique loop prototype and a
unique feedback path. The general Pi- compensator that will realize the loop
prototype in any succeeding loops is:

OAs)_ r,2 z,,Ms+l (23)

r.M _r_2s +1
3.2 MECC(N,M) properties
Since the structure of both the local and global enhanced cascade is the same,
many of the pleasant properties for MECC(N) can be generalized to
MECC(N,M) directly. Fig. 3 yields the following relation:

Vo = HN F D I (02 (D 3 ("'DM(vt -Cvo) .... Cvo)-CVo)-Cvo) (24)

Or equivalently:

nN r[I Pi (25)
HN,M _ i=l

l+.Nc y[no,,=o
M-I M-j 1

The (N,M)-subscript in HN.Mrefers to that the M-loop MECC(N,M) design is

based on the general N-loop MECC(N) system. The effective loop transfer
function LN,M and the effective sensitivity functionSN.M for the MECC(N,M)
system are:

M4M-j 7 (26)
LN,M = H NC F EI [-I D, I
y=OL _=! J

1
SN'_I M-]FM-i ]

+-NoE[1-Io,/
_=0L i=t ]
(27)
Looking at the resulting sensitivity function that specifies the reduced sensitivity
to any errors within the fundamental elements of the PMA it is straightforward
to show that the resulting sensitivity function is simply s = s N.sN,u ·

3.3 MECC(N,M) loop shaping

Table 2 proposes a set of parameters for generalized MECC(N,M) loop shaping.
Again, is has been attempted to minimize the degrees of freedom without
compromising performance. The free parameters with the general parameter
assignment in Table 2 are N, M and the bandwidths of the local global
prototypesf_,N andZm. It should be emphasized that the local (MECC(N))
should be optimized specifically towards the application of the global enhanced
cascade. The local system should be optimized to provide best possible
compensation, i.e. the bandwidth of the local system should be as high as
possible. Only one local loop is necessary to provide the compensation. A

10
 Parameter Value Comment

./}1-- 2-7_*,,
I fo MECC(N) parameter

.fuxl -< ./}_! MECC(M,N) bandwidth defined

2

]i - I Jo Connection between local and global enhanced

- 2-_rl cascade.

./}2 - 2_,2 _/},^il MECC(N,M) loop prototype parameter.

lO
,f_) 1 Demodubtion fiker natural fi'equency
Qo I Demodulation filter Q (Besscl)
,5
Table 2 Proposed general MECC(N,M) parameter assignments.

feasible approach is to implement a MECC(1) system with sufficient

compensation effect, and following adjust Mto the desired performance. The
tradeoffs in MECC(N,M) design will become clearer throughout the more
detailed investigation of an illustrative case example. The basic parameters are
as for the MECC(N) case example. The prototype bandwidths of the specific
case are set to ./;,,v=10 and ,/;,M=4 and .M will be considered a variable
parameter. N does not influence the global enhanced cascade and is set
arbitrarily to 1. The bandwidth of the local MECC(N) system is inherently
limited at J;,N= 10, and SN,_,
1 for the synthesized MECC(N,M) controller is shown
in Fig. 9. The following is found by investigating [[xN.,u
L:

IISN,ML 1.20 1.5 2.21 3.57

L M 1 J 2 3 4

The system converges towards instability as the number of global loops increase
due to the bandwidth limitation of the local system. Fig. 10 shows Bode-plots of
all components of the MECC(N,M) system and Fig. 11 shows the system transfer
function H,v.Mfor M = (1,2,3,4).Clearly, MECC(N,M) provides a much improved
frequency response with the given parameters. Especially, the resulting response
is excellent with both M=I and M=2. The demodulation filter natural
frequency is unity (fo = 1), so the excellent frequency response characteristics do
not compromise demodulation. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss
robustness properties of the MECC(N,M) topology. Details on these aspects are
given in [12].

