I've moved this from the thread "Newbie question on amplifers (sorry!)"
which at present centres on the different matter of the double
standards of the "engineers" who claim all amps sound the same (when
appropriately applied) or should sound the same, but who every now and
again tell us how this amp or that sounds "better". I don't see much
joy in discussing their hypocrisy with a bunch of stumblebum
soundbiters, though I delight in discussing it with more articulate
foils. This article is about how the engineers, and the "engineers" too
(because we seem to have more of them), are right at least half the
time, and possibly on both counts, so if you're squeamish, or a SETtie,
or open-minded, do yourself a favour and spare your blood pressure by
not reading further.

The key is the phrase which names our hobby: "high fidelity
reproduction of recorded music at home", usually just rendered as "high
fidelity" or "hi-fi". Consider the words, which are a precise
description and have been a precise description since roundabout WW2.
We should ask two questions:

1. What is fidelity? This is usually taken to be a window on the
concert hall.

2. Have we achieved fidelity? The answer is generally agreed to be
negative, so that we talk about the closest approach to the concert
hall, and invariably speak only of qualified fidelity, as in "high"
fidelity.

The sort of "engineers" who are lost once one proceeds beyond the
easiest element of the audio chain (by a magnitude or several), the
amplifier, say they are not responsible for the failure to achieve
unqualified fidelity. Their responsibility ends when they faithfully
reproduce the master tape in the home. Their concept of faithful
reproduction of the mastertape is defined by them as noiselessness and
measured as very low harmonic distortion, which today is trivial to
achieve in silicon amps. Even distortion many tens decibels below
audibility is today trivial to achieve in push-pull tube amps, and
merely expensive rather than difficult to achieve even in single-ended
triode amps. The more reasonable of this lowest, least imaginative
level of "engineers" therefore have an irrefutable point (if one
accepts their presumptions): once success has been achieved in lowering
THD to almost vanishing point, all amplfiers, including valve
amplifiers should sound the same. The cheapest possible amplifier with
reasonable THD, capable of driving any reasonably conceivable speaker,
should therefore do everyone. By the laws of economics, eventually the
cheapest, inevitably silicon, amplifier will have a monopoly. In an
ideal world this will, on current showing, probably be a Class D
digital amp, because nothing else can be built cheaper for more power
with lower distortion. Some of the "engineers" prove that they are at
least nominally human by displaying an irrational hatred of tube amps
well beyond the rational (if one agrees with the assumptions so far)
objection to them on grounds of cost. All of this works well, but also
only works *if* the listener is willing to separate matters of culture
from technology.

There is another view. It proceeds empirically. It might be called the
"cultural" view. To it belongs those who regularly attend concerts, who
are unimpressed by the technological fads of the anoraks, who have
cultivated and educated tastes, who have the confidence not to be
fashion victims, and the intelligence and will to stand up against what
they see as a tide of technoligical barbarism even in the arts. Though
these audiophiles may not know much about the tricky technicalities of
loudspeakers, they instinctively chooses the loudspeakers first, if not
at first certainly by the second or third hi-fi setup bought. This
group soon becomes dissatisfied with the mantra "all amplifiers sound
the same", and the excuse, "we reproduce the master tape with inaudible
noise--what more do you want?" They can hear for themselves that what
is produced is a long way from what they heard in the concert hall.
They soon discover that not all amplifiers are equal because they do
not all sound the same. On investigation they soon discover that all
these amplifiers which do not sound the same for practical purposes
measure the same. How can it be that some amplifiers cast a cold chill
over music while measuring the same as the ones which come closer to
the experience in the concert hall? It is not a big step to conclude
that the wrong thing is being measured. Next they discover that the
worst-measuring amps sound the most like the music in the concert hall,
and by then their faith in the "engineers" is totally destroyed.

So, the "engineers" are right, all amps that are properly designed and
made should sound the same. Unfortunately, since the "engineers" have
measured success by the wrong yardstick, there are no amps that are
properly designed and made because no amp perfectly reproduces the
concert hall in the home. The two that come closest, in the opinion of
cultured concert goers, are the ones considered most wretched according
to their preferred "standards" by the "engineers" in hi-fi: The Yamaha
digital signal processor with its soundshaping, and the wasteful and
expensive Class A tube amp. (The SET fashion is merely a distraction; I
haven proven again and again in blind tests that what professional
musicians prefer is Class A zero (or very low) negative feedback sound,
not necessarily single-ended or triode sound.)

