Separate names with a comma.
Obfuscation is such a pathetic tactic.
Yeah that's what I thought. So why do these guys keep bringing up durability of components and "military grade testing" lol...
Maybe they shift the goal posts because they know they can't argue the main point.
I added the despised statement to my sig file.
how bout 2 minutes? You figure it's safe to say nobody on the planet can run a 2 minute mile, or do we need to hedge our bets on the possibility that there's someone out there who can?
DING DING DING DING DING!
Hey man...not cool!
Sorry, I'll change it if you'd like
@gregorio : I have yet to decide if I want to unblock you or not; I only can see your posts in my mailbox until then.
However, do you really believe two amplifiers with the electrically totally equal scheme, but built to a vastly different price point - SOUND THE SAME ?
That additional would buy the customer better and more precisely toleranced electronic components in the circuit itself, better power supply - or even supplies, as in mono blocs; better chassis ( there is such a thing as microphony in amplifiers ... - and better, sturdier cabinets are there not only for looks, but can actually aid in better sound quality ), and so on and so forth.
In history, there have been examples of identical ( or almost identical ) electrical scheme amplifiers built to two or even three different price points. The law of diminishing returns is very much still alive - as is the edge the pricier amps have over the lower priced. Saying that both perform and sound equally is simply not true.
Both. Sorry for not making it clearer.
what don't you understand about the fact that it's been proven they DO sound the same? In comparison testing. For instance in the articles being discussed over the past few pages of this thread. Better components don't matter if they make no AUDIBLE difference. If the cheap stuff produces sound that has distortion well outside the bounds of human hearing, it doesn't matter if the more expensive amp produces 50% less distortion - it was ALREADY more than as good as it needed to be.
OK. Nothing anyone says can get through. He just ignores anything that doesn't fit his agenda.
So then you are telling me all amps need 300 hours of burn in to reach their published performance specs?
I don't flag things but feel you can illustrate your side of an argument more effectively -- without an ad-hominem attack and degrading a group of people in one fell swoop.
I think there is some literal truth to it, but I changed it by your request.
Amps SHOULD perform better than the published specs - those are only the minimum performance figures. And most do just that - they get better.
And, most of them do need about those 300 hours to really settle down and remain constant in performance - at least when operated at intended temperature. I hope no one will dispute the fact that amplifier from the stone cold after non operation for a considerable amount of time sounds exactly the same as after having reached its optimum operating temperature.
Reaching published specs zealots have been perhaps best answered by Bob Carver; after one of his tested amps failed to reach published power output by a few watts ( at 100 or 200 W spec IIRC ) due to a few too little turns of wire in the secondary of the transformer in the first batch, both competition and specsomaniacs had a field day. After that, he spec'd all of his amps as 101 + 101 Watts, 201 +201 Watts, 401 + 401 Watts, etc - and seeing to that that even with AC voltage lower than normal, that " one more watt " has been available.