AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Stewart Pinkerton) said:

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?

Yes - so long as you include HF IM distortion.

OK, but......:

]........Pinkerton is using a Krell in his system.....]

No, that's because I have insensitive 3-ohm speakers. The Krell is
about as close as I've seen to an 'ideal' amplifier, although of
course its current reserve is overkill for most speakers and rooms.

So your average 8 ohms/2 uF load wouldn't be representative for your
Apogee speakers .
In that case, the narrow definition of the first paragraph above
doesn't apply, and the amp meeting that spec isn't " the best", at
least not in your situation.
Now we're getting somewhere.

I thinks this depends on the definition.
The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the recording
engineer, the mastering engineer,

But there's nothing we can do about this random deviation from
neutrality, so unless you have *very* narrow musical tastes, a neutral
replay system is indicated as a best approach to all recordings.

Ah yes, but can we then still speak of high fidelity?
I happen to think we can't.
And apparently, many good folks who use SETs or other "obsolete"
technology think the same.
Why don't you use JBL or Genelec monitors instead of your Apogees?
Is your listening room an exact copy of the mastering room?

According to your definition, an integrated amplifier with tone
controls isn't an amplifier either........

Indeed not, although it may balance a poor loudspeaker or room to some
extent. Dedicated room/speaker EQ is whole other can of worms!

There goes thewhole idea of HiFi, out of the window......
See what I mean?
It's *simply not possible* to reproduce accurately what was the
"artist's intent".
The artist himself wouldn't probably even know what his intent should
be!
And don't forget the fact that when listening to a Bach or Beethoven
piece, neither of them is around to tell us how it should be played,
let alone how it should be reproduced.
We then accept the *interpretation* of a certain conductor, why
shouldn't we as well accept the interpretation of the engineer who
made our amp or speakers?

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.

I don't see anyone coming up with a loogical alternative.

That's the point!
We're busy here argueing about high fidelity, while there seems to be
no concensus of what it should be.
That's why I used the term "My-Fi" instead of "Hi-Fi".

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?

All of the above.

Hm.....all of these instances (and many more, note) won't sound the
same.
That's not a definition to me.
OK, we move on to:

- Is it true reproduction of what's on the medium (be it CD, LP, HDD,
tape, whatever)? If so, which medium?

All of them. That's why LP replay systems based on Linn Sondeks have
no chance of producing optimum results from other sources.

Ignoring the sneer at Linn (which I happen to agree with), this could
actually be a definition of high fidelity.
I'll bet it's different from the "artist's intent".

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.?

We have to take all these on trust, otherwise we'd be attempting to
undo a different set of defects in every recording.

That's what tone controls and the like are for, right?

- 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?

I try to make the system entirely transparent to the preferences of
the recording and mastering engineers. You may do as you will.

Now here's an honest answer!
You don't get to define what HiFi is, you just state how you would
like to see it.
Just as I did with my long-winded first post.

What's the function of a musical reproduction chain?
TO ME, it's a device that should give me pleasure.

There are other electrical devices which can achieve that aim. If you
want a bad recording to give you pleasure, then you are in a downward
spiral towards 'easy listening' tubes and vinyl...............

I don't think I understand this comment.
Yes, I'm using a valve amp at this moment, just as I happen to have
several solid state and hybrids lying around.
Tomorrow, I may feel the need to put one of them in the system.
What does that prove? I think it proves nothing.
Neither of them will reproduce the music in my home just as someone
intended it to be, except MYSELF!
How anyone can tell me that one or all of my amps are poorly designed,
*based on a flawed definition of HiFi*, is beyond me.
Besides, I don't care, as long as I have fun with them.

My-Fi instead of Hi-Fi? So be it.

No one is arguing against your personal preference.

I know, but the point I'm trying to make is that it is all about
*personal preference*.
There is no such thing as HiFi, at least not based on "straight wire
with gain".

Music (and hence audio) cannot be that dogmatic.
By its very nature it can't.

Rubbish. Music is art - audio is engineering. The two *are* separate.

Ok, let's rephrase: audio engineering cannot be dogmatic.
Your preference differs from mine, differs from Atkinsons, differs
from Boudreaux'', etc.

That was my point.

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy