How will my system benefit from a tube amp?

[mas]

Well, now that its readily apparent that both Mark and Dean have no clue as to the advances to which I was alluding to in the last post as they prefer instead to pursue their ritualistic patting each other on the back over their perceived 'counting of coup' in their mutual admiration society... But they seem happy enough, and that's nice...

But that is not too surprising when you are dealing with anyone whose understanding of audio and acoustics remains transfixed upon and limited to the 1940's ruminations of Paul, who would be the first to find such veneration at the expense of enlarging one's insight to be ludicrous and quite laughable.

=========

So, while they are occupied with each other...:

Wouldn't it be nice if some wished to enlarge the envelope of understanding rather than simply rationalizing their emotional preferences. Weren't you enlightened by their insistence that the only acceptable amp was a tube amp?

The fact is, the old models are insufficient to account for a correlation between subjective and a limited objective perspective.

But what really amazes me is just how tightly those folks who decry the old models (and cry such crocodile tears over the inability of the old measurements to account for all subjective experience), so fervently cling to them in their attempts to justify their own emotional positions.

Its almost as if they depend on the old measurement shortcomings to justify their faith.

One would think that these folks would be the first to research the newer evolving models in the hope that their frustrations might be alleviated and new insight and meaning gained.

But reality seems to indicate just the opposite.

I guess those in psychology might have a more adept explanation for why those so traumatized by their inability to reconcile experience with their understanding of the theoretical underpinnings seek the security of the known, however incomplete it may be, rather than to move toward a more rewarding, but less certain alternative.

But... isn't this similar to the experience of battered women (and others) who eschew a life of freedom from torment for the 'security' of a known hell, all because the fear of the unknown is too often overwhelming?

So too, I guess, can be the fear of moving from a comfortable but inadequate understanding of behavior in the phenomenal world. Its a shame.

So, if this description includes 'you', do not go back and discover that to which I attempted to allude in the post previous to this, and by all means, do not look at my weird avatar. ...No sense in needlessly upsetting any apple carts.

After all, we certainly wouldn't want folks looking at the new models and discovering rather simple answers to many of their old dilemmas as they transcend an old paradigm, only to replace it with many more questions in respect to a more expansive, and even more complex new paradigm.

Would we???[8-)][][]

=============================================

{Personally, the potential to have at least a few jump into the mosh pit of the new acoustics models would make my day.

But as a practical concern, maybe we should develop a mutually agreed upon designation for posts to distinguish which model those who participate ascribe, as mixing the old with the new simply results in a miscommunication as elements ranging from the meaning of basic terms an extending to the more abstract concepts grow more and more divergent.

And such a discussion is ultimately frustrating, as it seldom results in a meaningful exchange of ideas, but it rather resembles two folks, each speaking a different language, and only one party knowing - but finding the other's language far to restrictive, fruitlessly debating over the meaning of terms and missing the point of the larger paradigm.

One can imagine Columbus returning to debate the "world is flat" folks who will not posit his terms any meaning. How can you describe that which is over the horizon when by definition you have either fallen off the edge of the earth or that your claims are obviously specious, as by definition, everyone knows that you cannot safely sail beyond the horizon and return to tell about it - thusly, by definition, defining you as a liar.

And poor Galileo!

It would seem prudent in this forum for each of the respective groups to allow each other a wide berth as we wave and stick out our tongues at each other in passing.

Hey, don't get me wrong! I didn't say that we couldn't have a bit of fun at the same time! After all, there was enough room in The Holy Grail for both the English and the French...wasn't there?}

[maxg]

Random thoughts:

To talk about amps operating in their linear range is somewhat limiting on the discussion. Listen to any dynamic piece at volume and unless you are listening at very low levels or with truely massive power you will be clipping the amp at points. At these points most people would accept that tube amps clip more gracefully than SS amps. It this important? How loud to you listen (peak loud)?

Soundstaging may be totally the invention of the sound engineer - but I would guess it is done for a reason other than giving him a job. In my experience the ability to decern a credible soundstage from a recording adds greatly to my enjoyment - real or otherwise. Are we, perhaps confusing real with realistic? The effect of listening to music with a created soundstage is more realistic to me than where there is none. Rubber Soul, for example, is a recording I find harder to enjoy because the singers are all hard left or hard right with nothing appearing in the centre. Wasn't the entire invention of stereo to enable this effect? A more realistic portayal of the music than mono could achieve? Note - not real, realistic.

Linearity in the normal operating range - i.e. when not clipping. I have heard many times that tube amps actually display less distortion than SS amps WHEN OPERATING AT LOW POWER LEVELS. I do not know this to be true but suspect it might be. The THD figure, as I understand it, is with the amp operating at, or about, its higher power output levels and therefore may not give any indication of the performance of the amp for listening purposes - depending on the habits of the listener.

Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that there is an amp out there that is totally linear in its performance with no distortion at all within its operating range. Further, that that operating range is sufficient to cover any needs of the listener. Whatever the frequency, whatever the volume, its output level is totally linear with the input level - an exact match - straightwire with gain achieved. What about the speakers?

I will break from the bullet point layout to expand on this a little - as it is surely not clear as yet. No speaker I have ever come across is linear in its operation.

We all know that the anti-horn brigade come down like a ton of bricks on the distortions inherent in horn design. They are not wrong - they are merely ignoring (because maybe it is not important to their ears) the other benefits of a horn loaded design.

Here is the thing. If matching of amp and speakers means anything other than finding something with the right amount of power to drive the things then surely I might WANT an amp that minimizes the distortions of my speakers. If my speakers are very bright sounding a more rolled off amp might well make them sound better to the listener's ears than one that is truely flat through the frequency range.

Of course - you could apply that same "rolling off" from other points in the chain. I might choose a source that is more rolled off and this totally linear amp. There are many ways to skin this particular cat.

I have concluded therefore, that a system (source to speaker to room to listener) is actually a summing of errors that gives a listenable result - where it is implemented correctly. The old addage - 2 wrongs does not make a right does not, IMO, apply to home audio.

An audiophile is not merely someone who walks into a shop and buys the best possible equipment to make his system. An audiophile is a person who takes time to assess how well given pieces of equipment match together to create the sonic illusion he (or she) is looking for. I could go out and buy simply the best of everything according any given magazine and then discover to my horror that the sonic result is far from perfection. My $100,000 amp does not drive my $150,000 speakers very well afterall. My $100,000 turntable does not match very well with my $15,000 arm and my $12,000 cartridge. My $50,000 pre-amp has an impedance mismatch with my $100,000 amp etc. etc.

Each maybe perfection personified in another system but in this - money no object system - it didnt work.

To apply all of the above to the discussion at hand and to the speakers upon which these fora are based it would appear that for the slight majority on here tube amps offer a better price/performance compromise than SS amps.

[capo72]

This is really interesting reading.I always like a good debate when both sides can provide good info to support their argument.

This thread really had me thinking about Dragonfyer, and how I miss his blue font.

Jeremy<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[gaspr]

Yeah, now I remember Dragonfyer. He was always bringing

up www.escrow.com and using lots of superfluos

language. Hmmm...

[oldtimer]

Yep, another flame war veteran that bit the dust.

[Parrot]

To talk about amps operating in their linear range is somewhat limiting on the discussion. Listen to any dynamic piece at volume and unless you are listening at very low levels or with truely massive power you will be clipping the amp at points. At these points most people would accept that tube amps clip more gracefully than SS amps. It this important? How loud to you listen (peak loud)?

It doesn't matter that it is theoretically possible to clip *any* amp under ultra extreme conditions. The real world significance is that it is far easier to clip a 1.5W amp than it is a 20W, or a 100W. SET fans are clipping their amps far more than they realize because of their "soft-clipping" characteristics. They aren't going to sound like the blades of a pair of scissors striking together; they're just going to compress loud signals and get congested.

Your example would be like someone who is still tired after sleeping 8 hours, deciding that since he's always going to be tired, he might as well sleep just 1 hour a night.

[PrestonTom]

Max (and others), I think part of the problem is that folks are using certain terms loosely and that makes for poor communication.

