"Les" wrote in message
...

If you are such an expert on this matter then why don't you explain what
it
is? You seem to have the problem with Eddie's, Mark's, and my definitions
and explanations so why don't you provide your own except "you don't
know".

As if you'd listen to a word I said. For godsakes man, do a web search.
Here's one:

"A linear power amplifier is a power amplifier which introduces a minimum of
linear distortion, i.e. the output is nearly a perfectly scaled version of
the input." Not that the output is nearly "not a clipped version of the
input", but "a perfectly scaled version of the input." Any change to the
shape of the waveform is distortion. Is this really news to you? You
honestly think you can't measure any non-linearities other than clipping?
http://www.ece.umr.edu/courses/ee268/lab2.html
And let's not forget crossover distortion in class B designs. Does this the
diagram on this page look like clipping to you?
http://www.duncanamps.com/technical/ampclasses.html
etc. etc.
"All amplifiers create harmonic distortion (multiples of the fundamental
frequency) to some degree. It shows up as a power loss in the fundamental,
and is caused largely by non-linearity in individual stages."
"Intermodulation distortion is, like harmonic distortion, always present to
some degree in any amplifier; again, the culprit is non-linearity."
"The classical theoretical model of an audio power amplifier is the base for
measuring amplifier distortion. It is made up of a perfect amplifier and two
distortion generators : the linear distortion generator corresponds to the
amplitude, phase, phase-slope and group delay modifications resulting from
the band limitations of a real amplifier ; the non-linear distorsion
generator corresponds to the non-linear transfer characteristique of a real
amplifier."

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Well why don't you just say "an amplifier that is amplifying perfectly
will
sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying perfectly", and be
done
with
it?

Now you're saying that an amplifier that is not clipping is "amplifying
perfectly". Finally we're in agreement. But I must ask: why have you
spent
so much time arguing when you've agreed all along? Or, more directly, what
was it exactly that caused you to change your tune?

You're an idiot. No, I didn't say that, I asked why you didn't phrase your
answer that way to begin with. And you're wrong, obviously.

"jeffc" wrote in message
om...
And let's not forget crossover distortion in class B designs. Does this
the
diagram on this page look like clipping to you?
http://www.duncanamps.com/technical/ampclasses.html

This is the link I meant to give for that one
http://www.aikenamps.com/CrossoverDistortion.htm

Well why don't you just say "an amplifier that is amplifying perfectly
will
sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying perfectly", and be
done
with
it?

Now you're saying that an amplifier that is not clipping is "amplifying
perfectly". Finally we're in agreement. But I must ask: why have you
spent
so much time arguing when you've agreed all along? Or, more directly, what
was it exactly that caused you to change your tune?

You're an idiot. No, I didn't say that,

Yes you did. You said that an amplifier that isn't clipping is
"amplifying perfectly". You're just digging the hole deeper...

And let's not forget crossover distortion in class B designs.

Care to name one class B car audio amplifier?

snip rest of your strawman

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Well why don't you just say "an amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly
will
sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying perfectly", and be
done
with
it?

Now you're saying that an amplifier that is not clipping is "amplifying
perfectly". Finally we're in agreement. But I must ask: why have you
spent
so much time arguing when you've agreed all along? Or, more directly,
what
was it exactly that caused you to change your tune?

You're an idiot. No, I didn't say that,

Yes you did. You said that an amplifier that isn't clipping is
"amplifying perfectly". You're just digging the hole deeper...

Good god you're stupid. What I wrote is right at the top of this post!

"MZ" wrote in message
news
And let's not forget crossover distortion in class B designs.

Care to name one class B car audio amplifier?

Why? You finally switching topics because you got outed? Here's a little
lesson for you. Class A/B amps have something in common with class B amps -
crossover distortion, which is inherent in the class B design. And almost
all car amps are class A/B. Except for class D amps of course, which are
even worse.

"Les" wrote in message
...


How are testing instruments not as accurate as our ears? It has been shown
that your ears are not very accurate, in fact they are designed to be
inaccurate to an extent. You claim that testing equipment is not accurate
yet fail to explain how. Unless you really want to count your argument
that
ears are 100% accurate because it is what you hear, in other words there
is
no truth or standard.

We've already been through this. Were you absent that day? Your ears are
accurate because they are the standard by which things are heard. If you
hear the same sound coming out of your stereo that you heard in live music,
then your stereo is accurate. That is the truth and the standard. The
sound that the ears hear is the goal of reproduced audio. I suppose you
guys who dont ever listen to music don't really get that, but it's true.
Goal = target = that by which accuracy is measured. Your ears can't measure
with the same precision that test equipment can, but by definition they're
100% accurate.

