Atmasphere, thank you again for your considered response. I like most others here, don't have access to such equipment. If this data is so readily available, why isn't it routinely being published?
I might not completely understand what your suggesting, with re: to speakers and square waves, but to my knowledge the only readily available commercial speakers that can accurately reproduce square waves would not be considered "high efficiency". You still have not established at what exact amounts or degrees that we find these distortions audibly objectionable. If they are measurable, regardless of how tiny they may be, we can blow the graph up to demonstrate comparisons on just how relative it is, and then verify it.
I did read the link you previously provided re: Norman Cromwell and within it Mr. Cromwell suggests that some feedback can be beneficial, and goes on to caution not to overuse it. It would appear to me that vast majority of amplifiers with any intentions of appealing to the "high end, high fidelity" marketplace follows this advice.
One can not automatically extrapolate that the differences one hears in speakers with amplifiers that measure the same is due to amplifier feedback. There are too many other possible causes.
Let's see the graphs demonstrating these distortions, and proof dismissing other possible causes, rather than assuming they are the root cause.
It is my position that, depending of course on the degree of distortion in frequency response, and we are talking about loudspeakers here, where there are gross differences in frequency response, frequency response distortions are more audible.
No argument with re: to room response, but that is something all together different than efficiency or inefficiency unto itself. I have read some Earl Geddes ideas, but there are too many examples that don't seem to fit into his theories.
Though the burden of proof wasn't mine, I already completed your homework assignment, and it didn't validate your claims.
It would appear to me that your asserting that the differences that you described as being measurably tiny, though in your opinion ultimately important, in amplifier distortions, and the ease in which a loudspeaker can accomodate such as amplifier, swamp what ever differences in frequency response linearity and range, dispersion charateristics, waveform fidelity, and self made noise other wise inherent in loudspeakers. I just don't hear it that way. I hear it just the opposite way. IME, less efficient speakers tend to conform better to the way I hear things, even if those speakers are mated to an amplifier that might or might not have small amounts of feedback. Interestingly enough, many who have efficient speakers that might more easily mate with an amplifier without feedback choose amplifiers with feedback. That is not to say that I am endorsing feedback in amplifiers, just that compatibility with an amplifier lacking feedback is not an important enough criterion alone to choose loudspeakers by. Furthermore, even if it was, one could conceivably still use such an amplifier with inefficient loudspeakers.
I might not completely understand what your suggesting, with re: to speakers and square waves, but to my knowledge the only readily available commercial speakers that can accurately reproduce square waves would not be considered "high efficiency". You still have not established at what exact amounts or degrees that we find these distortions audibly objectionable. If they are measurable, regardless of how tiny they may be, we can blow the graph up to demonstrate comparisons on just how relative it is, and then verify it.
I did read the link you previously provided re: Norman Cromwell and within it Mr. Cromwell suggests that some feedback can be beneficial, and goes on to caution not to overuse it. It would appear to me that vast majority of amplifiers with any intentions of appealing to the "high end, high fidelity" marketplace follows this advice.
One can not automatically extrapolate that the differences one hears in speakers with amplifiers that measure the same is due to amplifier feedback. There are too many other possible causes.
Let's see the graphs demonstrating these distortions, and proof dismissing other possible causes, rather than assuming they are the root cause.
It is my position that, depending of course on the degree of distortion in frequency response, and we are talking about loudspeakers here, where there are gross differences in frequency response, frequency response distortions are more audible.
No argument with re: to room response, but that is something all together different than efficiency or inefficiency unto itself. I have read some Earl Geddes ideas, but there are too many examples that don't seem to fit into his theories.
Though the burden of proof wasn't mine, I already completed your homework assignment, and it didn't validate your claims.
It would appear to me that your asserting that the differences that you described as being measurably tiny, though in your opinion ultimately important, in amplifier distortions, and the ease in which a loudspeaker can accomodate such as amplifier, swamp what ever differences in frequency response linearity and range, dispersion charateristics, waveform fidelity, and self made noise other wise inherent in loudspeakers. I just don't hear it that way. I hear it just the opposite way. IME, less efficient speakers tend to conform better to the way I hear things, even if those speakers are mated to an amplifier that might or might not have small amounts of feedback. Interestingly enough, many who have efficient speakers that might more easily mate with an amplifier without feedback choose amplifiers with feedback. That is not to say that I am endorsing feedback in amplifiers, just that compatibility with an amplifier lacking feedback is not an important enough criterion alone to choose loudspeakers by. Furthermore, even if it was, one could conceivably still use such an amplifier with inefficient loudspeakers.