diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Solid State (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/)
-   -   who makes amps that theoretically should sound best ? (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/150252-who-makes-amps-theoretically-should-sound-best.html)

Borat 29th August 2009 11:17 AM

who makes amps that theoretically should sound best ?
 
if i asked what amp sounds best i would get a million different answers. somebody would say his 1 watt amp made out of a single tube back in the 60s with 10% thd sounds best. somebody else would say the amp he made using some $5 class D chip and a few capacitors sounds the best etc. that is why i am wording the question differently.

if we look at *serious* *high-end* amplifier makers such as Bryston, Krell etc. which ones do you think employ the most advanced technology in the most appropriate ( for ultimate audio fildelity ) way and using the best components ?

in other words which amps should theoretically sound best from an objective engineering standpoint ? and most importantly why !

for example "this amp is best because it uses such and such topology which is superior because of this and that" ...

thank you !

nigelwright7557 29th August 2009 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat (Post 1909716)
if i asked what amp sounds best i would get a million different answers. somebody would say his 1 watt amp made out of a single tube back in the 60s with 10% thd sounds best. somebody else would say the amp he made using some $5 class D chip and a few capacitors sounds the best etc. that is why i am wording the question differently.

if we look at *serious* *high-end* amplifier makers such as Bryston, Krell etc. which ones do you think employ the most advanced technology in the most appropriate ( for ultimate audio fildelity ) way and using the best components ?

in other words which amps should theoretically sound best from an objective engineering standpoint ? and most importantly why !

for example "this amp is best because it uses such and such topology which is superior because of this and that" ...

thank you !

That is an invalid question.

Different amps sound better to different people.
Personally I prefer guitar valve amplifiers for their harmonic content.

planet10 29th August 2009 08:33 PM

As well, execution is at least as important as theoretical topology.

dave

tinitus 29th August 2009 09:55 PM

Perfectly explained in this
Read it and weap
:censored:

http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/artaudio10/jota.html

kenpeter 29th August 2009 10:32 PM

Since I theoretically design amps that never get around to building...
I theorize mine sound best.

In theory, theory and reality are always exactly the same.
In reality, the Professor can make a radio out of a coconut.

Gordy 29th August 2009 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Borat (Post 1909716)

which ones do you think employ the most advanced technology in the most appropriate ( for ultimate audio fildelity ) way and using the best components ?

in other words which amps should theoretically sound best from an objective engineering standpoint ? and most importantly why !

First you must define what 'sound best' means.

'From an objective engineering standpoint' means you will never listen to it, because all listening is subjective not objective.

And when you say 'which ones do you think employ the most advanced technology' what makes you think that there is anything amiss with *old* technology? (Nowt so linear as a Triode?)

While pursuing your quest there are two things to keep in mind ...
1) remember that you never actually listen to an amplifier. You always listen to a system that contains an amplifier.
2) it is the dumbest engineers (and marketing managers) that believe that human hearing operates the same as electronic test-bench equipment.

Good luck.

planet10 29th August 2009 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordy (Post 1910018)

2) it is the dumbest engineers (and marketing managers) that believe that human hearing operates the same as electronic test-bench equipment.

Let's not call the engineers dumb, but perhaps misguided.

I am currently reading Floyd Toole's book on Speakers & Rooms, and one thing he keeps hammering away at is how a microphone & an analyzer is not so nearly capable as 2 ears + a brain.

dave

454Casull 29th August 2009 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordy (Post 1910018)
2) it is the dumbest engineers (and marketing managers) that believe that human hearing operates the same as electronic test-bench equipment.

I was going to post something long, but I gave up.

Short reply: we might not be using the right equipment for the right measurements.

planet10 29th August 2009 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 454Casull (Post 1910029)
we might not be using the right equipment for the right measurements.

I do believe that it is possible to measure what is right, but we still haven't figured it out. An analogy from the Toole book: I have in the past had it thrown at me that Toole has shown that flat FR is the most important metric when considering a speaker. This takes on a completely different meaning when you find out that his metric for FR requires 70 different FR measures taken in an anechoic chamber and assumes at least a certian level of competence in other area.

Harmonic distortion can tell you some stuff about your amplifiers sound, but takes a lot more than looking at the single number given in the spec sheets.

And interpreting the n-space manifold in an n+1 space (n >=3) is a whole nuther can of worms. I'm pretty sure there are guys who do know but it is to there competitive advantage to keep that to themselves.

dave

BudP 30th August 2009 01:12 AM

If I were to recommend amps it would be the Audio Prisim / Red Rose tube amps, with 40 watts from four EL34's. And, Wright sound, almost anything.

Bud


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:11 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2