You are technically adept at deciding what kind of amp you want, so I don't think you will struggle to identify your type of amp. In the proposal, you will be able to see the distortion, noise and other figures - but beyond a certain point, some of these numbers i.a.o. will not be rewarded for excessive design/engineering focus in the ranking, that's the only difference.
Zero feedback amplifier is a technical nonsense. First, it is impossible, there will always be some kind of feedback, even if someone cannot see it. For some strange reason, audiophiles and laymen audience have reduced the term ”feedback” only to global negative feedback from output to input. One can make a “zero feedback amplifier” then from a gain stage and a power buffer, there will be no GNFB, but output impedance will be easily as low as 0.05 ohm. So, let us not speak about zero feedback amplifiers.
Perhaps, but it will "fool" other who aren't because the will not be able to assess the ranking system. I don't even need a ranking system. Ranking systems are for persons who want good clinical performance but don't have the knowledge to do the assessment.
I'll go for a car analogy
...- I want a fast accelerating car! Yes, we have this with a nice carburettor that is really fast - it ranks a 12 - OK, what more? Perhaps this with injection - it also as fast - ranks 11. Nice - how fast? The carb does it 9 and the injection in 8,7.. - But!!?? - Carburettors are nice and shouldn't be penalised. -Good day.
//
Last edited by a moderator:
IMO, much of the reason for the wackiness in audio is that good amplifiers are perfect for all practical purposes. As a result, amplifiers are distinguished based on engineering feats ("THD Wars", "Watts Wars"), intangibles (BJTs/MOSFETs, feedback), appearance, and/or intentionally less-than-perfect performance (tubes). The motivation is "differentiation". This appears to work at least for smaller manufacturers.
Ed
Ed
To say that an audio amplifier should be a wire with gain, is itself a subjective judgement. The fact is we are humans talking about evaluating devices that are intended to be used for the enjoyment of humans. There is no way to completely eliminate human factors in this effort.
I can't seem to generate a decent .pdf file - its all chopped up and the pages are screwed up.
How/why would 'sales' have more merit as a basis for technical requirements than sound quality assessments?
What's the point if the crux of the matter is outsourced? Also it seems ironic that what's good for amplifiers -- feedback, say -- is not so good for the committee, and 'sanity' (linearity) is not guaranteed by design, but is sort-of calibrated ahead of time on a "fingers crossed, let's hope we chose the right parameters!” basis.
The spreadsheet is too wide to fit on a page. You need to make it narrower and/or use a program that understands pagination. Word may be easiest. I like TeX but it has a learning curve.
Ed
I do not understand what you are trying say here. Can you explain what you mean
(What committee are you talking about?)
I have no experience with Google docs. Reformatting the contents of the spreadsheet into a printable document will require work in any program.
Ed
Needs some more work (copyediting and prettying) but here's a PDF of the first sheet from the doc. I'll look at the other sheets as I have time (second tussle with Covid in four months so I'm not leaving the house much til Thursday, but the kids and I have a lot of hot wheels to race...)