OK, I'll take the bait.
IMO,the most aggressive leveller on this forum (in those terms) has to be SY, and his designs seem to be highly regarded.
A vague suggestion of "highly regarded" does not qualify for advancing the art of amplifier design.
If you think it does, show us where in the design the advance lies.
If you think it does, show us where in the design the advance lies.
Using a false dichotomy which is at once mendacious and self-serving by the publisher and writer is not likely to lead to any useful conclusions.
Who gets to define "advancement of the art"? The (alleged) "Leveller" would want to see some circuit innovation with calculable and measurable improvement in signal reproduction; the "Sharpener" might be satisfied by an expensive component which used inappopriately adds a little euphonic distortion.Rod Coleman said:
A blatantly tendentious presentation of the question.
But still, in practice you can begin to assess the outcome either way.
To show the worth of a piece of amplifier design, you may introduce a recent development that improves measured performance - using innovative design to achieve measurements not previously achieved. With valve amplifier design work, there is plenty of scope for that.
Equally, you could win one of the shoot-outs at the ETF, or any other listening-only method that decides on the outcome.
But whichever way you use to discount the chaff, the real criteria for advancing the art of design come down to the Designer demonstrating better ability to engineer a new circuit to achieve realistic, and relevant aims. Actually, the possibilities for this are very wide indeed.
Advancement of design does not mean merely choosing capacitors, or building a 1950s-design amp with boutique parts or offering age-old designs with trivial changes. It means achieving a better sounding amplifier through command of the design process - circuit technique, solving the problems created in the designs and components of today, introducing new active devices where they can improve the design.
Would-be designers who think that nothing really makes a real difference will have little motivation to develop anything new. Why bother? The old stuff will do fine - just polish it up on a nice chassis, and away you go.
But still, in practice you can begin to assess the outcome either way.
To show the worth of a piece of amplifier design, you may introduce a recent development that improves measured performance - using innovative design to achieve measurements not previously achieved. With valve amplifier design work, there is plenty of scope for that.
Equally, you could win one of the shoot-outs at the ETF, or any other listening-only method that decides on the outcome.
But whichever way you use to discount the chaff, the real criteria for advancing the art of design come down to the Designer demonstrating better ability to engineer a new circuit to achieve realistic, and relevant aims. Actually, the possibilities for this are very wide indeed.
Advancement of design does not mean merely choosing capacitors, or building a 1950s-design amp with boutique parts or offering age-old designs with trivial changes. It means achieving a better sounding amplifier through command of the design process - circuit technique, solving the problems created in the designs and components of today, introducing new active devices where they can improve the design.
Would-be designers who think that nothing really makes a real difference will have little motivation to develop anything new. Why bother? The old stuff will do fine - just polish it up on a nice chassis, and away you go.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.