Historical look at amps

Bombaywalla, perhaps the point was missed by me. As far as realization, others may indeed come to the same conclusion and others may not. How ever I think it important to realize that our systems are complex and some attributes of sound that may be particularly pertinent to an individual may be better served due to technical or budgetery needs to use certain components that that may be better served by alternate means of amplification. Just so we undertand each other, I don't take any personal offense by your opinion. I just thought that another perspective was in order. Best Regards.

We may have come full circle but that circle has some waves. For example, one of the more respected SS amps that has received great reviews is the Parasound JC-1's. Well, guess what, it has 30db of GLOBAL feedback! (and to me, it sounds like it---it's soundstaging is relatively 2 deminsional) Global feedback is being used more than you think. Ayre, Theta, some Pass and maybe another or so don't use global feedback. It's still fairly uncommon. These amps have higher distortion values and are generally lighter in the bass than higher FB amps. They act somewhat like a tube amp and clip similarly.
I agree completely with Bombaywalla. Marketers try to influence you with BS but it is up to the individual to educate themselves. All designs have tradeoffs. As one remains in the hobby, your tastes with change---usually with age. There is no doubt in this "Old fart's" mind that no global feedback amps offer a higher level of sonic purity (and notice here I didn't say anything about sounding better---that's for you to decide.) If you listen to voices and instruments, you'll find a higher level of natural sound.
I played sax for 30 years and I can tell you without hesitation that the low feedback (0 GFB) amps sound more realistic (they may not meet the dynamic criteria or impress with a "Balls to the wall" sound some favor.) They are certainly not for everyone. I can also say GOOD tube amps are even closer. They offer that special bloom but not all. Some are noticably soft and bloated. I think the perfect amp would be tube mids and highs with SS bass.
I always thought the "High end" was about accurate portrayal of a source. If it's not and it's about "Good sound" then I need to get out because it all becomes a moot point. There's a huge difference between what offers good sound and what is an accurate portrayal of the recorded venue. Some stuff just doesn't sound good and shouldn't sound good.
So much equipment is offered because of the tastes of the individual. However, some of it is wrong and a little of it is right. It does take years to figure a lot of this out. I've been at it 35+ years and it is amazing how my tastes have changed since the beginning.
BUT---to each his own! Everyone knows what they like.
With all that said, I will add one last thing. It is my held belief that some of the differences in sound of no feedback and feedback amps is do to time domain distortions created by out of phase global feedback---but this is a discussion for another day.

I don't know of any designer that looks to feedback as a solution to bias stabilisation in a SS amp. Lowering noise, distortion and output impedance, yes. Increasing bandwidth and input impedance, ditto.

I agree. Feedback is not used for bias stability in transistor or for that matter tube amps. There are numerous stable bias schemes for amps and they don't involve feedback.

Some amps use DC servo control to maintain zero potential at the output of a push pull amp to avoid using coupling caps. This might be interpreted as feedback since the output potential is monitored, and a correction voltage fed back to a prior stage, but this is usually not considered as feedback since it works well outside the audio band, and is used for an entirely different reason than those listed above.

Still no response from Ayre on my inquiry about their claim of zero feedback.

THis is fun. Bombaywalla you need to quit SHOUTING. I was not DEAD WRONG. I was relating what Ayre says. I hold no religious conviction. I live 50 miles from the Ayre factory in Boulder CO and my comments were taken from my discussions with engineering and technical staff members at their factory, not just their marketing hype. I'm not saying your wrong in your opinions which if you read my original post showed the problems of negative feedback. Some reading this post might think this is all a mine-is- bigger-then-yours arguement so I am going to explain the non-circuit design reason for feedback being good and bad..
Feedback is almost always NEGATIVE feedback. Positive feedback is used for oscilators. YOu don't want a amplifier to be an oscillator...its hard on speakers and your ears. Negative feedback takes a bit of the amps output and applies it to the input but inverted (negative sign) This tends to damp oscilations and cancel output errors.
The real problem with feedback is the amp or even the transistor have a non zero propagation time delay. Given the perfect amp a wire with gain the wire itself delays the signal. (Signals do not travel at the speed of light in electronics. The signal travels at just a small fraction of the speed of light, the drift current speed.) All circuitry including the bare wire, take a finit amount of time for a signal presented at its input to reach its output. Feedback circuits regardless of their design therefore are adding an "old" signal that has propagated through the device to the new signal at the device input. For a steady state signal that's not a problem but for music even a few miliseconds of delay mean the feedback signal applied doesnt match the new input signal. Global feedback has this problem in a major way because there is significant delay accumulated through all the amps circuitry. Local feedback would just have to cope with the delay in one FET or transistor. TIM as I mentioned in the first message of this thread is sensitive to this time delay distortion.
By the way there are lots of electronics without feedback. But we are talking about amplifier circuits here so the arguement is whether all or most use negative feedback which is good for stability and bad for music.

Keis,
I was not shouting! I used capital letters to emphasize a word/words. In an all-lower case post, it seemed reasonable to use capital letters to stand out. Sorry that you thought I was shouting.

I re-read you orig. post - certainly appears that you succumbed to Ayre's marketing hype. There was no way to know otherwise. Your latest post suggests otherwise. Wish that you had written the words in your latest post in your original one!

==============================================
Re. feedback in bias ckts - yes, I agree that you do not need to used feedback to design a bias circuit. That's *not* what I meant to say! I re-read my orig post & I cut & paste from there:
"That's because the negative feedback loop allows only so much excursion of the transistor bias point before limiting it".
what I was trying to say was the transistor's bias point's movement along the load line. That's the excursion I'm talking about. Not the static/DC bias point, which is what I think Ar_t & Herman are talking about.
Negative feedback curtails the effective load line movement keeping the transistor in it's linear region of operation. Just trying to clarify my point.
=========================================================

True, today's class-D power amps of tons of negative feedback. I'm wondering (without actually having studied a class-D amp in any details) if today's negative feedback is diff from yester year's negative feedback OR if feedback is feedback is feedback?
In yester year's feedback, as Keis pointed out, the output signal is fedback to some point in along the forward gain path. So, this feedback is directly messing w/ the wanted output signal & botching up the sound.
Today's class-D power amps seem to be using a high-speed switching power supply that makes an attempt to follow the envelope of the music signal while the transistors are merely turned on/off at that same rate. By making the switching speed 64X or 128X or 256X 20KHz, the power supply is able to quantize the music envelope quite well.
There must be an error signal generated to ensure that the power supply is correctly tracking the envelope. It *appears* that the fedback signal is not directly in the music signal path (maybe I'm wrong & it is?!)? Maybe that's why these digital amps (despite the tons of feedback) sound much better than amps of the prev many generations? (I have a friend who seems to love his Rowland 201 mono blocks more than his prev Rowland Model 2).