I've experienced such a thing. It was an interesting exercise in technical detective work (at least for one educated in the lowly biological sciences) to whittle out what was going on, but in a nutshell, it was a flawed amp that was adding it's own peculiar subtle reverb effect. I'll admit that the added 'wetness' was a boon to some recordings, but it was not part of the original recording but rather the result of post-processing via flawed amplification.
The amp I speak of is the one in my avatar. I can assure you that it is not defective as it had just been completely restored and was confirmed on the bench to be performing as intended by the engineers that designed it. On sheer specs alone, it is an engineering tour-de-force. That can be proven without a doubt. That point is not debatable.
As for how it sounds, it has captivated me- but that's my personal opinion. We can debate that until the cows come home.
What you fail to understand is that sound stage and imaging are a product of recording and production. If an amplifier does anything other than amplify, it's entered the realm of processor. You also fail to acknowledge the inherent weakness of sighted evaluations, regardless of how long they are. You frankly seem a bit naive on how all of this actually works, but strongly convinced of things that only appear in whimsical marketing material.
Why do you assume I fail to understand anything? Just as some speakers are bottlenecks and impede the reproduction of what is recorded to truly come out, so do some amplifiers. Do you consider a high quality speaker to be a processor if it can image beautifully when compared to a run of the mill speaker? Do you guys actually think that anyone that is not using a $500 AVR is gullible?
Oh, and this isn't groupthink. Think of the Audioholics ethos more as evidence based practice, and refusal to give false equivalency to unsubstantiated whimsy. It can be a bitter pill for those steeped in marketing lore, but realize that it's an approach that respects the music, and your wallet.
I never mentioned groupthink.
As far as marketing whimsy, I don't buy into that. I don't buy into cable BS but I also don't agree with the claim that all amps sound the same. If I did I would have been biased against the amp I'm talking about because it is from a so-called mid-fi manufacturer and was built in 1980! Surely if I were as gullible as you presume I would have been biased against it and believed that the amp that it replaced or other "higher-end" modern amps would easily outperform it. That was not the case.
If anything, I'm quite the opposite of how some are painting me - just because I don't believe that all amps sound the same.
So, no I'm not naive. I just fall somewhere in the middle. I get it from both ends- the science guys and the sound guys. I even have to deal with skeptical retailers that wonder why I'm not running my speakers with something of a "higher caliber". One dealer (without listening to it) said I was running my speakers with a "Chevy" yet my tech called it a "Ferrari" once he got it on his bench- which one is right? I've auditioned so much gear that it's ridiculous. I don't even bother to try to justify why I've settled on this old amp anymore.
I did have one retailer stop by for a listen once. He carries my speakers and had them set up with the TOTL Classe separates. He was expecting me to be floored when I heard it since he knew I was using an old amp. It sounded fantastic but when he saw that I didn't fall off of my chair when I heard what he felt the speakers were capable of he was intrigued. So he stopped by for a listen. After we played some songs he was familiar with I asked him what he thought. This is what he said-
If anything, I'm quite the opposite of how I'm being construed, so no need for anyone to ridicule me - just because I don't believe that all amps sound the same.
