On 4/22/04 1:43 PM, in article WuThc.3943$YP5.358919@attbi_s02, "Stewart
Pinkerton" wrote:

Seems like its a no brainer to do just transform into the digital
domain, retard high frequencies by 1 second per octave say and here you
have and amp with the proper frequency response steady state and
obviously different.

Seems like a no-brainer for Richard to do the same with his amp (see
the 'ringer' rules above), and then you're back to square one. There
will always be clowns who'll try to cheat on such a test, but so far
not one single person has been able to *prove* that e.g. a Halcro
sounds better than a Rotel.

I have found that you need a reasonably flat amp, and given that, the
largest sound difference would be the amount of oomph a speaker needs to
open up.

I had an ARCAM AVR200 powering 2 Thiel 2.4's - and ended up getting another
amp because the current demands of the Theils in the bass region really
needed reenforcement - the low end was kind of boomy and light. With the
extra power (NAD S200) the Thiels really do sound better - and to me, this
is the most probable reason. I don't know about the amplifier's "inherent"
characteristics or anything - but the amount of power required by the
speakers seems to make a difference.

And Tubes do sound different than the solid state amps I have heard -
perhaps it is amp - speaker as a system that makes the difference, no?