Anyone has a reference system where amplification is SS ?

if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.

@scottwheel

so you are an ’all modern solid state amps sound the same’ guy if they are not clipping? and that means they are transparent? so class A, class A/B. Class D. Global feedback? zero negative feedback? 50 pieces in the signal path? 10 pieces in the signal path? heavy protection circuits? not much protection circuits? heavy chassis? lightweight chassis? my 2 channel mono blocks? and my pair of 8 channel Home Theater amps?

all solid state. not clipping. all the same?

and let’s assume they are all driving a speaker with an appropriate load and impedance for the amplifier power. so we remove the speaker variable from the question. but might different amps sound different on different speakers? or would each amp sound the same assuming the power was sufficient?

just wanting to make sure i understand.

scottwheel defines transparency not in a positive way...He believes in double blind test only, for sound qualia definition , then he defines transparency only in a negative way: Below a distortion limit if someone could not hear a difference this is transparency and all the rest is useless distortions or subjective illusions ...Any tube lovers is out for sure ...

I myself defines transparency in a positive acoustical way instead  : it is the way the gear/system/room/ears let the recorded acoustic live event be correctly and convincingly translated from playback to your acoustic conditions ( with more or less some kind of distortions nevermind )  ... My definition is relative ...

Transparency in a negative definition by double blind test is absolute, because it ask for a threshold of distortion so low no human can hear it ...Said otherwise the best amplifier dont add anything by itself to the signal...

It is the way objectivist define a good sound without need to refer to acoustics, psycho-acoustics but only electrical measures of the gear ...

it is not even wrong ... It is why objectivism in audio is preposterous ideological position being not even wrong ...

But the great acoustic discovery in the last decade is about the way any stereo system  is flawed by the crosstalk destructive effect on the spatial qualities of the recorded information of the live event for the ears ... Than transparency will be also related to a way (BACCH filters ) these spatial information could be translated in our room/ears for our brain ... Transparency is then not only and mostly an electrical notion about measured distortion it is mostly also the way the recording is translated in a room without loosing any of  the recorded acoustic information even if some distortion is added 😊 ...

Scottwheel must know better then , he own the BACCH filters ...😁

«A non paradoxical man does not exist»-- Anonymus thinker🧐

if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.

“so you are an ’all modern solid state amps sound the same’ guy if they are not clipping?”

most. Not all

“scottwheel defines transparency not in a positive way...”

Please don’t try to speak for me. I don’t define transparency. It has its own definition. And there is nothing “negative” about it. 

You did not read correctly my post...

I said that your definition of transparency is made in a negative way methodologically by using double blind test as an absolute standard which make possible to eliminate any distortion audible level as something added by an alleged  "defective" design or by a subjective deceptive placebo illusion ......

Defining by the negative is not being negative in a psychological way ...

My own definition of transparency using acoustic, nevermind the presence of illusory or real distortion, is a positive way methodologically related to the way recorded information is translated acoustically in some other acoustic t context plus or less transparently relatively to the initial recorded acoustics conditions ...It is why as an example of transparent translation of acoustic information i refer to the BACCH filters which you own yourself...This is an example which explain my positive definition of transparency... This definition is positive because it appeal only to the presence of positive acoustics factors ( as timbre and spatial information etc ) not to an eliminative selection test as double blind test ...

I dont try to speak for you ...

I added the posts where you vouch only for double blind test against subjectivist audiophiles and the posts where you vouch for "transparency" in gear design ... If i add these two posts of you together, my last post is my interpretation of your position ...

Correct me if i interpreted you wrong ...

Please don’t try to speak for me. I don’t define transparency. It has its own definition. And there is nothing “negative” about it.