2. amps-preamps
  3. 1261722996

The closest approach: what amplification?

Ken Kessler titled his book on Quad "The closest approach" to summarize Quad's philosophy of producing a speaker that gets as close as possible to the reproduction of a live event. I have been wondering if there is a type of amplification that gets us closer to the real thing more than other types. I have met many audiophiles over the past few years, and what strikes me is how religious people can get about radically different types of amplification: some swear that there is nothing like small-power SET coupled with efficient speakers. Others believe that you don't have a serious system unless you use muscular SS amplifiers (e.g. 300 WPC). Others believe that powerful push-pull tube configurations are the best of both worlds. Finally, there is a small community of OTL aficionados that look at the rest of the world as if they don't know what music reproduction is all about.

Of course these people value different things. Some like imaging more than other things; others value transparency; others are crazy about huge soundstages; others seek warmth etc. And it is clear that some types of amplification are better for certain things and others are better for other things.

Now, let us consider simply the reproduction of a live event (not some specific, partial dimensions). In your experience, what type of amplification got you close to the real thing? Powerful SS, SET, OTL, powerful push-pull?
ggavetti
sebrof's avatar
sebrof
837 posts
 
Ggavetti,
But it's not a race.
The question is what's "best" (or may as well be, since the OP asks "close as possible to the reproduction of a live event")
Fastest you can quantify and measure, and all will agree on the measurement.
Best, or close as possible to the reproduction of a live event, is a different matter altogether.
As many different answers as people with answers.
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
Sebrof, The race metaphor was used just to make the point that it makes sense to think about types of amplifiers despite the fact presence of strong systemic effects.

Regarding your point about measurability, it's no doubt more difficult to measure "the real thing" than it is to measure speed. That said, I do believe there is a reality out there that is objective, which defines the real thing. If both you and I sit on seat 15, row 11 of the same auditorium to listen to Mahler's 5th, both you and I get exposed to the same sound waves. That's the real thing in my opinion. Yes, the real thing might differ depending of where you sit (front mezzanine is different from a side box) which complicates matters quite a bit. But we can at least start to reason about electronics that get you close to a particular manifestation of the real thing (for instance, sitting in a good, central position at a good auditorium).
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
" I do believe there is a reality out there that is objective, which defines the real thing"
Ah, to wax philosophic! Well yes and no, perhaps, we'll see. Sound waves are "real" in the material sense, but hearing is not. My teenager will be exposed to the same sound waves as I, but will he "hear" the same thing? How about a person from rural China? (A Chinese "opera", for that matter, is quite an experience). So much of what we hear is made up of learning, plus how our hearing actually works (a remarkable process in itself).
To go out on a limb, recognition is the key factor. We "hear" in the meaningful sense, when we recognize.
As a thought experiment I submit that if one were exposed to "perfect" sound wave patterns in a sufficiently unexpected context, that recognition would be so impeded that it would not take place at all. Our body might respond, but the brain would not "hear". On the other hand, if some one says: da, da, da daaa! the connection to Beethoven's Fifth may involuntarily pop into one's head.
(I hope you guys are having a beer while reading this.)
cheers
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
"Sound waves are "real" in the material sense, but hearing is not. My teenager will be exposed to the same sound waves as I, but will he "hear" the same thing? How about a person from rural China?"

Interesting, but I would argue that a machine that gets as close as possible to reproducing the "real" sound waves is what "the closest approach" is all about. Then I am less concerned about whether you and I perceive the same sound wave differently. That's unavoidable: my recognition of the real thing is different from yours, but the real thing exists independently of you and me. So, I guess the name of the game is reproducing actual sound waves. Don't yo think?
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
Back to amplifiers: There is general agreement about analog amplifiers. Solid state has the least distortion; the output resembles the input better than tubes. Are the tube folks all crazy? Do they like the sound of distortion? No they are not, but yes they do. Tubes compress the sound and they add harmonic distortion.
It is generally realized that our recordings are highly compressed of necessity. We simply cannot fit the sound waves of live music into our microphones, recording equipment, or our homes, so the recording engineers try to compensate to make the music sound more "natural". Among other topics, this gets us to the masking effect. Fairly slight changes in equalization can result in instruments or voices moving forward or back in the soundstage or even falling into a "hole". Engineers try to "correct" this. At 15% information recreation, recording is simply in the illusion business. Lots of folks like the illusion presented by the added distortion of tubes better than the more literal presentation of solid state. I suggest that the added harmonic distortion masks a good bit of the confusion of multi miking and of the room acoustics, but this is just a thought.
More to discover