Ralph, of course I was including state-of-the-art, award-winning designs. Of course.
I invariably dial in the amount of feedback that I use by ear as well as meter, and sometimes the result is more GNFB, sometimes less (or zero).
FWIW, when a circuit sounds like it has too much GNFB, to my ears the sonic problems tend to manifest themselves as dynamic compression and timbral shifts in a decidedly unnatural direction, as well as spatial flattening.
My general experience has been that using GNFB to try to turn a poor-sounding circuit into something decent rarely gives acceptable results. A design that sounds good with lots of GNFB (global feedback) tends to sound pretty good without it, too.
So while I think there are similar aspects to our respective standpoints, Ralph, we'll just have to agree to disagree as to the usefulness of GNFB for SOTA audio.
As an aside, I've auditioned some highly-regarded commercial zero NFB designs that I liked and admired a lot (yours among them), while others (some also highly regarded) have left a different impression.
For example, perhaps two months ago, I had a chance to listen at length to a high-feedback preamp design of mine from the late 1990's, Charles Hansen's zero NFB KX-R preamp, and a contemporary highly-regarded European-made zero NFB preamp. It was my opinion as well as others who heard these same pieces that Charles' zero-NFB KX-R and my high-GNFB design sounded a lot closer to each other than either did to the European-made zero-NFB preamp (which FWIW sounded much more "contrived").
I stand by my opinion that the individual designing the product has a far greater effect on the sound than whatever technology that he happens to choose.
best, jonathan carr
I invariably dial in the amount of feedback that I use by ear as well as meter, and sometimes the result is more GNFB, sometimes less (or zero).
FWIW, when a circuit sounds like it has too much GNFB, to my ears the sonic problems tend to manifest themselves as dynamic compression and timbral shifts in a decidedly unnatural direction, as well as spatial flattening.
My general experience has been that using GNFB to try to turn a poor-sounding circuit into something decent rarely gives acceptable results. A design that sounds good with lots of GNFB (global feedback) tends to sound pretty good without it, too.
So while I think there are similar aspects to our respective standpoints, Ralph, we'll just have to agree to disagree as to the usefulness of GNFB for SOTA audio.
As an aside, I've auditioned some highly-regarded commercial zero NFB designs that I liked and admired a lot (yours among them), while others (some also highly regarded) have left a different impression.
For example, perhaps two months ago, I had a chance to listen at length to a high-feedback preamp design of mine from the late 1990's, Charles Hansen's zero NFB KX-R preamp, and a contemporary highly-regarded European-made zero NFB preamp. It was my opinion as well as others who heard these same pieces that Charles' zero-NFB KX-R and my high-GNFB design sounded a lot closer to each other than either did to the European-made zero-NFB preamp (which FWIW sounded much more "contrived").
I stand by my opinion that the individual designing the product has a far greater effect on the sound than whatever technology that he happens to choose.
best, jonathan carr