"jeffc" wrote in message
m...

"Les" wrote in message
...


How are testing instruments not as accurate as our ears? It has been
shown
that your ears are not very accurate, in fact they are designed to be
inaccurate to an extent. You claim that testing equipment is not
accurate
yet fail to explain how. Unless you really want to count your argument
that
ears are 100% accurate because it is what you hear, in other words there
is
no truth or standard.

We've already been through this. Were you absent that day? Your ears are
accurate because they are the standard by which things are heard.

So, everyone's ears are the standard? Then there really is no standard. A
standard has to have a reference, which is the same for everybody. But
according to you a person with known hearing loss has 100% accurate hearing
because they hear it that way. That's a load of crap.

If you
hear the same sound coming out of your stereo that you heard in live
music,
then your stereo is accurate.

Why do people always think that live music is a great reference?

That is the truth and the standard. The
sound that the ears hear is the goal of reproduced audio.

I don't know of any studio or live engineers that would agree with that
statement, and I know alot of them since I work in and around that industry.
Everyone hears the same show or CD differently, so are you saying that
everyone is right and nobody can be wrong?

I suppose you
guys who dont ever listen to music don't really get that, but it's true.

Sure, since I work as an audio engineer making a living listening and mixing
music.

Goal = target = that by which accuracy is measured.

And your ears cannot reach the target. They do not have the ability to hear
the target, which would be everything that is being reproduced by the
speakers. The goal would be able to hear everything, but we cannot.

Your ears can't measure
with the same precision that test equipment can, but by definition they're
100% accurate.

By who's definition? If accuracy is measured by the ability to reach the
target then ears definantly do not reach that point. They do not have the
ability to hear everything that is being reproduced by the speakers, those
are what the sound comes out of, therefore they cannot be 100% accurate.

Les

"Les" wrote in message
...

We've already been through this. Were you absent that day? Your ears
are
accurate because they are the standard by which things are heard.

So, everyone's ears are the standard? Then there really is no standard. A
standard has to have a reference, which is the same for everybody.

Really? You're wrong.

But
according to you a person with known hearing loss has 100% accurate
hearing
because they hear it that way. That's a load of crap.

Not at all. It would be meaningless to listen to what they had to say about
stereos, because they don't hear the same way you do. But that's another
matter.


If you
hear the same sound coming out of your stereo that you heard in live
music,
then your stereo is accurate.

Why do people always think that live music is a great reference?

Why do you think? Because that is a standard that's the same for everyone.
Each person hears it differently, but the sound is the same. If we all just
listened to our stereos in our own acoustic, then there would be no
standard. When I hear in a stereo system what I heard live, then I have a
standard I can share with you. It won't sound exactly the same to you, but
there's a good chance whatever difference I heard between live and
reproduced is going to be relatively the same difference you're going to
hear between live and reproduced. We might not hear high frequencies the
same, but if I hear a rolloff in the treble, you're going to hear a rollof
in the treble. There's nothing wrong with listening to computer generated
music or anything else, it's just that it then has no comparable reference.

That is the truth and the standard. The
sound that the ears hear is the goal of reproduced audio.

I don't know of any studio or live engineers that would agree with that
statement, and I know alot of them since I work in and around that
industry.

Well a lot of them create some really crappy sounding recordings, too. In
fact, most of the recorded sound we hear today is worse than a lot of the
recorded sound we have from the 60s. The reason for this is probably that
they don't actully listen to music and overprocess the sound and rely on
dials rather than ears and common sense.

I suppose you
guys who dont ever listen to music don't really get that, but it's true.

Sure, since I work as an audio engineer making a living listening and
mixing
music.

Ah! Now it's becoming very clear. You're probably part of the reason a lot
of my CDs and records sound like crap.

Yes you did. You said that an amplifier that isn't clipping is
"amplifying perfectly". You're just digging the hole deeper...

Good god you're stupid. What I wrote is right at the top of this post!

Clearly, you're incapable of grasping anything even resembling logic. Let
me draw it out for you...

1) I said amplifiers that are not clipping will sound the same.
2) You replied "why don't you just say 'an amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly will sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly'...everyone here thanks you for that groundbreaker."
3) The implication is quite clear. You're saying that what I said was
obvious. Is that not what you meant by your "groundbreaker" comment?
4) Therefore, you're changing your tune now and agreeing with me that two
amplifiers that aren't clipping will sound the same.

