Yet another bold claim...

Thank heavens for that

 

Well BD, I do actually listen to a lot of equipment, ranging from mild to wild (one system is £550K).
Now yet again your making assumptions for everyone on mybehalf most rude, most pieces of equipment have inheirient strengths and weakness, I look for the strengths that appeal to me, and raise the traits accordingly, very rarely do I change the voicing as you put it.
Can I tell what I'm doing is going to give what I'm trying to achieve, pretty much so yes.
Markus once scpeticaly asked me how I can supply more leading edge than 14 levels of angle iron, with total trailing note body, and no music removal propeties, by just electronics.
Its called experiance, you when you first start, you have the IDEA, the theroy, by doing 'x' that should give you 'y', but as well all know not always the case.
After a while you get to 'know' what particular item will do pretty much this or that.
you hard a fun sounding cdp that groovy. but rougher than a badgers arse, you want it smoother, great you get it smoother, but the funs all gone?, why/how? arh but maybe that would giving to much away!
Maybe the use of the network anayliser sheds some light on it, possibly?
I mean for a totally wired gain amp, they're should be no noise at all anywhere just pure straight through signal, or should there?, could there be something else you've not accounted for?, does a scope divulge all?, does it need too?,
How can you possibly believe its accurate when the recorded medium is mastered with such average desks?.
We can argue this till the cows come home, and you'll still be as obstinate as ever, though I'm curious, how come the moon/Rotel 1062 don't use pure hard wired circuit boards, for surely this is most basic of essentials to 'accurate sound', I mean those shitty ground planes in 99.9999 of c/boards are certainlt not condusive to premuim accuracy, least I've certainly not heard one that isn't, I mean the power suppiles would be some thing really special, yet the rotel's is just average, the moons is far better, yet can be well improved upon (pictures upon request).
I see the basics and fundemetals missing from arguement here BD, which it has been all along.though you are presistant.

 

Ok Wm, the experience thing is in fact very, very important...

Tube Dude's null test was the result of that and when the output of an amp is equal to its input there's really nothing to argue about... no ground planes, no power supplies or noise issues... and if there's music in the medium it will deliver just that.

As for the 1062 I never said it was perfect, nor it couldn't be made better... it can.

I simply think it is damn good and I could just say like everybody else does that ground planes don't matter as long as I like what I am hearing... but I don't, because I know, like you do, the importance of that to sound accuracy... because in this matter we are talking in absolute terms. Better ground layout, better sound, period. You know that, I know that and Tube Dude certainly knows that.

One thing I am sure, for the 1062 to have that kind of null test there isnt much of fundamentally wrong with it... By taking out the tone and balance controls and everything else that is superfluous you can immediately achieve even better results... not by adding anything but just by taking out... the null test will tell you.

And I rest my case. Thank you all for your time.

 

... and a very good case it was too. You've convinced me that the Rotel RA 1062 is an extraordinarily good amp and I believe that everyone else feels the same way.

In short, I think we're ready to move on.

Which speakers are you listening to, again?

 

Im sorry Steve, Im afraid you cant speak for me.

Im not convinced the Rotel is an extraordinarily good amplifier.

Im convinced that one person in Portugal has performed a test on a Rotel RA 1062 which had a result which he felt was meaningful.


''ready to move on'' is probably a good idea though, as arguements rarely seem to reach conclusion on ZG when one party or more cannot see the opposing viewpoint.

 

Sorry Chris. I see that I left out the :irony: smiley from my post.

 

Sorry Steve, its obvious now you've pointed out the way you meant it.

hey ho