So since we exist in what is quite possibly an infinite universe, does this mean we should give up defining things?
The rules, standards, measures we have today took time to form. In the early 1800’s electricity was explained as a fluid. In the late 1800’s and into the 1900’s we believed in luminiferous aether to explain light transmitting through a vacuum. And on topic, the first amplifiers were designed and implemented only about 100 years ago.
There is much left to define and possibly even more left to discover when it comes to amplifier design and how they affect audio reproduction.
Interesting how many are against what really can be seen as a scientific pursuit. I am only interested in further refining our definitions and language regarding the effects we hear in audio reproduction. To do so we will need some benchmarks. (Most of us can point to the sky and say that’s blue, we might experience it differently and some may not even see the blue but having that reference gives us all a greater ability to speak to each other regarding other colors and/or shades of blue). If we can do this more definitively with audio gear quite possibly we can build better amps or choose with better knowledge appropriate synergies of gear. Perhaps one day an amp can be made that can be tuned to your preferences.
Many recording studios still have Yamaha NS-10 near-field monitors in their control rooms. A good example of a solid point of reference in the audio world.
You mention ‘better’....And really what is ‘better’ anyway? Are you simply going to settle for saying “‘better’ is whatever I like now.” Cus that’s what a lot of this industry seems to be. New. Different. Better.
But can you really prove it? Or does everyone just really like feeling special and/or unique supposedly hearing ‘the better’ with their feelings (and lighter pockets)? I know I do....but really, I want more than feelies. I want to know and define WHY different amplifiers do different things. And I am wondering if there are any benchmarks out there. That’s all.
Can no one point to a particular amp and say “it has great tone.” How about, “this amp creates a holographic soundstage in most instances.” Or “this Amplifier has really great swing to it”.
How about that, can we come up with a list of amps that people think demonstrate particular qualities in amplification?
For example, I have a zh270 and it is an example of an amplifier capable of holographic reproduction. I also have a BAT VK-500 and it is a great example of tone and effortless reproduction.
Yes I was hoping for one amp that is competent in most respects, but examples of amplifiers that excel at particular aspects will do as well.
The rules, standards, measures we have today took time to form. In the early 1800’s electricity was explained as a fluid. In the late 1800’s and into the 1900’s we believed in luminiferous aether to explain light transmitting through a vacuum. And on topic, the first amplifiers were designed and implemented only about 100 years ago.
There is much left to define and possibly even more left to discover when it comes to amplifier design and how they affect audio reproduction.
Interesting how many are against what really can be seen as a scientific pursuit. I am only interested in further refining our definitions and language regarding the effects we hear in audio reproduction. To do so we will need some benchmarks. (Most of us can point to the sky and say that’s blue, we might experience it differently and some may not even see the blue but having that reference gives us all a greater ability to speak to each other regarding other colors and/or shades of blue). If we can do this more definitively with audio gear quite possibly we can build better amps or choose with better knowledge appropriate synergies of gear. Perhaps one day an amp can be made that can be tuned to your preferences.
Many recording studios still have Yamaha NS-10 near-field monitors in their control rooms. A good example of a solid point of reference in the audio world.
You mention ‘better’....And really what is ‘better’ anyway? Are you simply going to settle for saying “‘better’ is whatever I like now.” Cus that’s what a lot of this industry seems to be. New. Different. Better.
But can you really prove it? Or does everyone just really like feeling special and/or unique supposedly hearing ‘the better’ with their feelings (and lighter pockets)? I know I do....but really, I want more than feelies. I want to know and define WHY different amplifiers do different things. And I am wondering if there are any benchmarks out there. That’s all.
Can no one point to a particular amp and say “it has great tone.” How about, “this amp creates a holographic soundstage in most instances.” Or “this Amplifier has really great swing to it”.
How about that, can we come up with a list of amps that people think demonstrate particular qualities in amplification?
For example, I have a zh270 and it is an example of an amplifier capable of holographic reproduction. I also have a BAT VK-500 and it is a great example of tone and effortless reproduction.
Yes I was hoping for one amp that is competent in most respects, but examples of amplifiers that excel at particular aspects will do as well.
