Sound Quality Vs. Measurements

[CopperTop]

...all amplifiers of adequate quality sound the same when used within their capabilities

Originally Posted by SY

Again, that's a qualified statement (and the way it's worded, rather tautological). It is NOT "all amps sound the same."

This seems to be a difficult concept.

We know what he means, surely.

The statement has to be qualified in advance to stop people from simply saying "Well obviously this Sanyo music centre doesn't sound the same as this Krell." How could Peter Walker have worded it to get any closer to a real, practical "All amps sound the same"?

[BFNY]

Originally Posted by revboden

Not difficult, possibly too easy.

I think most don't like the idea of 'good enough'. That is, It does it's job and doesn't add anything noticable. Then it's an amplifier. If it does add something to the sound, like a tube amp that adds "warmth" (whatever that means?), it's not just an amp, it's an amp+effect box.

The list of amps that meets this criteria -

"high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise"

would include just about every inexpensive receiver or integrated, basic amp made and sold in big electronics stores from maybe 1975 on to present day.

So if someone is a purveyor of this philosophy that states all amps that meet these qualifications, when used within limits, all sound the same...

They are very close to, in essence, saying "all amps sound the same". If you like numbers, it would probably mean 99.99% of the amplifiers made and sold for the last 35 years meet the above criteria. This logic would extend to 99.99% of all amps sound the same.
...why am I even typing this? it is so obviously silly.

[SY]

Originally Posted by Pano

If that were not the case, all you'd ever need would be a pair of B&K measurement mics. Record anything and everything with those.

I've used B&Ks for live recording- I really don't think they're particularly special or uncolored. They're very good, but no "better" than many other condensers.

[Pano]

Originally Posted by DF96

Admit it, Stuart: you like boring, clinical, uninvolving sound so you are forced to rely on the musicians to provide your enjoyment.

This is why I prefer to hear classical music in an anechoic chamber. I don't won't any of those hall colorations or acoustics getting between me and the musicians. Keep it pure!

[DF96]

Better to suspend the musicians in free space. Saves money on foam wedges.

In 1975 I suspect that crossover distortion was still a problem in some commercial designs, so the requirement of "low distortion" might not have been satisfied.

[SY]

BF, the problems come elsewhere- for example the "no clipping" requirement. Stability into loads. Power supply sag and modulation. Source impedance over the audible range. Current capability in situations where speakers demand it. That said, these are not hard requirements to fulfill.

[SY]

Originally Posted by CopperTop

How could Peter Walker have worded it to get any closer to a real, practical "All amps sound the same"?

Peter Walker didn't write the Wikipedia entry.

[wahab]

Originally Posted by DF96

In 1975 I suspect that crossover distortion was still a problem in some commercial designs

Then it was surely the last year that saw this distorsion being
still alive , in very few designs , though....

[revboden]

Originally Posted by BFNY

The list of amps that meets this criteria -

"high input impedance, low output impedance, flat response, low distortion, and low noise"

would include just about every inexpensive receiver or integrated, basic amp made and sold in big electronics stores from maybe 1975 on to present day.

So if someone is a purveyor of this philosophy that states all amps that meet these qualifications, when used within limits, all sound the same...

They are very close to, in essence, saying "all amps sound the same". If you like numbers, it would probably mean 99.99% of the amplifiers made and sold for the last 35 years meet the above criteria. This logic would extend to 99.99% of all amps sound the same.
...why am I even typing this? it is so obviously silly.

I'm actually surprised how simplistically silly it is... i'm taken aback.

We know how good an amp needs to be to be acceptable for specific purposes, boom box amp vs pro-sound amp. I suppose that the search for the "better" amp is really the search for the amp that incorporates the effects that evoke an emotional response, for example 'warm' sound could be relaxing. This could be found by letting a test group have some effects equipment and see what they come up with. Then quantify that sound profile and integrate into an amp.

[Wavebourn]

Originally Posted by DF96

Better to suspend the musicians in free space. Saves money on foam wedges.

In 1975 I suspect that crossover distortion was still a problem in some commercial designs, so the requirement of "low distortion" might not have been satisfied.

They were measured on full power, so were satisfied. Crossover distortions resulted in higher S/N level.