'Do you understand why some call this particular amplifier 'clinical' ... whatever that is? - Could it be that it is simply technically more adept than some others (in a similar vain to some Cambridge Audio Designs)? - Is it possible that a lack of distortion together with great stereo separation and low noise gives more of what is on the disc or whatever media is used?'
CacáBr - the above is a good point. Which brings me to another point, often overlooked. Most music is now recorded digitally, has been for a long time. It is definitely at that point that the characteristics of voices, instruments start sounding digitised and getting lost. Ask anyone who has worked in a studio (my brother is an experienced acoustic musician and producer) -
digitally recorded music sounds cold and clinical and doesn't capture voices/instruments in the same way tape did.
Another point is that (you can test this yourselves) music that contains synthesizers for drums / electronic sounds or even as a substitute for violins or other instruments that utilised
analogue synthesizers has a much more beautiful, fuller and alive sound than music recorded with
digital synthesizers. 1970's and early 1980s english electronic music in particular are good examples.
So it isn't so easy to get music sounding as it would live by the fact that they're using digital devices/instruments to create and record music. Thus I agree with
CacáBr's point - certain amps that are seen as too clean / pure could simply be reproducing how it actually sounds from the first master recording.
So perhaps amps that I prefer (warmer, detailed, lots of depth) could actually be distorting digitally recorded master recordings to make them sound more like live voices and instruments (excluding digital synths!).
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram