[andyr]

It seems to me that the goal of high fidelity reproduction should start with the concept that the source should be viewed as having an initial distortion level of zero.  Any added distortion or corruption of the signal before it reaches our ears is a deviation from the original base condition. ...

Absolutement, Scotty!

I take your statement to read "just because a glass amp adds harmonic distortion doesn't mean it makes the music sound better"??  (Even though, compared to the live music, the recording process HAS added some distortion!   )

And yet many/all? glass amps do (add distortion)!

However, I've been following an interesting thread about amplifier clipping in "General Asylum" and I wonder whether the "attraction" of high-HD glass amps is perhaps due to the fact that they "clip softly" compared to sand amps?

This GA thread has been about measurements "Pjay" has done which show that very fast transients exist of at least 100 times the average wattage.  All amps clip when this occurs but tube amps clip less obnoxiously ("soft clipping") than ss amps.  Hence they sound better to our ears.  

The implication from this is that (all other things being equal!! - which they never are) a 1000w ss amp will always sound better than a 50w tube amp because it never goes into clipping.

Interesting thought!  

Regards,

Andy

[ooheadsoo]

Actually, that would depend on the efficiency of the speaker, and I recall reading that there was some debate on whether it was cheaper to make a speaker more efficient or to make an amp more powerful.

[andyr]

Actually, that would depend on the efficiency of the speaker, and I recall reading that there was some debate on whether it was cheaper to make a speaker more efficient or to make an amp more powerful.

Yes, there was ... but so what!  That's an academic wank, in my view!     The subject was not "which is cheaper" ... it was "maybe this is the main sound-difference factor between glass and sand amps (ie. the soft clipping)".

Regards,

Andy

[AKSA]

Scotty,

You commented:

.... but I feel that the deviation from the goal of high fidelity reproduction should be acknowledged. The decision has been made that the sound of the original recording is not deemed "musical","real", or pleasing enough, without alteration.

This is the purist approach, and it is a noble ideal.  Further, the semantics of the descriptor 'high fidelity' would appear to be well on your side, and I would endorse your comments about calling a spade a spade.  However, consider this:  in the present audio market, to so do would be the commercial kiss of death!  Can you imagine?  'We introduce distortion into our amplifier quite deliberately because we know you'll all like it, it really does sound better!'  Goodness, who'd buy that amp?  

However, your later comments lapse tragically into subjectivism    , to wit:

I also have noticed that "life" or a dynamic quality is very fragile and is frequently an early casualty of the "audiophile" sound although the converse also seems to happen almost as frequently, tonal and timbral accuracy as well as the frequency extremes are sacrificed for perceived dynamics.

You could argue that dynamics are measureable, though 'life' is not.  (I call this quality 'lifeforce';  you can see I agree with your observations and broadly support your experience!)  You refer to the 'audiophile sound', which I presume is all around us - doubtless in a salon near you!     You then refer to tonal and timbral accuracy, and touch on 'perceived' dynamics.  As it happens, and FWIW, I agree with most of your comments, but let's examine this further.

You ideally want true fidelity;  absolute accuracy, nothing added or taken out.  But you refer to some abstracts which are probably not measureable, at least with music, and which remain as hotly debated today as they were thirty years back (though the words have become ever more onanistic...... )  How can we measure the fidelity of these qualities?  In short, you would appear, like most of us, to want it all - true, measurable high fidelity, quantified in a single figure; 'life', and 'tonal and timbral accuracy', preferably quantified also.  Fair call - generally I would assume you would like all those features which until now have clearly distinguished the real from the recorded.  And some gear does come very close to offering these fine qualities.......

Of course, this technology is probably mimicking much of life itself.  Here's a few examples.  We shouldn't speed on the highway, but we often do.  We shouldn't overindulge drugs/alcohol but we often do.  We shouldn't partake of pre-marital sex/extra-marital affairs, but we do.  We should focus on the job at hand and complete it to everyone's satisfaction, but we often don't.  We should design/construct with integrity, and cut no corners, but we often fail there, too.   We should reduce stress in our lives, but our very diet, work habits and general demeanour does just the opposite....  The list is endless;  life itself is a compromise, and perhaps it is a truism that the recording process is flawed, and it could be that introducing lost harmonics in tiny quantities might actually sound better......  But then, this is quite clearly corruption, and should be dismissed forthwith for the humbug it clearly is.....

Rather than rail against the realities of a compromised technology, I am saying that we should try to work within its limitations, and consider the unthinkable regardless of our previous training and prejudices.  This is, of course, very difficult to do, and the more education we have had, the more we 'know' it is tantamount to heresy.  And yet, Scotty, all progress in pretty much every human endeavour depends on the determination of unreasonable men (and women), and often the greatest discoveries come from the oddest quarters.

I have remarked on this before, and I'll risk boring everyone again:  Fifty years of pursuing the 'straight wire with gain' has not produced a strong correlation with universal, sonic appeal.  Why is this?  What are we missing?  

I hope I have not angered you with this diatribe;  I feel very strongly that progress is only made by being unreasonable, and this unreason is not directed against you at all.  Rather, it is an endeavour to explain my position, and try to get some valuable feedback!

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Hi Hugh,

I absolootely agree with everything you've said in response to Scotty's post, yet ... I wonder if you'd care to comment about "Pjay's" proposition, which is:

"there are so many (micro-second) huge dynamic peaks in sound reproduction - actually, partickerly LP!     -  that all except the kilowatt amps clip" ... but, of course, this depends on:
* what sound level you listen at, and
* whether you have super efficient speakers or super inefficient, like my Maggies!  

However ... tube amps exhibit "soft clipping" which makes them sound more attractive than ss amps!!

Solution for ss amps ... implement a "soft clipping" circuit or make them super powerful so they never clip!  

Regards,

Andy

[AKSA]

Andy,

Almost any moderately sized amp will clip on real music at normal listening levels.  Tubes take around 15dB to fully clip;  SS designs typically take around 1db - the clip is quite abrupt and very hard sounding because of the Fourier artefacts created at the clip transitions.  However, it's important to realise that almost every recording made is artificially dynamically limited, typically around 70dB - though CD can theoretically go to around 96dB.  This helps the clip situation for amps of lesser power.

Clipping is both a matter of degree and of speed;  it may not happen very often, and it may also be very quick to recover.  The Zero FB amps traditionally recover in microsections;  but the correction issues of global negative FB amps can lead to short term instability, ringing, and complete loss of transfer control which could last into the tens of microseconds.

The emphasis here should be on speed.  It's incredibly important.  I can hear the difference very clearly between a 30MHz and a 100MHz voltage amplifier;  it's absolutely stunningly apparent.

You are dead right, Andy, clipping is important.  But a symmetrical clip is not, in my experience, a requirement, indicating as it does a preponderance of odd order harmonic distortion.

And, in response to your next question, I'm referring to all amps, though my point on symmetrical clip applies in particular to SS amps!

Cheers,

Hugh

[andyr]

Andy, ....

The emphasis here should be on speed. It's incredibly important. I can hear the difference very clearly between a 30MHz and a 100MHz voltage amplifier; it's absolutely stunningly apparent!!

You are dead right, Andy, clipping is important.  But a symmetrical clip is not, in my experience, a requirement, indicating as it does a preponderance of odd order harmonic distortion.

Cheers,

Hugh quote]Sorry, Hugh ... you've lost me!!  

You say: "The emphasis here should be on speed"  and  "a symmetrical clip is not, in my experience, a requirement, indicating as it does a preponderance of odd order harmonic distortion".

Are you talking about a glass amp here, or ss?

Regards,

Andy

[Geoff-AU]

I'll start by commenting on Hugh's original points, this'll be a lengthy post so for anyone who doesn't have the time I've provided Cliff notes at the bottom

1. Definitely - any hi-fi amp should at least have "acceptably" low amounts of THD (as opposed to "vanishingly").
2. Sounds completely logical to me.  Same happens with speakers - the off-axis response has less HF.
3. If losing HF is unavoidable, harmonics should be compensated for but I disagree that this should happen at the playback stage.  It should be measured and compensated for at the recording stage.  All recording devices are unequal and one amp cannot hope to accurately complement the deficiencies of a wide range of music.
4. Tubes do add some nice harmonics, but as above this shouldn't be necessary in theory.  In practice, we have a lot more control over the playback stage than the recording stage, hence the dilemma!
5. This should be done with a careful ear towards getting the "sound" that the artist wants.  At this point it's a question of impressionism rather than brutally accurate recording.
6. Logically I agree, although I don't think low order should be added to mask high order.  The high order should be removed instead.
7. Agree that this makes the sound more likeable, but would consider pushing the level of distortion lower than that if we're in the pursuit of "hi-fi" rather than simply enjoying music.

Having an amplifier that adds 2H/3H information to the signal is not "high fidelity" in its purest sense, unless the amount of distortion added is negligible.  At the end of the day you are colouring the sound - Doug Self made a comment that amuses me about an amp having a "niceness" knob adding low order distortion to the music.

That said, no amp produces ZERO distortion.  If an amp does have to produce SOME distortion, I'd rather it be "musical" 2H/3H tones rather than high order stuff that sounds nasty.  

The obsession with THD figures does not guarantee good sound by any means.  I have heard systems in the past which sounded clinically accurate and incredibly boring.  All of the components measured very well, and yet the final system lacked "involvement" in the music.  This is why I screw my nose up at anything Leo Simpson is involved in.  He's a measurabator through and through.

If we're not talking about hi-fi then all arguments become null and void - if someone wants to colour the sound artificially by adding 2H and 3H then they should be allowed to.  Just don't pretend that the result is high fidelity.  This then leads into the great murky grey area - should we be pursuing ultimate accuracy or ultimate enjoyment?  Like Hugh said, there are SE triode amps out there with 2% THD that "sound fantastic".

Personally, my demands for a playback system are that it is "accurate" and "enjoyable" - these are general rather than absolute qualities.  I don't subscribe to deliberately colouring the sound, but neither do I have any desire to chase the ultimate measurement.  A distortion analyser will not give you a complete picture of an amp's behaviour, neither will just listening to it.  Measuring tools and the human ear behave in completely different ways (the ear is very non-linear yet adept at picking out things that are lost on a CRO trace).  As such an amplifier designer should use ALL tools that are available to him and use them to their strengths.  If an amp measures badly then it indicates a problem.  Likewise if it sounds awful.

So that's the hi-fi part out of the way.  Next, as I briefly alluded to in point 5, at the recording stage it's often the case that tubes are God.  Why? Because they DO colour the sound, and the clipping behaviour is completely different.  This is not a pursuit of fidelity, it is an artist using the tools they have to express themselves by creating sound (same with different pickups and mics and all that jazz).  Even in my very limited music collection I don't have to go past Lenny Kravitz for someone who uses tube distortion to great effect in his music.  Would Lenny be as good if he used a transistor mic without an "overload" setting?  Course not!  Lenny decided what he wants it to sound like.  What if I now say I want another 2% of 2H distortion so his voice sounds warm and fuzzy?  That's impressionism on my part.  Clipping should "never" enter the picture in the playback phase however.  That's an example of gross alteration of the signal and the "soft clipping" ability of tubes is of limited use IMO.  The occasional light clip at loud volumes is practically inaudible in solid state land, and fixing it requires only a mild tweak of the volume to make your ears bleed a little less

I came across a great quote a while ago, and can't for the life of me remember the author or the full quote.  Essentially it said that in science, you must pursue further knowledge based on what you already know while keeping your mind open to totally rejecting your previous beliefs.  We once believed the earth was flat and the centre of the universe. 'nuff said.

In my experience there is NO DOUBT that there must be something in the "high-end Audio land" that verifies your idea that we may actually need to deviate a bit from "accuracy" in order to better re-create the actual event.

I think you're heading down the right path with that comment.  But any deviation from accuracy needs to be taken carefully.  As a designer you should always be asking yourself WHY you are disregarding a measurement or listening test.  For example, Hugh's use of a simple resistive feed for the LTP and a resistive loading

I credit Hugh's focus on empirical data and listening tests backed up by sufficient measurement to indicate that the performance is good.  It's a pragmatic way of designing things because at the end of the day, we're using our ears to listen not an electronic meter!  The objective, technical specs like THD, slew rates and frequency response are indicators to good performance, not guarantors.  They should be treated as such (ie approached with equal parts eagerness and caution).  If I was designing an amplifier I would use component spec sheets, measuring tools and listening tests in tandem.

Cliff notes
* Amps should measure "well enough" to be classed as hi-fi, and this should be backed up by empirical tests which indicate the amp is an enjoyable listen.
* Multiple measuring tools should be used, and used to their strengths.  The ear is also a measuring tool (very non-linear yet exceptionally adept in many ways).
* Small amounts of 2H and 3H are permissible in preference to higher order distortion.  However I don't believe lashings of distortion are necessary to enjoy music.
* Any amp which has high distortion characteristics moves from "reproduction" to "impressionism".  If that's your game and you enjoy it then more power to you.  It could be an aurally orgasmic experience, just don't call it "hi-fi"
* The distortion and clipping behaviour of tubes can be used to great effect in the production of music, but I don't believe them to be necessary to good reproduction.

[Geoff-AU]

Fifty years of pursuing the 'straight wire with gain' has not produced a strong correlation with universal, sonic appeal. Why is this? What are we missing?

In a rather philosophical moment, I'll suggest that the main thing you'd be missing would be those 50 years, and perhaps the ability to enjoy music that you lost whilst doggedly chasing a pipe dream (pardon the pun)

[audiojerry]

I just picked up on this thread, but thank you, Hugh, for initiating a very interesting topic. I wonder if the discussion will remain civil and not offend anyone  

Do your thoughts here allude to a possible change in your personal design philosophy, or possible changes in the AKSA? I am aware that your goal has always been to serve the music, and you've done it well, while
acknowledging that any design involves compromises. The time I spent with the AKSA was most enjoyable, and as a tube camper, I found it more tubelike than solid-state like.    

Overall, I still preferred the sound of my tube amp to the AKSA, but ultimately, I'd love to see an SS amp that combined the musical attributes of well-executed tubes with the technical superiority of SS. I am hoping that you can make continued progress in this direction.

If we're not talking about hi-fi then all arguments become null and void - if someone wants to colour the sound artificially by adding 2H and 3H then they should be allowed to. Just don't pretend that the result is high fidelity. ".

This comment seems to suggest that high fidelity is determined by the level of distortion. I would also include resolution. I personally place a premium on resolution. While my tube amp may have a higher degree of 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion, it is also very highly resolving. In fact the highest resolving amp I've heard has been an OTL tube amp. At the same time this OTL, an Atmasphere, probably measured relatively less well on distortion.

[AKSA]

Good points, Geoff,

Thanks for your comments.

Not right about the music, however.  I still love it.  As I was driving home along Springvale Road  from buying stock today, I heard Brahms 3rd Piano Concerto (I think it was his 3rd, memory a bit hazy) on my appalling car radio, circa 1986.  It was lyrical, almost reduced me to tears.....

Cheers,

Hugh

[ooheadsoo]

That's an academic wank, in my view!     The subject was not "which is cheaper" ... it was "maybe this is the main sound-difference factor between glass and sand amps (ie. the soft clipping)".

Regards,

Andy

Wank??  You were the one implying that a 1000w ss amp will always sound better than a 50w tube.

Edit: Never mind, I just realized that you have more money than me, that's all.

[andyr]

Wank??  You were the one implying that a 1000w ss amp will always sound better than a 50w tube.

Edit: Never mind, I just realized that you have more money than me, that's all.

Actually, headsy old chap, I made no such claim.  I merely introduced an idea being put forward on another Forum, the gist of which I thought might interest readers here.

I certainly don't have a 1000w amp myself ... remember, this is the AKSA Forum; I would've thought most people here own (or are thinking of owning) an AKSA amp - 109w into 8 ohms is the maximum available.

Regards,

Andy

[AKSA]

Audiojerry,

Thanks for your post.  My thoughts expressed here have prevailed for a long time, in fact, and the AKSA incorporates the thinking pretty well.  At this stage I have no plans to add to the AKSAs;  there are three levels available now for both amplifiers, and the N+ is difficult to beat sonically on a commercial level.  But your point is well made......

Yes, I have continued along this path now for a long time.  I have three other designs under consideration at present;  one is a reality, a hybrid power amp;  the other is half complete, a choke loaded Class A mosfet hybrid a bit like some of NP's designs, while the third is merely a schematic at this stage as I gather parts.  It will use a 6BX7 in cascade driving a unity gain, Class AB error-corrected mosfet output stage originally conceived in Europe.

All these designs will sound different.  Of course!!  They are different topologies, with different operating points, and different parts.  Everything makes a difference, like anything else.  Does a Chevvy drive like a Diablo, or a Renault Megane, or a Mercedes S Class?  The question is, and always has been, will these divergent designs sound good enough to be commercial?  Will others like the 'sound' enough to buy one?  Hifi purists are a bit like winelovers;  they talk zero distortion, play up the significance of measurement, yet love their tube amps, which measure badly, ahem........  (Incidentally, of all tube amps, the Atmasphere reputedly measures the best!)  The winelovers talk red, yet drink white.  It's all very dissonant, but really this is entirely predictable;  all of us are hopelessly driven by irrationality, and it drives all consumer choices all over the world.  Ask yourself why you chose your profession, why you married your wife, why you chose a particular school for your children, why you behaved angrily with the policeman, were all these behaviours driven by cool, rational thought?  

Cheers,

Hugh

[ooheadsoo]

Wank??  You were the one implying that a 1000w ss amp will always sound better than a 50w tube.

Edit: Never mind, I just realized that you have more money than me, that's all.

Actually, headsy old chap, I made no such claim.  I merely introduced an idea being put forward on another Forum, the gist of which I thought might interest readers here.

I certainly don't have a 1000w amp myself ... remember, this is the AKSA Forum; I would've thought most people here own (or are think ...

Actually, you stated the implication quite boldly right there for all of us to see.  Anyway, this is moving beyond the scope of the thread and I'll say no more.

[Geoff-AU]

This comment seems to suggest that high fidelity is determined by the level of distortion. I would also include resolution.

Yep, I agree.  Low distortion and high resolution are both factors in the 'faithfulness' of a playback system.

Not right about the music, however.  I still love it.

Hugh, I didn't realise you were chasing a straight wire with gain!!

The ability for music to be emotive doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the quality of reproduction, I've heard songs on shitty car stereos that have given me tingles.  An interesting question was posed (I think on aus.hi-fi) about musos, who often have terrible systems at home despite having very acute ears.  One theory was that their brain was so good at putting back the missing information that they didn't care their stereo was crap.  I think that's certainly the case, we have a phenomenal processing tool up there.

[bhobba]

Interesting ideas.  First if recording cuts off higher harmonics then the obvious answer IMHO is to use higher resolution formats.  But having read reviews of such formats it is not always clear they produce better sound.  The ones I have read about that sound really great do in fact attempt to add in some of those lost harmonics eg it is my understanding that some up sampling algorithms do that in a controlled sort of manner.  Certainly perhaps one reason some prefer valves is because of the added harmonics but we are now well and truly in the digital age and I think the Wikipedia article of valves is very relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_sound

Notice the conclusion:
Advanced digital signal processing offers the possibility to simulate valve sound. Computer algorithms are currently available that transform digital sound from a CD or other digital source into a distorted digital sound signal that even 'golden ears' cannot distinguish from real analog valve sound.

I suspect a lot of work can be done in investigating exactly what type of 'distortion' can digitally be added to produce sound that is pleasing rather than true to the original.  However do you think Audiophiles who believe even power cords can make a difference to sound and describe it as adding things like air (when blind listening tests have shown no discernable difference) etc would endorse such an approach?
http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_11_4/feature-article-blind-test-power-cords-12-2004.html

Personally I am not one for judging equipment on how it sounds alone.  I also want to see vanishing small distortion and other objective criteria.  I am in the camp that believes if an audible difference can be found then it is always possible to find its cause.  And if I prefer the sound of something that is adding distortion then I would still opt for the undistorted one.  The best solution IMHO would be some type of digital processing where you can select the type of 'distortion' you want to add depending on personal taste, type of music or whatever.

As another example consider the following measurements of tweeter distortion and the conclusion about the excellent Hiquphon tweeter:
http://206.13.113.199/ncdiyaudio/mark/Testing/Tweeter4/tweeter4index.htm
'What to make of the ow2's mediocre nonlinear distortion performance?  Well, think about this. Perceived detail and "air" can occur for a number of reasons.  Good off axis performance can do this. Good linear distortion performance can do this. But modest amounts of higher order nonlinear distortion can also increase apparent detail. In this fashion, I suppose the ow2 is the winner. But only in the sense that "it gives you all the detail that's in the recording, and then some..."  Anyway, I find the nonlinear performance disappointing for the ow2.'

Which is better? - have a tweeter with less distortion and sound processing to add in some or one that inherently distorts?  Since it is easy to add distortion but much harder to take it away I know which I would prefer.

