-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
At point the distortion is very low in total, although I suppose you could say it's significant.
Have you ever heard an old Crown preamp? The IC-150 preamp had 0.05% distortion maximum from 20-20khz. Yet, it was horrible sounding. When I bought a Crown amp back in '75, the dealer talked me out of buying the ICK. It was cold, sterile and the top was much like fingernails on a chalkboard. While I cannot find a spectral graph, let's just assume the "worst" and say that ALL of it was high order.
The spectral analysis of a single frequency (50 hz at that!) is hardly a conclusive arbiter of the ten octave reproduction of music. Yes 0.05% worth of inherently obnoxious atonal distortion is evidently clearly audible!
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Have you ever heard an old Crown preamp? The IC-150 preamp had 0.05% distortion maximum from 20-20khz. Yet, it was horrible sounding. When I bought a Crown amp back in '75, the dealer talked me out of buying the ICK. It was cold, sterile and the top was much like fingernails on a chalkboard. While I cannot find a spectral graph, let's just assume the "worst" and say that ALL of it was high order.
Are you trying to infer that your experience with the Crown preamp (of 1975 vintage!) is representative of ALL SS preamps and power amplifiers.
Quote:
The spectral analysis of a single frequency (50 hz at that!) is hardly a conclusive arbiter of the ten octave reproduction of music. Yes 0.05% worth of inherently obnoxious atonal distortion is evidently clearly audible!
Then how do you square these graphs( note the scaling ) at 1KHz (i.e. in the midrange)? :6:
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...sespectrum.gif
against this
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...sespectrum.gif
or this
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/me...360/chart5.gif
Of note in the final graph (tho' not relevant to me), is that the 3rd Order harmanic is actually larger than 2nd and it is a tube amp.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Are you trying to infer that your experience with the Crown preamp (of 1975 vintage!) is representative of ALL SS preamps and power amplifiers.
Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps? What I am pointing out is this:
Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Then how do you square these graphs( note the scaling ) at 1KHz (i.e. in the midrange)?
Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.
rw
-
Time out guys!
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps? What I am pointing out is this:
Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.
Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.
rw
Let me give you some insight from my own experiences. This has to do with two SS amps. One with MUCH more distortion than the other, but both of them rated "A" by Stereophile. I regularly switch these amps out of my setup JUST so I can hone my ability to hear sonic differences between amps. (I also enjoy both amps)
To make a long story short, I PREFER the one with the higher distortion, but not because of the distortion. It's high frequency response is a tad more mellow than the other one. The difference is on the order of 1db between them, but I can hear it. With my speakers that makes a difference. The higher distortion amp is also a bit "looser" on the bottom end, which slightly adds to the apparent bass. Also more enjoyable with MY speakers. A different set of speakers and the tables might be reversed.
The point I'm trying to get across is that an amp cannot be thought of as an entity. It's part of an amp/speaker closed system and as such that's how they should be evaluated.
Probably another reason why measurments made with a simple resistor are not picking up the true measure of performance.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps?
I never suggested such....here a link to my original post, also see my response to Joe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
What I am pointing out is this:
Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.
I do not disagree with this statement as long as 'musical performance' implies your personal preference. Or are you using 'musical performance in another context'?
More importantly, why then did you say all this in an earlier post
Quote:
_SNIP_ Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I confess my preference has changed as I have gotten older, (hopefully) wiser, and my musical tastes have evolved. Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion. Quantity alone is not a good measure of musical faithfulness. It has been proven long ago that the even order harmonic distortion produced by tube amps is far less audible than the higher order, odd harmonics generated by solid state amps. Tube amps distort right in the audible blind spot so to speak. Another problem with the metrics is that they are measured with steady state signals, not dynamic musical content.
That post is totally contradicts you new stated position, in addition to the obvious inaccuracies in the former, there are too many inconsistencies between both posts. Moving on
Quote:
Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.
