"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?