Many of the points below I've adressed to my reply to Stewart
Pinkerton, so allow me to snip here and the

"Rusty Boudreaux" 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
every case?

For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce
all audible effects other than gain to below the level of
audibility.

I tried to tell that to many recording and mastering engineers, and
they laughed me out of the studio :-)

To me, an amplifier is just a piece in an entire system, and it
might
NEED to deviate from the "ideal" amplifier to thrive in that
particular system.

For you that may be fine. However, I submit it's not the most
user friendly arrangement. Searching for a deviant amplifier
that is deviant in 'just the right way' to cancel out other
system deviations seems counterproductive. Once done you have to
get a new amp when you get new speakers or new wire or new this
or that. For some of us that's no big deal but it doesn't have
to be that way.

You're right about this, since I build most of my stuff myself, it's
easier for me to say and do.

The goal of an ideal amplifier (or an ideal CD player, etc) is to
not add audible effects of it's own. Just because I choose a
speaker that has high end rolloff doesn't mean I should go
searching for a specific amplifier to compensate...that's why EQ
are sold.

Hence my argument: "even using a tone control deviates from the
artist's intent".
See how those dogma's don't work?

The "intent of the artist" is just as severly changed by the
recording
engineer, the mastering engineer,

Semantics. I submit that the final released form is the intent
of the artist or artists.

Too bad Bach or Miles Davis are no longer around to ask :-)
I've done some recording and mastering myself, and compared raw tracks
to the final mix.
Many times the performing artists didn't recognize their own
particular sound which they heard on stage.
Plenty were the reactions like: "Oooh, this sounds way better/worse
than I remembered!"
Not one time they've asked me to preserve a particular sound because
they intended it that way.

So much for "artist's intent".
YMMV, of course.

Unless the liner notes specifically suggest "reproduce with 6dB
boost at 12kHz" or "add 3% second harmonic distortion below 5kHz"
then I assume the intent was to reproduce the audio with the
highest fidelity possible.

Yup, and there we go: what is the highest fidelity?
I take it you have a Crown Dc300 and JBLs in your listening room,
which happens to be an exact reproduction of the mastering room?

It is an amplifier (hopefully ideal gain) with tone controls
(adjustable frequency response).

Nope, it isn't:

RB: For pure amplification of audio the technical goal is to reduce
RB: all audible effects other than gain to below the level of
RB: audibility.

The definition is the accepted definition for technical
publications.

OK. Must it therefor be correct?
See my answer to Pinkerton: it is all about personal preference.
High Fidelity doesn't exist, there is only My Fidelity.
Everyone using anything different from the mastering room is using his
personal preference.

Unless tone controls correct for a deviation elsewhere in the
system I believe they do alter the artist's intent. However, you
are free to alter the artist's intent in any way you choose for
whatever reason.

There goes the idea of hiFi out of the window again.
Do you still maintain the position that doing so, is "poorly
designing" ?

The generally accepted definition of high fidelity audio system
is "a playback system for reproducing, as close as possible to
the original recording, without alterations other than gain".
It's a sliding scale meant for improvements in technology hence
"as close as possible". In the limit, it reduces to a system
that perfectly reproduces without alterations other than gain.

Reproduces WHAT? The original recording?
What if I tell you there are zillions of ideas out there about what
consists an "original recording"?
It just isn't possible to make everything sound like the original,
never, ever.
Does that mean we should not try? Of course not!
But everyone tries it in his own way.
One uses tubes, the other BJTs, X uses LPs, Y uses 38 cm/s tape.
Or all of the above.

My point: it *doesn't matter* what one uses.
It's all about *personal preference*.

All we know is a given medium has standards. High fidelity means
faithfully reproducing the standard accurately as possible.

Which means a different set of adjustments for every recording and
every medium.
Just one single "ideal"amplifier isn't gonna do that.
High Fidelity? What's that?

Let's take your example to the extreme. My favorite recording
was horribly mastered. However, if I use an ACME model 7
amplifier with loopy frequency response then my favorite
recording comes out perfect. Great...but what if I want to
listen to other recordings that were mastered properly or even
differently? They won't sound right.


To you? To me? To the artist who is supposed to have an "intention"
(other than making money:-) ?
If I have an amp that colors just a bit so that most recordings are
listenable, is that a good or a bad thing?
In the past, I've had an amplifier that was flat from DC to 1 MHz, had
THD and IMD I couldn't even measure, and S/N of about -100 dB.
I got tired of the sound I got with it (on QUAD ESL57s and several
other quality speakers).
Rolling my own (tube and solid state) amps, and being able to tweak
them to my tastes, made me a happier person.
Isn't that what a system is supposed to do?

If Joe Sixamp wants to tweak his EQ that's certainly his
choice...but it wouldn't technically qualify as a high fidelity
audio system.

Technically perhaps not.
Maybe this is an indication that we're on a road to nowhere with our
neverending quest to get things better.

Sure, I hope it does. However, pleasure is not a measure
of an amplifier's technical capability.

Maybe not of the amp by itzelf, but most certainly of the entire
system.
If a system doesn't give me pleasure, it doesn't meet my needs and as
such, has little to no value to me.

However, the reproduction or amplification of recorded audio
signal is a technical exercise and there are standards,
definitions, and goals in doing so.

And I'm still not convinced that it's the only right way to do it.
I'm not out here to make fun out of engineers, musicians or end-users
(heck, I'm all 3 of them!), but I'm trying to make clear that maybe we
should look at things from a broader perspective than just strictly
technical. It might prove to be fruitful!

--
Sander deWaal
Vacuum Audio Consultancy