Can a Amp be "timeless" and compete with todays amps?

No I meant in a much more simple fashion, i.e. a portion of the output is subtracted from the input. Literally negative. It would technically be out of phase but that is by definition. 

Yes- we use a resistive divider network to do that in our smaller OTLs (we run 2dB of feedback in the M-60). You either do it that way or thru an active device, such as a tube's cathode while the input signal is applied to the grid.

But the feedback network itself can be simple or complex, depending on (...how well its designed...) the expectations for it, such as keeping unwanted frequencies out of the loop. For example in a class D amp that is self-oscillating, the feedback network defines the oscillation frequency (known as the 'oscillation criteria') since so much feedback is applied that the amp goes into oscillation as soon as its turned on; the amp then uses the oscillation as the switching frequency. That network can be a 4th or 5th order loop with 6 or 7 variables; for that you'll need a computer to sort it out.

What this means is its possible to build a solid state amp that is every bit as smooth in the mids and highs as the best tube amps and leave nothing on the table in terms of detail, sound stage and the like, in such a way that vintage amps simply cannot compete (not that they sound bad, just they don’t sound as good). This is one of those things that is easy to hear and easy to measure.

Bruno Putzeys wrote a wonderful article on feedback.

For example in a class D amp that is self-oscillating,

C'mon folks, apply a little critical reading and thinking skills. Read and see what is clearly between the lines. While I had always admired Ralph and thanked him for his participation here (though disagreeing with his continued insistence that higher cartridge loading is always best unless RFI interferes and that correspondingly, RFI is the chief factor upon which cartridge loading should be chosen), there is clearly a theme here towards promotion of his Class D amps. I have to wonder how a customer of Atma-Sphere who just paid 20K+ for a pair of the MA-1's a month ago must feel when it's principal proclaims his own product to be by nature inferior to his new solid state alternative. 

And I am also surprised and even angry at myself to only now notice that Ralph is so reliant upon that which can be measured. 

Burn him at the stake!!!!   I am really getting a kick out of this place.

I was curious, so I tried a search. "Class D" and then found I could filter by user, so I filtered for atmasphere. It appears that atmasphere has been communicating about their class D amplifier for almost 5 years. It could be longer but I got bored of searching.

I have worked in semiconductors and batteries. Everything new we release is better and better rendering even last years products effectively obsolete. I find this a strange thing to complain about. When I read atmasphere's other posts in this thread, I would be happy he does rely on measurements. He seems to have a handle on how those measurements will make his product sound. How can that not be a good thing?  This is audio. I don't think accusing people of audiophile heresy is productive.

You are right...

When people dont understand something they search for simplistic  explanation and they mob together...

I don't think accusing people of audiophile heresy is productive.

 

@fsonicsmith

And I am also surprised and even angry at myself to only now notice that Ralph is so reliant upon that which can be measured

Ralph is an accomplished electrical engineer and also a successful audio electronics manufacturer. I certainly can appreciate his reliance and support of formal measurements as it simply reflects his training and background.

In addition I find his explanation of NFB as utilized in the manner he describes proper application. It is logical and coherent. My primary objection is the assumption that this approach is inherently going to result in a better sounding amplifier than the OP’s VAC Renaissance amplifier. A false assumption in my opinion. A listener would have to compare them in a direct A/B setting.

I just don’t buy the notion that new technology is without debate always the better performing/sounding choice. It has to be confirmed under real world listening/audition  conditions not just in theory.

Charles