does more power=better quality ?

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.

Raquel,

Again, you ignore the science that all else being equal,
the higher power amp is more linear - that's just a FACT
of science.

I've read John Atkinson's pg 1 Stereophile editorial. I'm
not commenting on blind testing at all. I'm talking PHYSICS!

You may have heard a lot of equipment since 1977, but I've
both heard and measured equipment since 1977, and I know
the physical principles on which audio is based.

You can't get around the fact that the less you push the
active devices - be they tubes or transistors - the better.

Real tubes and real transistors are not linear.

The problem with audiophiles that only listen and never
measure is that they confuse what they like for accuracy.

I've experimented with audiophile friends, where I distort
the signal on purpose - rolling off frequencies, altering
time constants, etc. and the audiophile prefers it!

I believe a lot of audiophiles prefer music that has had
the harsh "edges" removed by some wimpy amp. You may
prefer it - but it is not accurate.

Real musical instruments have these "edges".

From your listening experience, though vast, you can only
say what you like - you can't say what is accurate.

Accuracy comes in making comparisons of REAL instruments
with recordings of THAT instrument - which is what I've done.

You can't make a blanket statement that low power amps
are "cleaner". The only thing they've "cleaned up" are
real characteristics of real instruments.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist

"I believe a lot of audiophiles prefer music that has had
the harsh "edges" removed by some wimpy amp. You may
prefer it - but it is not accurate."

This may hold some water. But it isn't the case with all of us . Now your making blanket statements. Not all flea powered amps are created equal. I can't live with warm and fuzzy. Just doesn't work for me.

I've heard high powered amps that round edges off and make all recordings sound like I have cotton in my ears. My flea powered amp doesn't do this. I do not want to argue just trying to clear the notion that all low wattage amplifiers smooth over the recordings.

Good Listening!