"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
om...
"WorldJAZZ" wrote in message
...
"A. D'A." wrote in message
om...

[snip]
And if you knew what "damping" was, you'd understand that this statement
basically is nonsensical.
I object to the rude tone of the above wording. You are a rude man.
[snip]

And this comes down, ultimately, to the farsical use of a nonsense
term as "damping factor" as a useful figure of merit for amplifier
performance, as have been adequately demonstrated in the past.

I don't agree with you. In fact, the small signal damping factor may be an
incorrect parameter to measure, but I've heard enough amplifiers that
exhaust themselves trying to control large woofers, that a related form of
measurement applies. It could be called "large signal damping factor".


The amplifier in question may or may not have the audible
characteristics you claim, but it is not due your unsupportable
"damping factor" conjecture.

Interestingly, I had the above argument with Bill Sommerwick in which we
took the reverse sides of the issue.
I do not know which of you is correct, but I admit it seems plausible that
tweeter damping is primarily mechanical.

In support of that pov, I heard a switching amplifier over at Ralph
Glasgow's Ambiphonics "palace", that drove Acoustats with excellent clarity.

Nevertheless, I stand by my impression of the Sunfire, which is that it is a
muddy sounding amplifier.
It bothers me that A.D'A seems bent on the path of powering his system with
amplifiers of less than stellar quality.