How do you know that 'tube amps distort in the audible blindspot', when you just said that there is no metric to correlate harmonic distortion to musical performance? The graphs shown previously show that those tube amplifiers have higher distortion across the whole spectrum, so comments about "human auditory blindspot" (what is that?) are essentially moot.
Back to my original point, In direct contradiction to your original comments, tubes amplifiers produce both odd and even order distortion like their SS cousins, the spectrum of the distortion is circuit dependent. The big difference is that on average, they produce a lot more distortion that their SS cousins. The graphs that I have linked to amply demonstrate that.:17: :18: :7:
-
I agree with these sentiments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
The point I'm trying to get across is that an amp cannot be thought of as an entity. It's part of an amp/speaker closed system and as such that's how they should be evaluated.
Probably another reason why measurments made with a simple resistor are not picking up the true measure of performance.
I agree with the first comment entirely, and the second is probably self evident, though it must be said that an amplifier produces higher distortion into a resistor is unlikely to produce less distortion into an actual speaker load.:6:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by emack27
I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps. Do they sound bright or smooth compared to solid state? What type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?
I've listened to SS my whole life too. If you want what is considered accurate -- go to your local studio and buy their Bryston and PMC (though the Bryston is actually overkill since the entry level receiver from a company calle "Quest" is every bit as capable and it runs $90.00Canadian will do the job assuming you don't crank it quite as loud.
Oh you want something that sounds good - that is an entirely different question sorry I read your post wrong -- well guess what -- you;re the only guy who is going to be able to determine what actually sounds better to you. Tube amps don't sound ver much the same at all -- and some of them sound less tubey than some SS amps. Relative High efficiency in my experience sounds better no matter what amplifier you use -- but it makes sense to use them with lower powered amps.
Everything you listen to -- the stereo and the music itself comes down to your personal preference of it. Why does one guy love Tupac while hating Mozart while someone else can't stand Hip Hop but loves Rage against the Machine.
Most people who have gone to High efficiency and tubes were people who owned set-ups like Bryston and PMC. And not the other way around. They decided that they wanted their music to sound good rather than be someone else's idea of more perfect.
"Joe Robert’s "Sound Practices" magazine had a major effect on the North American market by exposing it to schools of audio design from Japan, Italy, and France. The overseas ultra-fi fans didn’t have sour memories of the "West Coast Sound" marketing disaster, and continued to hold the classic high-efficiency theatre speakers in high regard.
Outside of the Anglo-American orbit, the design philosophies of "old" Western Electric theatre speakers, Altec and JBL studio-monitor systems, and P.G.A.H. Voight's Tractrix horns are still taken quite seriously. The appeal isn’t nostalgia; brand-new drivers and horns made from exotic materials appear on the market at prices that would astound Western audiophiles. These alternate-paradigm speakers work especially well with flea-power amplifiers using direct-heated single-ended triodes; a 3 watt 2A3 amplifier simply doesn’t work with room-sized electrostats or planars, but works beautifully with a 104dB efficient all-horn system.
To those who think amplifiers have already reached near-perfection (almost all of the AES establishment and home-theatre vendors), this embracing of archaic "foreign" technologies looks like some kind of bizarre joke. The slick high-end magazines explain away the horn/triode phenomenon as retro-chic, just another trendy example of mythologizing the past.
The flip side of this coin is the fact that the most articulate horn/triode advocates have already owned, and discarded, mainstream audiophile systems. As a fairly mainstream speaker designer myself, I can attest that raising the efficiency of conventional direct-radiators is most certainly worthwhile ... you get a significant improvement in clarity, immediacy, and naturalness, and your choice of amplifier opens up to much more interesting technologies." (Lynn Olson)
You simply have to listen and decide if what the tube set-up is doing sounds better -- it doesn't measure better -- so it comes down to the peripherals -- those two things that stick out the side of your head. I can tell you that it sure sucks not to be able to point to a graph and say see that is why it sounds better. But having had Bryston in my home and after spending time with brethtakingly good measuring gear with all the technical jargon sighting its absolute superiority -- well it ultimately sounds sterile.
