3 interesting articles from AES, Journal of Elect Engineers, Eric Barbour

[300A]

[QUOTE=mtrycraft]

Three articles, one from the Audio Engineering Society, one from Eric Barbour, and another from the Journal of Electrical Engineers:

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tube.html

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/select/0898/tubet1.html

Highly personal opinions only in the second link about the disadvantages of SS. Too bad I couldn't reprint it here.

You need to get better stuff to support your like for tubes, or, actually, you don't need any for you to like tubes, only when you make testable claims for it.

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

[RGA]

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

SS Amps are largely the same...the difference is that the measurements have changed to put the newer technology in the best possible light. Wow and flutter on a cd player sure impresses people even though it's worthless as a measurement for cd players.

Speakers on Axis at 1 meter tells you little to nothing of how it actually sounds.

People say the high end has an agenda to get people to spend more money...which may be true. But the large conglomorates selling cheap junk have the BUCKS and they have an agenda as well. The reality is most people are not "into" audio and thus wouldn't it be cheaper for the conglomorate to press the notion that a $200.00 complete stereo system from Costco is as good as it can possibly get. Companies spend money to make buyers feel good about products.

There is an assumption that being a skeptic makes you right. Thus if I write a skeptical magazine then I'm suddenly a more objective magazine.

If all amps are indistinguishable and all cd players are indistibguishable and we go by CR as to what the BEST speakers on the planet are...then basically we may as well take those Bose speakers and connect it to a JVC cd player receiver all in one - and this will obviously be better than the the guy running a B&W or Paradigm set-up with his Rotel or ASL gear.

Where is CR's PROOF - where is the scientific FACT. They are making a claim...they are saying those speakers are BETTER. PROVE it. Prove to me that it will SOUND better to me.

This does not validate the so called "regular magazines" but if there is no listening involved then it's meaningless.

Validity: These people simply don't want to look it up. Even Floyd Toole has STATED that his tests apply to the testing envoironment ONLY. A little thing that very Subjective objectivisists don't mention. Toole knows that the test is not entirely valid...hence the notation of only in the testing environment.

And even then - Hi Fi Choice measures in a room at a listening position - which is why the measurements coincide with the subjective listening experience. If the two don't match - then you MEASURED wrong. period.

Which is not to say everyone is going to agree with Hi-Fi choice...they base it off a panel of listeners blind. They mention that several members didn't like a particular aspect of the sound but others did. On the whole they may give it a 4/5 for sound - but it depends who YOU are. Half may give it a 3 half give it a 5 and think it's the best product going. Another product may get a 5 consensus but 3 of the panel still might have liked that first unit that got an overall 4 stars better.

It's going to depend on you the listener. Interestingly, Michael Colloms is one of the formost experts on audio and he's not so brain dead to rely on testing only. Hi Fi Choice listens in a panel BLind level matched for ALL componants. Interesting that some amps get 3 stars for sound and others get 5. All sound the same - the measurments are not the same either. B'ahh.

Engineers are not scientists. So why would anyone care what an engineer has to say about scientific testing of humans. Engineers can stick what they know...fiddling with gadgets and designing circuits. And even then - The Sugden A21a from the 1960s is still the same now as it was then. In the blind listening session at hi-fi choice it came out on top. In the subjective reviews it comes out on top for the money.

Your article was from what 1973 a good 5-6 years after the Sugden came out...so yes indeed, what has changed so dramatically since then in SS amps to make them better. Most of the AES articles on amps being produced is of a 1980 test of ONE GUY, with his Tanberg(notice they didn't last). No one has said all amps sound different, paying more doesn't ensure it. If I sat in Front of most SS amps even not blind and not level matched they sound the same

[mtrycraft]

First off, the AES reviews the content of articles before printing. I am sure the Journal of Electrical Engineers also do the same. Don't want to soil their reputation.

Secondly, transistors haven't changed in their spectral distortion problems, or quantity. It is inherent. They are very similar to tetrode and pentode tubes in distortion products. Triodes are unique. I believe Eric Barbour clearly shows the spectral distortions of different devices, both tube and SS as does the AES article.

Thirdly, the reason for all those SS part numbers is that when manufacturing transistors, IC chips, the variations in hfe are so varied, they didn't want to throw them away as being out of spec. So they assigned different numbers to them.

Granted most of the population isn't that concerned with audio and replacing tubes every so many years. They just want music of reasonable quality, no hot spots for a child to get burned on and energy efficiency (bills are getting high).

The AES Journal was published in 1973. He must have had a conference presentation first in 1972.
Your other two links is not peer reviwed.

Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke.

[RGA]

SETs by definition are just another audio joke.

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

[300A]

"Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke."

First off, DBTs are not reliable, not proof. No scholar I know of will mentioned the results are fact, period. There is obviuosly a sonic diffence between amps and preamps.

Secondly, Who said SETs are the ultimate? I sure didn't. What about PP?

Thirdly, who says the specs measured today are ALL the specs necessary to measure?? You?? Do you have any proof that is true?
I want to see your proof, no sneaking around trying to wiggle out of it, ok.
I want to see you state that there isn't one more spec necessary to explain the sonic differences between components than that already given. And I want to read the reason why not.

