All Amps Sound the Same....


A guy posted this on another forum:

"This is my other expensive hobby and while I agree with you about low end receivers, once you get to mid-priced (~$600-1000 street price) multichannel receivers you're into pretty good gear...Keep in mind that an amplifier sounds like an amplifier and changing brands should add or subtract nothing to/from the sound and that going up the food chain just adds power output or snob appeal to a separate amplifier...These days most audiophiles either use a good quality multichannel receiver alone or use a mid-priced multichannel receiver to drive their amps even for 2-channel."

Wow, where do they come up with this? Lack of experience?
128x128russ69

Showing 5 responses by frogman

****my point is that one should not trust the senses****

Mrtennis, I truly admire the steadfastness of your very didactic approach to things audio (and, I suspect, other matters as well). But, I can't help but react to what is probably one of the most provocative statements that I have ever read in a music/audio forum. Not trust one's senses? Huh?!?!

This points to what I think is one of the key underlying issues in disagreements among audiophiles; disagreements about the merits or flaws of equipment, design concepts, and the technology of music playback in general.

What I refer to is inextricable connections between the humanity (senses) of the performers of the music, the humanity (senses) of the listener, and the techno-quagmire (audio equipment) that is a kind of necessary evil along the way. The senses cannot be ignored, and most definitely should be trusted. I suppose this all points to differences between different types of personalities, but music is all about emotion and the senses. The technology used to capture it and play it back has to honor that fact if it is to be truly successful. The best audio designers know this. The numbers must always take a back seat to the senses. One has to trust one's senses and emotions. That is what gives all this true meaning.
****music need not induce an emotional response to be enjoyable.****

It is clear that when it comes to art, some of us live in different universes. Maybe that was a bit severe...different planets.

Venus and Mars
Dogmatic? Talk about the lightbulb calling the tweeter bright! ;-)

All kidding aside Mrtennis, you might find this article interesting reading; particularly the fourth paragraph.

http://www.lafolia.com/archive/mrichter/mrichter200004wtc.html
Mrtennis, you are welcome. In answer to your question: Yes, I believe that
all music evokes an emotional response; anything that can fairly be called
music. It may not be a positive or pleasant response, but a response
nonetheless. Earlier you wrote that there is music of the brain, cerebral in
nature, and that does not necessarily evoke an emotional response. You
cited TWC as an example. Later you write:

***people are different in their reactions to music. i find the well tempered
clavier very helpful when solving mathematical problems.***

What is it then that causes this "help", if not an emotional
response?

BTW, a common discussion among musicians and musicologists is the
notion (by now, fairly well debunked) that Bach's music, particularly
TWC, is to be performed in a cold, mechanical (mathematical) fashion.
Not so. Additionally, it is also an accepted idea that in Bach's time a
tempo marking was an indication of the intended emotional character of
the music ("Allegro").
I posted this in another thread, and thought it was relevant here.

****I know this is a crazy question but is it possible that the length of dissimilar conductors with varying dielectrical properties can have varying effects,positive or negative,in terms of introducing,eliminating,or altering interference?**** - Fripp1

I don't have the slightest clue. But your comment suggests something that is overlooked by many on the "numbers" side of the isle. We crave answers and explanations. But why are we assuming that we are asking all the questions that need to be asked? In my estimation it is short-sided and arrogant to think that established electronic-design standards address ALL that is going on in an electrical circuit. Is the science community not regularly discovering new things,and debunking previously accepted notions? Why should audio/electronics be any different? Add to this the fact that we are not talking about race cars or wine. The affected "product" is being asked to deal with the reproduction of an ART form. Complicating matters is the fact that we are talking about an art form that is not static (some visual art). Music is not only a constantly moving target,it has as a core ingredient the expression of emotion,and often involves the sonic result of human interaction. To think that numbers as understood today can be a complete picture of what can be going on in the electronic record/playback realm,and how that might affect our perception of it is silly.