4. Practical evaluation
The performance of MECC will be demonstrated by a simple MECC(1,1)
realization of a 400W system for the full audio band. The system is based on a

11
conventional 100V bridge power stage that has been tuned to maximize
efficiency and to obtain clean transient free switching characteristics in the
power stage. This leads to an open loop THD of 1-2% worst case. MECC is a
general control method and works with a range of pulse modulation methods.
The present system is implemented with a (patent pending) Controlled
Oscillation Modulation (COM) approach [6]. The general parameters for the
case example are defined below.

Parameter Assignment
V3. 65V
K 26dB
Blankingdelay 80ns
.fi, 20KHz
,/_. 400KHz
N I
M I

Fig. 12 shows illustrates thc frequency response of the system in 2_ / 4fi / 8fi /
16f2. The system response is within +0.3dB in all loads fi'om 2g/to an open load
situation. This is due to the very low output impedance of the system, which is
below 35m_ at all frequencies.

Fig. 13 shows an FFT analysis of the amplifier output at 5KHz/100mW. The

analysis reveals the extreme linearity of the MECC based PMA system at typical
output powers. This is quite exceptional for such a high power PMA system and
fully comparable with what is achieved by the very best linear power amplifiers.
As shown in Fig. 14, a high level of linearity is maintained at all frequencies and
output powers. Thus, THD+N maintains to be below 0.04% even at extreme
output levels in the tweeter range. The specifications for the MECC(1,1) based
PMA system are summarized below:

Max. cont. output power (8_/4g_) 200W/400W

Bandwidth(3 dB) 80KHz
Frequency response (2-16g/) +0.2dB
Output impedance _ 20Hz-20Kttz <35m_
THD (_j 1W/1KHz < -100dB (0.001%)
THD+N (complete op. range) <0.04%
-Intermodulation Distortion ([MD) < 0.01%
Residual noise (20HzM20KHz) 50gV RMS (A)
Maximalefficiency 93%
Power loss at quiescence - Total 1.5W
Essential specifications MECC/COM based full bandwidth PMA system.

12
A picture of the ultra compact MECC/COM prototype is shown in Fig. 15. The
practical evaluation of the MECC controlled PMA system has verified that the
topology provides powerful control of all system parameters. The theoretical
benefits are well implemented in practice.

5. Conclusions
The paper has adressed the issue of optimal control for analog PMA systems. A
novel topology - Multivariable Enhanced Cascade Control (MECC) - has been
introduced. Two variants were introduced MECC(N) and MECC(N,M). The
concept of loop prototype based design was introduced to minimize the degrees
of freedom within the higher order control structure. The functionality of both
MECC(N) and MECC(N,M) approaches has been verified by synthesizing and
evaluating illustrative case examples. Fundamentally, MECC offers a practical
and robust method for higher order control system implementation with
MECC(N) for dedicated applications and MECC(N,M) for general applications.
MECC(N) has shown to exhibit several pleasant properties:
· Powerful and flexible control of the power stage is realized.
· Pleasing signal levels throughout the control structure.
· Simplicity in implementation.
· Excellent robustness to any uncertainties with the power conversion stage.
· Effective compensation of the demodulation filter, thus preparing the system
for a global enhanced cascade.

MECC(N,M) encloses the PMA by two closely connected enhanced cascades.

The additional properties of the MECC(N,M) are improved frequency response
insensitive to variable loading, and the compensation of any errors introduced
within the filter. The practical evaluation of a simple MECC/COM PMA
system has shown that simple configurations as MECC(1,1), MECC(1,2) or
MECC(1,2) can provide excellent audio performance for even very non-linear
and noisy modulator/output stage configurations. MECC is concluded to be the
most powerful and flexible control method existing for general analog PMA
systems. The presented amplifier specifications are believed to be state-of-the-
art within the field.

6. Patent Note
The MECC topologies and design methods are protected by a pending patent
(PCT/DK97/00497) [6]. For further information please contact Bang & Olufsen
A/S, Denmark (the author).

13
7. Appendix
A GUI controlled MATLAB toolbox - MECCDIM - has been developed for
systematic and automated design of MECC based PMAs. The graphical user
interface is shown below.

