robertbudding
Head-Fier
Niouke you're making a bold claim, so I will examine the words used very closely. I understand that normal communication doesn't allow endless caveats; however some distinctions need to be made in my opinion.
As written, absolutely not. Simply an absurd statement. I realise this is not what you (probably) meant to propose, so let's unpack the statement.
A home listening audio amplifier made in the 1960's is most certainly going to sound different than one made in the 1970's or 2010's. Not to mention from the 1930's, say the Loftin-White or similar.
Let's take an open loop tube amp with a basic topology from the retro days, but with a lot of modern stuff added in. Let's say LED cathode bias and stuff like that. Nothing drasticly altering the topology. It is made in the same decade as the 700 eur decent quality receiver bought at a big box store. These amps are in effect contemporaries, however they will most certainly sound different.
Your statement, if interpreted in good faith, is talking about gNFB amps, more specifically amps utilizing a lot of gNFB. By any knowledge of the basics of electronics, gNFB is going to 'flatten' almost every difference. (Also it is going to flatten the sound, but that is my subjective opinion.)
So; amps that use a lot of gNFB are going to sound identical.
This is a truism, a tautology.
However what about the amps that do no utilize a lot of gNFB, or that are open loop? Are they not in the picture at all, or are they considered as being of a quality not worth considering?
I'm an open loop guy who dislikes distortion, as I explained in my previous message here. I don't enjoy "tube sound" in my HIFI yet I detest gNFB sound.
Is my amp included in that blanket statement?
(For the purposes of this discussion "my amp" can be considered an abstract thought experiment since this thread is not about schems but about concepts, but for those more interested in practicalities look at Sonic's thread: https://www.head-fi.org/threads/modern-balanced-tube-amp-build.852879/ )
Yes, SS amps which by necessity utilize huge amounts of gNFB. gNFB will sound like gNFB.
I do somewhat agree, but not to the level proposed in the quote. There is a lot to be said about focusing on the bottleneck. However from working with guitar tube amps a lot, I understand very well what "distortion on distortion" is and sounds like. There is a difference in final output depending on how gradually you introduce distortion, and what kind of distortion to introduce at what point. The audio chain does in my opinion operate somewhat as a whole. That said, if you have crappy speakers, it's not going to matter a lot if you shave off some distortion from the amp.
'Scientifically' is one of those potentially weaselwords that instantly bring up my skepticism senses.
Humans bred animals and crops millenia before anybody found out about DNA and genes even existing. And nowadays that we know about DNA, somebody can say "show me the exact gene that produces X in this species", and after you inevitably cannot (at least yet), following the same logic of SCIENTIFIC PROOF the sophist can claim "trait X is not heritable in that species" even though it clearly is.
The fact that tests have not proved something proves that tests have not proven something. This is not a claim of fact ("it is not so"), but rather an indicator among others. This is not to say science is all bunk, but rather to understand it's limitations.
To bring it closer to topic at hand: which listening tests are scientific and which are not? I have a lot of logged listening test hours, by my ears. Are they scientific?
Wavebourn used his cats (and house guests) as scientific test subjects. If the cat or the houseguests arriving at the house in another room thought the sound was a real instrument being played, his amp was realistic. Is this scientific? If not, why not?
This is the "distortion on distortion" thing again. In my technical and listening opinion it is not at all insignificant to add distortion to an already distorted sound.
Think about an old recording that has let's say 5% THD, mostly second and third. Made in the late 1930's for example.
So you might think this recording is already so distorted in comparison to the acoustic performance it was captured from, that it doesn't matter whether the amp replaying it is producing 1% THD or 0.01% THD.
Completely wrong in my opinion.
Basic level understanding of wave physics (sound is just a waveform, whether electric or air pressure) tells us that when two waveforms are added, the resulting intermodulation products are of higher order than either of the original waves contained. The bigger the 'new' wave (added by the amp), the bigger the 7H 8H 9H components that are produced by the intermodulation. This is the very worst kind of distortion there is.
This means that if you play your bad recording thru a bad amp, the results is significantly worse than if you play it thru a good amp. This same effect in my opinion makes all the 'distortion shaping' and such nonsense a very bad idea.
So no matter what happens in the studio, the way you play it back matters a lot.
I personally found that the most retro stuff I listen to, jazz and blues for 1930 to 1950, became the most alive after listened thru an open loop low THD amp. SS amps don't have this effect and after thinking about the intermodulation effect and knowing the THD spectra of gNFB amps this is not a mystery.
You seem to have ignored the long list of qualifier, such as low distortion, no clipping, and flat frequency response. Don't believe it? Then set up ABX tests with volume levels matched to 0.1 dB.