Jim Lesurf wrote:
In article , Rob
wrote:

Do you think most off the shelf amplifiers are designed to be driven
hard continuously, and if not, how is the sound affected?

I still don't understand this 'all modern amplifiers sound the same'
thing - hence the question!

The problem with such vague and sweeping assertions or questions is that
any 'answers' can only either also be vague and sweeping, or be based on a
set of a assumptions that may not always apply.

I would suspect that different amplifiers will be designed on the basis of
a range of various assumptions about what the amp is to cope with.

Ignoring the "modern" I can make a clear distinction.

When Ted Rule designed the Armstrong 600 series amps he made them to work
up to about 40wpc continuous. But with small heatsinks, so you could only
get high levels for a modest time. Reason being that at the time most audio
fans listened to music with a high peak/mean ratio and with a wide dynamic
range. Generally with speakers that were not a difficult load.


As it happens, I got one of those (1974, a receiver) on ebay recently,
works perfectly. I just use it for radio with some Dynaudio speakers.

But when I designed the 700 I made them work up to much higher sustained
levels, into lower loads, and gave them far bigger heatsinks. Reason being
that by c1980 people wanted to play louder music on less efficient speakers
with more awkwards impedances.

Not sure I understand - are you saying the 700 series could play music
at high levels for sustained periods, whereas the 600 series could play
music to similar levels, but only for short periods, beyond which they
broke?

And ever more of the music audio fans were
choosing had started down the hill to having boooger-all dynamic range and
peak/mean ratio.


Don't understand that.

Some amps will clip or current limit in situations where another will not.
Some will have their output modified by variations in load in a different
way to others. etc. You may or not notice any difference, depending on the
use circumstances.


I've been using a NAD 3020 perfectly happily for the past couple of
months. At low levels I would not claim to be able to differentiate
between the NAD and any of the SS amps I have (or had, I suspect). But
at higher levels I'm pretty sure something's going on - things that I
identify as difference. Won't bore anyone with adjectives but it's to do
with bass in the main.

I agree that "all modern amplifiers sound the same" is as daft an assertion
as "all amplifiers sound different to the other". The reality, though, may
be that many 'modern' amplifiers used in many situations produce results
which the users would be unable to distinguish simply on the basis of the
sound.


I'd agree with that on the whole. I'm pretty sure that the speakers I
use (Dynaudio) contribute to my 'amplifiers can vary' experience/thesis.

Rob