2. amps-preamps
  3. 1261722996

The closest approach: what amplification?

Ken Kessler titled his book on Quad "The closest approach" to summarize Quad's philosophy of producing a speaker that gets as close as possible to the reproduction of a live event. I have been wondering if there is a type of amplification that gets us closer to the real thing more than other types. I have met many audiophiles over the past few years, and what strikes me is how religious people can get about radically different types of amplification: some swear that there is nothing like small-power SET coupled with efficient speakers. Others believe that you don't have a serious system unless you use muscular SS amplifiers (e.g. 300 WPC). Others believe that powerful push-pull tube configurations are the best of both worlds. Finally, there is a small community of OTL aficionados that look at the rest of the world as if they don't know what music reproduction is all about.

Of course these people value different things. Some like imaging more than other things; others value transparency; others are crazy about huge soundstages; others seek warmth etc. And it is clear that some types of amplification are better for certain things and others are better for other things.

Now, let us consider simply the reproduction of a live event (not some specific, partial dimensions). In your experience, what type of amplification got you close to the real thing? Powerful SS, SET, OTL, powerful push-pull?
ggavetti

Showing 8 responses by ggavetti

ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
I should have phrased my question better: I totally agree that system configuration is critical and that speakers are decisive. That said, I guess my question was the following: assuming a very well configured system, is there a type of amplification that gets you closer to the real thing?

Stanwal, you make an interesting point, but the fact that people hear different things given the same actual sound waves does not prevent us from trying to find a system that gets us as close as possible to the actual sound waves. That is what I am looking for in a system.

Samujohn, I am intrigued by your comment about class D amplifiers. I have been playing with a few of them, and never found them too satisfactory. As for your point about Peter Walker, well, I did not read that interview but I am not surprised by it: closest does not mean close :)

Merry Christmas to all and thanks for your thoughts
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
I would like to go back to Stanwal's point, which is an interesting one. Stanwal says that there are actual sound waves, but each of us HEARS different things. In my opinion, the personal experience of what we hear should be irrelevant to the discussion of what makes for a good audio system. The closer I get to capturing actual sound waves, the closer I get to the real experience. Then each of us can focus on different things in the listening experience. In other words, take Mahler fifth symphony. Out of the whole symphony there might be two minutes in which the deep vibrations of low frequencies are dominant. I know some people who love the symphony precisely for these two minutes. That's what they want to hear. Does it mean that for these people a good audio system is one that exacerbates low frequencies? I don't think so.
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
Samujohn, I misinterpreted your original post. Excellent points...thanks for clarifying.
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
Johnk, Here is a metaphor. A racing car can race and finish in the top three only if it has an engine, four wheels, and thousands of other parts. Now, I think it makes sense to ask whether it is more likely that a gasoline vs. a diesel vs. an electric engine is more likely to get a given car to finish a race, doesn't it? These different engines require different car configurations. Still, as of today it is more likely that a gasoline engine will get you close to the top three. I guess this was the spirit of the question. System configuration is key. that said, are there types of amplification (and associated configurations) that are more likely to get us close to the real thing?
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
Sebrof, The race metaphor was used just to make the point that it makes sense to think about types of amplifiers despite the fact presence of strong systemic effects.

Regarding your point about measurability, it's no doubt more difficult to measure "the real thing" than it is to measure speed. That said, I do believe there is a reality out there that is objective, which defines the real thing. If both you and I sit on seat 15, row 11 of the same auditorium to listen to Mahler's 5th, both you and I get exposed to the same sound waves. That's the real thing in my opinion. Yes, the real thing might differ depending of where you sit (front mezzanine is different from a side box) which complicates matters quite a bit. But we can at least start to reason about electronics that get you close to a particular manifestation of the real thing (for instance, sitting in a good, central position at a good auditorium).
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
"Sound waves are "real" in the material sense, but hearing is not. My teenager will be exposed to the same sound waves as I, but will he "hear" the same thing? How about a person from rural China?"

Interesting, but I would argue that a machine that gets as close as possible to reproducing the "real" sound waves is what "the closest approach" is all about. Then I am less concerned about whether you and I perceive the same sound wave differently. That's unavoidable: my recognition of the real thing is different from yours, but the real thing exists independently of you and me. So, I guess the name of the game is reproducing actual sound waves. Don't yo think?
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
Atmasphere, i am not sold on the notion that audiophiles need to be good physicists or neural scientists to make progress with audio. as far as i am concerned, i much prefer making progress with audio by educating my ears to perceive dimensions about sound reproduction that one is not aware of unless he educates his hear. so, my approach is to educate my ear and then experiment with different systems, not studying the physics of sound or the neural bases of hearing.
ggavetti OP
143 posts
 
I am sorry, atmasphere. I misinterpreted your post. Yes, I completely agree that designers ought to know about physics!
More to discover