Ultra high resolution


Hi folks, I suppose this is a question none could answer appropriately. How come that some (there are to my knowledge only two of them) amplifier brands are building such ultra high resolution solid state amplifiers without having a treble that sounds shrill or piercing or artificial? It is of course proprietary info if you ask those manufacturers.
Is it because of very tight selection of matched transistors? Is it because lack of global but high level of local feedback? Is it because of the use of very expensive military grade parts? Is it because of the power supply? Is it because of the application of special circuit design? Is it because all of the above?

Chris
dazzdax
Details are definitely good to have and absolutely essential. It is the exaggerated details and thin, ill defined and scratchy 'tonal balance' of this details that I don't appreciate. Same goes w/ harmonics. Proper ' tonal' balance of these details and harmonics is the key ingredient of music to sound life like.
04-24-08: Nilthepill said:
"Details are definitely good to have and absolutely essential. It is the exaggerated details and thin, ill defined and scratchy 'tonal balance' of this details that I don't appreciate. Same goes w/ harmonics. Proper ' tonal' balance of these details and harmonics is the key ingredient of music to sound life like."

I agree, 100%.

Dave
dither is sometimes used as a technique in the design of digital hardware

Indeed it is ....but our ears behave in a classic digital pattern. Tiny hair movements trigger nerve bundles that send "digital" signals to the brain. Once a nerve bundle fires off - it takes time to "reset" so it can fire again. Certain forms of dither may indeed have an impact on what we hear....our ability to hear beat frequencies that are not actually there is perhaps a product of this strange digital ear phenomenon. I think part of the way reverb works so well is that the multiple later arrivals give our ears/brain more time to analyze each instrument/sound.
Nilthepil- For vinyl: Crystal Clear, MFSL, Telarc Digital, Sheffield Labs, Audioquest, Groove Note, just about anyone that bothered/bothers to press on virgin, or extra thick vinyl from original master tapes, and a lot of the Columbia Masterworks pressings are my favorites. CD: MFSL(some), Audioquest, Sony Mastersound Gold, Chesky, Sheffield Labs, Stax, Verve, Epic, GRP, Warner Bros. Mostly my tastes run to Jazz, Blues, R+B, with some rock and classical thrown in(I LOVE pipe organs) Those labels seem to be fairly consistant in their quality with those formats(some take extras pains to eliminate the variables and use minimum mics, special venues, no compression, etc. for the best possible sound). If you'd enjoy something entirely different/decidedly strange that will give your system a guaranteed workout: Find a copy of 'Dead Can Dance- Into the Labyrinth'. The dynamics, hall acoustics, drums(huge to bongos), animal sounds, instrument/voice placement(some acapella), recording quality, etc. are all killer.
hi dave:

i have a problem listening to an instrument 5 feet away. when i played in my high school band, as a percussionist, i heard instruments within 10 feet from my performing position. however, an audience member is not in such a proximity to an instrument.

a recording does not represent your "listening" position, nor does it represent mine.

my philosophy is do no harm. if a stereo system is so focused and clear as to sound unpleasant, i don't want to hear it.

it is a matter of preference as to how much or how little focus is acceptable.

since the sound of an instrument is a function of the distance between listener and musicican, what is accurate timbre at 5 feet differs from accurate timbre at 100 feet. i think the issue is distance. we will agree to disagree. case closed.