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
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?
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
"We listen to a system not a amplifier"
Yes and we listen to different recordings, so how can we determine anything beyond that we liked a specific song, on a specific system, on a specific occasion?
I maintain that with experience and consultation with others, one can form a reasonable opinion as to what component in a system is causing what result.
I have gotten together with friends gathering a dozen amplifiers in the floor and comparing them. Then I often have borrowed the amp that gave a certain impression and taken it home for a week to evaluate. I have deliberately sought out speakers with
difficult loads like Wilson, Thiel, and Soundlabs. When I get a similar result despite all this, (as I have with Conrad Johnson solid state amps for example) I can say with reasonable confidence that the amp has a certain set of characteristics. Words may fail me, but over time I can hear the difference.
sebrof's avatar
sebrof
834 posts
 
Ggavetti,
But it's not a race.
The question is what's "best" (or may as well be, since the OP asks "close as possible to the reproduction of a live event")
Fastest you can quantify and measure, and all will agree on the measurement.
Best, or close as possible to the reproduction of a live event, is a different matter altogether.
As many different answers as people with answers.
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).
samujohn's avatar
samujohn
291 posts
 
" I do believe there is a reality out there that is objective, which defines the real thing"
Ah, to wax philosophic! Well yes and no, perhaps, we'll see. 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? (A Chinese "opera", for that matter, is quite an experience). So much of what we hear is made up of learning, plus how our hearing actually works (a remarkable process in itself).
To go out on a limb, recognition is the key factor. We "hear" in the meaningful sense, when we recognize.
As a thought experiment I submit that if one were exposed to "perfect" sound wave patterns in a sufficiently unexpected context, that recognition would be so impeded that it would not take place at all. Our body might respond, but the brain would not "hear". On the other hand, if some one says: da, da, da daaa! the connection to Beethoven's Fifth may involuntarily pop into one's head.
(I hope you guys are having a beer while reading this.)
cheers
More to discover