"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G
wrote:

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**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".


That's what he said.



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.


That's not what he said.



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. :-)


A variation on the 'if it sounds good, measure it until you know it
*isn't* good'...??



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.


Or not, according to the individual - which is why/how some people can
claim one amp is 'better' than another...



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.


I place little value on short duration listening tests - to much hidden
voodoo at work - my method (and the one I would recommend) is to spend a
period of many weeks or some months comparing two similar pieces of kit.
A clear choice will evolve without having to make a decision, I usually
find...