Here is a fellow who owned for decades top Bryston PMC and numerous other Tom Nousaine, John Atkinson and enginnering guru's dream systems (of which I have heard as well) -- in the end you can either own what those guys think is best or what actually sounds good. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?...45133&review=1
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
I do not disagree with this statement as long as 'musical performance' implies your personal preference. Or are you using 'musical performance in another context'?
If you use your amps for the purpose of generating graphs, then so be it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
How do you know that 'tube amps distort in the audible blindspot', when you just said that there is no metric to correlate harmonic distortion to musical performance?
Averaged THD or isolated single tone spectra are not particularly useful for providing a complete picture when the objective is listening to music. Individual tests, however, on tones have proven differences that would suggest a mechanism behind the audible differences.
I find one of the best measuring amps, the Halcro, to be quite sterile sounding.
rw
-
Sigh....
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
If you use your amps for the purpose of generating graphs, then so be it.
Sigh..In other words, it simply meant preference.
Quote:
Averaged THD or isolated single tone spectra are not particularly useful for providing a complete picture when the objective is listening to music. Individual tests, however, on tones have proven differences that would suggest a mechanism behind the audible differences.
THD is irrelevant to the discusion. You tests obviously seem better than the single tone tests presernted here, could you reference some of them, afterall you said it had been proven long ago?
-
E-Stat
Don't want to jump in but be clear about what you are trying to argue with TAH. First don't bother arguing over technical merits of tubes with him or any arm chair or real engineer. The measurement technique was chosen long ago and favors SS and CD (over tube and Vnyl).
SS and CD have used the technical arguments for a long time because they need it to sell. Certainly the sound has not. If the sound quality did then the other two formats would have been abolished. And they will point out that VInyl and tubes are all but dead -- but that is only the mass market not the audiophile community. CD was purchased largely due to the fact that it is small - portable and recordable (which is why Tape was popular before). Laserdisc in every measurable way was superior to VHS tape but only the audiophile videophile community chose sound and video quality over features -- the masses will and always do choose functionality over quality.
So you have the up market audiophile music lover and even musicians who have adopted the "inferior measuring" and E-STAT -- with the measuring standards in place they are clearly inferior. But so what? Why argue the point. Some stuff was designed to measure in certain tests very well so they'd have something to advertise and some stuff was designed to sound good regardless of the measurements. As an example you don't buy SET because it measures good -- Even SET owners should know that. You also don't buy SET because it is cheap, or has any features, or looks good. You can't be seduced by things like big power specs or measured response, or spec sheets. In fact it has only one thing going for it -- the sound. (and even then it has to be connected to something that will not stress it out).
So I don't see why you don't resign yourself to stating this as a preference like I have done. In every measurable way the Bryston and all my other SS amps over the last 15 years is vastly superior to my tube amp -- I bought the amp that made music sound like music.
The engineering types I'm not sure of their motives -- is it to educate tube owners on this -- I doubt it because I already know the Bryston measures better? Not sure what the motive is but I have a feeling it is to satisfy their inferiority complex...I hear better and am logical because I buy gear based off the books and engineering white papers while you little moron baboons only buy tubes because you got duped into liking distortion artifacts -- I have better hearing than you as a result of this superior knowledge.
Get the picture of these folks E-Stat -- you should have learned after talking with Soundmind. He has this all down to musical taste as well. If you like Rock/Rap/Hip Hop/Pop then you sir are a BABOON -- If you like Coltrane you have no taste in quality musicianship. Not only that he has it down to individual instruments -- Piano is the absolute top of the grade because it covers the complete frequency spectrum (it therefore measures best) while an Oboist or flutist is a hack in absolute terms. Every instrument is graded from supreme quality to lowest. If you like a violinist over a pianist then you sir are a Baboon! And singers are of course rated for octave coverage and pitch -- so forget Ella Fitgerald -- dog crap vocalist compared to real singers.
The fact that anyone owns a direct radiating speaker automatically puts you into Baboon territory -- maybe a gorilla or neanderthal man if you at least own a Crown and a Bose or AR 9.