All amps will have some distortion even when they are not driven hard. However, when they are driven hard due to either inefficient speakers, an amp without a "beefed up" power supply, an amp that can not provide much power, or an amp that can not provide much transient current (to a speaker that presents a low impeadance), etc. Then they become very non-linear. That is they produce much distortion, usually harmonic. There are other things that can go wrong also.

At normal levels the distortion produced by the amp (certain types of distortion) are relatively small. In fact, at these lower levels the amount of distortion may actually be below the "noise floor" in your living room and it may also be below the distortion resulting at the speaker. The electrical to mechanical transduction (at the speaker) is usually a weaker link than the electrical gain in the amp (unless it outside its "linear range"). This is why I like high-efficiency speakers, since they can have very low levels of distortion and can provide a very clean signal. To me this is the biggest difference between the bass on a horn loaded cabinet vs a direct radiator, but I am digressing.

One of the terms that is confusing is when folks refer to the "coloration" or the "roll-off" as being a form of distortion. Usually this is not the case. A device such as a speaker, amp, etc, can act as a filter. That is it can attenuate certain frequencies relative others. That is not a non-linearity and it is not a distortion. It is simply acting as a filter and does not indicate a non-linearity or distortion.

My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio). I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal. Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute. The pieces in the chain should be neutral.

Others have commented that their speakers sound great with a tube amp that they realize adds some distortion to the signal. Great, if they prefer that sound then fine. But MAS (if I can presume to speak for him) and I and others prefer the goal of "reproduction" of the signal. That is an accurate transduction of what was on the CD itself. Other threads have argued this point, and I will not, but it is usually couched with words such as "accuracy vs musicality". I have strong leanings toward the former and find that debate to be very un-interesting.

Since the argument has become a bit hot under the collar, let me gently give a perspective about this. The description I have been discussing is the classic linear systems view. It is a powerful one and it is a fairly well-understood view. It will certainly capture some of the major physical descriptions of what can go wrong, i.e., distortion. The distortion, non-linearity, has diffrent forms but it includes harmonic distortion and inter-modulation distortion, and its variant of transient IM, and clipping and many other forms. A more recent (only a couple of decades old) and complementary view is to look the output & "anomalies" in the time domain. This approach is especially valuable as a diagnostic since it can help identify where in the signal chain a problem is occurring. This includes the entire chain (minus the listener) and can capture the room interactions. There are some very important "interfaces". One is the amp/speaker (with its crossover). And this is really what most of the above discussion has been concerned with. However a speaker that is efficient and does not present a low impedance to the amp is relatively easy to drive (power requirements are less, the need for a "beefed up" power supply to deliver current is minimized, etc). Again some of the other descriptors (time-domain-like) are useful be cause they can tell us some of the problems when "coupling" amps & speakers (literally, what is "reacting" to what).

Another important interface is the speaker/room. Again there are descriptions in both the frequency domain (fairly well understood) and time domain (understood, but not as easy to communicate to a general audience). Again the time domain descriptions are critical since they tell us about the "coupling" of the speaker to the room and can be used to identify & cure certain problems.

My bias, and probably MASs also (again, I am presuming to speak for him) is that far too much attention is paid to the "amplifier issues" and not enough to the the issues about setting up a speaker in a room (or saving money on wires and cables). In either case, folks are hampered by a lack of understanding about some of the underlying measurement issues. The problem with these debates is the anger that is stirred up. Some of this is certainly a result of folks having spent a great deal of money on this or that and firmly believing that their money was well-spent. Others are more open-minded. For myself, I am quite interested in getting a better understanding some of the newer techniques. I am also quite willing to help others (to the extent of my knowledge). Audio should be fun and should also be about learning. It should not be about anger.

However, some still set the ignition timing on their 1964 Chevy using a timing light, while others do it by ear.

Good Luck,

-Tom

[jacksonbart]

I am surprised we don't more time spent arguing/discussing about music here. Learned some new things non the less.

[NOSValves]

My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio). I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal. Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute. The pieces in the chain should be neutral.

================

And how is neutral determined?

