"Ian Molton" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 23:54:29 +0100
"Keith G" wrote:

Well Id have to say that a good amp is faithful in its reproduction
of the input signal at its output, wheras a bad one (however
pleasant to listen to) is not.


Mr Molton, you really don't want to get sucked in by all the
'techno********' in the group,

I know some of the other posters from elsewhere (eg., Jim Lesurf) and I
know for a fact that he doesnt talk ********.


OK, I'm glad to see you don't place too much reliance on the ****e spouted
by one or two other loud and mouthy posters here who, don't have a tiny
fraction of Jim's knowledge and experience!



the best amp is the one that *sounds* best to you in your own system.

No, that'd be my *favourite* amp, not (necessarily) the best.


OK, see below....



amplifiers have one job - to amplify a signal - and they are
*everywhere*.


OK, see below....



With the exception of special cases where they are deliberately driven
into clipping for effect, their designers are almost always after the
best linearity they can get within the frequency band they wish to
amplify. The same applies to the v-output amp in my TV as to the
detector amp in my radio, the output amp on my DAC, the cell drivers on
my LCD, etc.

only in audio have I ever seen amps revered for the fact that they DONT
have good linearity.


OK, see below....



Sure, I may prefer the sound of one amp to another, btu the GOOD one is
the linear one.


OK, see below....



And for the obvious example, I *love* the sound of the early valve radio
I have lurking about somewhere (front got smashed a long time ago and I
havent really used it since, sadly). Round, mellow, smooth sound. very
nice indeed. but about as lo-fi as you could get - a cheap set and old
too. I'd NEVER claim it was a good amplifier, but I did like it.


OK, see below....



Incidentally, IF you think Im after the 'best' amp please tell me why I
am bothering to restore my Quad405, rather than buying a newer better
amp ?


Well, I guess the answer to that has to be - No idea, what do you regard
would be a 'better' amp?

OK, I have to say I don't really see the point your are making. You seem to
be well aware that 'best' or 'better' doesn't necessarily mean 'new' or
'expensive' or even necessarily the most linear?? (Am I right? - I wouldn't
want to presume.... ;-) You also seem quite willing to admit there factors
other than 'straightforward specifications' which might come into play when
someone chooses or describes their 'best' amp? In which case you are,
perhaps, not quite so at odds with me as you seem to be so desperately tring
to be???

I'm only interested in the 'best' (by my own standards) sound I can get for
the money I am able/prepared to spend. I'm not a (failed or never was)
'engineer' and don't much care for depth of technicalities that have no real
impact on my appreciation of any kit I use - I leave that to the *real*
engineers and designers (ie those who are actually employed in the
industry - not wannabee bull****ters). I claim *no* technical knowledge or
expertise and never have. I am not even presumtive enough to describe the
sound I get from my own kit as necessarily being any good and rely on the
opinions of others to confirm any 'improvements' to it....

I dip into a small selection of (both valve and ss) amplifiers according to
my needs and like them all for entirely different reasons. Contrary to the
ludicrous claims by someone who has heard none of them, they all sound good
enough (to me) to use and enjoy. There are differences, but none so vast as
to render any of these amps 'unuseable' and I can accomodate anything after
a short while. Although, having said that I was a bit disappointed last
night to realise how much 'not listening' I had done when I cut one of my
little Technics ss amps in and had R3 on...!

Now, I suggest you don't waste any more of your life (it's far too short) in
responding to this somewhat futile thread.....