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

Showing 4 responses by atmasphere

To get resolution without glare getting rid of global negative feedback is going to be a good first step. But- to do that and insure low distortion, the amp will have to be class A as well. A simple signal path helps; without feedback you don't need as much gain.

Passive components have to be chosen carefully, not for synergy within the circuit, but neutrality overall. Hookup wiring and layout is also critical as well as the power supplies already mentioned.

IOW there is no cheap answer and no one panacea. You just have to do everything right with an eye not to bench specs which have little or no meaning, but to the rules of human hearing. Tubes, being more linear devices (triodes in particular) are a bit better at obeying those rules. That is not to say that it can't be done in the solid state realm, but it is a lot harder. I can count the solid state amps that seem to be built with this sort of philosophy on one hand and have fingers left over...
MrT, it seems to me that you would be a fan of the Westminster label. They had a distant mic perspective. Am I right?
Seems to me there is a message vs the messenger thing going on here.

If the message is bad news I don't kill the messenger, in this case, the stereo. The message is the music. IOW I won't fault a system for playing it like it is- that is resolution plain and simple. OTOH resolution is **not** 'detail with added brightness'; I call that 'detail with added brightness' :)

IME a system with a bright or clinical quality is obscuring the musical message. That's not resolution!
i understand the arguments favoring reproducing what is there, no more no less, but very often, a recording is so far removed from reality that you either want to throw the recording out the window, or "edit" the stereo system.

i understand your analogy of the art gallery. although i think you exaggerate, the art gallery represents reality, as does the concert hall. while i prefer sitting in the last row in the orchestra at concerts, at an art gallery, i could stand 20 to 40 feet, but would not distort my vision if i did not like the painting.

MrT, with a concert hall preference that you have, it is no wonder that that you find difficulty with the perspective that the recording industry presents!! Most label give you somewhere in the neighborhood of front row center. Usually the perspective is higher than the seats would be though.

At any rate this is not a resolution issue. You simply don't like most recordings because you prefer a distant perspective, about as far away as you can get while still in the same room, from what I can make out.

Had you considered getting a digital delay or the like to lend a sense of distance to your recordings?