Robert Morein wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If I understand you right, then if it is bipolar then it is usable only
to generate heat and not even good at that.

We're both arguing from personal experience,

The Sony FET amps I had in a car some years ago had a nice treble.
Generally however if it is FET I need to have explained why it is worth
listening to now, because when I bothered listening to it last, and that
*is* way many years ago, the FET treble was just a cloud of white noise.
You very claim that metal tweeters are good to show the virtues of FET
amplifiers does however seem to somehow substantiate that not all FET
designs have as clean a treble as some japanese bipolars from the
quality wars late 70-ties and early 80-ties in as much as such
amplifiers (Sansui B55 with input coupling cap replaced and spectrum
display physically removed) are the preferred ones for midrange and
treble into compression drivers in this household and in as much as a
newly acquired Technics amp from the same vintage has become the new
"master of the full range" for the duration of an Audire amps disease.

but I submit that I have the "white crow", ie., that my
personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

My observations conform very poorly to your general rule as extracted
from your recent posts, what I happen to have is then some old stuff,
but I am not really convinced that new stuff actually is relevant to
replace it.

--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******

Robert Morein wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If I understand you right, then if it is bipolar then it is usable only
to generate heat and not even good at that.

We're both arguing from personal experience,

The Sony FET amps I had in a car some years ago had a nice treble.
Generally however if it is FET I need to have explained why it is worth
listening to now, because when I bothered listening to it last, and that
*is* way many years ago, the FET treble was just a cloud of white noise.
You very claim that metal tweeters are good to show the virtues of FET
amplifiers does however seem to somehow substantiate that not all FET
designs have as clean a treble as some japanese bipolars from the
quality wars late 70-ties and early 80-ties in as much as such
amplifiers (Sansui B55 with input coupling cap replaced and spectrum
display physically removed) are the preferred ones for midrange and
treble into compression drivers in this household and in as much as a
newly acquired Technics amp from the same vintage has become the new
"master of the full range" for the duration of an Audire amps disease.

but I submit that I have the "white crow", ie., that my
personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

My observations conform very poorly to your general rule as extracted
from your recent posts, what I happen to have is then some old stuff,
but I am not really convinced that new stuff actually is relevant to
replace it.

--
************************************************** *************
* \\\\\\\ Quality Ascii handcrafted by Peter Larsen /////// *
* \\\\\\\ My site is at: http://www.muyiovatki.dk /////// *
************************************************** *******

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which
*does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to
have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

Yes, they do. The high-end is rife with bad designs.

Fortunately many mainstream components are competently designed.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which
*does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to
have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

Yes, they do. The high-end is rife with bad designs.

Fortunately many mainstream components are competently designed.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which
*does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to
have at
least one glaring technical defect.
--

Then a lot of them do.

Yes, they do. The high-end is rife with bad designs.

Fortunately many mainstream components are competently designed.

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-)

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and
the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in
every case?
Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing
than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See below.
To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in
his system? :-)

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

"Guitar amps [......] are not just amps".
That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer, and even you who might use a tone
control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home.
According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal
amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or
some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the
product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and
disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an
amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations
even though they deviate from the artists' intent.

I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even
using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent".
I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too
narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or
perhaps even music reproduction.



It further depends on how you will define high fidelity :

- Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so,
which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which
conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or
discussion, or none at all?

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?
How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the
mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D
and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind
of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.?

- Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound?
If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his
conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall?
How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor
or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine?
How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis?
Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser?
How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound?



What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?

TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.
As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS.
If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it.
If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it.
If that means having to use equalizers, so be it.
If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly
live in the room, so be it.
If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so
be it.
If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per
channel, so be it.
If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter
technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it.
LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter?

Snake oil? So be it.
My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.



I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.



Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.



Just my 2 eurocents, FWIW etc.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-)

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and
the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in
every case?
Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing
than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See below.
To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in
his system? :-)

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

"Guitar amps [......] are not just amps".
That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer, and even you who might use a tone
control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home.
According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal
amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or
some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the
product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and
disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an
amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations
even though they deviate from the artists' intent.

