Scott Dorsey spake thus:

David Nebenzahl wrote:

Maybe you missed the earlier post where someone gave some of the
published specs for this amp. One of them was 0.01% THD. If true, I
would think that would be plenty good enough for studio use, assuming
the other specs are on par with it.

These actually aren't such bad amplifiers, and they are better than a lot
of the stuff sold today as (ahem) monitor amps.

But full power THD specs don't tell you anything useful these days. In
fact, if you compare something like the Yamaha to a something like the
Aragon or Levinson amp with the same power rating, you'll find they sound
different and that a lot of this has to do with the lower output impedance
of the better amp as well as the coloration in the electronics.

On the other end of the scale, the Yamaha probably sounds a lot better
than an Alesis RA-100 for the same reasons.

Again with the "may sound different from other [studio] amps". I've got
to take exception to that as a sort-of audiophool belief.

By definition, if two amplifiers both have extremely low distortion,
they should "sound" approximately the same, right? Again, this is
*assuming* (see disclaimer below) that other relevant specs (probably
most importantly things like transient response) are in the same
ballpark; I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't be in what
appears to be a high-quality amplifier like this.

DISCLAIMER:

Yes, I understand that I do not know what the other specs for the
amplifier under discussion are; and neither do you. This is Usenet,
remember? not a peer-reviewed engineering paper. So sue me.


--
I hope that in a few years it [Wikipedia] will be so bloated that it
will simply disintegrate, because I can't stand the thought that this
thing might someday actually be used as a serious reference source.
Because in its current form, it's not to be taken seriously at all.

- Horst Prillinger (see
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/horst.p...06/000623.html)