The toolbox provides automated design by simple push button access. Based on
the primary amplifier input parameter specifications the interface gives access
to:
* Optimal control system synthesis and verifications
· Parametric analysis (vs. M and N).
· Robustness investigations.
· Controller component synthesis for low-level non-linear simulation.
· Manual access to individual parameters for fine-tuning of performance to e.g.
a specific applications.

14
8. References
[1] Johnson, K.C.
"Class D principles analysed"
Wireless World. No. 12. 1967.
[2] Attwood, B.E.
"Very high Fidelity Quartz Controlled PWM (Class D) Stereo Amplifiers
for Consumer and Professional Use"
59th Convention of the AES. March 1978. Hamburg. Preprint 1331.
[3] Cherry, E.M.
"Nested Differentiating Feedback Loops in Simple Audio Power
Amplifiers"
JAES. Vol. 30, No.5, May 1982. pp. 295-305.
[4] Vanderkooy, John
"New concepts in Pulse Width Modulation"
97th Convention of the AES, November 1994. San Francisco.
Preprint 3886.
[5] Leigh, S.P et al.
"Distortion analysis and reduction in a completely digital PWM class D
power amplifier"
International journal of Modelling and Simulation,
Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 75-59.
[6] Nielsen, Karsten
"Pulse Modulation Power Amplifier with Enhanced Cascade
Control Method"
International Patent Application. PCT/DK97/00947.
(Co-applicant: Bang&Olufsen A/S, Denmark)
[7] Nielsen, Karsten
"Parallel Phase Shifted Carrier Pulse Width Modulation (PSCPWM) -
A novel approach to switching power amplifier design"
102nd AES Convention. Munich, March 1997.
Preprint 4447 (26 pages)
[8] Nielsen, Karsten
"A Review and Comparison of Pulse Width Modulation methods for
analog and digital input switching power amplifier systems"
102nd AES Convention. Munich, March 1997.
Preprint 4446 (57 pages).
[9] Nielsen, Karsten
"High Fidelity PWM based Amplifier Concept for active speaker systems
with a very Low Energy Consumption"
Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. July/August 1997. pp. 554-570.
[10] Nielsen, Karsten

15
 "Pulse Edge Delay Error Correction (PEDEC) - A Novel Power Stage
Error Correction Principle for Power Digital-Analog Conversion"
103rd AES Convention. New York, September 1997.
Preprint 4602 (47 pages).
[11] Nielsen, Karsten, Taul, Thomas, Andersen, Michael
"A comparison of Linear and Non-Linear Control Methods for Power
Stage Error Correction in Switching Power Amplifiers"
104 th AES Convention. Amsterdam, Holland. (43 pages).
[12] Nielsen, Karsten
"Audio Power Amplifier Techniques with Energy Efficient Power
Conversion"
Ph.D. Thesis.
Department of Applied Electronics, DTU, Denmark. May 1998.
[13] Nielsen, Karsten
"PEDEC - A Novel Pulse Referenced Control Method for High
Quality Digital PWM Switching Power Amplification"
IEEE Power Electronics Specialist Conference (PESC).
Japan, May 1998. Conf. Proc. pp. 200-208.
[14] Nielsen, K.
"Pulse Referenced Control Method For Enhanced Power Amplification
of a Pulse Modulated Signal"
International Patent Application. PCT/DK98/00133.
(Co-applicant: Bang&Olufsen A/S, Denmark)
[15] Nielsen, Karsten
"Linearity and Efficiency Performance of Switching Power Amplifier
Output Stages - A fundamental analysis"
105 th AES Convention. San Francisco. September, 1998.

16
 3
e_
0
Z
<
C_ i_o
O
o
0
O
i
_o
 · _ 20 .... BI
¥ o
g
-20

401
40
10 -2
........ i
10 -1
. . , ::,_K_ 10 o 101 102
Normalized frequency (f/lb)

0 ,. i i · . .

:oi__:_
-40
__
_°
I -80

10-2
_...

10_l
i _

Normalized
.

10°
frequency (I/fb)
__ 101 10_

Fig. 4. Components of the first loop and the resulting loop prototype L(s).

