" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

" wrote in message
link.net...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1995-04.pdf


Just glancing at it this morning, before work;
I'm familiar with some of this, but it's not
'signal' measurements for imaging, nor useful
for comparing differences in imaging for amplifiers.

See, our argument centers around whether amps sound the same,
based upon very the rudimentary and simplistic measurements
you are using, measurements that do not cover all of the
complexities of sound.
Are you familiarwith polar plots for measuring dispersion?
Imaging is AFAICR the job of speakers, which is why you see it
discussed so much more in reviews of speakers.


Amps can account for some differences, too
Not in imaging, at least none that I can recall.
I expect someone who knows otherwise will comment if I am wrong.

I'm first in line.
And your evidence?



Obvious differences.
As revealed by what bias controlled, level matched comparisons?


It's just not necessary.
I'm sorry you can't hear the differences I heard in several comparisons
of SS amps. Some of them had pretty good imaging.
Others were were like pancakes.
Now all you have to do is prove it with a DBT, otherwise you are just
another deluded individual who thinks he's immune from bias and poorly
conducted listening comparisons.


I don't have to prove anything related to my preferences.
I am sorry that you are so insecure with yourself that
you feel you have to do that.