[goobicii]

   
What do you mean by warmth (do you mean low order distortion or high frequency rolloff ?) and resolution?. I am not sure that resolution is even a meaningful term as presented here, but what do you mean by it ? Do you mean bright ?  Any half decent amp tube or SS will be more or less flat but not all are. I am genuinely struggling to understand exactly what you are getting at...

warmth is innaccuracy
 
 
theres more to accuracy that reading you get with pure sinewave in FR test

 

[groovyd]

this is one of the most confusing ill informed op arguments i have ever seen on here... nice work!  keep going you might win a prize

 

[Steve Eddy]

didnt heard Valhalla,the Rag is 50% faster and again,even through I didnt heard Valhalla I bet Rag is more accurate and Valhalla is warmer

thank you for supporting my claim 

You're not going to hear any difference between and amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz and an amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz.

Your claim is bullSchiit. Please go away.

se

 

[wuwhere]

I've never heard this kind of assertion before. I've had solid state and tube amps. The transducers (speakers or headphones) have a much higher effect on sound.

 

[castleofargh]

@goobicii you create an artificial relation between frequency range, speed, accuracy, and "warmth". but why and how? that's a total mystery. 
 
also you forget to look at the impedance outputs, the design choices( feedback or not? priority to FR accuracy or to phase accuracy? or to low noise? distortion values? etc...) trying to control the accuracy of the FR up to 50gigahz has to come at a price don't you think? and many designers might just feel that it's more rational to make sure the audible range is more accurate instead of playing who's got the biggest flat frequency range for no audible reason. maybe some filter past a certain range on purpose to improve the stability of the amp or whatever. then your idea that higher flat-ish FR equals faster amp is ruined. and when a manufacturer writes a frequency range from 20hz to 20khz or whatever, does it mean that they measured only that range, or that the amp rolls off after that? even if I pretend to accept your weird concept(and I very much don't), you still forget too many variables.
 
then did you match level those amps when testing them in a blind test? no of course not, instead you proudly write stuff like "didnt heard Valhalla,the Rag is 50% faster and again,even through I didnt heard Valhalla I bet Rag is more accurate and Valhalla is warmer".
what does that even mean? based on what? 50% faster where? so when one amp plays a 1khz tone the other one plays a 500hz tone? is it what 50% faster means?
a music seems warmer when it's EQed with louder low frequencies, not because it is "faster". that's some silly subjective interpretation like the guys talking about how they can hear a better PRAT. they usually just mistake a rolled off sub bass for a "faster" sound and don't know what they're talking about.

 

[goobicii]

You're not going to hear any difference between and amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz and an amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz.

Your claim is bullSchiit. Please go away.

se

 
I bet you are one of these people that joke about bats and think anything more than 44100hz is pointless becose we can only hear to 20k 

 
 
 
its not about ultrasonic extension,its about generating signal in audible spectrum more accurately.High bandwidth is just side effect

 

[arnyk]

   
I bet you are one of these people that joke about bats and think anything more than 44100hz is pointless becose we can only hear to 20k 

 
 
 
its not about ultrasonic extension,its about generating signal in audible spectrum more accurately.High bandwidth is just side effect

 
I agree with Steve, you appear to be just mouthing words you read on the web. This kind of empty rhetoric can be taught to 8 year olds. Doesn't mean that they know what they mean.

 

[castleofargh]

 

You're not going to hear any difference between and amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz and an amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz.

Your claim is bullSchiit. Please go away.

se

 
I bet you are one of these people that joke about bats and think anything more than 44100hz is pointless becose we can only hear to 20k 

 
 
 
its not about ultrasonic extension,its about generating signal in audible spectrum more accurately.High bandwidth is just side effect

ok so now I get what you mean and why you want the "fastest" amp. it's still totally misguided and ignoring how an amp really works or the precision and "speed" of the DAC output, but at least I understand what you're trying to talk about.
one little step for the topic, one little step for the topic.
you're pretty much trying to push some also misunderstood DAC logic onto the amp. thinking that if the voltage moves faster, then it will reach the accurate value faster and the resulting wave will be more precise(the usual BS about overly simplified discrete amps and step graphs). and then extend that logic to saying that an amp that can do 4000000000000hz per second has to be the fastest of the bunch and by extension the most accurate(which is false, just look at all the amp that are low pass filtered, all those super fast stuff will be eradicated on purpose by the designer from the output signal, showing how flawed your idea was from the start).
 
now to answer you in your own mistaken world(other people do not read that): the fastest stuff would be a class D amp without a low pass filter, as it will switch ON and OFF so many times per second it will output the most amazing high frequency you can dream off(DSD like). it will be high frequency noise and not accuracy, but do you care for those small technical details? ^_^
 
another approach is a discrete amp also without a low pass filter. it can jump from one accurate value to another with great speed and precision(really), so that would be your stuff. of course between voltage steps it's a dead fish making noise, but hey, details right?
 
the real answer to your question, look for the amp that has the lowest distortions and low stable impedance instead of trying to reinvent the wheel. if you want accuracy, look for actual accuracy at the output of the device, not fancy designs from fancy theories made only for marketing purposes.

 

[StanD]

   
I bet you are one of these people that joke about bats and think anything more than 44100hz is pointless becose we can only hear to 20k 

 
its not about ultrasonic extension,its about generating signal in audible spectrum more accurately.High bandwidth is just side effect

Your assertions are simply as you put it batty. I recommend that you get educated on the topic rather than throw stuff at the wall and hope that it will stick.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Yes. An amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz will not "more accurately" reproduce 20 kHz than an amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz. There is a huge and fundamental misunderstanding going on here.

se

 

[arnyk]

Yes. An amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz will not "more accurately" reproduce 20 kHz than an amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz. There is a huge and fundamental misunderstanding going on here.



se

 


Not so, says this article from the influential Roger Russell site:

http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/campbellsineward.htm

Of course the article was written in 1961, and we've learned quite a bit since about hearing since then.

One of the author's theories is that we hear tie direction that sounds come from by means of detecting phase shift of signals between the ears.

If our ears can detect phase shift or timing differences then they can detect the phase or timing difference between signals that vary only in terms of their phase shift or timing of the components they are made up of.

At this time we know that this is both true and false. Our ears do detect phase shift and timing difference below about 1000 Hz, but not so much above. Above about 1000 Hz our ears can detect the direction that sounds come from, but this is done by means of the changes in the frequency response of those signals by the shape of our head. These are called HRTFs.

 

[StanD]

 

Yes. An amp with a -3 dB of 300 kHz will not "more accurately" reproduce 20 kHz than an amp with a -3 dB of 200 kHz. There is a huge and fundamental misunderstanding going on here.



se

 


Not so, says this article from the influential Roger Russell site:

http://www.roger-russell.com/truth/campbellsineward.htm

Of course the article was written in 1961, and we've learned quite a bit since about hearing since then.

One of the author's theories is that we hear tie direction that sounds come from by means of detecting phase shift of signals between the ears.

If our ears can detect phase shift or timing differences then they can detect the phase or timing difference between signals that vary only in terms of their phase shift or timing of the components they are made up of.

At this time we know that this is both true and false. Our ears do detect phase shift and timing difference below about 1000 Hz, but not so much above. Above about 1000 Hz our ears can detect the direction that sounds come from, but this is done by means of the changes in the frequency response of those signals by the shape of our head. These are called HRTFs.

I suspect that in the Sub Bass region we are not good at telling where it comes from, otherwise SubWoofers wouldn't be done as they are, single devices.

 

[arnyk]

  I suspect that in the Sub Bass region we are not good at telling where it comes from, otherwise SubWoofers wouldn't be done as they are, single devices.

 
In the bass region (below a room's Schroeder frequency) sound spreads chaotically, and the indended directional cues from the recording strongly tend to be lost.