What is the most analytical sounding amplifier that you have heard?

the Stereophile definition is the best that I know of:

analytical - "Very detailed, almost to the point of excess."

No, that isn't even a good definition let alone the best. I already gave you a much better one:

 "sterile". Like everything is there, only with all the life sucked out of it.

Now let me explain, and help you understand the difference.

Details are all the myriad subtle little bits and pieces that go together in music. All kinds of things qualify as details, everything from the tiniest treble way up high to the articulate tight and tuneful bass note, and everything in between. It is impossible to have too much detail.  

It is on the other hand entirely possible for these details to be presented with grain, or etch, or conversely they can be liquid smooth. Same details, just one way grating and fatiguing, the other pleasurable, enjoyable, preferable. One way the details are artificial, one might even say analytical. The other they are natural. One might say lifelike. 

So you see a much better definition of analytical is everything there, nice and neutral, only sterile, lifeless.

See how much better that is?

So you see a much better definition of analytical is everything there, nice and neutral, only sterile, lifeless.

See how much better that is?

millercarbon, I still like Stereophile's definition best.

If something is neutral (which really doesn't exist) it can't also be sterile & lifeless.

There are of course sterile sounding amplifiers, but that doesn't mean that they have to be excessively detailed.

For example, a lack of the second harmonic and a distortion profile dominated by small amounts of intermodulation distortion can create a sterile sound...without excess detail.   

It is not productive to attempt to address "analytical" without also discussing tonality. It's properly a system issue, and not just a component issue. 

Imo, it seems "analytical" is more properly applied to listeners, and "complex" applied to equipment. This mirrors Stereophile's definition, excessive detail, versus, "Sucks the life out of," which gives no proper descriptor for the audiophile to act upon. The potentially anthropomorphic aspects of the term analytical seem to muddy the situation. 

Often, it's not the amp that is the problem, it's the way the audiophile set up the system. It takes about a dozen different iterations with any component to know the innate character of the component. Most do not have capacity to do so many rigs in order to find the true character of the component. They set it up with their gear, pronounce it's sound, and think they know. Likewise, people set up a rig with an amp and think they have hit the jackpot. They don't bother to try other iterations, and consequently never optimize their rig; they really do not know the innate character of the amp either. Most of what is passed around here as judgments of equipment are only partially informed, a function of how the community works (No judgment in that, just describing the reality of the situation).  

Dont like these terms to describe audio. 
  Much like metal in late 70s’ - 1990.  Its metal.   Not rectum ranger metal, pipe metal, spaghetti metal. Whatever the term. .......if its metal than its metal ..
genres, upon genres,   Like amps.  Its not so much the amp as speakers and source material.  
  My dna-750s r far from analytical, as are my odyssey kismet and carver sunfire.  They all sound great. !!!!

 Analytical and lifeless i would mention emotiva xpa1 1000W monos. They have been boxed up for 10 years now.  Only plugging in 2-3X a year to keep caps used.   Only other amp i consider analytical is my QSC gx5. Wwhile not analyticall, she is straight wire w gain !!
very accurate and honest.  Bad recording in ....bad sound out.