|
|
|
|
Differences In Audio Components That I've Heard And Not Heard
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 18:49:37 GMT, (Michael
Scarpitti) wrote:
Bruce Abrams wrote in message news:rnicc.78740$w54.443873@attbi_s01...
This is a circular argument, Stewart. What are 'nominally competent
amps'? Ones that sound identical? If an amp sounds different, then is
it no longer a 'nominally competent amp'?
Mr. Nousaine defines nominally competent later in this thread as follows:
+/- 0.1 dB 100 to 10,000 Hz with less than 1% clipping and no measurable odd
stuff like a shut-down with protection into the speaker in question.
Building an amplifier that meets such a standard is no longer a major
engineering feat. The position is that any such amplifier driving a given
load will sound no different than any other such amplifier driving the same
load.
Nonsense. Rise time? TIM? Measurements of sine waves tell luttle if
anything about how an amp handles signals.
Clearly, you have no idea what you're talking about. Rise time is not
an issue with any modern amp, and TIM was always a myth. Most amps
handle audio signals just fine. Some amps don't handle ultrasonic
signals too well, which is why SACD gets variable reviews, but that's
another matter.
What you're arguing is that 'all nominally competent amps (amps that
sound the same) same sound the same'.
Nobody has circularly defined nominally competent as you claim. It is yet
another strawman argument that you have erected.
You have said 'all competent amps sound the same'. If one amp does
not, would you not define it as 'non-competent'?
Yes, and you'll easily be able to measure what's wrong with it.
I brought up before
the case of the Sony TA-N88B that my friend heard with me 17 years
ago, and he was quite able to hear its distinct clarity.
Only under sighted conditions, which are worthless in this context.
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
|