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
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
12,099 posts
 
Ggavetti, I completely agree with you. To be clear here though, its not the audiophiles that need to understand this stuff, its the **designers**!

IOW when you see designers building equipment that follows the human perceptual rules rather than bench specs, then meaningful audio progress will result.
pubul57
3,712 posts
 
I think Atma-sphere's comment were meant for designers of equipment, where, if not physics, at least some knowledge electrical engineering and psychoacoustics would be more than useful.
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
I am sorry, atmasphere. I misinterpreted your post. Yes, I completely agree that designers ought to know about physics!
pubul57
3,712 posts
 
One would imagine that most audio designers know alot about electrical engineering, but you might be surprised. Always interesting to talk to folks like Ralph (Atma-sphere), Ken Stevens (CAT), or Roger Modjeski (Music Reference), that actually have technical backgrounds. One thing I have noticed from these folks (Roger Modjeski especially) is their view of the efficacy of many tweeks that some say GREATLY improves performance; they seem skeptical at best - it took me a long-time to convice Roger that I did not want his hard-wired power cord for my MR9 Special Edition:). What I also notice is a tendency to evolve a product over-time, rather than radical changes every other month, which seem to be driven by marketing considerations rather than technical ones. You look at products from Atma-sphere, CAT, Joule, Music Reference, Merlin, Vandersteen and they all seem to figure out a solid design and then evolve it, optimize it, sort it out over many years; but they all started from sound technical design and principals that were basically right the first time; they also seem to be succesful over time. I think Ralph had a pretty good idea years ago, Class A, Triode, OTL - hard to beat 20-years ago, and nothing much has changed since then - though they look better today.
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
Pubul57: It's hard to disagree with FVA that we are being marketed to death. I know people in trade need product to sell, but the better approach is usually the evolutionary one you suggest. I am happy to buy affordable new equipment in order to get better results, yet several of my components are old enough to vote.
An RM9 is a tough act to beat!
More to discover