Yes, I have. The fact that your reading comprehension is so shaky that
you
STILL don't know the difference between "sounds the same" and "exhibits
measurable distortion" is troubling.

Oh. So you're saying that any distortion other than clipping can be
measured, but not heard. I see.

At the levels measured in modern day amplifiers, yes. The distortion in a
non-clipping amp is not significant enough to be detected by the ear.

Yet you're of the opinion that you can hear differences in distortion that
can't be measured. Oh wait, no you're not. You changed your tune on that
too, claiming to Les that you never said such a thing even though he
provided a slew of quotes where you clearly did.

We've already been through this. Were you absent that day? Your ears are
accurate because they are the standard by which things are heard.

And I already proved you wrong on this point. The accuracy of a measuring
device, whether it's a microphone or your auditory system, is judged with
respect to the signal that it's measuring - the sound wave.

I suppose you
guys who dont ever listen to music don't really get that, but it's true.

Sure, since I work as an audio engineer making a living listening and
mixing
music.

Yet another person who draws a paycheck based on their expertise in the
field. Yet Jeff's only association with the field is PAYING the stereo
shop. Interesting...

I already did days ago: "(ie. not yet clipping)"

Yeah, I know. But that's wrong.

Whether it's wrong or not is not the point. I may actually agree with you
that the terminology that everyone in the field uses is not very fitting.
Just like how people also use the terms "bright" and "warm" to describe
sound, even though light and heat aren't involved. People in the field know
what those terms mean. Newbies would have a hard time understanding at
first. That's the difficulty you're facing right now. You've encountered a
phrase that you never encountered before, even though everyone in the field
uses it.

Anyway, the point that you seem to be conceding now is that you
intentionally set up a strawman (and continue to do so!)knowing perfectly
well what I meant by the phrase. Instead, you've opted to avoid the
discussion and concentrate on whether or not the field should be using that
phrase as a proper description. Start a new thread.

You don't know what linear means, do you?

Well, my degree kind of required it - you know, having to take two semesters
of linear systems. Anyway, I could provide a definition, but you'd just
accuse me of looking it up on google.

Care to name one class B car audio amplifier?

Why?

Why? Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because then crossover distortion would
actually be relevant to the discussion at hand?

You finally switching topics because you got outed? Here's a little
lesson for you. Class A/B amps have something in common with class B
amps -
crossover distortion, which is inherent in the class B design. And almost
all car amps are class A/B.

Thanks for the lesson. You must have looked it up on google, because you
obviously have no idea how crossover distortion manifests itself in the real
world (again, here's an example of your complete lack of real world
experience embarassing you). A class A/B amp will only exhibit significant
crossover distortion if the bias is so complete out of whack that it becomes
an issue. This discussion has assumed all along that we were talking about
amplifiers that aren't broken.

"MZ" wrote in message
news
1) I said amplifiers that are not clipping will sound the same.
2) You replied "why don't you just say 'an amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly will sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly'...everyone here thanks you for that groundbreaker."
3) The implication is quite clear. You're saying that what I said was
obvious. Is that not what you meant by your "groundbreaker" comment?
4) Therefore, you're changing your tune now and agreeing with me that two
amplifiers that aren't clipping will sound the same.

Where in the hell did you see me say that?

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Yes, I have. The fact that your reading comprehension is so shaky that
you
STILL don't know the difference between "sounds the same" and "exhibits
measurable distortion" is troubling.

Oh. So you're saying that any distortion other than clipping can be
measured, but not heard. I see.

At the levels measured in modern day amplifiers, yes. The distortion in a
non-clipping amp is not significant enough to be detected by the ear.

Well, you're wrong. Sorry.

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Care to name one class B car audio amplifier?

Why?

Why? Gee, I don't know. Perhaps because then crossover distortion would
actually be relevant to the discussion at hand?

You finally switching topics because you got outed? Here's a little
lesson for you. Class A/B amps have something in common with class B
amps -
crossover distortion, which is inherent in the class B design. And almost
all car amps are class A/B.

Thanks for the lesson. You must have looked it up on google, because you
obviously have no idea how crossover distortion manifests itself in the real
world (again, here's an example of your complete lack of real world
experience embarassing you). A class A/B amp will only exhibit significant
crossover distortion....