I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even
using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent".
I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too
narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or
perhaps even music reproduction.



It further depends on how you will define high fidelity :

- Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so,
which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which
conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or
discussion, or none at all?

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?
How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the
mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D
and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind
of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.?

- Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound?
If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his
conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall?
How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor
or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine?
How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis?
Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser?
How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound?



What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?

TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.
As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS.
If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it.
If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it.
If that means having to use equalizers, so be it.
If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly
live in the room, so be it.
If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so
be it.
If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per
channel, so be it.
If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter
technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it.
LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter?

Snake oil? So be it.
My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.



I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.



Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.



Just my 2 eurocents, FWIW etc.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-)

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and
the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in
every case?
Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing
than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind? See below.
To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in
his system? :-)

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

"Guitar amps [......] are not just amps".
That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer, and even you who might use a tone
control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home.
According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

However, I suppose it could be designed to deviate from ideal
amplification and marketed as "adding warmth to the treble" or
some other claim. In that scenario it would be hard to call the
product poorly designed since deviation was intentional and
disclosed but it wouldn't be appropriate to call it just an
amplifier. I agree some audiophiles might enjoy the colorations
even though they deviate from the artists' intent.

I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even
using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent".
I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too
narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or
perhaps even music reproduction.



It further depends on how you will define high fidelity :

- Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so,
which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which
conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or
discussion, or none at all?

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?
How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the
mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D
and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind
of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.?

- Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound?
If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his
conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall?
How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor
or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine?
How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis?
Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser?
How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound?



What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?

TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.
As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS.
If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it.
If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it.
If that means having to use equalizers, so be it.
If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly
live in the room, so be it.
If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so
be it.
If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per
channel, so be it.
If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter
technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it.
LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter?

Snake oil? So be it.
My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.



I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.



Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.



Just my 2 eurocents, FWIW etc.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.

You have got it for the most part
That is what music is about

It is not however, what audio is about.
It is a part, but not the only one.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.

You have got it for the most part
That is what music is about

It is not however, what audio is about.
It is a part, but not the only one.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.

You have got it for the most part
That is what music is about

It is not however, what audio is about.
It is a part, but not the only one.

I would be surprised if you or anyone else could tell what type of
tweeter--metal or fabric--a speaker is equipped with. I'd be amazed
if you could identify the type of output stage--bipolar or MOSFET-- an
amplifier uses.

Norm Strong

I would be surprised if you or anyone else could tell what type of
tweeter--metal or fabric--a speaker is equipped with. I'd be amazed
if you could identify the type of output stage--bipolar or MOSFET-- an
amplifier uses.

Norm Strong

I would be surprised if you or anyone else could tell what type of
tweeter--metal or fabric--a speaker is equipped with. I'd be amazed
if you could identify the type of output stage--bipolar or MOSFET-- an
amplifier uses.

Norm Strong

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Since you're talking about the "vast majority of consumers" there
really is no format war. SACD and DVD-A are not even on the radar of
the majority of consumers--nor would they be if one format was gone.
The format war is ended and the winner is Dolby Digital. An ordinary
CD will hold over 3 hours of DD surround sound. If it could be played
on an ordinary DVD player, the consumer would love it.

So why isn't DD sweeping the field? My guess is that the industry
hasn't yet figured out a good way to limit the amount of time
available in that format. SACD and DVD-A solve the time problem, but
have not been embraced by the public. If you stop to think about it
there is no technical reason why DD surround sound audio couldn't be
distributed via an ordinary DVD. With no video to contend with a DVD
could carry as much as 20 hours of music. It would be available to
anyone with a DVD player, and entirely satisfactory to 99% of them.
Therein is the problem: too much time. The race to fill it would be
on, and the RIAA would be the loser.

Cheers, and Happy New Year,

Norm Strong

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Since you're talking about the "vast majority of consumers" there
really is no format war. SACD and DVD-A are not even on the radar of
the majority of consumers--nor would they be if one format was gone.
The format war is ended and the winner is Dolby Digital. An ordinary
CD will hold over 3 hours of DD surround sound. If it could be played
on an ordinary DVD player, the consumer would love it.

