-
If I have it right Kronenbourg is actually made in France. If so, it along with Champagne is the only thing France is good for.:cool:
-
Feanor if you can get Pilsner Urquell in Canada give it a try. Chimay Grand Reserve and Pilsner Urquell are my two favorite beers. :thumbsup:
-
Hadn't noticed, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
Feanor if you can get Pilsner Urquell in Canada give it a try. Chimay Grand Reserve and Pilsner Urquell are my two favorite beers. :thumbsup:
I'll look for them. Thanks a lot. :)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by musicoverall
Do you think correct answers under dbt are harder for hearing than for sight, taste, smell? Ok, I think sight is a given but how about the other two?
If you have a high level of knowledge of the test environment AND brain cognition, your insight into dbt could be quite valuable on this board.
Oh, and I still owe you for recommending the Audio Note DAC. :)
There is strictly speaking nothing wrong with a Good DB test. Like any test it is a tool. Just as it is in my field of Education. And just like in education tests have serious problems for several psychological factors. In education the goal is about learning and the ability to learn. Tests do not necessarily indicate or show a person;s knowledge of the subject material -- and for most of this century including most of the black and white right wing governments who can only think in terms of simple answers that a person who scores 95% is smarter or more knowledgable than the person who scores 60%. Which is not in fact the case. It is really unfortunate that the scientific evidence in education has not yet made it to the universities or the public school system but it's an area where politicians need numbers to sell even if the tests don't measure that which it oughta test.
DBT's simply do not prove anything -- the very definition tells us this thankfully that as a result of such tests A does not = B. The fact that in such a test person A can not statistically differentiate A from B tells us little as well beyond the confines of the test environment. Put simply -- 1) test stress is a big factor which engineers know nothing of since they never engage the debate (because they know they're wrong). 2) Their duration tests are not set-up the same way as a normal listening session - this is a softer case but it is very credible that in tests we listen FOR something that we do not listen to in a normal listening session or even in a buying mode. The duration of long term fatigue cannot and has never been accounted for or tested for in DBT's. So yes the idiot audiophile who claims to hear a difference between two cables within 1 second of listening anywhere all the time can easily be shown the door in such a test -- and the DBT is very good at illustrating to those people they can't.
It just goes on and on -- from statistical analysis (which is about as poor a math as you can hang your hat on as there is as it is ENTIRELY based on probability). Consider the coin flip -- everyone knows that you have to a 50% of flipping heads on your next coin flip -- but this is actually total nonsense. You want to know why -- flip the coin and then ask the question. You flip and it comes out heads you don;t say ahh I have a 50% chance that I flipped heads. No it is either 100% or 0%. This is why Philisophy as a course of study is highly beneficial -- it is ABOVE science on the ladder of intelligencia. ou either have a fact or you don't. In a 16 trial test or a 50 trillion trial test the fact that people fail or succeed on the .05 level is not indicative of anything OTHER than someone's ability to be consistant -- that is something very different than KNOWING whether one can actually determine the difference. On listen one person Fred may actually hear a difference between the two componants FULLY accurately and have it bang on right. He may completely suck ass for the rest of the day and not do anything right -- but on trial one if we could actually KNOW that he was actually RIGHT -- then the difference would ACTUALLY be proven to exist.
The problem is we don't know so we develop science on probability and are now testing people's abilities to be good under tests and to be consistant and yada yada. I don't really have a problem with them relying on them -- but it's no different than expecting the sun to come up tomorrow merely because the sun has always come up in the past as long as Scientists and people have been counting But expecting and knowing is not the same thing. The probability is absolutely ENORMOUS that it will come up tomorrow -- Just as it is enormous that one will not ever win a lottery until of course when in fact the sun does not come up and a person not only wins the lottery once but twice. You either 100% won the lottery or you 0% did not win the lottery.
Certainly probability I am not chucking out completely so I don't to be misread -- obviously Casino's are in the business (a VERY lucrative one and so are life insurance agents and warranty providers) because they are in the business of knowing probabilities and in the long run they can determine which games are going to be in their best favor and good gamblers will know which games have the best chance of winning provided they make the perfect bet everytime. But every game is in the house favour and over the long run they win -- but that still does not stop that big winner from beating the probabilities.
Then we have not even got onto the problems of knowing our brains and what that is doing for different people - there is a plethora of arguments just on right left hemisphere issues, femal versus male and on and on that goes.
None of this is to say just go ahead and blindly, Ahem, trust every sighted review going (of course why anyone would trust a review anyway is beyond me) when it ultimately comes down to the only person who needs to be involved -- the person spending the cash. Of course you run a risk of being duped by price name brand appearance biases -- such is life. There are many other issues but I'm too tired to go into it all.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by RGA
All of this is off the original topic -- if you want to associate "better measurements" with "better perceived sound reproduction" -- well even John Atkinson replied to me that his measurements don't indicate that in the least (which is obvious to anyone who reads the reviewers comments). Of course in fairness to you you never directly state such a thing -- you imply it to death but you know you have no proof of such an absurdity so you would rather imply, imply, imply, and perhaps a few people will think it is so.