Not by the ear..................your graphs above tell it all []

[Islander]

Here is the thing. If matching of amp and speakers means anything other than finding something with the right amount of power to drive the things then surely I might WANT an amp that minimizes the distortions of my speakers. If my speakers are very bright sounding a more rolled off amp might well make them sound better to the listener's ears than one that is truely flat through the frequency range.

Of course - you could apply that same "rolling off" from other points in the chain. I might choose a source that is more rolled off and this totally linear amp. There are many ways to skin this particular cat.

I have concluded therefore, that a system (source to speaker to room to listener) is actually a summing of errors that gives a listenable result - where it is implemented correctly. The old addage - 2 wrongs does not make a right does not, IMO, apply to home audio.

An audiophile is not merely someone who walks into a shop and buys the best possible equipment to make his system. An audiophile is a person who takes time to assess how well given pieces of equipment match together to create the sonic illusion he (or she) is looking for. I could go out and buy simply the best of everything according any given magazine and then discover to my horror that the sonic result is far from perfection. My $100,000 amp does not drive my $150,000 speakers very well afterall. My $100,000 turntable does not match very well with my $15,000 arm and my $12,000 cartridge. My $50,000 pre-amp has an impedance mismatch with my $100,000 amp etc. etc.

Well put, Max! If it sounds good to you in your listening room, it is good. If it sounds good to me in my listening room, it is good. If one person wears a different size and style of shoes from another person, it doesn't imply that one of them is "wrong". This is home audio, not lab experiments. The designers and engineers do the experiments, we pick the flavour we like, since all the components have a flavour (here in the real world), and hopefully enjoy listening to the "sum of the errors".

[PrestonTom]

My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio). I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal. Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute. The pieces in the chain should be neutral.

================

And how is neutral determined?

Good question!

Simply as food for thought, how about using a 2-channel spectrum analyzer.

Channel 1 gets an output of the DAC and Channel 2 gets the output of the mic placed in front of the speaker (in a very large & dead room). The mic and DACs are not the weak links. So now we perform a transfer function. The phase spectrum will be funny due to the propagation delay, but there are some work arounds for that problem.

Most things can usually be measured, even the listener's discriminablity.

-Tom

[NOSValves]

My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio). I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal. Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute. The pieces in the chain should be neutral.

================

And how is neutral determined?

Good question!

Simply as food for thought, how about using a 2-channel spectrum analyzer.

Channel 1 gets an output of the DAC and Channel 2 gets the output of the mic placed in front of the speaker (in a very large & dead room). The mic and DACs are not the weak links. So now we perform a transfer function. The phase spectrum will be funny due to the propagation delay, but there are some work arounds for that problem.

Most things can usually be measured, even the listener's discriminablity.

-Tom

Okay everyone go out and buy the above mentioned test equipment. If you don't your surely never going to enjoy another piece of music.

[DrWho]

My comments simply meant that the AMP----THE AMPLIFIER---doesn't know what kind of signal it is getting. The amp will do a good or bad thing to whatever kind of signal it gets.

Except sine waves? [^o)]

[DrWho]

Here is the thing. If matching of amp and speakers means anything

other than finding something with the right amount of power to drive

the things then surely I might WANT an amp that minimizes the

distortions of my speakers. If my speakers are very bright sounding a

more rolled off amp might well make them sound better to the listener's

ears than one that is truely flat through the frequency range.

Of course - you could apply that same "rolling off" from other

points in the chain. I might choose a source that is more rolled off

and this totally linear amp. There are many ways to skin this

particular cat.

I have concluded therefore, that a system (source to speaker to room

to listener) is actually a summing of errors that gives a listenable

result - where it is implemented correctly. The old addage - 2 wrongs

does not make a right does not, IMO, apply to home audio.

An audiophile is not merely someone who walks into a shop and buys

the best possible equipment to make his system. An audiophile is a

person who takes time to assess how well given pieces of equipment

match together to create the sonic illusion he (or she) is looking for.