There is yet another view. This is held by those who claim that they
have a right to reproduce music in their homes in a form that pleases
them best, without reference to the concert hall. They are in the vast
majority and include the growing AV movement. They are not discussed
here; thi discussion is between a couple of elites in miniscule niche
markets all sitting on a single pinhead. That is also, ironically, the
problem for the "engineers", that they have talked themselves into a
corner of lowest common denominator, cheapest possible machinery, yet
wish to present themselves as an elite who have better ears or better
taste or simply more money than anyone else. Delicious!

******

Let's flesh out this argument with a specific example:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
But surely the most famous of all 'they all sound alike' tests was between
the Quad II valve, 303 and 405 SS amps? Which certainly won't sound like
an SET. And I'd guess the Krell would fit in with the Quads on that test -
which involved running those amps within spec.

Thanks, Dave. I wasn't at the original test but I have owned all these
Quad amps you mention, and currently own two of them, the Quad II tube
and 405 SS. I also have the appropriate speakers, the ESL and ESL63. In
addition I have a wide variety of other SS and tube amps. My tube amps
include single-ended triode (SET) amps from one-third watt to 75W, and
push-pull tube amps from 10W to over 100W, so I can make a direct
comparison at any power I please (though I am thoroughly contemptuous
of the "engineers" claim that you need a gazillion watts and even more
contemptuous of their claim that the only valid listening is at high
volume).

My memory of the 303 is that it definitely sounded different from the
Quad II and from the 405 as well, and that the difference was marked.
But that is memory, so let us leave the 303 there and concentrate on
amps I have sitting on the table right next to me.

I can state categorically that to me the Quad II tube and 405 MkII amps
sound different on any of the speakers available to me right now (Bang
& Olufsen S25, Quad ESL. Quad ESL63, Lowther horns of various types,
various DIY speaks with drivers from Scanspeak to guitar specialties).
It also isn't difficult to determine that the QII and 405 sound
different from several other silicon and tube amps both bought and of
my own design and construction.

In fact, the QII and the 405 are closer to each other and to my
favourites among my other amps than they are to their respective types
(SS or tube). The key is that both these amps lack that offensive
sharpness which after an hour fatigues the listener. My amps are on a
minimum of sixteen hours a day in my study or studio and often for 30
hours straight if I'm on a roll. I require civilized amps. I like
civilized music, civilized arts in general; I don't go to a concert or
to the theatre to be harassed by the egos or political whims of idiots,
so why should I permit my hi-fi to cast a chill over the pleasure of my
day?

Yet that is precisely what the SS amps, and the tube amps, of the
"engineers" do: they cast a chill which wasn't present in the concert
hall. The elements of this chill might consist of a spurious precision
(do you really want to hear the spittle burbling inside a wind
instrument?) or separation either in instruments or in soundstaging. We
can discuss the details of what is wrong with offensive amps (including
the technical one of NFB) but the key is that cultured, experienced
audiophiles prefer the Quad amps because of their high livability
quotient.

Therefore, if Peter Walker wants to claim his amps all sound the same,
let him. I don't think they do. I think they sound like other Quad amps
more than like other amps of the same type or age, true, but they do
not sound precisely the same. If they did, why would the later Quad
amps be necessary?

(Commercial reasons apart, I mean. I once had a long conversation with
Ross Walker on the Quad 66 and 67 CD players, which do sound precisely
the same, as CD players are wont to. He agreed with me on the sound,
then warned me that no editor would want me to say that they sounded
the same. He was right. Now, Walker didn't actually admit that the
purpose of the Q67 was just to jazz up flagging sales--he laughed and
changed the subject--, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was one very
large reason.)

It seems to me that, in the face of the "allampssoundthesame" logic,
new amps are continually being developed because the real engineers
(not the ones we get, who require pejorative quotation marks) have
quietly given up on the mantra and are voicing amps by ear... Their
attitudes are filtering down to the "engineers", which accounts for
their schizoprhenically strained remarks, followed by confused
denials, about this amp or that amp "sounding better". I wouldn't trust
their ears, not after the years of abuse they have given them by
playing their music at levels high enough to hide the artifacts of the
very high levels of NFB required for the vanishing THD. Their sneers
that anything less than deafening volume is "easy listening" will now
rebound on them. Justice!

Andre Jute
Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/
"wonderfully well written and reasoned information
for the tube audio constructor"
John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare
"an unbelievably comprehensive web site
containing vital gems of wisdom"
Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review