Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd
From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: amplifier mystique
Message-ID: <763@opus.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Sep-84 02:16:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: opus.763
Posted: Fri Sep  7 02:16:46 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 3-Sep-84 08:56:46 EDT
References: <8711@microsoft.UUCP> <207@olivej.UUCP>
Organization: NBI, Boulder
Lines: 19

> 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.

On the surface, this is a fair request.  However, the fact is (and I'm sure
Bob Carver knows it) that above a certain level of quality in the
electronics, there are differences which CAN be perceived but which AREN'T
really differences in quality; they're only slight differences in
character.  These become perceived as differences in quality only after
some people listen and look at nameplates.

I don't think that Carver is trying to impress us, nor is he trying to
undercut ML.  I DO think he's trying to educate us.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
   ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.