-
How about a tube amp with a damping factor of 200.
All the old concerns about tube amps being speaker fussy will be negated.
These devices are on their way.
I can't divulge the source quite yet but when they are on the market I will let you know more.
These involve a radical new approach to cricuit design.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
The fact that anyone owns a direct radiating speaker automatically puts you into Baboon territory -- maybe a gorilla or neanderthal man if you at least own a Crown and a Bose or AR 9.
That is Skeptic/Soundmind for sure!
Indeed, there is no point debating the issue further - I didn't realize TAH would continue his "but how about THIS graph, huh?" approach. My ears were opened to the irrelevancy of conventional metrics in 1972 when I took my AR Integrated amp to the McIntosh clinic. Measured great but ultimately sounded mediocre.
Bottom line for both of us: my solid state amp (a rather nice Threshold Stasis) doesn't reproduce a female voice on the Sound Labs as convincingly as the VTL 450s. Only one captures the emotion of the event.
rw
-
Sigh..all that meandering
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Indeed, there is no point debating the issue further - I didn't realize TAH would continue his "but how about THIS graph, huh?" approach. My ears were opened to the irrelevancy of conventional metrics in 1972 when I took my AR Integrated amp to the McIntosh clinic. Measured great but ultimately sounded mediocre.
So after entering the thread with great flourish saying
It would require a lengthy essay to fully answer your question as this topic has raged on for decades. Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I confess my preference has changed as I have gotten older, (hopefully) wiser, and my musical tastes have evolved. Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion...
After much prodding to get you to back up your comments with some credible information. You provide absolutely nothing and exit there thread thread with a whimper saying
.Bottom line for both of us: my solid state amp (a rather nice Threshold Stasis) doesn't reproduce a female voice on the Sound Labs as convincingly as the VTL 450s. .
In other words, it was simple preference all along.. sigh...all that meandering ...when I prefer A to B and stopped there will have been sufficient and a lot more credible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
... The measurement technique was chosen long ago and favors SS and CD (over tube and Vinyl).
Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.
-
Quote:
(...music should be musical, not the playback gear...)
Well, we've had this debate numerous times, That in principal the argument makes sense but in reality, given the current SOTA [let alone mid-fi], that there are so many issues and processes that manipulate the finish product [disc or album] that the integrity to the source argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean what exactly is "the source"? What happened at the point of creation or what you hold in your hand? And would the musicains even reconizie that? The way I see it there are many people involved in the final product that touches your ears. Untill we have a universal playback system, where we can eliminate the effects of [replay] technology we should admit that we [system builders] are involved in this process and that at this point of it's development there are so many embellishments - beyond the point of creation - that there isn't a "universal truth".
And honestly, I don't know if that is what I would prefer. As I feel my involvement in the process is something I enjoy. And for all the talk about "distortion" and "inaccuracy" that is not the impression my playback system leaves the listener. Not that that is paramount to me. My intention was to assemble a vehicle to transport me to places I could never visit, not build the impossible. And I think if we ever were able to perfectly reproduce sound with some universal playback "component" that would kill the hobby as we know it.
-
i am with you here..
Quote:
(...music should be musical, not the playback gear...)
I largely disagree with these comments because it assumes an underlying premise that is everybody seeks neutral playback, which is highly unlikely as audio is like many other scenarios, folks preferences are all over the map.
I am of the opinion that everybody should be given free rein to build a system in whatever manner pleases them, whatever it takes for the individual to enjoy his/her music will suffice. Your misgivings are entirely rational and simply underline the fact that in many situations our musical enjoyment is derived from more just the actual sound that emanates from our audio systems or the fact sometimes we prefer to have our own stamp on the sound that emanates from the system.
Measurements are no more than simple markers in the ground to define the objectiive performance of components. The main problem I see here is that some folk attempt rather unsuccessfully to couch their preferences in terms of objective performance, the misguided appeal to authority prevalent in many audio circles is unfortunate, and more often than not it makes many audiophiles the subject of well deserved ridicule.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.
