[Scott[_6_]]

On Mar 15, 4:10=A0pm, Audio Empire wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 03:53:47 -0700, Scott wrote
(in article ):



Ideally, an amplifier is defined as "a
straight wire with gain".

I disagree with this ideal. This is an attempt to *define taste.*
Taste is personal. Ideals are personal. So you can't make this claim.

No, this is an attempt to define FUNCTION.
The function of an amplifier is to
increase the amplitude of a signal fed to it while adding nothing and tak=
ing
nothing away.

In your opinion. In my opinion the function of an amplifier is to
drive the speakers using the signal it is fed in the most
aesthetically pleasing way with the widest variety of source material.
Fortunately for me there are talented designers of amplifiers who
share my ideals and design their products to serve my ideals. In the
end, the function of any playback system is to deliver the best
aesthetic experience of playback as is possible for the source
material that is oing to be played.




Remember, amplifiers =A0amplify more than just audio signals. Do you want=
the
amplifiers in an MRI machine to introduce distortion and perhaps cause a
diagnostician to miss a patient's tumor?


This is about audio which is about an aesthetic experience. comparing
audio to MRI machines is silly. If you want to make any meaningful
analogies they will have to be with other things that are judged by
their aesthetic value. We can make an analgy with photography. And
yes, unless I am doing phorensec work I want my images to be
aesthetically pleasing even if they are less accurate as a result. By
the rules you guys are trying to set here a basic glamour lens would
not be considered a lens. But they are in fact lenses.


=A0Do you want an airliner's radar
amplifier to be non-linear and make an oncoming plane seem further away t=
han
it really is?

Again there is no relationship in youyr analogy since audio is about
aesthetics and airplane radar is not.


Do you want the video amp in your TV monitor to display a
distorted picture? Of course not.

Actually if you have ever seen the raw footage from most of the state
of the art digital cameras these days you would understand that a
great deal of "distortion" is added in post to make the final product
aesthetically pleasing. So yes, I do want the picture as it is
captured in most digital cameras to be "distorted" and I would be
willing to bet you would too if you saw the raw signal played through
a pro monitor side by side with the processed (distorted) signal.


You want all of these amplifiers to do what
amplifiers are supposed to do. Increase the amplitude of the signals fed =
to
them without adding or taking away anything.

In every case where there is no aesthetic involved yes. In the cases
where there is an aesthetic involved no.


The fact that you LIKE certain types of audio distortion is irrelevant to=
the
definition of an amplifier. You are free to buy all the purposely non-lin=
ear
amplifiers you want. But that doesn't change the definition of an amplifi=
er
in any way shape or form.

Neither does anyone's preference for more accurate amplifiers. The
amplifiers I like that add euphonic distortions are in fact
amplifiers. You can't redefine them out of existance. They are real, I
have one, It works and it sounds terrific. And it is an amplifier.