What is the most analytical sounding amplifier that you have heard?

different people hear differently, like different tonality, grew up with different types of sound, there is no right or wrong... if you like it that is what matters -- no matter what others say

that is why there is such a broad, rich selection of speakers and other equipment, each serves a different customer with different sensibilities and tastes

i associate the following with ’analytical’ sounding components -- lots and lots of detail served up right up front with minimal effort needed to hear ’into’ the music, fast transient response, zero rounding/slurring, tight deep bass with little overhang minimal overtones - i appreciate equipment that does this, sounds this way, but this is not my preferred sonic palette for extended listening sessions, where i would rather have more roundness fullness texture to the sound - perhaps somewhat less ’hear thru’ but with more saturated colors sacrficing some leading edge detail

just like being outside in the bright sunlight on a summer day without sunglasses... it is vivid and hyper-real but after a bit it can get a little fatiguing for the eyes...

what we like is what we like, a big part of the journey is to find out what that is, no shame nor apologies needed

last point - i don’t know ’accurate’ is -- i would submit that NO ONE knows... not even the recording techs that make the recorded music... once you put it through microphones, mixers, etc etc (not to mention digitization, mastering, and the reproduction gear on the other end), the real thing is long long gone...

the Stereophile definition is the best that I know of:

analytical - "Very detailed, almost to the point of excess."

No, that isn't even a good definition let alone the best. I already gave you a much better one:

 "sterile". Like everything is there, only with all the life sucked out of it.

Now let me explain, and help you understand the difference.

Details are all the myriad subtle little bits and pieces that go together in music. All kinds of things qualify as details, everything from the tiniest treble way up high to the articulate tight and tuneful bass note, and everything in between. It is impossible to have too much detail.  

It is on the other hand entirely possible for these details to be presented with grain, or etch, or conversely they can be liquid smooth. Same details, just one way grating and fatiguing, the other pleasurable, enjoyable, preferable. One way the details are artificial, one might even say analytical. The other they are natural. One might say lifelike. 

So you see a much better definition of analytical is everything there, nice and neutral, only sterile, lifeless.

See how much better that is?

So you see a much better definition of analytical is everything there, nice and neutral, only sterile, lifeless.

See how much better that is?

millercarbon, I still like Stereophile's definition best.

If something is neutral (which really doesn't exist) it can't also be sterile & lifeless.

There are of course sterile sounding amplifiers, but that doesn't mean that they have to be excessively detailed.

For example, a lack of the second harmonic and a distortion profile dominated by small amounts of intermodulation distortion can create a sterile sound...without excess detail.   

It is not productive to attempt to address "analytical" without also discussing tonality. It's properly a system issue, and not just a component issue. 

Imo, it seems "analytical" is more properly applied to listeners, and "complex" applied to equipment. This mirrors Stereophile's definition, excessive detail, versus, "Sucks the life out of," which gives no proper descriptor for the audiophile to act upon. The potentially anthropomorphic aspects of the term analytical seem to muddy the situation. 

Often, it's not the amp that is the problem, it's the way the audiophile set up the system. It takes about a dozen different iterations with any component to know the innate character of the component. Most do not have capacity to do so many rigs in order to find the true character of the component. They set it up with their gear, pronounce it's sound, and think they know. Likewise, people set up a rig with an amp and think they have hit the jackpot. They don't bother to try other iterations, and consequently never optimize their rig; they really do not know the innate character of the amp either. Most of what is passed around here as judgments of equipment are only partially informed, a function of how the community works (No judgment in that, just describing the reality of the situation).