Ahh the depth of your ability to misrepresent others -- there is more to measurements than distortion -- which umm I did not mention. .
-
Soundmind or otherwise
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
That is Skeptic/Soundmind for sure!
...
rw
Amongst all the rest of this, he is a socio-economic "Objectivist" too, viz. an Ayn Rand supporter. :nonod: This renders all his preferences irrelevant to me.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
... there is more to measurements than distortion -- which umm I did not mention. .
How about telling us which measurements were formulated to make vinyl or tubes look bad? Is it SNR, FR, IMD, rumble or wow and flutter?
Hint: All the measurements preceded CD. SNR, FR and IMD preceded transistors.
-
Psycho-accoustic research ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
...
In other words, it was simple preference all along.. sigh...all that meandering ...when I prefer A to B and stopped there will have been sufficient and a lot more credible.
Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.
... is lacking still. It ought to be possible to devise experiments that could determine which characteristics of reproduced sound most pleasing to the human ear. This sort of research might some day unify 'objective' measurement with 'subjective' impressions. Some research has been done, I gather, but the results are inconclusive. It remains an hypothesis that lower order and/or even order harmonic distortion is more agreeable than high order and/or odd order harmonics.
At this point it's pretty clear that all objective measurements indicate the SS is more accurate that tubes, but not perfectly accurate, nor inaccurate in the same way as tubes. So there is no conclusion possible as to which is psycho-accoustically better.
I'm content with solid state, at least with the likes of my "digital" Bel Canto; (granted, my old Phase Linear sounded pretty grim on last listening). Then again I'm blessed in two respects:
- At 61, I'm stone deaf to sounds much above 10kHz, and
- I can't afford a high-end set up of the sort that seems to drive out the differences for some audiophiles.
So I just enjoy the music oblivious to what I'm missing.
:17: :16: :21:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.
Thirty years of listening continues to prove to these ears that the numbers alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.
Solid state reproduction is more like smelling the scent of say cinnamon from an air freshener. While clear and distinct, it lacks the body and nuance of the real thing. Wtih tubes, voices and unamplififed instruments reveal more of their harmonic structure and possess better depth.
Yes, more realistic musical reproduction is my preference.
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
Thirty years of listening continues to prove to these ears that the numbers alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.
In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.
-
Quote:
Solid state reproduction is more like smelling the scent of say cinnamon from an air freshener. While clear and distinct, it lacks the body and nuance of the real thing. With tubes, voices and unamplified instruments reveal more of their harmonic structure and possess better depth.
Well said. The real difference at hand is that some guys engage things more from a analytical angle while others embrace their passions emotionally. Considering the subject at hand - music - I'll stick with the later.
-
And yours do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.
I see nowhere in your posts that tells me the metrics used today are an accurate discription of the sonic performance of an amp. Far from it, to me the most commonly used one, THD, is only the most basic reading of performance. Audio engineers still have not figured out the correct metrics for amps yet. A simple educated listen will tell you that.
You do listen to different amps right?
-
Well, that is a personal opinion
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
Well said. The real difference at hand is that some guys engage things more from a analytical angle while others embrace their passions emotionally. Considering the subject at hand - music - I'll stick with the later.
My SS amp will not fit that mould, and any of many other good ones too.
-
Quote:
My SS amp will not fit that mould, and any of many other good ones too.
No offense intended. My comment wasn't about tubes vs SS. I just found his comments reflective of what attracts me to my amplification choice. It was more about how you engage audio, not your preference in the delivery devices. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
-
No offence taken
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
No offense intended. My comment wasn't about tubes vs SS. I just found his comments reflective of what attracts me to my amplification choice. It was more about how you engage audio, not your preference in the delivery devices. <!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
I feel that a TRUE audiophile (and I'm not afraid to call myself that) is on who always looking for the path to audio nirvana, wherever it may lead. Much like the quest for the grail, it is the journey that is the true calling.