Why the need to throw "significant" in there? To subjectify things to the
extent that you can't be proven wrong? My original statement is correct. Nice
try.

1) I said amplifiers that are not clipping will sound the same.
2) You replied "why don't you just say 'an amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly will sound like any other amplifier that is amplifying
perfectly'...everyone here thanks you for that groundbreaker."
3) The implication is quite clear. You're saying that what I said was
obvious. Is that not what you meant by your "groundbreaker" comment?
4) Therefore, you're changing your tune now and agreeing with me that
two
amplifiers that aren't clipping will sound the same.

Where in the hell did you see me say that?

11/22 6:17 PM.

At the levels measured in modern day amplifiers, yes. The distortion in
a
non-clipping amp is not significant enough to be detected by the ear.

Well, you're wrong. Sorry.

With such a compelling argument, how can I offer a rebuttal?

Thanks for the lesson. You must have looked it up on google, because
you
obviously have no idea how crossover distortion manifests itself in the
real
world (again, here's an example of your complete lack of real world
experience embarassing you). A class A/B amp will only exhibit
significant
crossover distortion....

Why the need to throw "significant" in there? To subjectify things to the
extent that you can't be proven wrong?

In the context of the discussion, "significant" implies that it's at an
appreciable level for discrimination to take place. Since this level is
several orders of magnitude below what the published literature accepts as
audible threshold, it means that the levels, while perhaps present, are
insignificant.

My original statement is correct.

That a class A/B amplifier exhibits an audible level of crossover
distortion? Prove it.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
I already did days ago: "(ie. not yet clipping)"

Yeah, I know. But that's wrong.

Whether it's wrong or not is not the point. I may actually agree with you
that the terminology that everyone in the field uses is not very fitting.
Just like how people also use the terms "bright" and "warm" to describe
sound, even though light and heat aren't involved. People in the field know
what those terms mean. Newbies would have a hard time understanding at
first. That's the difficulty you're facing right now. You've encountered a
phrase that you never encountered before, even though everyone in the field
uses it.

Oh I've encountered it. The problem is that people (yes, "in the field") use
linear distortion and nonlinear distortion. I'm willing to accept either usage.
No matter which you pick, you're wrong.

Anyway, the point that you seem to be conceding now is that you
intentionally set up a strawman (and continue to do so!)knowing perfectly
well what I meant by the phrase.

No, I didn't know. There were 3 possibilities
a) you don't know what "i.e." means
b) you aren't using "linear" correctly
c) your statement is a guaranteed tautology, which makes it pointless

Which is it? I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and guessed a).

Well, my degree kind of required it - you know, having to take two semesters
of linear systems. Anyway, I could provide a definition, but you'd just
accuse me of looking it up on google.

Yeah, it's really bad when people do that.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
We've already been through this. Were you absent that day? Your ears are
accurate because they are the standard by which things are heard.

And I already proved you wrong on this point.

Unfortunately, you only proved it to bootlickers like Eddie. Which is OK, for
folks like you, I guess.

says you... who?

jeffc wrote:

"MZ" wrote in message
news
Yes, I have. The fact that your reading comprehension is so shaky that
you
STILL don't know the difference between "sounds the same" and "exhibits
measurable distortion" is troubling.

Oh. So you're saying that any distortion other than clipping can be
measured, but not heard. I see.

At the levels measured in modern day amplifiers, yes. The distortion in a
non-clipping amp is not significant enough to be detected by the ear.

Well, you're wrong. Sorry.

And I already proved you wrong on this point.

Unfortunately, you only proved it to bootlickers like Eddie. Which is OK,
for
folks like you, I guess.

Here it is again, in case you missed it the first time. I'm expecting to
see a rebuttal like "You're wrong." as a reply.

In order for something to be "accurate", it must have a reference. So, to
clarify what you mean, you need to form the sentence: "_______ forms an
accurate reproduction of _______."

Your sentence would therefore be: "The sound that we perceive forms an
accurate reproduction of the sound that we perceive." Well, I suppose
that's true. But we're not talking about whether or not a microphone can
reproduce the sound that we perceive.

An amplifier's sole purpose is to reproduce the signal that's presented to
it verbatim, but at the proper levels in order to adequately drive a
loudspeaker. Therefore, accuracy in that sense is its ability to accurately
reproduce the input signal.

