A microphone connected to a spectrum analyzer. It's not rocket science for goodness sake.

In reply to:

---

the truth seems to always find it's way somewhere in the middle

---

So if I say 2+2=4, and you say 2+2=5, the correct answer is really 4.5? The truth is where it is. It's only in the middle when each side is equally wrong in opposing directions.

Apples and oranges perhaps; but...

...we can measure pepper spray or onions and determine why they make our eyes water.

but so can a melody.






maybe we need a PET Scan.

Yeah, but you're all forgetting that She sells sea shells by the sea shore...

Two yearth in Speeth Clath when I wath a kid tho I don't talk like Thindy Brady.... and thath what I remember motht.

Yes of course, a microphone connected to a spectrum analyzer will distinguish between amps as to which reproduces 'bloom' or accurate timber. Perhaps you can direct me to the 'bloom' and 'timber' test charts for different amps? I am not aware of any tests of audio equipment which compare the output of a component (variable) in a test system, on the one hand, and live music on the other. If you put a microphone in front of an orchestra and direct the output from microphone to a frequency analyzer, undoubtedly somewhere in the hash of it all there would be indicia of the 'bloom.' But, you wouldn't be able to tell me what test results correspond to the bloom effect, could you? Who cares whether the tested phenomena has been registered on the spectrum analyzer if you can't individuate one quality from another on your analyzer ... which sort of gets us back to the human ear, which might not be as sensitive as a good microphone, but I assure you that its associated processing hardware and software is infinitely more sophisticated than your spectfum analyzer.

In reply to:

---

Yes of course, a microphone connected to a spectrum analyzer will distinguish between amps as to which reproduces 'bloom' or accurate timber.

---

Well finally we all agree on something!

I don't see what flowers and logs have to do with any of this.

Seriously, you're doing a nice job of obfuscating the issue by using these terms. It's just sound waves. Can an amp accurately amplify the signal from a recorded medium? Yes or no. Live performances have little to do with this; like I said, it's all been manipulated before it even hits the platter.

Ken has it right on the nose calling out your obfuscation. If you can define bloom in objective terms, then I'd be happy to point to it in test results. If, on the other hand, bloom is something you can't quite define -- some je ne sais quoi quality, if you will -- them I'm afraid we're at an impasse.

So, I've been thinking and reading (two dangerous occupation to be sure) and have a couple of thoughts. First, for a stereo system (not surround sound) it appears that the purpose of the preamp is to take the signals from your source and amplify them to levels that your amp can then use. It also lets you switch sources and adjust volume. And you want to do this with as little degradation to the original signal as possible.

So, the best preamps do the least, they just amplify the signal a little bit. But why bother? If your preamp amps the signal X 5 (for instance) and the amp X 10000 (yes, I making these numbers up, the point is that the preamp is a little and the amp a lot) couldn't you just make an amp to accept the lower level signal and amp it X 10005? You shouldn't need any extra electronics for that, should you? Then your preamp would really just be a box to switch between sources, and a volume control (via signal reduction, not amp). Yes, I know these exist and are called passive preamps, but you need a source with enough power already for the amp. I guess I don't understand why the need for designing the systems so that amps require a higher power input than your normal sources provide. Or am I missing something?

The reason I'm trying to figure this out (other than curiosity) is that I figure the rotel rb-1050 is only $400, well within my limit and from what some of you say amps can make a difference. This would also allow me an upgrade path later, possibly to surround sound with a preamp and another amp (much later, when I get a real job) and I could still swing some good speakers, the M50s or even (if I stretch it) the M60s. Or maybe I'll just use my old technics for now...

Adam, I meant that statement to be facetious. Not sure if I succeeded.

What PMB and KC call "obfuscation" is a challenge which neither could meet.