Giving up on Power Race, and going SET?

Unsound, I know not to use a 10 watt amp on ESLs. I know that certain tube preamps mated with certain SS amps is not a good idea, or shouldn't even be considered. I understand what you are saying. I probably am the one who should have been more clear. Of course matching equipment that works well together is what seperates one that is tolerable to one that makes music. I guess I haven't made myself clear. I think what Dekay said is all that needs to be said.
"Do what you like" I do what I like!
Onhwy61, I hope I have not offended you with my opinions. I have the highest respect for you. But yes, I do believe the ear/brain is the best measuring device. I guess I should say that it is for me. I did not mean common since should not be used when putting a system together. To make my point simple, if it sounds good, it sounds good.
Gotta go, I think I threw the baby out with the bath water again.

Clueless and Twl, I have printed and read through the De Lima paper. Read through it a few times, in fact. You are right, there are actual measurement graphs in there, similar to the types I called for above, that would seem to demonstrate the phenomenon he advocates and that you are talking about.

The paper itself, while stipulating many worthwhile points that I could agree with, did not impress me overall. It had a few inconsistencies that made me question De Lima's rigorousness. I listed these on a piece of paper so I could post about them, but I couldn't get those graphs out of my head. I was reasonably sure that my arguments above were sound, yet here was some empirical evidence to the contrary staring me in the face.

This bothered me all night, and I did not go to sleep, instead turning it over in my head. Finally in the wee hours I quit and decided to take a shower. I should have known - I always do my best thinking (and sometimes songwriting) in the shower. :-)

There I had an epiphany, and I now believe that I can debunk De Lima's paper (or at least seriously call it into question), graphs included. I am not going to post my analysis and critique right now, both because it needs to be a detailed post and I am tired and want to go to sleep, and because I want a little more time to recheck myself in the light of day and make sure I'm not mistaken or being rash - not only because I could always be wrong - but also because if I am right, what I say might carry a bit of reputational consequences.

In the meantime, I encourage anybody reading to use Clueless' link to the article, and consider these questions for themselves. What I am thinking of is not so advanced or anything, and it's quite possible (if I am correct in my assessment) that someone with more technical knowledge than myself would see the flaw I believe I have found in a much quicker time than I did. I will give this hint: the fatal problem area of his argument as I see it (one which I have already generally suggested in my posts above) is given away by a careful logical analysis of what is contained and implied in his graphs and their associated explanatory paragraphs (further hint: you must focus on what he doesn't say as well as what he does). I shall return.

That's good Alex. If you have some further ideas that could be of help in this matter, we are all ears.

I've emailed De Lima with a couple of basic questions about his published graphs, asking for a little information which is not provided in his article or graph labels (but should be), so that I don't have to work from any assumptions if I don't have to. I'll continue with my intended post after I (hopefully) get a reply, or amend my intended critique if the answers I get fundamentally change my assumptions about what he purports to have shown. Just want to be on as firm a footing as I can here.

Unsound- Don't feel bad. You've got lots of company! "While I'm not there yet, ..." - no one is there yet! It doesn't exist, yet. Will it ever exist? Who knows. In the end, who cares. I for one do not want for the day when one goes down to the local entertainment emporium and orders an audio system pre-selected by a computer because of its synergistic relationship score. What fun is that?

Audio is more about the journey than the destination. Since most of us here don't have the talent to create or even play music, we amuse ourselves with learning about the interplay between various components with the desire to find that elusive combination that transcends mere noise, and allows us a short but spiritual experience of the emotional sublime. You shouldn't be able to find this from some cookie cutter, pre-selected computer output!

Formulas (equations) are used to design the circuits, but the selection of individual subcomponents on the basis of sound is the last area of art for most audio designers. (True innovators, like D.Berning, are in another league!)System synergy has many variables that are often as numerous as the number of potential customers. This is the type of information that you learn, not obtain from a data sheet.

For the record, I'm one of those silly electronic engineers. I'm always amused by those who are not, yet continue to think that if they look hard enough at a sheet of numbers that some revelation will come to them. I'm sorry if that sounds too dismissive. I applaud anyone who actually determines to educate themselves in the requisite math and scientific principles to understand the fundamentals of analog and digital electronics. I'm even more impressed with those who go through this arduous task, and can still find joy and beauty in the music that is reproduced from equipment without resorting to DBT and distortion figures, or worse, to bottom-line sales figures.

Is there a clear, absolute relationship between specs and sound? Currently, only in the most rudimentary areas. As an engineer, I can tell you that we design to meet the specs, or requirements doc, that are usually generated by the marketing department. As such, there are certain trends that, valuable or not, become expected. Many of these expectations can be customer generated or simply marketing tools to help differentiate a product from the competition. After awhile, these can take on a life of their own. Remember the THD wars of the 70s and 80s? Life was simple. You simply picked the component with the lowest THD figures, often below .001%, and the most power. Anyone could do it because it was made easy. Did this actually benefit the quality of the reproduced music?

Though there is quite a bit of misinformation espoused by some on this site, well intentioned of course, there is also a wealth of valuable information. If one wants to learn, just look in the archives and continue to ask questions. Don't dismiss the opportunity to learn from experienced audiophiles when it comes to equipment synergy just because the individual component specs aren't to your or some reviewer's liking.

Again, if your desire to investigate the specs of a component(s) help lead you into the study of the fundamentals of electronics, then more power to you. However, for the rest, I suggest that you go rent the movie Pi, and ponder the value of.

I did not post to anger or attack anyone. This diatribe was simply my opinion on this topic of good specs equate to good sound. Do specs have value? Of course, but they shouldn't be the primary tool that one uses when selecting audio equipment.

Bottom line- use common sense and your ears. If you don't know, ask and then listen. My audio path may not be yours, and that's probably a good thing, as my ears, room, and sonic preferences will likely differ from yours. Above all, enjoy the music!