I could go out and buy simply the best of everything according any

given magazine and then discover to my horror that the sonic result is

far from perfection. My $100,000 amp does not drive my $150,000

speakers very well afterall. My $100,000 turntable does not match very

well with my $15,000 arm and my $12,000 cartridge. My $50,000 pre-amp

has an impedance mismatch with my $100,000 amp etc. etc.

Well put, Max! If it sounds good to you in your listening room, it

is good. If it sounds good to me in my listening room, it is good. If

one person wears a different size and style of shoes from another

person, it doesn't imply that one of them is "wrong". This is home

audio, not lab experiments. The designers and engineers do the

experiments, we pick the flavour we like, since all the components have

a flavour (here in the real world), and hopefully enjoy listening to

the "sum of the errors".

Very good points - and

exactly the same reason why I've got my tagline at the bottom of all of

my posts [Y] It's about find the combination of least compromise - not

the best of each component.

That said, I think some of us would

like to think that there is an objective way to measure "system

synergy" - or rather, be able to predict when certain components will

go well together. I believe the goal of good engineering is to use

science as a tool to design the device to behave exactly the way you

want it to on the first try. For those of us not designing anything, we

can apply the engineering method to predict the behavior of already

designed devices. I'm sure we are all aware that even the best of

engineering doesn't result in a device behaving exactly as expected -

which means we can't perfectly describe the behavior of a device

without actually trying it. But it costs way too much money to try

everything not to mention it would take too much time with every device

out there, so we're left with measurements providing us with only a

general idea as to the behavior.

So all that to say, always let your ears be the final judge.

One

other comment...measurements are always true in the sense that whatever

the graph is showing actually existed when the measurement was taken. I

would argue those that claim that measurements don't correlate to what

their ears tell them simply aren't interpreting the measurements

correctly. And if one cannot interpret measurements, I would question

how well they can predict how a device will perform. To put it another

way - anyone that claims there is no correlation between a measurement

and what is heard must provide an alternative model explaining the

behavior...otherwise they're just tinkering - not engineering.

[maxg]

Tom,

When it comes to using terms loosely I am one of the more guitly - agreed and accepted. I know what I want to say - but not always how to say it due to the paucity of my technical language - if not my flowing prose.

Just to pick up on a couple of points:

"My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio)."

I dont think anyone here is disagreeing with that - although how we know is another matter entirely - subject to the measuring equipment you mentioned that I dont have (and didnt understand past the caveating).

"I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal."

Now "warmer" or whatever is interesting. Suppose I have colder(?) speakers, or source - would a warmer amp not make sense? Why add an additional box into the mix if you dont need one? Further, how easy is it to affect the corrections you want without the test equipment you mentioned? On the few ocasions I have played with moderately sophisticated equalizers I have found it very easy to totally screw up the sound and extremely hard to invoke even a moderate improvement. On the other hand - I have swapped amps in a system and been floored by the improvement.

"Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute."

Well people do a lot of mods to both sources and amps - often with dramatic effect. One would imagine there is a modifying of the original signal going on (a tube output stage on a CD player for example). It might not be the ideal - but if it achieves an improvment in the sound....why not?

"The pieces in the chain should be neutral."

There we do disagree. The sum of the pieces in the chain that go together to make up the system should be neutral. The chain, in this case, includes the room - for me. Whether that chain is made up of entirely neutral components or far from neutral components that serve to balance each other out matters not one jot, surely?

I am not sure why I am in this discussion - I dont even own a tube amp anymore.

Paul,

By extrapolation of your quick dig at SET amps the same can be said for your PP amp at 20 watts. It will clip more often than a 100 watt SS amp. Therefore the SS amp is a better option?

Obviously my amp is the BEST option of all. I defy anyone with Klipsch speakers to make it clip.

[DrWho]

No tube amp? What are you running now Max?

[oldtimer]

Tom,

When it comes to using terms loosely I am one of the more guitly - agreed and accepted. I know what I want to say - but not always how to say it due to the paucity of my technical language - if not my flowing prose.

Just to pick up on a couple of points:

"My perspective is that the chain of signal reproduction should be exactly that - "reproduction" of what was on the recording (which may be a performance, or it may be something "created" in the studio)."