[mtrycraft]

"Why not measure some of the tubes and SS today. And, then do some DBT listeing to see if anyone can differentiate between comparable ones. SETs by definition are just another audio joke."

First off, DBTs are not reliable, not proof. No scholar I know of will mentioned the results are fact, period. There is obviuosly a sonic diffence between amps and preamps.

Secondly, Who said SETs are the ultimate? I sure didn't. What about PP?

Thirdly, who says the specs measured today are ALL the specs necessary to measure?? You?? Do you have any proof that is true?
I want to see your proof, no sneaking around trying to wiggle out of it, ok.
I want to see you state that there isn't one more spec necessary to explain the sonic differences between components than that already given. And I want to read the reason why not.

Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable. You have zero concept which you have demonstrated time and time again.
Obviously you have not determinde audible differences in anything yet. Please stop showing ignorance and make unfounded claims unsupported by evidence.
You have no evidence of missing data that needs measuring. Hell, you have yet to demonstrate audible differences. There is no explanation warranted for a nonexistant event. Obvioulsy everything is measured well enough. The joke is on you.

[300A]

Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable. You have zero concept which you have demonstrated time and time again."

Read below. You have shot yourself in the foot again.

"Obviously you have not determinde audible differences in anything yet. Please stop showing ignorance and make unfounded claims unsupported by evidence."

What evidence have you presented? NONE. And then you shoot your own reference, supporting our position again. Parts measure differently, so it is up to you to prove they don't sound different.

"You have no evidence of missing data that needs measuring. Hell, you have yet to demonstrate audible differences. There is no explanation warranted for a nonexistant event. Obvioulsy everything is measured well enough. The joke is on you.

Avoiding the question for you to prove we have all the measurements necessary, and don't need anymore. Amazing that your reply mentioned only a personal attack. But no Proof when you're asked to present some. Real scientific.

As seen below, you certainly have no evidence to support your position. In fact, you support mine, again.

I have evidence that parts measure differently, even the article "picking capacitors" by Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT, AES article, Journal of Electrical Engineers, Eric Barbour, plus others I could present but why should I when you support my position and knock your own references (which you haven't presented).

This is from another string, you stated:

"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)"

Electrolytic capacitor distortion translates to only some -25db down.

"1) Turntables have rumble factors of some 70db down and we hear that

2) "High distortion" tube amps, which you attack, have distortions only 25 - 30db down.

3) So we cannot hear -25db down? Here is what you stated again:

"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. What is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results.

So you must be the "Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable" as you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

[mtrycraft]

Avoiding the question for you to prove we have all the measurements necessary, and don't need anymore. Amazing that your reply mentioned only a personal attack. But no Proof when you're asked to present some. Real scientific.

No. Actually, you have not presented anything that needs proof. You have yet to demonstrate audible differences let alone that cannot be explained by measurements, current measurements.


As seen below, you certainly have no evidence to support your position. In fact, you support mine, again.


In your dreams.

[b]I have evidence that parts measure differently, even the article "picking capacitors" by Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT, AES article, Journal of Electrical Engineers, Eric Barbour, plus others I could present but why should I when you support my position and knock your own references (which you haven't presented).[/]

WOW. Shoing your ignorance, again. I suppose you can cite my post stating parts don't measure difference. WOW.

Then what? You jump off the bridge and make unsupported claims of audibility. WOW. No evidence, no nothing but your imagination.



"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)"

Electrolytic capacitor distortion translates to only some -25db down.

Oh sure. That is why everything has sooo little distortion, right? LOL.






"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. What is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results.


No. That is your speculated imagination only. What DBT shows is what you can hear and cannot hear. Your sighted listeing shown only your biased perceptions and how unreliable and useless, worthless they are for difference detection. I thought you were the bright one.

So you must be the "Only a total ... would thins a DBT unreliable" as you continue to make a fool out of yourself.

Not at all. You are still in the dog house, in the corner. When you have reality in hand let us know, along with your evidence for audible differences. LOL

[mtrycraft]

One more, but it will not sink in. Nothing has yet.

You need to pay attension, read the right material, AND, stop trying to cross correlate one area of hearing to another: vinyl rumble to distortion levels.
You need to get out and do some research for a change on what is audible and what is not audible, specifically distortion. But then I'd rather talk to the brick wall, at least something sticks to it.

"Just detectable distortion Level" James Moir, Wireless World, Feb 1981, p32-35

"Audible Amplifier Distortion is not a Mystery" Peter J. Baxandall, Wireless World, Nov 1977, page 63-66.

"Ten Years of A/B/X Testing", David Clark, AES print 3167, 1991.

No, I will not tell you what is in there. You hunt and find out. But I doubt you will. Why would you? Your world may be turned upside down.

[mtrycraft]

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

Is that what I said? Or you are reading what you want to read that is not there? That is what you are doing, speculating.

[Pat D]

I gather you have 100% of this statement. Al;l people will think they sound worse is that correct?

This is a claim...where is your proof?

Sorry, but mtry did not make a claim as to what people will like.