How far have ss amps really come in the last twenty years?

The reality is, if we all, the audiophile community, heard no differences, wouldn’t the high priced gear go bye bye, or, just 1 or 2 manufacturers would be left for all of us ?

I'm not sure. First of all, we'd have to concede we don't hear differences, second, we'd have to decide that the other expensive hallmarks of quality don't matter enough to pay for. Finally, there are still features, appearance, and ergonomics to consider.  In sum, no, I don't think it would change as you suggest.  Consider the high-end watch business.

You bring up the sommelier analogy. I've always considered it a point in that industry's favor that it's highest accreditation requires an incredibly difficult blind (to label) identification process.  But even in that test, there are many other hallmarks other than taste (color, viscosity) that inform the well-defined method that passes the world's hardest test.  There is a great book about that called "Cork Dork" by Bianca Bosker, I highly recommend it -  if you can accept a referral from a "troll" such as myself.  Yes, I like wine as well, and I'm certain that enormous amounts of contextual subjectivity enter into my evaluation of each sip, and I'd love to understand it better.  That, rather than stuffy assertions of exclusivity, is what the hobby is about.

@atmasphere   You bring up a great point! What is "objectively audible"??
I suspect that "objectively audible" is going to be far more objective to some than others. Possibly those that have made up their minds in advance that no such audible differences exist, will get their expectations met..and will NEVER hear any differences.

Ahofer, you never responded to my comment, as to why you own expensive audio gear ( what are your components ? ), as I suggested, simply for prestige. And comparing it to a watch ? Maybe, if it is all about prestige. I believe my comparisons were more legitimate, as it showed a certain ability, familiarity and expertise, by the individuals, in their respected interests and fields. You are welcome to go on and on, but simply, I will no longer respond to you, as this " need to know " thing, is " your " thing, not mine, or anyone else’s here. So take care, and Enjoy ! MrD.

Ahofer, you never responded to my comment, as to why you own expensive audio gear ( what are your components ? ), as I suggested, simply for prestige. And comparing it to a watch ? Maybe, if it is all about prestige. I believe my comparisons were more legitimate, as it showed a certain ability, familiarity and expertise, by the individuals, in their respected interests and fields. You are welcome to go on and on, but simply, I will no longer respond to you, as this " need to know " thing, is " your " thing, not mine, or anyone else’s here. So take care, and Enjoy ! MrD.

I did indeed respond in full (I have no problem enjoying it regardless of what I learn or unlearn), and I've described my system elsewhere on the forum. I can't make coherent sense out of the rest of your comment or claims of "legitimacy" whatever you mean by that.

But, by all means, show me the evidence I have missed or ignore me if you don't want to spend the time. That would be the best course of action for everyone.  

Feel free to augment or quibble, but I would call an "objectively audible difference" between amplifiers as follows: when the equipment is gain-matched to be sure the difference is not simply due to different overall volume levels, listeners can still repeatably distinguish between different pieces of equipment *only by listening*.

OK- 'objectively audible difference' sounds different (if you will pardon the expression) from 'objectively audible'; thanks for clearing that up.


The thing that bothers me about this sort of approach is that usually when I see or hear someone talking in this manner, they are usually only allowing for certain circuits (amplifiers) to be in the conversation, while out of hand rejecting others on an arbitrary basis.

The problem is that in high end audio, there is a community of designers that take different approaches to solving amplifier issues. Some of them are quite brilliant and their works stands easily on their own merits, such as David Berning or Nelson Pass and there are many more. Further, a good number of designers including those I just mentioned, are not completely convinced that they should be using amps with ultra low output impedances (which means that their amps may not act as perfect voltage sources either). In my case, I've avoided making our amps work as voltage sources with intention- as I see the approach as highly problematic. Chief among these is the well-known fact that in removing distortion, the operation of negative feedback adds some of its own, which is always audible as increased brightness and harshness. I'm not saying its bad but I am saying that most of the time its inappropriately applied or inexpertly applied, with a mediocre result, which I see as about 95% of all traditional amplifiers made.

Now the approach I take is nothing new- its what was around prior to Mac and EV developing the voltage rules that are used today. Most people don't realize that there was something before that! I'm by no means the only one doing it either- and in all cases the idea is simple: the ear will place a priority on tonality created by distortion over a tonality created by FR error. To this end, a system that has less audible distortion can sound more neutral than one that has flatter FR. You have to be pickier about the amp/speaker interface (which is what the voltage rules were designed to prevent) but it can pay off in spades, but DBX people don't like to even consider such an amplifier in a DBX trial.