Negative feedback Amp=more faithful reproduction?

If you ge sucked into the music and it sounds bettef the longer you listen, you have a GOOD amp. Be happy. NF design is just one aspect. Alone, it means relatively little. No nfb designs in general might be better overall and there may be fewer nfb designs that sound "irritating", and ghere are certainly many mediocre products that use, nfb, but there are also many i have heard where fatigue whatever the cause is not an issue. No abolute good, bad, rights, wrongs here as is usually the case. If nf scares you do not buy products that use it. But if you have good ears you trust i would not let anybody scare yiu away from what sounds good based on limited theoretical arguments.

That is a very informative article as are many of the replies, as usual.

Only thing of value I can think to add is yes, practically, it is how the whole system functions together that matters, not specific design paradigms applied to specific components. There are many ways to skin a cat. That phrase could never be more true than it is regarding the details of ways to deliver quality sound reproduction. Each will chose their preferred solution. VEndors will obviously also chose their approach and any vendor worth their salt will believe in their approach 110%. CEtain design approaches that are more unique or innovative, like no NF and one of my personal favorites, Walsh drivers, done well, help to make certain vendors stick out in the pack, which is important if you are in a business for the long haul.

When someone comes up with the undisputed mathematical equation for why I like what I like, please let me know! I am waiting patiently.....

"What sound you like has nothing to do with original question. "

It does in that there is no concrete objective answer to the question possible.

It is a subjective question not an objective one to start with, so an objective/quantitative answer cannot be had.

Therefore one must practically rely on what they hear and prefer as data points towards obtaining a meaningful answer. All else is just a particular spin on the truth, and I do not mean that in a derogatory sense, only stating the facts.

Kijanki, I can think of nobody I would rather have solve that equation! Take your time! I can survive in the interim. :^)

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.

"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.

The Hyperions look VERY nice! Would like to hear them someday.

Kijanki,

They are not bad looking. What I mean by very nice is that they appear to be well designed to really deliver the music well at lifelike volumes and with meat on the bones for very reasonable cost compared to many tower or monitor type designs common today in the same price range.

Its been said that teh main reason to have an expensive stereo is the ability to go lifelike loud and clear as needed. I agree with that! THose speakers look up to the task!