The context of my posts here and elsewhere does not support your inference. Better measurements imply better performance not perception. Better perceived sound production is largely determined by an individual's preferences.However accuracy and neutrailty can only be reliably determined by measurements. A trained listener can also identify neutrality and accuracy, but not as accurately or reliably as a thorough measurements regime.
-
I have to get this off my chest...it is most amusing..
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
-SNIP-
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.
SNIP
Tube amps do not offer the high damping factors required by quite frankly, most speakers. As a result, the bass response is less tight and the frequency response can vary. Low powered tube amps are a great match for high efficiency horn speakers. High powered flavors excel with my full range electrostats which are naturally high impedance drivers.
rw
I could not help but note the striking similarity of your post to VTL's marketing blob:biggrin5:
Quote:
Originally Posted by VTL
Music has great dynamic swings, and in tube amplifiers the onset of clip/overload as maximum power is reached is gradual, with a low even-order harmonic.
Even-order harmonic distortion is somewhat benign, and less offensive to the ear than the harsh, odd-order harmonic distortion characteristic displayed by solid-state circuits, even though the distortion figures for tubes are somewhat higher.
Transistor amplifiers generally reach their power limit and clip in a mostly odd-order harmonic, which is more fatiguing to listen to. In such a transistor amplifier the distortion rises very quickly as the maximum power level is reached, with an almost square wave characteristic, and a high DC component, (which can destroy loudspeaker drivers).
Not much difference:)
-
Started as a great thread... Then comes name calling, mudslinging. Why is this so common on this forum?
Anyway the whole question of tube vs solid state couldn't be more of an apples and oranges comparison. It deserves far more space and time than I gave it below, but what the hell.
Here's my opnion:
1. Using medium power equipment say 75 Watts on a typical 89-90 dBSPL speaker: On simple accoustic sounds, tubes can bring forth a sound more like a caress, truly magnificent, but let the music become very complex and the tubes give up. Ditto for ultra low bass, small tube gear just can't deliver enough amps to drive a 15" woofer down to 19 Hz.
2. Now change to a 450 Watt or more tube monster amp and we have a different issue, suddenly damping factor and low frequency amperes aren't the problem, the air conditioner and the mortgage on the house is.
3. Well made SS gear gives the greatest bang for the buck as far as all around sound goes. In many subsets of music either tube or solid state holds an edge. Do you like giant drums, pipe organ, and you have a limited buget, then go SS. Like small accoustic ensembles, human voice solo's, then maybe tubes are best for you.
4. Solid state gear rarely changes its' sound with age, tube gear always does.
Generalizations, but mostly true in my listening experience. The best tube gear can (not all brands) bring out an intemancy that transistors rarely match. If you can afford multi kilobuck tube gear, you can afford multi kilobuck SS gear, much of this stuff is very good.
I dissagree a little that it's all about preference, tube and solid state gear sound has started to converge, the differences are a little less each year. Both kinds of designers are heading for a middle ground, more neutral more accurate.
Like I said, just my opinion. Trust your own ears, the only one that needs to be happy with your decision is you.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
Started as a great thread... Then comes name calling, mudslinging. Why is this so common on this forum?
An unfortunate by product of internet conversations... I hate it but ad hominen attacks are very common in internet conversations cos many folks hold emotional or ill-informed rather than logical, rational opinions. An emotional position is very difficult to back up and as result the holders tend to lash out with ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions the rational of their opinion.
Quote:
Using medium power equipment say 75 Watts on a typical 89-90 dBSPL speaker: On simple accoustic sounds, tubes can bring forth a sound more like a caress, truly magnificent, but let the music become very complex and the tubes give up
I suggest you look at the power delivery curves of many these amplifiers and high efficiency speakers as it will give some insight into their behaviour, the Zu Druid loudspeaker provides a very good intro' to this behaviour, a lower midrange lift if well executed can have a very alluring effect. As stated previously, I am of opinion that the primary goal of home audio amplifiers is not accuracy, that is borne out by the preferences expressed by many of us in our audio equipment selection. This is very different from the professional user who demands accuracy of delivery and the market provides him/her the necessary information to make a decision on that basis. On the other hand, the professional user dials in distortion to taste and equaliser etc are an indispensable tools. In general the key difference between both user is knowledge, the professional HAS to know about the tools of his trade to survive, not so the domestic user.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hermanv
Like I said, just my opinion. Trust your own ears, the only one that needs to be happy with your decision is you.
Which nicely parallels mine.
In April, I had a chance to meet the engineer behind the Sound Lab speakers and hear his new Majestics. Dr. West is a very passionate guy. Brian Walsh, the local dealer in Chicago, used a pair of Parasound JC-1s on them. Very clear and drove them to very satisfying levels in the large room. As you mentioned, however, the intimacy and "liveness" on voice and piano to which I am accustomed was absent.
