does more power=better quality ?

morbius:

A last point ... the experience at Singer was anything but worthless, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are being handicapped by misplaced reliance on the scientific method in thinking that only a direct A/B comparison between amps on exactly the same system in exactly the same room is valid. Those amps were not designed to be used in the same room and with the same equipment, much as your example of Maggie power requirements illustrates. Further, each amp will favor different types/brands of cabling, making their use with the same cabling an error. One is a Class-A biased triode design feeding speakers through an output transformer, the Krell monos being solid-state designs that are probably Class A up to a point and AB thereafter. Fortunately, Andy Singer is not a physicist, but a hi-fi man, and in recognition of these differences, the amps were set up in different rooms in different systems, to live or die on their own merits. In short, the only worthless comparison would be a direct A/B in the same system -- it would tell us nothing.

PS - Why do I picture you wearing one white sock and one brown sock? Your thoughts about about automobiles, televisions, ice cream, proper comparisons, 300B's, and absolutism were unsolicited and are worthless to me (and I don't need upper-case font like you do to make my points -- how presumptuous to think that I would allow you to address me that way -- how obnoxious you are).

Raquel,

In addition to all the differences between the two systems
that you note - the rooms had different room modes - they
accentuated / deaccentuated different frequencies. That's
probably the biggest factor making the comparison of the two
systems invalid.

When comparing audio equipment - at least stick to the same
or similar rooms. You'd be surprised how much the room
alters the sound.

As far as you thinking of me with mis-matched socks, that's
just your own prejudice showing in thinking of me in a
stereotypical fashion; a stereotype that has little backing
in truth. I'm not a stereotypical scientist; I don't know
any who are.

However, I am enough of a scientist to know that all the
fine points of audio have physical explanations. There's
no "magic" at work in tne audio field.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

Please don't lecture me on room acoustics. Singer is a good shop and
has its rooms professionally treated in an attempt to smooth out modes
(they also do not put any top-shelf equipment in the square rooms).
While this will almost never take the rooms out of the equation, the
systems to which I refer were set up properly in treated rooms.

My comments about socks had nothing to do with prejudice, which
basically means prejudgment before seeing the facts. They were post-
judgments made after reading your ill-reasoned (not to mention
pompous) comments. Go away.

Nb: My apologies to the author of this thread for where our comments
went (this fellow was really asking for it).

Raquel,

I'm well aware that Sound by Singer is a well respected
audio dealer - and they set up their rooms properly.

What you fail to appreciate is that you can't take the
room out of the equation. No matter how you treat the
walls of a room - the walls still reflect sound.

My comments are not ill-reasoned. Solving the wave
equation that dictates the propagation of sound in air
is one of my specialties.

The propagation of sound in a room is dictated by the
wave equation; a second order partial differential equation.
Mathematics requires that one provide "boundary conditions"
in order for the problem to be well posed.

The walls of the room provide those boundary conditions.
No matter how you treat the walls - they still reflect
sound to a degree. Because of the reflection of sound from
the walls; you get "room modes".

For example, if the room is 20 feet in some linear
dimension - length or width - then there are room modes
at frequencies of 26.6 Hz and 53.2 Hz corresponding to
a half-wavelength and a full-wavelength fitting that
dimension, respectively.

This gives you "standing waves" at those frequencies -
the music at 26.6 Hz and 53.2 Hz will be accentuated.

If you move to a different room, with different dimensions,
then different frequencies are accentuated.

There is no way that the people at Sound by Singer can
get around this. It is just a simple fact of life when
it comes to audio, that is dictated by the Physics of
sound travelling in air.

Because you auditioned two different systems, in two
rooms that you stated were different in size; then the
rooms were accentuating different frequencies and thus
you would have heard differences even if you were listening
to the exact same audio setup.

Because you don't know what the room is doing to the
sound, any comparisons where the room acoustics are
different is invalid.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

As I wrote, I know the room cannot be taken out of the equation.

In any event, your response was not conclusory and was respectful this time, and I am not a scientist, so I won't be debating you on room modes (if I could only get rid of mine). That said, I continue to question the worth of your viewpoint for the reasons stated in my prior comments, and direct you to John Atkinson's pg. 1 editorial in this month's (July 2005) edition of Stereophile, which, although not this precise issue, touches on the issue of blind testing and its relevance to demo'ing hi-fi gear.

I take this opportunity to return to my original point, to wit, my experience has very much been that lowered-powered amps, assuming reasonably sensitive speakers, tend to sound cleaner and more life-like than mega amps. This is the result of having heard and owned a lot of equipment since 1977.