Ralph: The last time I could do a one-on-one comparison was more like 5 years back. And since then, I have also learned how to get the perceived s/n ratio down by a clearly perceivable margin, through more work on power supplies, parasitics optimization, circuit stability, more comprehensive analyses and so on (smile).
>Time to hear one again :)
Probably true for both of us (smile).
>I have found that universally the use of feedback will cause the circuit to take on a hardness or brightness that is not part of the original signal.
My findings are different. My findings are that there is an appropriate amount of global NFB for a given circuit, and this amount of NFB is best dialed-in by listening. FWIW, I think that 0dB generally sounds OK, but increasing the NFB up to about 20dB does not sound so OK. With more NFB than 20dB, things start sounding OK again, but there will be a point above at which the sound starts worsening again. Your ears will tell you where that point is.
The general trend that I have found is that the more intrinsically linear and stable the circuit is, the more global NFB can applied without damaging the sound. Also, the parasitics arising from the physical construction of the circuit are just as important as the topology.
I should add that I do use non-NFB topologies for certain sections or functions in my designs, and these sections have a clear effect on the sound. It's not like I am anti-zero NFB (grin).
Rather, I don't have any particular feelings regarding NFB, either for or against. I consider it as just another tool. If global NFB makes sense in the context of the topology and it gives better results, I use it. If it doesn't, I don't.
I agree with you that it is easy to make a global NFB circuit that sounds hard, has an unnatural "sheen", polite dynamics, compressed front-to-back depth and so on.
But it doesn't need to be so.
Thank you for a polite, sensible discussion.
kind regards, jonathan
>Time to hear one again :)
Probably true for both of us (smile).
>I have found that universally the use of feedback will cause the circuit to take on a hardness or brightness that is not part of the original signal.
My findings are different. My findings are that there is an appropriate amount of global NFB for a given circuit, and this amount of NFB is best dialed-in by listening. FWIW, I think that 0dB generally sounds OK, but increasing the NFB up to about 20dB does not sound so OK. With more NFB than 20dB, things start sounding OK again, but there will be a point above at which the sound starts worsening again. Your ears will tell you where that point is.
The general trend that I have found is that the more intrinsically linear and stable the circuit is, the more global NFB can applied without damaging the sound. Also, the parasitics arising from the physical construction of the circuit are just as important as the topology.
I should add that I do use non-NFB topologies for certain sections or functions in my designs, and these sections have a clear effect on the sound. It's not like I am anti-zero NFB (grin).
Rather, I don't have any particular feelings regarding NFB, either for or against. I consider it as just another tool. If global NFB makes sense in the context of the topology and it gives better results, I use it. If it doesn't, I don't.
I agree with you that it is easy to make a global NFB circuit that sounds hard, has an unnatural "sheen", polite dynamics, compressed front-to-back depth and so on.
But it doesn't need to be so.
Thank you for a polite, sensible discussion.
kind regards, jonathan