Why do audiophiles shun feedback in amplifiers?

****But we audiophiles (and closet musician on the side such as myself)
have our own set of terminology that will befuddle most musicians. We use
many different terms to describe the similar, if not the same, thing (eg,
instrument tone, tonality, timbre, overtones, harmonics). ****- Dracule1

Yes, and that is a very real problem. It does befuddle that there should be
so little effort to understand and describe music in the same way (at least
as far as terminology, if not depth) that musicians do. At the end of the
day, this is one of the reasons that the sound of so many audio systems
bears little resemblance to the sound of live music.

Are you suggesting that there is a correlation between the descriptive definitions of musicians and various gear designers and consequently their result? Or just the systems that musicians put together vs. the rest of us?

Not exactly; but more the latter than the former. In the broad sense, what I meant is that I believe that if audiophiles would take it upon themselves to learn more about music at a level of understanding approaching the level of understanding that many reserve for the technical aspects of the playback equipment, their scope would be broadened in a way that would allow them to assemble audio systems that more closely approach the sound of live music; not to mention, enjoy music even more. Unless we dismiss the importance of what we may each learn about equipment via reviews, discussion forums, etc., the importance of using terminology that is universally used is obvious. As far as the more specific sense goes, let's look at some terms that are used frequently used in audiophile descriptive language that are problematic. A couple that come immediately to mind:

"Dynamic"- Often used to mean the ability to play loudly. It has nothing to do with loudness, but rather the way that the sound gets from point A to point B on the volume scale. Is it done seamlessly?

"Accuracy"- It is bad enough that the importance of comparison to live is routinely dismissed. The term is often used as a description without comparison to anything else; simply to connote a quality that is considered to be lean, bright, or lacking warmth (even natural warmth); playback that is "accurate" is anything but.

"Brightness/harshness"- Often confused. Harshness does not have to be bright. It is very possible to have a harsh sound that is too dark; just as it possible to have a bright sound that is round and smooth. Tonality is often confused with texture.

Musical, warm...the list goes on

   

But at the end of the day, do we not settle for what pleases our ears? It's a given that language itself is the largest barrier to communication. So even if we were cavemen running around with clubs, grunting our needs, we would still end up with what we want. Miscommunication just makes things take longer. Our individual perceptions of terminology used here may have us completely misrepresenting our gear but not necessarily preventing us from arriving at the same destination.

Frogman,
Your comment concerning "accuracy" rings true. Last night a friend and I attended one of our favorite jazz clubs.The quartet consisted of B3 Hammond organ,alto saxaphone,guitar and drums.The sound in this venue just sweeps you away with beauty and presence. Driving home we both kept referring to how rich, warm and full these instruments sound and project when heard live and up close.

What we both heard was the real deal,beautiful rich tone,complete fullness, weight and tonal saturation...accurate(because it`s real).
Components that strip away the'natural'charcter and result in leaner,thin tone(less color saturation) and body are`nt accurate,they`re inaccurate.I don`t understand why this approach has now become accepted by some as "accuracy". It moves further away from what you hear in the presence of live musicians doing their thing.
Regards,