-
I've never been afraid to call my an audiophile, even when some people would have you believe that is a bad thing. I pursued the "absolute sound" even if my intrepretation didn't exactly fit the precise definition. I was striving for more, given my means. That was then. These days I think I've turned in my "audiophile card" as I'm no longer searching. Not that I've found "the truth" but I'm comfortable and happy with where I'm at. Admittedly my system is no closer to perfection than it was four years ago but save for a recent cable upgrade [the 1st in three years] I'm not sure my behavior or attitude fits the profile of "audiophile". Not that I think of that term as some sort of badge of honor, instead just a descriptor.
-
Indeed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mwalsdor_cscc_edu
I've never been afraid to call my an audiophile, even when some people would have you believe that is a bad thing. ....
Mwalsdor, Geoff,
I've already denounced myself as an inadequate audiophile: too willing to accept "good enough", too pragmatic. And not sufficiently dedicated to compare components for hours on end to conclude that, perhaps, there is some tiny difference among them. I accept too that the differences I do think I hear might be imaginary, conditioned by my expectations, my mood, my fatigue level, ambient noise, or the time of day.
I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.
:16:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
I see nowhere in your posts that tells me the metrics used today are an accurate discription of the sonic performance of an amp. Far from it, to me the most commonly used one, THD, is only the most basic reading of performance. Audio engineers still have not figured out the correct metrics for amps yet. A simple educated listen will tell you that.
You do listen to different amps right?
What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?
Amplifiers are used in many other industries apart from audio and they do not have any issues defining the electrical performance of amplifiers. I mentioned some of the metrics in the post to RGA, though for audio, power delivery as a function of frequency and output impedance is a very important metric. In domestic audio, the specific electrical performance is not nearly as important as long as the product reasonably satisfies the expections of the consumer (which may be totally unrelated to its electrical performance) and is electrically safe( legal requirement). This is a characteristic that audio shares in common a number of other domestic products such TVs, cellphones etc. It is important to state that preferences will follow a bell curve, distribution, though a majority may prefer a core set of characteritics, but there will be those on both sides on the curve with more esoteric preferences for a variety of reasons.
THD was documented as inadequate as far back as the 1950's, before transistors had widespread application in audio amplifiers, THD is largely used for equipment specifications as opposed to a metric for performance measurement, much in the same same way that nominal impedance is for speakers. As it is a summation generally specified at a specific frequency, power and output impedance. However it a single number therefore easy to read ,tha explains its prevalance of a means of specification.
I have not suggested anywhere that audio amplifiers do not sound different, they do for a variety of non-esoteric reasons. However, E-stat's air refreshner example brings up the old DBT chestnut, will he or any person be able to tell the aroma of real cinnamon and from that of an air refreshner (designed to duplicate the aroma exactly) under blind conditions? A specific example of the critical importance of this phenomenon in operation is supermarkets that spray "fresh bread" air refreshners towards the entrance to lure folks towards the fresh bread bakery :), Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.
-
SS Guitar amps have gotten very good as of lately
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?
Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.
Engineers have "cracked the code" so to speak, on being able to imitate the performance of tubed based units through the use of DSP. My daughter's Fender G-DEC can emulate the sounds of many other amps, and it's quite fun to play with it. However, the thread at hand is "Tubes vs. SS. Pros vs. Cons as it applies to home audio. Right now, at least in the home audio arena, we do not have emulating amps. (although my conjecture is it's only a matter of time)
-
You can deny it all you want
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor
Mwalsdor, Geoff,
I've already denounced myself as an inadequate audiophile: too willing to accept "good enough", too pragmatic. And not sufficiently dedicated to compare components for hours on end to conclude that, perhaps, there is some tiny difference among them. I accept too that the differences I do think I hear might be imaginary, conditioned by my expectations, my mood, my fatigue level, ambient noise, or the time of day.
I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.
:16:
But your affliction is still most apparent!