-20

-40
10_2 10-_ 10o 101 10_
Normalized frequency (I/fb I

20 .... _ FI

40
6o
8o
2°I
10 2 10 i
Normalizod
10o
frequency {f/fb)
101 107

Fig. 5 MECC(N) case example. Components of any successive loop.

 80 _L_

40 L
2 L1

60
O01 ........ 1
i i_ , . , ,i
._ ,,i ,,
10 ,7 10 ' 100 10 _ 102
Normalized frequency (f/fb)

i ..... i i i

-100 t '
_--15o

-200

10 2 10-_ 10 o 101 102

Normalized Irequency (f/fb)

Fig. 6 MECC(N) parametric analysis of efl_ctive loop transfer function L,v. (N = 1,2,3,4).

10 "l i i

-10

-20 S

-30

aa

-40 S

-50

-6G S

-70

-80 ..... _:

10 2 10-_ 100 101 102

Normalized frequency (f/lb)

Fig. 7 MECC(N) parametric analysis of effective sensitivity function ,gA,. (Ar = 1,2,3,4).
 3
f
25
20 Syste_

15

10 .... ' '" ' ' ' ' ' ' '
10"2 10-_ 100 . 101 102
Normalizedfrequency(f/lb)

-Ioo
_.-200
-300
........ I ........ ' ........ i
10-2 10-I 10° 101 102
Normarizedfrequency(fflb)

Fig. 8 MECC(N) case example system transfer function (independent of N).

10 : i p ,.i . ;

-10

, s
-20

-30

-40

-50

-60

-70

-8o ; .... , .... ' ;il .... _;_i; .

10-2 10-I 100 101 102
Normalizedfrequency(f/fb)

Fig. 9 SN,M for synthesized MECC(N,M) system M = 1,2,3,4.

 . NN .
40 _ ' ' t

o2o ::
i r , ..

10-2 10
-I 10 ° 101 102
Normalized frequency (f/lb)

0 , ...... ,

HN,t

-100

-150

I Oi. D1

10 -2 10-l 10° 101 10 2

Normalized frequency (I/lb)

Fig. 10 Components of the MECC(N,M) system.

25 ': ' ' i ' 4

(_ 20

_15
10 -I 100 101 102
Normafized frequency (f/fb)

-100

-150[

10
I
-I 100
Normalized frequency

Fig. 11 Resulting system transfer function HN,M, M = 1,2,3,4.

Wfb)
101 102
 i , .. - il . i : i lqp!

, i I i :_6
,32I_ _ i ....... _i'I · _' I

,2;,'' "_ __ _ ___'__' .t

_ _1:_,
; r'_'1_ "_ __"_t"
.-26 i '__ .I_ ; --_ & _.ll

'250 50 I00 200 500 'l'k 2k 'Sk ' iOk 20k 50k 1011k200k
)lz

Fig. 12 Frequency response of the system in 2_ / 4F_/ 8f_ 16f2.

.lo_
............
_............
i_ i i .-I --_ t..........
t
-¸¸-¸/'q:
.,",'ii-;
_ ....
_ J
............ J ......
-30 [_' t' _ ............. J !

-'°Il 'i ....._'t......... t- I _..... :' t I

, :',:[i:.........1 ¢'--I-!-!-:::: '7'-:::;
.....
:......
!
Ii / , --t
-'°°!!
.... t......
-'........
_ t....... I t..........
!- /
iii i::
iii2 5 :
.,_[tli?_[llL l.l.,lllJll Il: 6kl.l[:ll_ll.[Jll...llllillll. LlliLkl..L22L&211_J.l'i/:llll.llJlil.l.l.:Jlll
0 2k 4f< 8k IOK 12k 14k 16k 181( 2[11_

Fig. 13 FFT analysis of the amplifier output at 5KHz (100mW). THD=-106dB (0.0005%).
 0.0_

,i!
0.021.....

o.ol_
0.U05_ -

0.002
:,_-"
-t -j' i", I

°°°12_o so loo 200 soo lk :_k 5k 10k 20k

HZ

Fig. 14 THD+N vs. frequency at IW, 10W and 200W (8_)

Fig. 15 Picture of the high end 400W(4F2) MECC/COM based power amplifier module.