Getting back to the original point which this whole "accuracy" discussion
was attempting to address - which device more accurately measures a sound
wave: a microphone or the human auditory system? Plugging these words back
into the sentence above demonstrates that the reference is the sound wave
itself. A microphone forms a more accurate reproduction of a sound wave
than does the human auditory system. This is indeed measurable, and has
been measured.

Oh I've encountered it. The problem is that people (yes, "in the field")
use
linear distortion and nonlinear distortion. I'm willing to accept either
usage.
No matter which you pick, you're wrong.

No one refers to linear distortion when they say "behaving linearly".
Presumably, the phrase arose from the behavior of an ideal amplifier, where
output = gain*input. Departures from this equation occur when the amplifier
saturates (models of ideal amplifier behavior often use a parallel zener to
depict this).


Anyway, the point that you seem to be conceding now is that you
intentionally set up a strawman (and continue to do so!)knowing
perfectly
well what I meant by the phrase.

No, I didn't know. There were 3 possibilities
a) you don't know what "i.e." means
b) you aren't using "linear" correctly
c) your statement is a guaranteed tautology, which makes it pointless

This is a lie. You knew what I meant because I defined what I meant in
parenthesis.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
Oh I've encountered it. The problem is that people (yes, "in the field")
use
linear distortion and nonlinear distortion. I'm willing to accept either
usage.
No matter which you pick, you're wrong.

No one refers to linear distortion when they say "behaving linearly".
Presumably, the phrase arose from the behavior of an ideal amplifier, where
output = gain*input. Departures from this equation occur when the amplifier
saturates

Wrong. Departures occur whenever the shape of the output waveform differs in
any way from the input other than amplitude. If that's the model you're using
to determine amplifier distortion, you're using the wrong model. I already
pointed this out to you and provided links with explanation.

Anyway, the point that you seem to be conceding now is that you
intentionally set up a strawman (and continue to do so!)knowing
perfectly
well what I meant by the phrase.

No, I didn't know. There were 3 possibilities
a) you don't know what "i.e." means
b) you aren't using "linear" correctly
c) your statement is a guaranteed tautology, which makes it pointless

This is a lie. You knew what I meant because I defined what I meant in
parenthesis.

You're a complete tool. Read again what I just wrote.

No one refers to linear distortion when they say "behaving linearly".
Presumably, the phrase arose from the behavior of an ideal amplifier,
where
output = gain*input. Departures from this equation occur when the
amplifier
saturates

Wrong. Departures occur whenever the shape of the output waveform differs
in
any way from the input other than amplitude.

Get your eyes checked. I wrote "IDEAL amplifier". That has a specific
meaning. Look in any electronics text to see what it is, since this appears
to be yet another common concept among engineers that you've never
encountered.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
No one refers to linear distortion when they say "behaving linearly".
Presumably, the phrase arose from the behavior of an ideal amplifier,
where
output = gain*input. Departures from this equation occur when the
amplifier
saturates

Wrong. Departures occur whenever the shape of the output waveform differs
in
any way from the input other than amplitude.

Get your eyes checked. I wrote "IDEAL amplifier". That has a specific
meaning. Look in any electronics text to see what it is, since this appears
to be yet another common concept among engineers that you've never
encountered.

Once again, a useless statement. Ideal amplifiers don't exist in the real
world, outside of where you operate. Why don't you just go back to your
original statement that was so earthshattering? "Perfect amplifiers all sound
the same." Now there was a statement with impact - something we could really
sink our teeth into. "If 2 things are the same, well then golly - there's no
difference between them!"

Once again, a useless statement. Ideal amplifiers don't exist in the real
world, outside of where you operate.

Did you bother to read the paragraph at all? Honestly. Did you notice that
I was talking about where the phrase "behaving linearly" probably came from?
And that it was probably derived from the behavior of the simplest
characterization of the device, as most things are in the electronics world
(something that you would know nothing about).

Why don't you just go back to your
original statement that was so earthshattering? "Perfect amplifiers all
sound
the same." Now there was a statement with impact - something we could
really
sink our teeth into. "If 2 things are the same, well then golly - there's
no
difference between them!"

Yet it's a concept that you still refuse to grasp. What does that say about
you?

"MZ" wrote in message
...
A microphone forms a more accurate reproduction of a sound wave
than does the human auditory system. This is indeed measurable, and has
been measured.

A human auditory system does not reproduce a sound wave. It perceives a sound
wave. Just like a human optical system does not reproduce a light wave. It
senses it. So once again, like most of what you post, your sentence is
meaningless.