So why isn't DD sweeping the field? My guess is that the industry
hasn't yet figured out a good way to limit the amount of time
available in that format. SACD and DVD-A solve the time problem, but
have not been embraced by the public. If you stop to think about it
there is no technical reason why DD surround sound audio couldn't be
distributed via an ordinary DVD. With no video to contend with a DVD
could carry as much as 20 hours of music. It would be available to
anyone with a DVD player, and entirely satisfactory to 99% of them.
Therein is the problem: too much time. The race to fill it would be
on, and the RIAA would be the loser.

Cheers, and Happy New Year,

Norm Strong

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message
...

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Since you're talking about the "vast majority of consumers" there
really is no format war. SACD and DVD-A are not even on the radar of
the majority of consumers--nor would they be if one format was gone.
The format war is ended and the winner is Dolby Digital. An ordinary
CD will hold over 3 hours of DD surround sound. If it could be played
on an ordinary DVD player, the consumer would love it.

So why isn't DD sweeping the field? My guess is that the industry
hasn't yet figured out a good way to limit the amount of time
available in that format. SACD and DVD-A solve the time problem, but
have not been embraced by the public. If you stop to think about it
there is no technical reason why DD surround sound audio couldn't be
distributed via an ordinary DVD. With no video to contend with a DVD
could carry as much as 20 hours of music. It would be available to
anyone with a DVD player, and entirely satisfactory to 99% of them.
Therein is the problem: too much time. The race to fill it would be
on, and the RIAA would be the loser.

Cheers, and Happy New Year,

Norm Strong

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

Last year's Rolling Stones holiday offering was a number of DVD-A remasters.

This year's Rolling Stone Holiday offering appears to be a plain old DVD-V
release.

Perhaps someone is learning about what the market wants...

Once bitten, twice shy?

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

Last year's Rolling Stones holiday offering was a number of DVD-A remasters.

This year's Rolling Stone Holiday offering appears to be a plain old DVD-V
release.

Perhaps someone is learning about what the market wants...

Once bitten, twice shy?

"Rusty Boudreaux" wrote in message

"John Atkinson" wrote in
message om...
Here are the relevant figures from Stereophile's "Publisher's
Statements," published in the December 2002 and 2003 issues: 82,932
paid circulation in 2002, 81,668 paid circulation in 2003. (Both
figures are 12-month averages.) Yes, I would have liked to see a
rise, but hardly a major drop, IMO.

So roughly 1 out of every 3600 people in the US are subscribers.

What about total circulation instead of just paid and the drop
from the peak (early 90's I think)?

Your opinion, Mr. Boudreaux, not mine. The reality is that the
overwhelming majority of music sold in stores and played back
in the
home is still 2-channel. Stereophile does cover multichannel music
reproduction, BTW, but it is still very much a minority
interest for
resadres in general.

Currently that's true. However, once the following takes place I
bet the vast majority of consumers will choose multichannel over
stereo.

1. End of format war.
2. Mass availability
3. Backward compatible (old car players for example)

Video is definitely a plus.

It makes it a different experience, "cold" rather than "hot,"
in Marshall

Not if you don't watch the video portion. I prefer to choose the
experience I wish to have.

McLuhan's terminology, which very much changes the relationship
between medium and consumer.

That relationship needs to change. Pure audio is dying due to
among other things the growing availability of other media. If
changes aren't made to increase interest in audio it will become
purely a commuter or background music market. For many people it
already has.

Last year's Rolling Stones holiday offering was a number of DVD-A remasters.

This year's Rolling Stone Holiday offering appears to be a plain old DVD-V
release.

Perhaps someone is learning about what the market wants...

Once bitten, twice shy?

