In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
.. .

"Keith G" wrote


S'funny, we keep getting told how 'good amps' don't have a
sound....???

**Because that is a fact. The ideal amplifier has no 'sound' of it's
own. No amplifier is ideal.


Therefore no amplifier has no 'sound' of its own then?

**Nope. That's not what I said.



It's what it looks like to me - your words (as above): "The ideal
amplifier has no 'sound' of it's own. No amplifier is ideal." - what
conclusion could be possibly drawn from that statement other than all
amplifiers are not ideal and therefore have a 'sound'...??

I can suggest at least two "conclusions" which fit with what Trevor said.

1) That "ideal" is defined in this context to mean what he wrote. i.e. that
an ideal amp would/will have no "sound".

2) That this isn't a matter of a false dichtomy. i.e. *some* amps might
have no "sound". Not a matter of all or none.

In the above respect I have my doubt about the way people are trying to use
both terms, "ideal" and "sound".

So far as I know there have been various controlled tests where no-one
listening was able to distinguish one of the amps under comparison from
another. Also tests where no-one was able to distinguish the amp followed
by a resistive attenuator from a wire bypass. Thus I doubt it is the case
that no amp is "ideal" in the terms Trevor used.

The reason such tests have been rare in audio mags in recent years may be
that the reviewers got fed up with tests whose results indicated that they
could not find reliable evidence to support their belief that they could
hear differences, plus that doing such a test requires more time, care, and
understanding than they could be bothered to apply. :-)

Also, the "sound" produced by the amp is as a result of feeding it with an
imput signal and playing its output via a speaker. This definition means it
is a result of how it may (or may not) alter the signal in a way that has
an audible effect. That means the "sound" depends on both the signal used
and the loudspeakers, and is based upon any signal alterations made by the
amp in that use.

Of course, the amp may be adding audible noise/hum and making mechanical
buzzing noises which might be a "sound" of its own. Otherwise any "sound"
will be based on it altering the signal so that the output isn't simply a
scaled version of the input, and the changes are large enough to be
audible.

Personally, what I've found interesting over the years is just how large
the changes in signal waveforms can be in some situations without people
actually noticing, yet people say they can hear things when tests relying
on sound alone fail to support their claim.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html