"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
" wrote in
message

What's your take on the idea that amps are responsible for
imaging?

Everybody with a brain knows that recordings and speakers
are primarily responsible for imaging. Most perceptions that
an amp affects imaging are based on:

(1) A really bad amp.

While recordings and speakers are primarily responsible for imaging, it is
incorrect to leave out the effect of the amplifier.
It is apparent to a many of us that many so called "properly operating
amplifiers" do not sound the same. Many listeners believe that some
amplifiers provide more information, ie., a data stream with greater
entropy, than other amplifiers which apparently satisfy on the test bench.

Unlike sounds used to test localization, such as artificial transients,
handclaps, test tones, etc., the experience of listening to music consists
of a sequence of events. Some of these events consist of a complex
juxtaposition in time, and space, of sounds necessary to reproduce a musical
instrument. In a pyramidal way, the events of music, which at the simplest,
consist of sound emitted and precisely modulated by a single musical
instrument, are conjoined to provide a mental experience that encompasses
the mood and alertness of the listener. At any instant, the focus of the
listener can be either outward, anticipating an event, or inwards, in
reaction and contemplation.

The transmission of a signal through an amplifier, since it is an analog
process, includes a reduction of what Information Theorists refer to as
Symbol Rate. If enough amplifiers were concatenated in series, the result
would be white noise. But even one amplifier has this effect, to a small,
but inevitably noticeably degree.

Listeners to music are made aware of the shape and extent of the soundstage
by complex mental analysis of the entirety of the experience. They are
frequently convinced that some amplifiers provide a larger soundstage, or
greater localization, than others. Would their claims be consonant with
experiments performed with simple test tones and impulsive sounds? This is
an irrelevant question, because the human mind is the ultimate arbiter of
the richness of the experience. When the listener sees in his mind a
soundstage of ultimate clarity, it is because the reproduction chain has
provided the necessary information to construct it. Because it is a mental
experience, the current state of science can neither dispute nor confirm
this, but only note that some amplifiers provide this more abundantly than
others.

Unfortunately, rec.audio.opinion has recently been under an asssault by some
individuals who, for reasons unknown, are an adulterative influence on hifi
as a hobby and a pleasure. We post these mini "white papers" in order to
provide you, the listener, with a firm foundation for a wise choice. Our
current opinion is that your faculties of choice will be most acute if you
listen to components while actually able to see them, in a place of your
choice and convenience. Level matching is not important. What is important
is the ability to easily vary the volume control so that the optimum
listening level is reached for each component. You are also likely to find
that a particular amplifier or speaker works best with a particular recorded
work. It is for these reasons that we discourage attempts at "blind
testing", which may also use switching devices of doubtful transparency.

THE RAO WHITEPAPER TEAM