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
Atmasphere, I've seen you write about how bad odd order harmonics can sound (ie, subjectively bright and hard) even at very low levels. Can you please specify at what level are odd order harmonics perceived as unpleasant? I don't recall you ever giving an actual number.

I have owned your M60 amp which I think uses a 2 dB of NFB and compared to a pentode, class AB, tube amp with 20 dB of NFB. Everything else in my system was constant. The volume level was as close to even as I can get them with SPL meter, and the volume ranged between 85 to 90 dB max during the comparison. The speaker had minimum narrow impedance band of 5.8 ohms and was 90 dB efficient. By your own words, 20 dB of NFB is considered excessive. However, I did not hear any excessive hardness or brightness in either amp. Both were very smooth in the midrange and treble regions. How do you explain that?
Atmasphere, could you please clarify a statement you made on another related thread?

"Marqmike, unfortunately all amplifiers make odd ordered harmonics. It is the 5th, 7th and 9th that we are concerned about (the 3rd is considered musical to the human ear). When you add negative feedback to any amplifier design, the result will always be an enhancement of odd orders, even if the feedback is successful in removing most of the open loop distortions ('open loop' means the amp operating without feedback).

The reason this is so has to do with the fixed amount of time it takes a signal to move through a circuit. This time is called 'propagation delay'. The issue is that a low frequencies feedback works pretty good, but as frequency is increased, the propagation delay means that the feedback signal is arriving later and later to correct the circuit. In fact a designer has to be careful with feedback because this effect means that at some frequency the feedback as actually positive rather than negative. This is entirely due to the propagation delay in the amp."

I find your statement misleading. You state that NFB "enhances" odd order harmonics. According to the article I cited, NFB does not enhance (ie, increase) or add odd order harmonics. NFB reveals the odd order harmonics already produced by the amplifier before NFB is applied; this is a result of NFB greatly reducing other distortion components that mask the odd order harmonics. And NFB can reduce those higher order odd harmonics to below 110 dB from the fundamental. Can one hear distortion that low? You've claimed that we are very sensitive to odd order harmonic distortion, but could you provide a study that shows we can detect distortion this low?

As for propagation delay, an amplifier operated in its linear range will have delay in nanosecond range as far as audio frequency is concerned, including frequencies at the limit of human hearing. This is also explained in the link. Nano second range delay seems pretty negligible to me.

I, obviously, do not have more technical knowledge in amplifier design than you, but your claims seem to be directly at odds with the article I cited.