[JimL11]

a megahertz amplifier has a very recognizable imprint, and this differentiates it from so many others, I do not say that it is necessarily better, but has its way of playing, just like a musical instrument, if you like it, I think you can be a happy person with them.

You say that as if it's a good thing, but to me, an amplifier should NOT have a recognizable imprint. That would be like viewing the world through colored glasses. Now realistically, no amplifier is flawless, so to some degree we have to choose which flaws are more tolerable, but that is different from choosing an amplifier that is designed to have a sound.

 

[biscottino]

You say that as if it's a good thing, but to me, an amplifier should NOT have a recognizable imprint. That would be like viewing the world through colored glasses. Now realistically, no amplifier is flawless, so to some degree we have to choose which flaws are more tolerable, but that is different from choosing an amplifier that is designed to have a sound.

All the production of hifi devices are continually searching for a sound, the same kgss amplifiers every year present a review of the subject.
A Mcintosh or a Burmester or a Yamamoto, you can recognize it immediately, and the same applies to Megahertz amplifiers.
They do not affect the best instrumental measurements, they only serve in part.
I see that Astrostar has a dac Audio Note Dac5, you think valves and transformers are welcome to design a dac, and I do not even want to look at the measurements on the instrument (thd etc) probably a dac chinese who cost some $$ about is better, but we know then that listening would have no doubt as to who the winner would be.

 

[wink]

It continually amazes me how people cannot understand the principle of High Fidelity.
High fidelity reproduction is the transference of information from different pieces of equipment resulting in the reproduction of the source data back into a sonic representation that matches the original as close as possible.
This encompasses all the chain from the first step (i.e. microphone) to the last step (transducer, i.e. speaker, headphone ).

The sad reality is that most pop/rock sound engineers and their mixers degrade the original signal in various ways to suit their sonic appetite.
You have compression, auto-tune and a plethora of other hurdles to contend with in your pursuit of high fidelity sonic reproduction.

Given that you have a very good source, then the rest of your system should be able to reproduce a very good reconstruction of that recording.

If the source material is a shambles, then the better your system is, the more it will sound like a shambles.

High fidelity equipment is NOT magic in boxes. It cannot make sonic silk purses out od sows ears. Nor can it make a fart sound like a pure 440hz tone,

If you want a system that makes everything sound great, then Hi-Fi is definitely not for you..............

 

[biscottino]

It continually amazes me how people cannot understand the principle of High Fidelity.
High fidelity reproduction is the transference of information from different pieces of equipment resulting in the reproduction of the source data back into a sonic representation that matches the original as close as possible.
This encompasses all the chain from the first step (i.e. microphone) to the last step (transducer, i.e. speaker, headphone ).

The sad reality is that most pop/rock sound engineers and their mixers degrade the original signal in various ways to suit their sonic appetite.
You have compression, auto-tune and a plethora of other hurdles to contend with in your pursuit of high fidelity sonic reproduction.

Given that you have a very good source, then the rest of your system should be able to reproduce a very good reconstruction of that recording.

If the source material is a shambles, then the better your system is, the more it will sound like a shambles.

High fidelity equipment is NOT magic in boxes. It cannot make sonic silk purses out od sows ears. Nor can it make a fart sound like a pure 440hz tone,

If you want a system that makes everything sound great, then Hi-Fi is definitely not for you..............

high fidelity is a broad concept and everyone interprets it as you like. In my home there is my-fi, that is, I apply my concept of fidelity, and I'm so glad ... anyway, I listen to a recording, manipulated in how many ways, and so my listening is just a set of choices made by others.
I had Yamamoto amplifier with 45 tubes and now Viva Egoista and Burmester, for my dynamic headphones, I do not feel that one is more hifi than another, each one in reproduction has excellence.

 

[ToroFiestaSol]

Meh, you can't pretend a gun shot to sound smooth and liquid, I expect that from diarrhea, not from a gun.
High fidelity is simple to comprehend, the closest to the original source, the better. Is a 6db peak in highs and a 5db dip in bass neutral? No. Is 10% THD and rolled off highs neutral? No.

There's no problem with you liking that kind of equipment, but don't say that is high fidelity and don't try to give that word another meaning, is like saying that a good apple has to taste like an orange...just absurd.

EDIT: there's a good way to get things sounding smoother and liquid like with "correct" equipment...get a more liquid, smooth sounding master of the track that you're hearing, that's the right method.

 

[biscottino]

I'm interested in listening to music, I do not care about the best master in the world, i use Tidal in Roon player with my Bricasti, i enjoy.
For a 100 € amplifier right now and a 100 € headset are hifi, so it is certainly not a question of what the value of the equipment you are using.

 

[biscottino]

If I take any valve amplifier that we can call hifi, such as an Apex or an Eddie Current, and try to change modern valves with nos valves, i get an obviously more colorful sound, can I define one more hifi than another?
how do I determine that one is closer to the original record of the other? And if I like what's farthest from the original record, I might be guilty, but what a shame?

 

[Mars Bar]

The problem with your logic assumes the amp designer has no benchmark and couldn't care less about the master tape.

 

[Mars Bar]

And tubes don't colour the sound...

 

[biscottino]

The problem with your logic assumes the amp designer has no benchmark and couldn't care less about the master tape.

each master tape has its own imprint. I've heard Decca and Deutche Gramophone original tapes, and have different recording techniques.
To hear the differences you do not need an expensive hifi, but just a good ear. I have handcrafted recordings of choirs and instruments made in church and without manipulation, and I have no doubt that this music reproduced with my system is equal to the original.

 

[biscottino]

And tubes don't colour the sound...

depends on what your ear is hearing, I have a Yamamoto with 45 and an Emission Lab does not sound like a Sylvania '50, I used a hp2 Grado directly revised by Joseph for the tests.

 

[JimL11]

Big t00bz, transformers all the way. I've to invoke @FrankCooter

Ali

Well, not quite. Frank used a custom transformer in his 845 design, matched to the plate resistance of the845 and the roughly 100 pf impedance of Stax headphones. This guy uses transformers from a Stax F81X electrostatic speaker system, which are designed to transform the voltage from a near-zero output impedance of a power amplifier driving into the impedance of an electrostatic speaker, which is probably on the order of 1 microfarad. However, what we have is an amplifier driving that same transformer with a tube having a plate impedance of a couple hundred ohms (100x the designed input impedance), into a load impedance that is 10,000 fold higher - we're talking orders of magnitude impedance mismatch here.

 

[astrostar59]

_

 

[HoloSpice]

_

Lol I see what you did there..got my hopes up.

 

[astrostar59]

Lol I see what you did there..got my hopes up.

I think RealMassey on here as this amp? Clarification required. I don't want to cause any trouble. It is up to folk to do the research, it's all out their.