What is wrong with negative feedback?

That might actually be simpler- the proof in the pudding. Kirkus and I have had plenty of exchanges in the past and I have always respected his demeanor, but at the same time I do not think there is anything that I could say that would change his mind- he clearly knows his book larnen'.

OTOH, I'm pretty sure that I'm likely to stay put too. If I had not spent so much time doing this, I might be easier to convince.

So maybe, we choose the amps from the two camps that we think are the best examples of feedback and no feedback.

The tech talk is over my head too, but I'll say that the best amp I've heard of late that uses feedback is the Music Reference RM-10 MkII.

Atmasphere,

I suspect it would be hard to set up any meaningful comparison of an amp alone in that an amp cannot produce music alone without speakers. The results could vary widely depending on speakers used, personal preferences, and all the usual culprits that result in different strokes for different folks.

My gut feel is that as you say, its all in the implementation and there are many ways to make tasty soup.

That is true. However I have found the if given the option, people prefer a system that it not bright and harsh, given otherwise that there is no lack of detail, bandwidth and with no tonal aberration.

IOW, a proper stereo should lack loudness cues, such that you can approach the same volumes in your room that the real live music could. A typical orchestra can do 115db with ease, yet many audiophiles will not turn up the volume past 95 db because its 'too damn loud' or they get 'turn that @#$% down!' from their S.O. This mostly due to artificial loudness cues which are totally coming from distorted odd ordered harmonics, and by that I mean only 100ths of a percent.

Its been my contention that negative feedback is a major culprit, literally violating one of the most fundamental rules of human hearing: how we detect the volume of a sound.

Hard to disagree with Ralph's last post in my opinion.