"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.