2. amps-preamps
  3. 1361391926

Negative feedback Amp=more faithful reproduction?

Negative feedback (NFB) vs zero negative feedback (ZNFB). There seems to be unsubstantiated contention that ZNFB amps sound more realistic. I know this is an age old debate favoring the ZNFB design, but I think most audiophiles have never bothered to look into this matter and believe the advertisements and proponents of zero NFB design. I have been in that camp until recently. My own experience and research into articles on this matter leads to me believe NFB is needed for faithful reproduction of music. I'm not saying NFB design is more "musical", which is a highly subjective term and usually means more euphonic or colored. I've posted a similar question awhile back, but I was hoping we can have a more evidence based discussion on this matter. Perhaps, we need clarification of descriptive terms we use to describe sound. My contention is, in general, NFB designs produces a more accurate or faithful reproduction of music than ZNFB designs. Here is a very good article on feedback and distortion:

http://sound.westhost.com/articles/distortion+fb.htm
dracule1
Ag insider logo xs@2x
edwyun
244 posts
 
KiJani:

I think you're talking about distinctions between local feedback and global feedback.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
edwyun
244 posts
 
Mapman:
The answer to your question is to do away with reproduction altogether. Sell all your equipment and go to stadiums, concert halls, jazz clubs, auditoriums, amphitheaters, subways, bathrooms, etc. Go live!
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,295 posts
 
OK, so I will go out on a limb and agree with Kijanki that educated application of NF = more faithful reproduction, in a pure technical sense, though as we all know, no solution is perfect and there are always potential drawbacks to deal with. In the case of NF, it would seem to be potentially higher IM distortion that just so happens to come into play in the most sensitive region of the human hearing spectrum where it matters most. That would up the ante to get it all done right!

Now I will go back and do more listening to determine further for myself who has done it right and who has not.
Ag insider logo xs@2x
edwyun
244 posts
 
Mapman:
Distortion is good, so long as there is not too much of it!
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,295 posts
 
"Mapman:
The answer to your question is to do away with reproduction altogether. Sell all your equipment and go to stadiums, concert halls, jazz clubs, auditoriums, amphitheaters, subways, bathrooms, etc. Go live!"

Agreed! Live is the reference standard! Everything else is a reproduction all of which are flawed in some way. Choose your poison!

Abstract art is regarded by many as the most enjoyable! Its also one of the most highly distorted forms of art compared to other styles. The art is represented by the distortions. A photo would work best to reduce the distortions. A three dimensional hi res CGI model perhaps could do the best! Which of these would you prefer? Does it matter? As long as it affects you, I'd say it realy does not matter. I like variety! I'll take one of each!

Still the hi res CGI model is probably the most faithful technically, though still surely noticably imperfect.

Give it time. Technology will continue to advance to the point where the remaining distortions are below the threshold of human perception.

Sound reproduction is not as data intensive and will probably get there faster. I tend to think it may already be getting there in some cases these days.

Unfortunately, audiophiles may always still be futilely sweating the details that really no longer matter, though I suspect the #s that obsess on doing such things will continue to dwindle significantly.
More to discover