In Reply to: RE: Wavelength Crimson posted by cfmsp on May 24, 2010 at 21:13:44:
"I think the point John Swenson makes is that lower measured distortion in SS designs gained by applying feedback does a disservice to the actual sound, despite that it might measure 'better'."
-- Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that once you're talking about "a disservice to the actual sound," or anything similar, you are back into subjective, theoretical territory, and statements like "lowest distortion" no longer belong in the conversation. You want a subjectivist dialogue? Good. A subjective evaluation is the only thing that matters to you? Even better. But if that is the case there is no reason to fortify your point of view with terms -- distortion, dynamic range, transparency, etc. -- that imply objective measures. What you hear and why you prefer it, in strictly descriptive terms, should be enough. To put in such terms, good solid state, particularly in an excellent active implementation has, to my ear, far greater clarity, speed and precision than any tube rig I've ever heard. And YMMV as well.
P
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - Phelonious Ponk 05/25/1004:41:39 05/25/10 (8)
- "solid state ... in an excellent active implementation" - but what about mediocre one, like AVI? N/T - carcass93 08:56:03 05/25/10 (1)
- RE: "solid state ... in an excellent active implementation" - but what about mediocre one, like AVI? N/T - Phelonious Ponk 14:38:51 05/25/10 (0)
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - cfmsp 05:19:27 05/25/10 (5)
- You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO. - Dynaudio_Rules 06:33:30 05/25/10 (0)
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - Phelonious Ponk 06:08:57 05/25/10 (0)
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - Mercman 06:03:17 05/25/10 (0)
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - Ryelands 06:02:50 05/25/10 (1)
- RE: Wavelength Crimson - Phelonious Ponk 15:05:38 05/25/10 (0)