JustMe wrote:

Many of you chaps believe that the Peter Walker(?)
"straight-wire"
ideal
is
that which any "hifi" designer should aspire to construct.

Do you think that this is attainable?

To all intents and purposes it has been attained in all good SS
amps
(And a handful of exceptional valve amps)

Please can you suggest some examples? (Hopefully I will know at
least
one!)

Audiolab 8000S, and the 8000P power amp. Common enough, and
essentually 'blameless', as Doug Self would say.

Well I know these amps very well and used to own an 8000S, so I'd find
that
to be a useful reference.

So, who's going to build me an Alchemist Kraken APD6aII filter for use
with
an 8000S then?

That depends what was wrong with the Kraken! If it's not a simple FR
difference, then a filter isn't going to do it. From your description,
it sounds more likely that it was a combination of weak bass and high
distortion, either crossover or HF IMD. You could likely synthesise
this with a good DSP unit (and a good programmer!), but wouldn't it be
simpler just to buy another amp?

There's nothing wrong with the Kraken - I love it, it sounds better than
the
Audiolab (see thread "Amp swap disappointment" for more).

Of course, there's something wrong with the Kraken, otherwise it would
sound like any other good amp! Please don't use terms like 'sounds
better', when what you mean is that *you* prefer some particular
nonlinearity.

You know it's funny, but as I typed those words, I remembered an arguement I
had with you, maybe a year or two ago in which you made the same pedantic
point. I would say it was time for you to change the record, but you don't
use records, do you?

I will, once again, explain that the Alchemist amp DOES sound better and
that ANY statement of preference in sound-quality is, by its very nature, a
personal one. I can no more tell you what to prefer than you can tell me and
it would be arrogant and misguided to assume otherwise.

If you accept that ANY judgement of "better", when discussing what is
undeniably a subjective issue, is personal, then you wont have the need to
stir up the same old argument about "opinion stated as fact" - which, no
doubt, would've been your next salvo - when it is clear that any opinion on
a subjective issue can ONLY be personal.

I could quite happily turn your argument around and quote your use of "any
other good amp". The Alchemist *is* good - in fact it is *better* than many
of the amps which you prefer P

Please don't use terms such as "any other good amp" when what you mean is
that *you* prefer sterile, uninspiring, unemotional, clinical, flat sound.

I don't want to buy another amp - I'm going to flog the Audiolab shortly
and
continue to enjoy the pleasures of the Kraken.
If you were to apply any simple description to the sound, it wouldn't be
weak bass, in my opinion, but rounded-off HF.

Fine, so that's your preference, no problem.

So then, from what you and others would say, the "filters" or "DSPs" used
now, are NOT able to accurately emulate other amps with accuracy and the
technology to do so may be some way off and/or be too expensive?

As noted, it depends what's wrong with the Kraken. It might be easily
simulated, or it might take a serious box of DSP tricks.

If something is engineered to sound a certain way, then there is nothing
wrong with it when it performs as engineered. If it functions true to its
design then there is nothing "wrong" with the Kraken.

Unless you are suggesting that each Kraken doesn't perform as intended?

Audio is Engineering

As you say...