On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 18:16:19 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 17:08:20 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 15:57:25 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:54:07 +0000 (UTC), Stewart Pinkerton used
to say...

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 13:25:55 +0100, Kurt Hamster
wrote:

Surely that depends on your definition of "bad" doesn't it?

It's a simple definition - if what comes out of an amplifier is not a
larger but otherwise identical version of what went in, then it's a
bad amplfier. Not a difficult concept - it's called high fidelity.

And if it was designed that way?

Then the designer designed a bad amplfier. It happens - mostly at very
inflated prices.

No, he designed an amplifier to do a specific job. When will you get
over your arrogance that presupposes that if you think it's bad then
that's what it is?

Nothing to do with me, it's basic definition of what an amplifier
should do - *just* amplify.

To me 'bad' is if it doesn't do the job it is intended for.

A Rover City does the job it was intended for - it's still a bad car!

How can it be bad if it does the job?

It does it very badly - kinda like a 2A3 amplifier............

Strange how they're called "amplifiers" and not a "non-transformer of
sound.

Or am I wrong in believing 'amplifier' just means to "make louder"?

Correct - *just* to make louder, not to EQ. For that function, we have
EQ - duh....

So why does every amplifier on the planet do more than just make the
sound louder?

Not audibly, it doesn't...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering