Importance of Amplifier versus Preamp?

After reading some comments on amplifier, I really wonder what mechanical/electrical/audio miracles have been performed , knowing the fact that the laws of Physics are still the same as they were 20/30 years ago, metallurgy has not come up with new alloys, to justify the cost in ten of thousands of dollars. As Mr Carver demonstrated, by building an affordable amplifier, of which the sound could not be distinguished from an extremely expensive name amplifier that was being compared to(mid`s 70 )!
The fact also remains that the human auditory system is very limited in scope, unless your name was Beethoven, or Mile Davis,for example. Just wondering.....So if I was able to spend 5/6 grands on an amplifier, I would probably buy a Carver amp...I can already feel the wave of outrage from all the AUDIOPHILES coming at me....OHLALA!

As Mr Carver demonstrated, by building an affordable amplifier, of which the sound could not be distinguished from an extremely expensive name amplifier that was being compared to (mid`s 70)!

To clarify some points about that:

What Carver did, actually in the early and mid-80's, was to tweak the "transfer function" (the relation between output and input) of one of his amplifiers to match the transfer function of the highly regarded Mark Levinson ML-2 solid state amplifier (as chronicled in "The Audio Critic"), and subsequently to tweak the transfer function of another of his amplifiers to match that of a well regarded Conrad Johnson tube amp (as chronicled in "Stereophile"). His demonstration consisted, in addition to some ABX testing, of providing the two amps with the same input signal, and showing that when the output of one was electronically subtracted from the output of the other, essentially nothing remained. More precisely, a null of greater than 70 db was obtained, at least in the ML-2 comparison.

There were two major problems with all of that, however:

1)The tests showed, at best, that the two amps nulled against each other just with one specific speaker load, which was used in implementing his tweaks.

2)Credible anecdotal evidence subsequently emerged that he was not able to maintain anything remotely close to a 70 db null in production. Bob Carver essentially admitted this in an interview which appeared in "The Absolute Sound" about two or three years ago.

Regards,
-- Al

"New in the field. I am wondering what is most important: a great amplifier with a good preamplifier, or a good amp, with a great preamplifier? Or should I look at a good amp with a great do certain brands make amplifier to go with preamplifier and receivers?
Thank you kindly.
Rockanroller"

You will never admit this to yourself, but your attitude will never let you succeed. Ever. You'll hear something that will sound good to you, but you will never let yourself enjoy it because you're committed to believe some crap test from the 70's that you probably didn't even read. Since when does Mr. Carver speak for the entire audio industry. And your vast knowledge of the human auditory system is no doubt, at the cutting edge of science.

Unfortunately, your attitude is becoming more common with people, almost on a daily basis. All the sudden you become an expert in a field because you read an article or 2. (I'm assuming you can read. I'll give you credit for that). But in the end, the only thing that you've proven is that you know how to make a fool out of yourself. In your first post, you claim to be new to audio. And now all of the sudden, you're at the cutting edge of what's possible. Sometimes I laugh at people when they try to pull this sort of thing, but in your case, I honestly can't. I feel like I would be making fun of a handicap person. I'm not kidding either. I really mean that.

"I can already feel the wave of outrage from all the AUDIOPHILES coming at me....OHLALA!"

So? Who cares anyway? If I were you, I would be more concerned with having some respect for myself. If you can't do that, you'll continue to lose.

Zd542
I think that all the answers were great!
But you lost me with the respect "innuendos".
So sorry to have offended you.
Just so you know, most of the music I have listened to sound warmer on older equipment.
Here is an excerpt from Lincoln Gray, Ph.D., Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, James Madison University on neural auditory system:
The Range of Sounds to Which We Respond; Neural Tuning Curves

Our absolute threshold, the minimum level of sound that we can detect, is strongly dependent on frequency. At the level of pain, sound levels are about six orders of magnitude above the minimal audible threshold. Sound pressure level (SPL) is measured in decibels (dB). Decibels are a logarithmic scale, with each 6 dB increase indicating a doubling of intensity. The perceived loudness of a sound is related to its intensity. Sound frequencies are measured in Hertz (Hz), or cycles per second. Normally, we hear sounds as low as 20 Hz and as high as 20,000 Hz. The frequency of a sound is associated with its pitch. Hearing is best at about 3-4 kHz. Hearing sensitivity decreases at higher and lower frequencies, but more so at higher than lower frequencies. High-frequency hearing is typically lost as we age.

In conclusion, no I am not an expert,and I am cognizant of that fact, however, like you said, I read a lot. And thank you for humoring me as well.
Thank you for taking the time.
Respectfully,
Long live Rock and Roll!
Good bye.

Almarg
thank you kindly for the "teaching moment" about Mr Carver.
Much appreciated.
Rockanroller.