Why do audiophiles shun feedback in amplifiers?


I've owned several very highly regarded tube amps. Some of them allowed adjustment of the amount of negative feedback. I've always found some degree of feedback improved the sound...more realistic with tighter bass, dynamics, better defined imaging, etc. I have found amps with less or no feedback sound loose and diffuse with less dynamics... I know you should design am amp with excellent open loop gain before applying feedback. I can see the use of no negative feedback for low level amplification (eg, preamp and gain stage of CDP or DAC). So why this myth perpetuated by audiophiles and even many manufacturers?
dracule1
Hi Dracule1,
I `ve never read or been told that NFB exists within a tube`s internal/intrinsic construction.I don`t believe that"every amplifier" has NFB. I`m not an engineer nor a designer of audio components but I think some of them would disagree with your friends statement.When people talk of NFB it`s in terms of deliberate insertion into a circuit either globally or local loops.

But really it`s just what sound we all prefer.You like some NFB in your amps circuit and that`s fine.What ever no or zero NFB is, that`s what sounds best to me when properly implemented.This has been an interesting thread and I appreciate the various points of view.
Rgards,
NFB....love it or hate it.

Most things occur in shades of grey, not pure black and white.
Hi Kijanki - thanks for the link. I am going to have to ask one of my viola colleagues about this tomorrow! As far as I knew, the string lengths of all the instruments in the orchestra string family were approximately the same length (with the obvious exceptions of harp and piano), but that article claims this is not necessarily true of the viola. I am now wondering if this is a typically sloppy Wikipedia reference to viols, used in early music groups, which are of many different sizes, or if it does indeed apply to orchestral violas, which I tend to doubt. I will report back.

@Dracule - yes, audiophiles use quite a few terms somewhat differently than musicians do. My personal pet peeve is "neutral," LOL! But there are others, even such seemingly self-explanatory words as "mid-range." This is a very misleading term to a musician unfamiliar with how audiophiles use it, as it turns out that the vast majority of frequencies produced by acoustic instruments fall well within what most audiophiles call the midrange, though audiophiles will often disagree on exactly what constitutes the midrange. Other obvious candidates are "pace" and "timing." I have seen some very bizarre discussion of those two terms in particular on audiophile boards.
Learsfool, "neutral", in almost all cases, is a subjective audiophile term. IMO, only people truly qualified to use this term are recording engineers who have the capability to compare their recordings with the live performance that was recorded in their studios or venue. Don't get me wrong, as I've sinned too using this term in the subjective sense for lack of a better word.

As for "midrange", this can cover 200-300 Hz to 1-3 kHz depending on the audiophile. And yes as you state, this covers most of the frequency range of most instruments. That's why most audiophiles often proclaim the midrange is the most important because most of the music occurs in this range. Broad yes, but sometimes useful.