On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 01:09:25 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:

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."

Horsepucky. I have *never* heard an amplifier which could be sonically
distuinguished, which did not have an *easily* measured defect.

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.

The only thing it has to do with, is sheer incompetence in making the
measurements!

But audio amplification is such a backwater
that enough money hasn't been spent to figure out how to measure amplifiers.

Of course it has.

If it had been a different kind of problem, like space shuttle failure
points, it would have been solved a long time ago.

They haven't been solved, or hadn't you noticed?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering