0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 6586 times.
The other problem of course is the ability to actually detect differences that in my opinion, varies widely. In my early flying days, we were taught how to scan the sky and pick out distant aircraft even as faint ‘dots’. Subsequently, passengers would often shake their heads at this mystical ability to see things in an ‘empty’ sky, but it was only visual training. I believe the same principle applies to hearing and whether it be though experience, training or a combination of both, some are far better at hearing differences, particularly subtle, than others. So provable or not, I do believe that at least one amp around here is good enough to stand from the pack, at least to my ears, and the differences are as significant as those from changing speakers.
after speakers, listening room environment, and source material. But ahead of line-level components like preamps, etc.
I think much of the discussion in high end is ingenuous - a 'whore in Dior' if you will (thanks Paul, always liked that one hugely!! ).
This is not so cynical as might appear. I have enjoyed dialogue with SL, and once suggested to him that he try a power supply I'd devised for his active crossover which had profound effect on the presentation of his Orion. Aurelius can testify to this; he has one. But SL rejected it with such vehemence I had to ask my wife if she too thought I was mentally defective.
Wayne of Bolder Cable is now fitting a variant of this technology into his Ultimate Power Supply for the Squeezebox, and the effect is no less astounding. It costs $US1500 and demand is ramping up.
The new power supply has marked sonic impact, but only those skilled at listening with an open mind will acknowledge this because it flies in the face of convention. SL, Stereophile, and many of the EEs involved in audio have a confirmed view that such things do not make a difference; yet materials science will tell you that if you make the strings of a violin from a different material, or use a different wood, or shellac, or bridge geometry, or bow hair, or bowing technique for that matter, the sound will be different and the cognoscenti will pick it immediately. I would suggest that the same happens in electronic circuits which process audio signals - and I now know that each and every component choice is important, and so is the topology, and so are the operating points, and so is the nature of the metals and dielectrics, and the list goes on......
But not everyone does have this open mind; the more education one receives, the more the mind focusses, and this can close a good mind right down to the point where the eyes almost merge..... and education is a seductive thing, it is a club like any other, and those not in the club are shunned, because they did not negotiate the rites of passage by taking the same punishment in long, boring lectures!!
Thanks for a great discussion, Bill, Lyn.
Mmmm, this is a very interesting thread which has had some heavy input ... which I would say I am not competent to engage with but, since Bill dragged my name into it (I'm not aware of another AKSA "Andy" owner, Bill?), I guess I will throw a few currants into the dough!
DBTs do not cater for the "long term liveability" of a hifi component. IE. sometimes quick changes between one component and another will cause you to like one of them. However, living with it for a month can often reveal subtle negatives which weren't immediately obvious in the "wham bang" comparison of a DBT setup.
