"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