AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 7/16/2004 3:45 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" wrote in message
news:J%cJc.78334$%_6.34016@attbi_s01...
From: "Bob Marcus"
Date: 7/14/2004 8:30 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: 1kcJc.76426$MB3.32199@attbi_s04

B&D wrote:

On 7/13/04 6:45 PM, in article , "John
Atkinson" wrote:

Please note that I am not defending this amplifier's performance.
I am only pointing out that those on this forum who condemn its
sound without actually having heard it are shooting in the dark.

And herein lies the problem - people on this group are quick to condemn
based upon a data sheet rather than trying it out.

Some of us have heard highly distorting systems with massive bass humps
before. We don't need to listen to another one to know we won't like it.

bob

Let me get this straight, you can look at the the measurements of the
WAVAC and
from those measurements you can determine with a reasonable level of
certainty
that you have heard a *system* that sounded so similar to the *system* MF
reported on in his review that you wouldn't require an audition to form an
opinion on it's sonic merits?

Based on the measurements the only merit this amp would have is as a really
expensive door stop. It would not have been considered a hi-fi amp since
the 1940's. Look at the graph of any decent SS amp and you will see the
distortion as a nearly flat line until full rated power is reached. With
the WAVAC it continues to get worse as you increase the volume. At around 2
watts it's at 1% which is where THD becomes audible. If this amp were
$12.00 it would still be overpriced to anyone looking for a 150 watt amp.

Are you suggesting that those people who like what they hear from this amp and
believe that what they hear through this amp sounds more like live music should
revise their subjective impressions to fit the measurements?