Are future improvements in Amp/PreAmps slowing to a crawl?

" nobody actually building circuits talks in the cryptic code you do"
Thank you - I like to think I am unique. It's probably because they are still building conventional circuits. BTW - what part is cryptic to you?

So without hearing the process I'm talking about - you have totally dismissed it as "snake oil". The one thing I like about these threads is there is a kind of paper trail that we can look back on and say "remember when they didn't believe it was possible to amplify without distortion?"
  
(Lets note the date)

This is why I don't spend much time on these threads because if you introduce any kind of new thinking to solve old problems - people freak out. The ones that complain the most are those with skin in the game. Is this technology somehow a threat to you or your business?

I don't know many people on this thread as far as what they do for a living. I know Ralph who I respect has his tube circuitry but never comes across as anything other than someone who enjoys what he does and is successful at it. I'm pretty sure Ralph does not see me as a threat. My hat is off to any designer that strives for the best. These threads are for the purpose of sharing all things audio. Lets leave out the snake oil please. 

Perhaps someday you will get a chance to hear what I'm talking about.

I won't bother telling you about automatic focus - that doesn't seem go with sound reproduction either but I still use it.

kosst_amojan

Here is the simplified version:
When a recording is made of a performance in the hall and the sound waves strike the microphone diaphragm 2 bits of data are saved.

1: what is the exact air pressure
2: what is the exact moment in time (for that air pressure reading)

This assumes 2 channel optimum mic placement.
This allows you to triangulate the location of every instrument on stage.
That's it - nothing more nothing less. If you do this correctly you have a piece of acoustic history captured.

Can we agree on that?
Is there anyone reading this post that thinks otherwise?

If you can cause your speakers to produce the same air pressure changes along with the exact times - you have yourself an acoustic clone of that event and you will not be able to tell the difference between the live and the "copy".

That is my goal and I am quickly approaching it.

Roger

When a recording is made of a performance in the hall and the sound waves strike the microphone diaphragm 2 bits of data are saved.

1: what is the exact air pressure
2: what is the exact moment in time (for that air pressure reading)

This assumes 2 channel optimum mic placement.
This allows you to triangulate the location of every instrument on stage.
That's it - nothing more nothing less. If you do this correctly you have a piece of acoustic history captured.

Can we agree on that?
Is there anyone reading this post that thinks otherwise?

It's a well known fact that the Grateful Dead were pioneers in great sound. Their live recordings sound far better than any other bands recorded material. As to their mics, this is an excerpt from wikipedia:

The Wall of Sound acted as its own monitor system, and it was therefore assembled behind the band so the members could hear exactly what their audience was hearing. Because of this, Stanley and Alembic designed a special microphone system to prevent feedback. This placed matched pairs of condenser microphones spaced 60 mm apart and run out of phase. The vocalist sang into the top microphone, and the lower mic picked up whatever other sound was present in the stage environment. The signals were added together using a differential summing amp so that the sound common to both mics (the sound from the Wall) was canceled, and only the vocals were amplified.