[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 14, 12:23=A0pm, Doug McDonald wrote:
On 3/14/2012 1:38 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:

On 2012-03-11 21:37, Audio Empire wrote:
I'll tell you another little secret -
it's getting harder and harder for reviewers to find anything to discu=
ss
(beyond features) about amplifiers too. Most are so transparent these =
days
that you have to really stress them in some way to hear any real diffe=
rences.
At normal listening levels, today's solid-state amps are much more ali=
ke than
they are different. What you mostly get for your money as you spend mo=
re are
more power and stiffer DC power supplies. They make a difference, to b=
e sure,
but it usually doesn't show-up under most normal listening conditions.

That's interesting. So you mean that a budget amplifier like NAD C 316B=
EE will sound practically the
same as a high-end design like darTZeel CTH-8550 at moderate listening =
levels driving normal
speakers?

Within that amplifier's modest power rating, the answer is simply yes. No=
te
that the NAD is indeed rated at 4 Ohms. I once owned a similar NAD ...
and it was similarly essentially perfect.

All properly designed power amplifiers must sound absolutely the
same ... otherwise by definition they are either defective or
the speaker load is too low impedance for them. There are first
rate speakers out there whose impedance drops too low for
some otherwise excellent and perfect amplifiers.

Doug McDonald

Where do you get this defenition? Who makes these rules? A properly
designed amplifier is an amplifier that works reliably as it was
designed to work. There is nothing "defective" about amplifiers that
add euphonic colorations and they certainly do not all sound the same.