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
However, the thread at hand is "Tubes vs. SS. Pros vs. Cons as it applies to home audio. Right now, at least in the home audio arena, we do not have emulating amps. (although my conjecture is it's only a matter of time)
The same applies to home audio, however the resultant implications are one of the of many reasons audiophiles hate DBTs:o as it takes the sting out of the tail of some very treasured myths.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
How about telling us which measurements were formulated to make vinyl or tubes look bad? Is it SNR, FR, IMD, rumble or wow and flutter?
Hint: All the measurements preceded CD. SNR, FR and IMD preceded transistors.
do your own homework as it is apparent you have not (see wow and flutter -- see dynamic range as two starting points on changes in measuring). You want people who prefer tube amps to say SS measures better? (since I can see no other reason for your dead horse beating posts -- well you have it from me -- SS measures better -- is the baby happy now that he has his milk?
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.
Actually I am fully capable of running a Double Blind experiment and in the psychology aspect of this test (which is the ONLY RELEVANT field) I will be happy to oblige. I tried but you say it is too inconvenient.
Please tell me what it is exactly you wish to prove -- that in controlled listening people will prefer SS to tubes -- if so which SS which tubes which speakers which people are listening, how long and then where is your irrifutable proof? The implication you make is that people who buy tubes are being fooled -- either by the romanticism of tubes (the look the retroness of it all) or by the pleasing sound. ALL of these are very plausible things to hypothesize and any amateur scientist would be remiss not to at least have this enter their heads. Proving this hypothesis has certainly not been established by you or anyone else.
You are misrepresenting E-STAT -- he is talking about his preference which he has said numerous times -- then you create a STRAW MAN argument "Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance," great where did he say tht 30 years of listening made him an expert on amplifier design? I get the feeling - in fact I know - you are merely a blowhard who likes to create an argument where none exists. Having someone who likes tubes try to wrestle with the fact that gee there is something to this preference as SOOOOO many people who started with SS and wonderous measuring equipment go to tubes and usually HE stuff that measures worse there is an intangible element they are trying to explain. Intangible means not fully understood, but there's obviously something in it because we're not all deaf. And the hypotheses I mentioned above may have some influence -- but then again that certainly has NEVER been established even remotely - directly stated or implied.
Of course SS measures better than SET and tubes --- the issue is what sounds better -- and I see zero evidence from you or anyone else that has irrifutably or otherwise proved this over long term valid listening - or in the usual invalid blind sessions or otherwise.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?
Amplifiers are used in many other industries apart from audio and they do not have any issues defining the electrical performance of amplifiers. I mentioned some of the metrics in the post to RGA, though for audio, power delivery as a function of frequency and output impedance is a very important metric. In domestic audio, the specific electrical performance is not nearly as important as long as the product reasonably satisfies the expections of the consumer (which may be totally unrelated to its electrical performance) and is electrically safe( legal requirement). This is a characteristic that audio shares in common a number of other domestic products such TVs, cellphones etc. It is important to state that preferences will follow a bell curve, distribution, though a majority may prefer a core set of characteritics, but there will be those on both sides on the curve with more esoteric preferences for a variety of reasons.
THD was documented as inadequate as far back as the 1950's, before transistors had widespread application in audio amplifiers, THD is largely used for equipment specifications as opposed to a metric for performance measurement, much in the same same way that nominal impedance is for speakers. As it is a summation generally specified at a specific frequency, power and output impedance. However it a single number therefore easy to read ,tha explains its prevalance of a means of specification.
I have not suggested anywhere that audio amplifiers do not sound different, they do for a variety of non-esoteric reasons. However, E-stat's air refreshner example brings up the old DBT chestnut, will he or any person be able to tell the aroma of real cinnamon and from that of an air refreshner (designed to duplicate the aroma exactly) under blind conditions? A specific example of the critical importance of this phenomenon in operation is supermarkets that spray "fresh bread" air refreshners towards the entrance to lure folks towards the fresh bread bakery :), Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.
