"Andy Evans" wrote in message
oups.com...
"we can see audible flaws" v. "we can see no obviously audible
flaws." (Trevor)

This is really the problem with your thinking here. You can't "see"
sound in its entirity. You can "see" a representation which, like all
representations, is merely acting in place of the original. I can see
quite clearly that your desire to refer your arguments to such
representations is seductive to your own ways of analysis, but it's
clear from our panel of "SET idiots" here that it doesn't satisfy the
musical brains of discriminating listeners who need to actually hear
those minute musical differences which, for instance, discriminate
between a Stradivarius and a practice violin.

The choice of such an amplifier is, therefore, a rejection of the
musician's/producer's philosophy.

A musician isn't a producer. A musician has ears, not philosophies of
sound. A musician would no more buy a Stradivarius because of its
frequency response plots than he would.........
(here comes to mind the immortal words of my harmony tutor at the
Royal Academy of Music in London "Andy, Beethoven would no more have
written that chord than he would have ****ed his own mother...)

Do musicians flock to concert halls to look at scores of the Rite of
Spring? Of course not - they listen to sound like we all do. Why are
you so hung up about representations? The rest of us listen to the
stuff we build and judge with our ears.

You're going to tell us now that our ears are inadequate to hear sound
- I can just see you creeping round the corner as I write.


Andy. On the subject of SET, TWis conveniently forgetting the fact that
good SETs run at very low power, and are used with sensitive loudspeakers.
Such a system can fill a good sized room with magnificent music at 1W.
At such a low power, the THD is usually 0.1%

Iain