Which begs the question: other than the fact that you're irritated at someone
who calls down your BS, what exactly are you arguing for? Are you just ****ed
off because I was able to hear a difference between 2 CD players once, and
between 2 amps once, and you've never been able to? Is that really what's got
you so bent out of shape? Why do you find this to be so intimidating to you?

A microphone forms a more accurate reproduction of a sound wave
than does the human auditory system. This is indeed measurable, and has
been measured.

A human auditory system does not reproduce a sound wave. It perceives a
sound
wave.

Ah, I meant measurement. The same holds true for a microphone, of course.
Now address the post instead of hiding from the essence of what was said.

"MZ" wrote in message
...

My original statement is correct.

That a class A/B amplifier exhibits an audible level of crossover
distortion? Prove it.

I said that right after you said "there is no such thing as distortion in an
audio amplifier". You're a real ****head. But this isn't the first time
you've heard that, is it?

"MZ" wrote in message
...
A microphone forms a more accurate reproduction of a sound wave
than does the human auditory system. This is indeed measurable, and
has
been measured.

A human auditory system does not reproduce a sound wave. It perceives a
sound
wave.

Ah, I meant measurement. The same holds true for a microphone, of course.
Now address the post instead of hiding from the essence of what was said.

The "essence of what was said". How the hell can anyone ever tell what you
mean? All you do is retract, rephrase, and backup trying to convince
everyone we should have read your mind to begin with. You could power a
small midwestern town with all the backpedaling you do. Talking to you is
waste of time.

Ah, I meant measurement. The same holds true for a microphone, of
course.
Now address the post instead of hiding from the essence of what was
said.

The "essence of what was said". How the hell can anyone ever tell what
you
mean? All you do is retract, rephrase, and backup trying to convince
everyone we should have read your mind to begin with. You could power a
small midwestern town with all the backpedaling you do. Talking to you is
waste of time.

Now that you're done with your tantrum... care to address the post? Your
RIDICULOUS assertion that perception is the reference for perception needs
clearing up. I explained to you already why it's so ridiculous. It can't
be the reference for itself. How silly.

My original statement is correct.

That a class A/B amplifier exhibits an audible level of crossover
distortion? Prove it.

I said that right after you said "there is no such thing as distortion in
an
audio amplifier".

The last defense of a defeated man - making up quotes. How much lower will
you go?

So, again I ask: prove it. You made the assertion that class A/B amps have
significant levels of crossover distortion. The burden of proof is on you.
But, like the rest your argument, you have no basis whatsoever in the
literature. Not a shred of evidence.

"MZ" wrote in message
...
My original statement is correct.

That a class A/B amplifier exhibits an audible level of crossover
distortion? Prove it.

I said that right after you said "there is no such thing as distortion
in
an
audio amplifier".

The last defense of a defeated man - making up quotes. How much lower
will
you go?

Kind of like how you made up the "quote" right above it?

"MZ" wrote in message
...

Now that you're done with your tantrum... care to address the post? Your
RIDICULOUS assertion that perception is the reference for perception needs
clearing up. I explained to you already why it's so ridiculous. It can't
be the reference for itself. How silly.

A little like your love affair with Eddie. But hey, sometimes things in
life.... you just can't explain.

Sounds like you need one of them there single-endeds..Seriously, though find
an old 6bq5 amp push-pull approx 12 watts per channel with decent output
transformers on those Klipschorns.....Typically great midrange.....
"Trader" wrote in message
t...
Well I agree with everything you wrote. However, there are many here who
believe that amps all sound the same. This doesn't make sense because how
could an amp with a superior circuit design and premium parts sound the
same
as a RadioShack special. I've personally have auditioned many amps on my
Klipschorns and can testify that all amps don't sound the same. I don't
buy
into the theory that distortion is what I'm hearing because even at
moderate
levels I can hear a substantial difference. I'm sure that some speakers
are
not revealing enough to hear much of a difference but with Klipschorns you
hear everything that is present. My Father in-law is an engineer and he
has
a cheap Bose system and it sounds like ****. He laughed when I bought a
tube amp for my Klipschorns and thought that it couldn't possibly sound
good. Well it sounded amazing although I still prefer my SS amp. But
yeah
believe what you want and buy the low-end gear if it makes you happy.


"jeffc" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...
Like I said to begin with, believe it or not, weight is a pretty decent
indicator of quality (including power output and headroom.) Of course,
we're
not talking about tube amps here.

Having said that, check out this. Again, search on "weight"
http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/875/
Heh heh.