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have
the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception
that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't
be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.
If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have
the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception
that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't
be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.
If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 05:18:38 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:20:18 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

IMHO, topologies do make a difference:
1. cold running, precision biased bipoloar
2. high-bias bipolar
3. MOSFET, traditional
4. MOSFET, transnova topology

If properly implemented, each of these will produce an amplifier which
is sonically transparent. Naturally, it follows that all these
amplifiers will 'sound' the same. This has been the case for more than
a decade now......................

We're both arguing from personal experience, but I submit that I have
the
"white crow", ie., that my personal opinion contains the exception
that
breaks your rule.

I submit that you are talking nonsense.

I could listen to any number of amplifiers, yet my argument couldn't
be
completely nullified -- at "worst", I would have to concede that the
groupings are sloppy. Your argument is somewhat more vulnerable to an
"aha"
experience.

No, my argument is invulnerable, since any amplifier which *does*
sound different from its input signal can readily be shown to have at
least one glaring technical defect.

Then a lot of them do.

Agreed, and most of those use tubes............
--

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.
If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me
that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from
another decent

Can you explain why this is apparent? There's been no published
evidence (or theories) of amplifiers with audibile differences
where the differences couldn't be identified via measurement.

amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or
"musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such
a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to
measure amplifiers.

No one needs to spend money. Amplification is a basic function
spanning hundreds of fields since the triode amplifier was
invented in 1906. We know how to measure amplifiers.

I'll admit there are many strange audio amplifiers around...but
measuring isn't a problem.

The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the
consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read
head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field"
or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the
Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from
other tracking systems". With their educated customer base
they'd be laughed out of existence.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me
that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from
another decent

Can you explain why this is apparent? There's been no published
evidence (or theories) of amplifiers with audibile differences
where the differences couldn't be identified via measurement.

amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or
"musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such
a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to
measure amplifiers.

No one needs to spend money. Amplification is a basic function
spanning hundreds of fields since the triode amplifier was
invented in 1906. We know how to measure amplifiers.

I'll admit there are many strange audio amplifiers around...but
measuring isn't a problem.

The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the
consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read
head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field"
or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the
Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from
other tracking systems". With their educated customer base
they'd be laughed out of existence.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects." It is apparent to me
that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from
another decent

Can you explain why this is apparent? There's been no published
evidence (or theories) of amplifiers with audibile differences
where the differences couldn't be identified via measurement.

amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or
"musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property. But audio amplification is such
a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to
measure amplifiers.

No one needs to spend money. Amplification is a basic function
spanning hundreds of fields since the triode amplifier was
invented in 1906. We know how to measure amplifiers.

I'll admit there are many strange audio amplifiers around...but
measuring isn't a problem.

The reason high-end audio amplification is so backwater is the
consumer base. Can you imagine these advertisements, "IBM's read
head amplifiers in our hard drives add a warmth to the GMR field"
or "NASA has upgraded the servo positioning amplifier of the
Hubble Space Telescope to give that low end boost missing from
other tracking systems". With their educated customer base
they'd be laughed out of existence.

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc.,
etc., is a gigantic loophole.

I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Since the rejection point can be set well below the threshold of audibility,
this isn't a problem.

It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound
different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do
with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property.

It's apparent to me that you've never done a reliable listening test, of if
you did the experience didn't *take*.

But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't
been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Wrong, if your initial criteria of finding rejects is to believed.

If it had been a
different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it
would have been solved a long time ago.

Read the space shuttle article in the current Atlantic?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc.,
etc., is a gigantic loophole.

I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Since the rejection point can be set well below the threshold of audibility,
this isn't a problem.

It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound
different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do
with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property.

It's apparent to me that you've never done a reliable listening test, of if
you did the experience didn't *take*.

But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't
been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Wrong, if your initial criteria of finding rejects is to believed.

If it had been a
different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it
would have been solved a long time ago.

Read the space shuttle article in the current Atlantic?

"Robert Morein" wrote in message


Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc.,
etc., is a gigantic loophole.

I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements
characterizes an amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Since the rejection point can be set well below the threshold of audibility,
this isn't a problem.

It is apparent to me that an amplifier can measure decently, and sound
different from another decent amplifier, and this has nothing to do
with "magic", or "musicality", or any other nonmathematical property.

