Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watcgl!dmmartindale
From: dmmartindale@watcgl.UUCP (Dave Martindale)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: amplifier mystique
Message-ID: <3051@watcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 1-Sep-84 15:09:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: watcgl.3051
Posted: Sat Sep  1 15:09:46 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 07:38:22 EDT
References: <8711@microsoft.UUCP>, <207@olivej.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 23

	From: greg@olivej.UUCP (Greg Paley)

	I can't help but feel there is something fundamentally wrong
	with the idea of designing a piece of equipment with the goal
	of making it sound like another piece of equipment.  If Carver
	really wants to impress us, let him design an amp that reproduces
	the music itself more closely than the Levinson, not one that
	emulates the Levinson.

Well, yes and no.  People have been building amplifiers for a long time
with that goal in mind, but where amplifiers are different someone can
always be found to like one better than another and thus pronouce it
"better" at reproducing music.  If Carver was to claim that his amplifier
was somehow "better" than the Levinson, someone would inevitably dispute
him.  However, what he has done is to build an amplifier which is
indistinguishable in sound from the Levinson - much more effective at
silencing the critics.

However, having proved that he can do it, and that any differences between
his original product and the Levinson are relatively minor, the decision
to actually build his amplifiers to sound like Levinsons seems like
pure marketing rather than good engineering.  I bet it sells a lot of
amplifiers though.