I dont think anyone here is disagreeing with that - although how we know is another matter entirely - subject to the measuring equipment you mentioned that I dont have (and didnt understand past the caveating).

"I believe this notion, which I agree certainly agree with, is at the heart of MAS's argument. If folks want a "warmer" sound or whatever, then an equalizer is better way to achieve that goal."

Now "warmer" or whatever is interesting. Suppose I have colder(?) speakers, or source - would a warmer amp not make sense? Why add an additional box into the mix if you dont need one? Further, how easy is it to affect the corrections you want without the test equipment you mentioned? On the few ocasions I have played with moderately sophisticated equalizers I have found it very easy to totally screw up the sound and extremely hard to invoke even a moderate improvement. On the other hand - I have swapped amps in a system and been floored by the improvement.

"Using an amp or tube CD player, or speaker cables that someone has "snuck" an inductor into is not a great substitute."

Well people do a lot of mods to both sources and amps - often with dramatic effect. One would imagine there is a modifying of the original signal going on (a tube output stage on a CD player for example). It might not be the ideal - but if it achieves an improvment in the sound....why not?

"The pieces in the chain should be neutral."

There we do disagree. The sum of the pieces in the chain that go together to make up the system should be neutral. The chain, in this case, includes the room - for me. Whether that chain is made up of entirely neutral components or far from neutral components that serve to balance each other out matters not one jot, surely?

I am not sure why I am in this discussion - I dont even own a tube amp anymore.

Paul,

By extrapolation of your quick dig at SET amps the same can be said for your PP amp at 20 watts. It will clip more often than a 100 watt SS amp. Therefore the SS amp is a better option?

Obviously my amp is the BEST option of all. I defy anyone with Klipsch speakers to make it clip.

Well it would be hard to argue with Hercules, eh Max! Additionally, for those out there in the know, how does warm measure compared to not warm or cold?

[maxg]

Who,

I am pleasantly surprised you agreed with my theory as we appear to approach the whole subject of audio from very different standpoints.

Whilst I understand the desire to obtain objective measures to explain why things work - or why we make the choices we do - does anyone actually buy a stereo system - or a component for that stereo system "objectively"?

Funnily enough I have done that once - thinking about it - when I was struggling with my linear tracking arm and had to sit down and work out from first principles exactly what I needed from the cartridge spec-wise and then matched to them to choose the cart. Worked too - but it really was a one off for me.

When you go to audition a new piece of equipment what measuring equipment do you take with you to predict system synergy? I tend to rely on my experience and my ear.

And to answer your question in a later post - a Yamaha MX-D1 500 wpc digital beast!

[maxg]

One would imagine there is a modifying of the original signal going on (a tube output stage on a CD player for example).

==================

Having a tube output for the analog amplifier is not "adding something extra" it is REPLACING something which often sound like lousy with something that often sound better. A tube output in a CDP replaces the OpAmp or other transistor ANALOG AMPLIFIER to achieve output of the signal. All analog amplifiers have distortion.

I have read this 3 times and dont get it Mark - sorry.

If I change the output stage of the CD player the signal received by the amp is identical? So how do I hear a difference?

[PrestonTom]

Good question!

Simply as food for thought, how about using a 2-channel spectrum analyzer.

Channel 1 gets an output of the DAC and Channel 2 gets the output of the mic placed in front of the speaker (in a very large & dead room). The mic and DACs are not the weak links. So now we perform a transfer function. The phase spectrum will be funny due to the propagation delay, but there are some work arounds for that problem.

Most things can usually be measured, even the listener's discriminablity.

==============

Are you measuring the attending amplifier or the speaker? What DAC? What mic?

In the grand scheme of things, a decent DAC and a decent mic (properly positioned) will have the least impact (they will be more similar than disimilar).

You have missed my point, one should think of the amp & speaker as a system. As such you would not want to measure the amp with a power resistor. You would measure with your favorite speaker. This "thought experiment" is whether one amp will function better with your speaker. If the other elements (pe-amp, wire, cable etc) should have relatively little impact if they are "neutral". That was the point of your original question.

Good Luck,

-Tom