It's apparent to me that you've never done a reliable listening test, of if
you did the experience didn't *take*.

But audio amplification is such a backwater that enough money hasn't
been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Wrong, if your initial criteria of finding rejects is to believed.

If it had been a
different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure points, it
would have been solved a long time ago.

Read the space shuttle article in the current Atlantic?

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has.

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has.

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has.

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has. The only 'backwater' is in so-called 'high end'
amplification, which is jampacked with idiots and conmen. They do of
course have the perfect customer base.......................

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has. The only 'backwater' is in so-called 'high end'
amplification, which is jampacked with idiots and conmen. They do of
course have the perfect customer base.......................

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

Technically, I agree, at least with the remark about tubes.
However, I think that the "all properly operating amplifiers", etc., etc.,
is a gigantic loophole.
I don't believe that the usual suite of bench measurements characterizes an
amplifier, except to exclude "rejects."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

It is apparent to me that an
amplifier can measure decently, and sound different from another decent
amplifier, and this has nothing to do with "magic", or "musicality", or any
other nonmathematical property.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has. The only 'backwater' is in so-called 'high end'
amplification, which is jampacked with idiots and conmen. They do of
course have the perfect customer base.......................

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:58:29 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-)

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and
the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in
every case?

Yes - so long as you include HF IM distortion.

Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing
than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind?

No.

See below.
To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in
his system? :-)

No, that's because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers. The Krell is
about as close as I've seen to an 'ideal' amplifier, although of
course its current reserve is overkill for most speakers and rooms.

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

"Guitar amps [......] are not just amps".
That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here.

He means that the guitar amp is not a reproducer, it's *part* of the
instrument.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer,

But there's nothing we can do about this random deviation from
neutrality, so unless you have *very* narrow musical tastes, a neutral
replay system is indicated as a best approach to all recordings.

and even you who might use a tone
control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home.
According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

Indeed not, although it may balance a poor loudspeaker or room to some
extent. Dedicated room/speaker EQ is whole other can of worms!

I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even
using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent".

Depends why you use them, as noted above.

I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too
narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or
perhaps even music reproduction.

I don't see anyone coming up with a loogical alternative.


It further depends on how you will define high fidelity :

- Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so,
which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which
conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or
discussion, or none at all?

All of the above.

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?

All of them. That's why LP replay systems based on Linn Sondeks have
no chance of producing optimum results from other sources.

How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the
mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D
and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind
of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.?

We have to take all these on trust, otherwise we'd be attempting to
undo a different set of defects in every recording.

- Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound?
If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his
conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall?
How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor
or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine?
How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis?
Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser?
How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound?

I try to make the system entirely transparent to the preferences of
the recording and mastering engineers. You may do as you will.


What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?

TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.

There are other electrical devices which can achieve that aim. If you
want a bad recording to give you pleasure, then you are in a downward
spiral towards 'easy listening' tubes and vinyl...............

As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS.
If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it.
If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it.
If that means having to use equalizers, so be it.
If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly
live in the room, so be it.
If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so
be it.
If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per
channel, so be it.
If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter
technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it.
LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter?

Snake oil? So be it.
My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.

No one is arguing against your personal preference.

I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with *high fidelity* music
reproduction.

Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.

Rubbish. Music is art - audio is engineering. The two *are* separate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 18:58:29 +0100, Sander deWaal
wrote:

"Rusty Boudreaux" said:

Of course distortion is not in the definition. Amplification is
pure gain. Any deviation from pure gain is more than just
amplification.

I suppose you're still using a QUAD 303? ;-)

I agree all amps do deviate from ideal amplification. However,
amps can be designed such that deviations are well below the
threshold of hearing and even below the limits of available test
gear. For the purpose of amplifying audio signals they can be
considered ideal amplifiers ala "straight wire with gain".

So the best amplifier is the one with the lowest distortion figure and
the most watts in an IHF-based load of 8 ohms/2 uF? Always and in
every case?

Yes - so long as you include HF IM distortion.

