"Audio Empire" wrote in message
On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 14:36:10 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
"Rockinghorse Winner"
wrote in message
You can't tell ME that all amps sound the same! 
Nobody is telling you that all amps sound the same. It
is just the good ones that sound the same, and there is
good reason to believe that neither of the amps you are
comparing are good amps.
NOW you change your tune!
Where have I said otherwise?
I admit that there is a sort of a self-defining truism here - which is that
all good amps sound the same (as a straight piece of wire with gain) and
that any amp that fails to do this is by definition, not good amplifier. It
is similarly true that all good converters sound the same (as a straight
piece of wire, this time no gain) and that any converter that fails to do
this is by definition, not good.
It is also true that the study of classical electronics (i.e., as I learned
it in the 1960s) gives no specific insights into audibility. However an
area of the joint studies of biology and physics oddly (oddly to me since
the Psycho- prefix implies psychology and no social science is actually
involved) known as Psychoacoustics, does.
Modern electronics texts do mention many of the findings of the science of
Psychoacooustics. So in 2010, the field of Electronics as it now it has
solid explanations about how electronics can be imperfect in terms of
theoretical and measured performance, but also be perfect as far as the ear
goes.
Psychacoustics came into its own as a science in the late 1980s. However,
even in the 1960s we heard mention of the word Masking and we were aware of
the findings of Fletcher and Munson. It turns out that due to Masking,
Fletcher and Munson turned out to be very optimistic about the sensitivity
of the human ear. However, even the findings of Fletcher and Munson which
have stood the test of time in their rightful context, show that it should
be fairly easy to build converters and amplfiiers that while measurably
flawed are sonically perfect.