One Amp To ‘Rule’ Them All....

@cleeds yes I know we have some very exacting measures when it comes to the functional testing of gear. 

But do we know what causes our perceptions of certain gear? Have we defined enough our language about those perceptions? What you call ‘tonality’ I may call ‘tuneful’ or ‘natural’.  What does ‘musical’ mean when we hear it in an amp and is that the same as ‘swing’ and what about that amp causes this perception? Is ‘holographic’ sound the same as ‘an excellent 3-dimensional sound stage’? What causes the perception of height or image scale with a given amplifier? What causes ‘inner detail’ or ‘good sense of tempo’ or ‘good rhythm’ in an amp?

Do we know why there are supposed synergies between certain audio components? Can we begin to make better predictions when it comes to gear choices?

We need more commonly decided upon points of reference that is for sure.

“We don’t see things as they are. We see them as we are” Anais Nin

Eveyone has a different standard, taste, inclination based upon many, many factors. Some audiophiles here mostly believe in measurements, others trust their ears and many people have their own ideas about what sounds good. I like to say that they like their own coloration of the sound.

Without delving into deep psychology, we are products of our culture, our parents, our indidual and collective biases, our values, norms and so on. How could we agree on the “One amp to “rule” them all. And why would we want that anyway. I have two amps, one solid state and one tube. Different sounds that I both really like... I also like many flavors of ice cream and one does not rule them all.

There is not a reference amp. Even if there was one, tomorrow someone would make a better one?

That is why I call it a silly question.

So since we exist in what is quite possibly an infinite universe, does this mean we should give up defining things?

The rules, standards, measures we have today took time to form. In the early 1800’s electricity was explained as a fluid. In the late 1800’s and into the 1900’s we believed in luminiferous aether to explain light transmitting through a vacuum. And on topic, the first amplifiers were designed and implemented only about 100 years ago.

There is much left to define and possibly even more left to discover when it comes to amplifier design and how they affect audio reproduction.

Interesting how many are against what really can be seen as a scientific pursuit. I am only interested in further refining our definitions and language regarding the effects we hear in audio reproduction. To do so we will need some benchmarks. (Most of us can point to the sky and say that’s blue, we might experience it differently and some may not even see the blue but having that reference gives us all a greater ability to speak to each other regarding other colors and/or shades of blue). If we can do this more definitively with audio gear quite possibly we can build better amps or choose with better knowledge appropriate synergies of gear. Perhaps one day an amp can be made that can be tuned to your preferences.

Many recording studios still have Yamaha NS-10 near-field monitors in their control rooms. A good example of a solid point of reference in the audio world.

You mention ‘better’....And really what is ‘better’ anyway? Are you simply going to settle for saying “‘better’ is whatever I like now.” Cus that’s what a lot of this industry seems to be. New. Different. Better.

But can you really prove it? Or does everyone just really like feeling special and/or unique supposedly hearing ‘the better’ with their feelings (and lighter pockets)? I know I do....but really, I want more than feelies. I want to know and define WHY different amplifiers do different things. And I am wondering if there are any benchmarks out there. That’s all.

Can no one point to a particular amp and say “it has great tone.” How about, “this amp creates a holographic soundstage in most instances.” Or “this Amplifier has really great swing to it”.

How about that, can we come up with a list of amps that people think demonstrate particular qualities in amplification?

For example, I have a zh270 and it is an example of an amplifier capable of holographic reproduction. I also have a BAT VK-500 and it is a great example of tone and effortless reproduction.

Yes I was hoping for one amp that is competent in most respects, but examples of amplifiers that excel at particular aspects will do as well.

I understand your point, but I would like to say that the sky, when you start to understand atmosphere and light is not blue. It is never just blue. Look at it on any given day, and you will see all the colors of the spectrum from cool or warm gray to yellow to greenish blue to red and so on. To say the sky is blue as a reference point is just limiting and misleading and not educational. But the color of the sky is a good, if not a great, example of amplifiers. I think amplifiers, the beauty of the sounds they all make, is much like that of the beauty of the sky. Limitless in color, tonality, purity of hue and intensity. And we cannot say one skyline is better than another. If really seen deeply, they are all quite stunning.
BTW I used to think solid state amplifiers sounded the best. I picked up a good, maybe not great, vacuum tube amp that I adore much more than the solid state amp. When I went to an audiophile buddy’s house he picked up a Bel Canto class d amp that he luvs. I cannot stand the sound of it, but I did not tell him. Beauty of sound is in one’s own brain. That’s it... really but I suppose anyone can learn to better at listening.

Devialet