Wouldn't you consider the idea that there are other factors playing
than just high power and low distortion, of whatever kind?

No.

See below.
To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system. Perhaps that's why Pinkerton is using a Krell in
his system? :-)

No, that's because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers. The Krell is
about as close as I've seen to an 'ideal' amplifier, although of
course its current reserve is overkill for most speakers and rooms.

I also agree a designer can intentionally add distortion and like
the result. Guitar amps would be a good example. In that case
it would not be a poor design but it's also not just an
amplifier.

"Guitar amps [......] are not just amps".
That's a very narrow definition of "amplifier" you're using here.

He means that the guitar amp is not a reproducer, it's *part* of the
instrument.

I belive the job of an audio power amplifier (preamp input,
speaker output) is to amplify the incoming signal without adding
any audible effects other than pure gain. To do anything else
changes the intent of the artist. If a power amplifier is
designed and marketed as a pure amplifier but adds audible
effects then it is poorly designed.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer,

But there's nothing we can do about this random deviation from
neutrality, so unless you have *very* narrow musical tastes, a neutral
replay system is indicated as a best approach to all recordings.

and even you who might use a tone
control and different speakers from the mastering studio in your home.
According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

Indeed not, although it may balance a poor loudspeaker or room to some
extent. Dedicated room/speaker EQ is whole other can of worms!

I maintain the thought that according to your narrow definition, even
using the tone controls "deviates from the artist's intent".

Depends why you use them, as noted above.

I also think you (and Pinkerton, Krueger and others) are using a too
narrow definition of the term amplifier, or even high fidelity, or
perhaps even music reproduction.

I don't see anyone coming up with a loogical alternative.


It further depends on how you will define high fidelity :

- Is it true reproduction of what we hear in the concert hall? If so,
which concert hall, which seat, which row, which orchestra, which
conductor? After or before having a good meal, sex, pot, or
discussion, or none at all?

All of the above.

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?

All of them. That's why LP replay systems based on Linn Sondeks have
no chance of producing optimum results from other sources.

How do we know the recording engineer did a right job? And the
mastering engineer? And the quality of the pressing, the tape, the A/D
and D/A converters? The format in which the data was stored? The kind
of mixing console? Which compressors, eqs, microphones, cables etc.?

We have to take all these on trust, otherwise we'd be attempting to
undo a different set of defects in every recording.

- Is it true reproduction of what *someone* thinks it should sound?
If so, should it be how von Karajan thinks it should sound? On his
conduction position or in the 15th row in the hall?
How Jon BonJovi thinks it should sound? On stage, through his monitor
or on his friend's system at 2.00 AM after some cocaine?
How Rudy van Gelder thought it should sound? Or Miles Davis?
Doctor Amar? Bill Johnson? The late Steve Zipser?
How you or I or Joe Sixpack thinks it should sound?

I try to make the system entirely transparent to the preferences of
the recording and mastering engineers. You may do as you will.


What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?

TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.

There are other electrical devices which can achieve that aim. If you
want a bad recording to give you pleasure, then you are in a downward
spiral towards 'easy listening' tubes and vinyl...............

As such, I design audio gear that suits MY NEEDS.
If that means a THD of 3 %, so be it.
If that means a certain spectrum of harmonics, so be it.
If that means having to use equalizers, so be it.
If that means putting my speakers in such positions that I can hardly
live in the room, so be it.
If that means having to use obsolete triodes or obsolete MOSFETS, so
be it.
If that means class A , transformers of 1000VA to obtain 20 watts per
channel, so be it.
If that means using biwiring, while I *know* it doesn't matter
technically, but it makes me feel better, so be it.
LP, CD, DVD, MP3, 1/2 inch master tape? Does it matter?

Snake oil? So be it.
My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.

No one is arguing against your personal preference.

I know people who are moved to tears by a song from their youth
playing on a 10 yr. old fluttering and noisy cassette walkman.
THAT's the function of music. Entertainment and emotion.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with *high fidelity* music
reproduction.

Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.

Rubbish. Music is art - audio is engineering. The two *are* separate.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering