|
General Asylum: A question for Mr. John Curl by Jerry Parker General audio topics that don't fit into specific categories. |
For Sale Ads |
68.13.248.207
Hello. After having an extensive debate over the audibility of amplifiers on another messageboard, I was asked to come here and post my beliefs and have them critiqued. So, here I am! The poster on the other messageboard asked that I ask Mr. Curl about his experience with amplifier design and the audibility of its components.So, I ask this, what about two properly designed amplifiers would make an audible difference in their reproduction of sound? Obviously several factors come up. At higher power levels, one amplifier is better designed so that it indeed can put out more power than another. Also, amplifiers of the tube class A variaty and transistor based amplifiers will sound differnt, but because the tube amplifier has more distortion, correct? But what of two amplifiers both within their linear operating range would cause them to sound different? I certainly am not saying that the waveform is not being altered by each amplifier differently, but the true question here is whether or not those changes are audible. Anyone with comments? In the past, I have found that the only people claiming that amplifiers within their linear operating ranges sounding the same are engineers - people who actually understand how the devices work. I have found those that say there are differences in amplifiers to be subjectivists, who have no engineering background and cannot explain logically the differences they are hearing. I hope that some of you who can hear a difference between amplifiers, and do infact have an engineering background could inform me as to why the amplifiers do sound different.
Thanks.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Topic - A question for Mr. John Curl - Jerry Parker 08:13:41 08/4/02 ( 51)
- Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - rtbarr 21:38:00 08/5/02 ( 1)
- That was a nice read, thanks [nt] - Ted Smith 22:16:52 08/5/02 ( 0)
One Aspect (long) - Jon Risch 20:34:13 08/5/02 ( 0)
Think about it this way..... - Adi 10:52:04 08/5/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:08:31 08/5/02 ( 0)
If a stranger calls you "Mr." on the net... - suits_me 23:08:42 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: OK, guys... - Jerry Parker 21:59:29 08/4/02 ( 18)
- NO scientific basis - Adi 11:20:45 08/5/02 ( 0)
Are you serious?? - BrassMonkey 09:20:02 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Are you serious?? - Analog Scott 17:45:08 08/5/02 ( 0)
Here's my advice. - orpheus 08:11:26 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Here's my advice. - Jerry Parker 13:52:03 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Here's my advice. - orpheus 09:29:54 08/6/02 ( 0)
Re: OK, guys... - john curl 22:44:58 08/4/02 ( 11)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - Jerry Parker 10:08:58 08/5/02 ( 10)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - john curl 10:38:21 08/5/02 ( 9)
- Re: I have listened to high end systems! - Adi 11:27:37 08/5/02 ( 8)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Jerry Parker 13:31:01 08/5/02 ( 7)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - cdb 19:36:55 08/8/02 ( 1)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Jerry Parker 20:33:54 08/8/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - Analog Scott 17:55:05 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: No, that is incorrect - john curl 16:06:07 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Shame on you John - Adi 21:53:56 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Grow Up - Jerry Parker 20:29:09 08/8/02 ( 0)
- Lucky you - Bruce from DC 14:38:20 08/5/02 ( 0)
So Jerry, now do you understand? - rupertdacat 19:51:05 08/4/02 ( 1)
- Re: So Jerry, now do you understand? - Dave-A 21:16:14 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - Analog Scott 12:02:57 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - rtbarr 11:02:16 08/4/02 ( 3)
- Thanks [nt] - Ted Smith 13:02:21 08/4/02 ( 0)
Great Link! - wheezer 12:32:42 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - john curl 11:41:56 08/4/02 ( 0)
Re: A question for Mr. John Curl - john curl 11:00:11 08/4/02 ( 18)
- Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 23:29:26 08/4/02 ( 17)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Analog Scott 17:57:42 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 18:12:21 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - john curl 09:19:20 08/5/02 ( 3)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Jerry Parker 10:16:13 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - Analog Scott 18:06:32 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well, I would assume... - john curl 10:43:39 08/5/02 ( 0)
Test methods... - Estes 05:35:43 08/5/02 ( 2)
- Re: Well then... - Jerry Parker 07:40:15 08/5/02 ( 1)
- Re: Well then... - jeff mai 18:20:59 08/5/02 ( 0)
There are more conditions on this challenge... - jeff mai 02:58:00 08/5/02 ( 7)
- Re: Well.... - Jerry Parker 07:48:46 08/5/02 ( 6)
- Re: Well.... - jeff mai 16:31:34 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Well.... - caa 13:27:01 08/5/02 ( 4)
- Re: Compromises - Jerry Parker 14:29:57 08/5/02 ( 3)
- Re: Compromises - Analog Scott 18:13:20 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Compromises - caa 16:26:03 08/5/02 ( 0)
- Re: Compromises - john curl 16:20:04 08/5/02 ( 0)