|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.200.116.196
In Reply to: Why don't you answer it? A number of people have given answers as straightforward as the question allows. posted by Pat D on April 15, 2007 at 13:44:32:
He is clearly looking for an answer from those that use this qualification when they claim all such amps sound the same. I am not such a person. My idea of a properly designed amp won't be what the OP is looking for.>>Several people have given straightforward answers--but they're not the same. Pity you have thus far failed to understand my explanation of why that is so.
What explination would that be? Please feel free to quot any such "explination."
>>"For kicks, lets just say i wanted to buy such an amp. Cite one answer from any objectivist thus far that would help give me any clue what to buy."Ahh, changing the ground!
How am I changing the ground? The idea was for someone to explain what such an amp is. I just highlighted the fact that no objectivist has done so so far by pointing out that should someone want to buy such an amp the objectivists have thus far offered nothing to even identify or distinguish such an amp.
> You hadn't asked. Are you looking for another amplifier? What are the requirements? No subjectivist has told you what to buy, either.I am going to be looking ofr another amp eventually. my requirements are that it can drive my Sound lab A3s to their maximum safe SPL and that they sound the best to my ears of any amp out there. The first part can be figured out by specs if the specs are correct. the second part will require that i sit a nd listen and make a subjective choice
Follow Ups:
His thread title is a general question about the meaning of 'well designed amplififer' but it turns out he really wants explicition of Peter Aczel's criteria for a well designed amplifier. And I have all ready pointed out that the proper person to ask would be Peter Aczel himself, as they are his opinions. Our answers to that would be irrelevant.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,It's becoming increasinly obvious that that you don't wish to discuss anything audio here and will do anything but side step and complicate things under the guise of "changing grounds!" Otherwise you might have to actually explain what you believe when you cut and paste opinions from Real JJ, Klaus, Aczel and others and claim these as your beliefs.
The Subject was: - What Constitues A "Properly Designed" Amp? -
But the topic was further amplfied in the actual post. I wanted to know what people here, who believe this trash Aczel espouses think constitues 1-5 below. Obviously if anyone here is in agreement with this bogus hypothesis they should know why they agree so once again you're wrong Pat and their answers to that would be relevant.
I then even offered a hypothesis I thought was a lot closer to what might actually be the truth "IF" one believes Aczel's criteria is correct.
Have a nice day...
I know it seems strange to you, but listing Peter Aczel's criteria did not "amplify" the original general question, they asked about a particular version.As for being clear, I simply point out that no one, including those more subjectivist in inclination, understood the original post as you seem to understand it. Your intent does not seem to have been clear to anyone.
You seem more interested in defending your original post than in clarifying what you wanted or inreading the replies to the questions you actually posed.
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
Pat,Only the LFO's here pretended not to understand. Can't say I blame them Aczel's assinine assessments won't hold and drop of water under peer studied reviews. So now all the LFO who whined when I called Aczel's comments dogma are running and ducking. Now it's just one man's flawed opinion. Now we get to see the LFO for what they really are i.e. very vocal people who simply want to argue with subjectivists and cannot when called to the carpet defend their beliefs.
Analog Scotts excellent rewording of my posts so the LFO could even understand it was enough evidence that subjectivists and probably rational objectivists understood the questions raised and knew Aczel's dogma wasn't worthy of defending....
By the way, I see you still have absolutely ZERO to add to this topic. What a surprise. Just more excuses of why you ask the obvious to be explained. Grow up and get a life and a real audio system.
I'll try to clarify the question I believe he is trying to ask. That being what are the thresholds of all measurable distortions for an amp which is perfectly audibly transparent driving any real world speaker load within it's rated power output? IOW an amp with no sound of it's own.
Analog,That's correct. Based on the criteria Aczel raised and his followers so vocally support here. I wanted to know when thresholds of high input impedance, low output impedance, flat frequency response, low distortion and low floor noise have been reached for an amp to be perfectly audibly transparent and hence have no sound of it's own.
It's so easy to make this claim and yet have absolutely NO figures to back them up. I guess peer reviewed published studies must ONLY apply to things subjectivists believe. Otherwise where is the peer reviewed published studies that support these beliefs?
Have a nice day...
"the criteria Aczel raised and his followers so vocally support here"Hah! I knew it! You are falsely trying to foist Aczel's formulations on to us!
____________________________________________________
"Opposition brings concord. Out of discord comes the fairest harmony."
------Heraclitus of Ephesis (fl. 504-500 BC), trans. Wheelwright.
a
nt
| ||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: