I almost missed this post.
Reading the forums too quickly this morning.
In reply to:
First of all, anyone claiming that there are no differences, audible or measurable, between amps is seriously misguided, as any audiophile knows.
Now Cooper, there is no reason to insult people with a different opinion. There are those in the industry far more experienced than you or I that question myths and principles of audio every day. I highly doubt they are all 'misguided'. I'm sure many are highly educated both through experience and academic training.
The term audiophile is one that no educational institution bestows upon any profession, so if someone wishes to call themselves an audio expert, there is really no one to argue against that.
Audiophile by definition is "a person who is enthusiastic about high-fidelity sound reproduction" (Merriam-Webster dictionary), not one who has to believe a set group of myths or half truths in order to merit the title.
In reply to:
Technically, I believe sonic differences may have a lot to do with dynamics and transients.
Anyone can design a solid state amp that measures with a flat frequency response curve. But if you read the fine print, even in Stereophile, you will see that tests are typically performed at 1W into a constant 8 ohm load, 2W into 4 ohms, and 4W into 2 ohms.
First off i would very much scrutinize the tests performed by a magazine review. Some are better than others, some are very much useless.
But this topic leads into exactly what sushi had iterated to long ago, expand the breadth of the tests to included MORE than just simple measurements or limited parameters (a full 1W-110W as opposed to just 1W as you say), more than one load, etc. etc. and then show the graphs/numbers that demonstrate how the changes affect the sound frequency curve (or other parameter) that makes the difference audible.
Out of the decades of research on audio, these tests MUST have been done somewhere, by someone already.
So where is the proof? Where are the graphs? The white papers?
That is all i want to see. A well designed examination of the principles.
Many theories have been put forth and yet left unmeasured, untested.
As for this statement, correct me if i'm wrong but are you referring to speaker break-in again?
In reply to:
How much does a speaker overshoot a voltage during rapid changes, when the tweeter is vibrating at 10,000Hz with 100W of instantaneous power? And is it not reasonable to expect these characteristics change after many hours of initial use?
If you are referring to speaker break-in, i have to ask, how can an item break-in and yet not continue to break-down?
Theoretically by this reasoning, the materials should continue to degrade over time with each use and hence have a constantly changing sound until the day they die. Metal molecules do not just settle into a comfortable bed after having vibrated for awhile. They can either take the stress or they cannot.
One thing we can certainly agree upon.
The difference that may exist at this level of signal reproduction is very SUBTLE, if any
. This is why so often i would like to see the blind listening tests take place of the always used 'sighted, uncontrolled' listening sessions. Everyone would like to consider themselves to be superior in the area of determining signficant sound changes at the 'subtle, golden eared' level, but a more objective approach is required to remove any bias from human behavioural responses from the equation. We cannot do that consciously no matter how hard people may try.