IMHO a lot of the preference people have for expensive high end gear is mostly pride of ownership - any audible differences are very difficult to find in blind listening tests.  However it is possible that such equipment may have subtle difference that only long acquaintance can show.  It has been documented that when some pieces equipment that blind listening tests are unable to distinguish then extended listening can detect differences.
http://www.stereophile.com/features/113/
'Over 10 years ago, for example, I failed to distinguish a Quad 405 from a Naim NAP250 or a TVA tube amplifier in such a blind test organized by Martin Colloms (footnote 2). Convinced by these results of the validity in the Consumer Reports philosophy, I consequently sold my exotic and expensive Lecson power amplifier with which I had been very happy and bought a much cheaper Quad 405—the biggest mistake of my audiophile career!'

This is an area in which I think more work needs to be done.  

Thanks
Bill

[jules]

Quote Geoff:

 "An interesting question was posed (I think on aus.hi-fi) about musos, who often have terrible systems at home despite having very acute ears. One theory was that their brain was so good at putting back the missing information that they didn't care their stereo was crap. I think that's certainly the case, we have a phenomenal processing tool up there."

I have to totally agree with this one although there's also the possibilty that musos are either a. too poor to own hi fi gear or b. consider making music to be a few steps above listening to it.

Inevitably these discussions seem to be based on the the idea that what we are trying to do is transfer a data stream. .000004% distortion does not equate with 99.999996% emotional connection.

I further agree with what Geoff says about the part our head plays in all of this. Our survival has depended on our ability to fill in incomplete visual and aural information rapidly and at a subconscious level.

A book or black and white movie is capable of stimulating our imagination  and leaving some some space for our heads to fill in the gaps. Audio technology is a fascinating field but it all goes a bit pear shaped when technical perfection is equated with emotional involvement.

I think we can get far too precious about the quest for perfection when what we want is something that can make our heads work, not put them to sleep.

Jules

[_scotty_]

Hugh,I have to cop to the lapse into subjectivism. In as much as this hobby is enjoyed on a subjective basis, subjective descriptors are almost an inevitable necessity to discuss the experience in any detail.  
  The amplifier thread on AA dealing with power requirements makes an excellent case for more efficient speakers and enough power to drive them. Corrected math on that thread resulted in a 25 to 1 ratio of peak to mean spl level. In my own case I have about 95 dB efficient speakers and 110watts into 8ohms that doubles into 4ohms. On paper I should be able to hit 115dB from 20Hz to 20Khz.  So far clipping has not been an issue.  I have to agree with with your statement about the full power bandwidth of the amplfiers and that faster seems to be better. The only exception to this rule seems to be in the realm of switching amplifiers.  I have heard a digital amplifier with virtually identical high frequency resolution and air compared to an analogue amplifier with a full power bandwidth of 250kHz.
The analogue amp has symmetrical rise and settling times, a constant distortion spectrum with regards to frequency and a small signal bandwidth of 1mHz.  The digital amp seems to defy the limitations of analogue amplifiers in some ways. It is bandwidth limited to 80kHz and only has acceptable distortion to 20kHz. Both amplifiers have similar THD and IM numbers from 20Hz to 20kHz of .02%. There may be more than one technology which will yield the desired result of high fidelity.

  For myself I would like my music to sound more real. If someone drops a plate on the floor in another room and it breaks you immediately know that what you heard  was a sound generated by a real event and not the result of a recording being played back. I think reproduced music should have that same unmistakeable characteristic. Our perception of what is real occurs on an instinctual level. You know it when you hear it.  It probably goes straight back to knowing when to run or hide from a perceived  threat and having this ability was vital to survival.
    If one demands that every recording be palatable and salubrious then some form of compromise or information loss is necessary.  If, on the other hand, one opts to let the chips fall where they may while reproducing as much information as possible, then I believe that a closer approach to reality may be the final outcome. There is certainly room for more than one approach to reproducing music and any number of valid methods exist between these two endpoints.

I think it is still possible to achieve the goal of a straight wire with gain and
from what I have heard in the last three years the wire is considerably
straighter than it was just five years ago.
Scotty

[jules]

Scotty,

I'm not attempting to be provocative here as you have accepted the importance of subjectivity in matters sonic. You did however describe this as a "lapse". I'm reminded of a comment from a hotel owner that apparently inspired the writers of Faulty Towers. "I could run a damn good hotel if it wasn't for the customers". [not entirely apt but I like it   ]

I own an AKSA amp and one of the prime reasons I bought it was that Hugh has applied included rigorous [subjective] listening in the design process [with the assistance of various people who he describes as having "golden ears"].

Once the cart is put in front of the horse we get systems that are built to theoretical ideals that one way or another can't deal with emotion [yes, I think there might be some life messages here].

jules