Great would you be up to a challenge of "let's find the tube amp" if I let you listen to ten amplifiers and one is a tube amp -- in a blind test do you think you can know for certain which one is the tube amp? The SS amps will all be pre-tested as being indistinguishable from each other -- the only different amp will be a tube amp that I am familiar with. Tube amps you must not have much experience with -- this notion that one can make a SS amp sound like a tube amp implies that tube amps have a homogeneious sound (all tubes share the same traits). I know a number of people who thought it was a SS amp playing (and no it't not Audio Note to get this out of the way now). Seems to me this maker made his tube amp to sound like a SS amp -- big deal.
Lots of imitation products are made to fool consumers into thinking the "it's not butter butter" is the real thing -- my question is always with the magic is great it worked in the test environment but after eating the "it's not butter butter" and then going back to the real thing what happened then (that critical part of the test is never done." Goes back to speakers that "wow" you on the showroom floor as being "highly detailed with great resolution to holy cow this is an ear grating brain fatiguing pile of junk after a couple of months."
Digital technology can do a lot of wonderful things that can make you believe you are seeing something you are not -- and the first run through you may not pick up the illusion -- or the second or the third -- but quite often you will see the trick or the light in the CGI and yeah that is fake after all. It took a lot of folks a long time to realize that Deodato's 2001 version was completely made by computers -- no real instruments whatseover - or that the original Doctor Who theme is not digital and is not even an orchestra but ONE piano string. The "people can be fooled" argument is tired -- they are not foled forever.
This is why there are absolutely laughable arguments on forums with some putz who says gee I put a transister in the speaker wire and I folled the listener into thinking it was a tube amp -- and this person who was fooled who is he and the experiment for me to reproduce it is posted where? And which Tube amp? They all sound the same I guess.
-
Still waiting for the first test to be setup
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
Great would you be up to a challenge of "let's find the tube amp" if I let you listen to ten amplifiers and one is a tube amp -- in a blind test do you think you can know for certain which one is the tube amp? The SS amps will all be pre-tested as being indistinguishable from each other -- the only different amp will be a tube amp that I am familiar with.
I am still waiting for you to set up the Quad ESL v. Audio J/Spe blind test after over 7months,:sleep: :6: .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers ...
May you enjoy your numbers. :)
rw
-
It is enjoy the music
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
May you enjoy your numbers. :)
rw
Point of correction, it is may you enjoy the music:cornut: and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.:7:
-
The main reason I'd never do another DBT
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
The same applies to home audio, however the resultant implications are one of the of many reasons audiophiles hate DBTs:o as it takes the sting out of the tail of some very treasured myths.
The test I participated in certainly showed where the myth was i.e all cables sound alike. The question of cables sounding different has now been answered - the next question is WHY do they sound different.
Anyway, the main reason I'd never do another is it was a PITA!!!! It was very stressful, even though the point of my test was to be able to identify (or not) two DUT's during a normal relaxing listening session. When there is an agenda other than the simple joy of music, it changes a rewarding relaxing experience to a "job", thereby causing stress. And yes, that goes for sighted auditions, too! :)
-
Slight correction
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Point of correction, it is may you enjoy the music:cornut: and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.:7:
The numbers "can" be a good aid in that cause. I agree with you that it's all about preferences. I also agree that whether or not most audiophiles admit it (or understand it), we are all seeking not sonic neutrality but rather the particular variety of colorations that we find most pleasant. By "pleasant" I mean whatever combination of items makes our systems most closely resemble our memory of live music. That may or may not be a measurably "accurate" piece of equipment... and it doesn't really matter.
I had the extreme displeasure of listening to a system composed of the most "accurate" by-the-numbers system awhile back... a very well respected speaker brand, solid state electronics, CD player and basic cables. The recording was a good one and this "accurate" system made it sound like hammered sh*t to my ears. It would have been perfect to offset a muddy recording but good recordings suffered.
That example is what I think E-Stat meant when he said "enjoy the numbers". Quite honestly, that system was one of the very few I've ever heard (including an old GE console stereo playing scratched up 78's) that would cause me NOT to want to listen to music.
|