Somehow, I don't find that "less accurate" as tah constantly suggests.
rw
-
It's a shame...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
Because the thermionic valve is a mature technology is no reason to discount it. When the next BIG war comes I'll be listening to music to the end while your SS gear succombs to the EMP's. Michelob!? I could be snide and say your taste in beer is reflected in your taste in gear. Seriously, anyone who likes the taste of pilsner beer (virtually all American beer) should give Pilsner Urquell a try. It's why they call it pilsner.:cool:
...that you obviously missed the overall gist of my post...Oh well...guess I'll just hop into my Rambler Ambassador and head down to the local Rexall for a package of Gillette Blu-blades...Maybe even have the counterman prepare a lime rickey for me...
jimHJJ(...BTW, my last indulgence in a potent potable was hi-test Wild Turkey back in late '90...beer...like New Years Eve... is for amateurs...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...that you obviously missed the overall gist of my post...Oh well...guess I'll just hop into my Rambler Ambassador and head down to the local Rexall for a package of Gillette Blu-blades...Maybe even have the counterman prepare a lime rickey for me...
jimHJJ(...BTW, my last indulgence in a potent potable was hi-test Wild Turkey back in late '90...beer...like New Years Eve... is for amateurs...)
Unless I'm mistaken you were saying that tubes are obsolete technology. If that's so we just don't agree.
My comment about American beer stands.:ihih:
-
As I pointed out...
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
Unless I'm mistaken you were saying that tubes are obsolete technology. If that's so we just don't agree.
My comment about American beer stands.:ihih:
...earlier, the technology is indeed obsolete...you can use the most up-to-date semiconductors in the power supply or other ancillary parts of the circuit but your signal is still passing through outmoded components and circuit topology...today's SET amp (which by it's relatve simplicity is suited to the DIY hobbyist read: cottage-industry types) is essentially no different than one of forty years ago...Oh, it may have wunderkaps or solid silver, "directional" wire, but it's a done deal. As a technology, it simply has higher distortion figures and is inherently more subject to the vagaries that IMO have given rise to the mythological underpinnings of the whole break-in/warm-up debate. Until that 600V gets those heaters up to snuff (and is able to keep them at optimum levels) there's no telling how the sound will differ from session to session...
jimHJJ(...just another facet of the "Grail" mentality IMNSHO...)
-
Wrong use of the word;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...earlier, the technology is indeed obsolete
From dictionary.net;
Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere. See Obsolescent.]
1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied chiefly to words, writings, or observances.
2. (Biol.) Not very distinct; obscure; rudimental; imperfectly developed; abortive.
Syn: Ancient; antiquated; old-fashioned; antique; old; disused; neglected. See Ancient.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Obsolete can be used to discribe tube tech as it pertains to military electronics, modern avionics, computers and the such. However, it is NOT correctly used when discribing audio electronics.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
The context of my posts here and elsewhere does not support your inference. Better measurements imply better performance not perception. Better perceived sound production is largely determined by an individual's preferences.However accuracy and neutrailty can only be reliably determined by measurements. A trained listener can also identify neutrality and accuracy, but not as accurately or reliably as a thorough measurements regime.
Where's the proof of all of this? You can't know accuracy without the reference -- you got nothing on this.
-
What now?...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
From dictionary.net;
Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere. See Obsolescent.]
1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied chiefly to words, writings, or observances.
2. (Biol.) Not very distinct; obscure; rudimental; imperfectly developed; abortive.
Syn: Ancient; antiquated; old-fashioned; antique; old; disused; neglected. See Ancient.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Obsolete can be used to discribe tube tech as it pertains to military electronics, modern avionics, computers and the such. However, it is NOT correctly used when discribing audio electronics.
...dueling definitions?...semantics?
In the grand scheme of things, tubes account for exactly what percentage of gear sold? I haven't a clue, anyone have an answer? If anything, it's on life support and I doubt that the support units keeping it alive utilize tube technology...Is that why hospital-grade components are de riguer among those of like mindset?
Given the disparaging difference in units sold and the lack of public clamor, yeah...I'm quite comfortable with calling the technology obsolete, despite the supplied definition(s)... AND despite those manufacturers who glamorize and give it a mystique that quite frankly falls right into place with the rest of golden-eared, audio tweakdom. Rarefied, anecdotal gobbledegook...Repeat: hard-to-get/expensive imported components or domestic NOS that's older than many of our members...MikE (walsdor) had gone in on some custom-built tubes, an experience (I dare say) he won't be trying again any time soon.
Look, tubes sound great for instrument amplifiers, but that branch of the audio tree has tended to produce colored sound, rich in even-ordered harmonics as part and parcel of the whole thing. Early transistor amps just plain s*cked with a capital s*ck! Putting single-coil or humbucking pickups through a more analytical form of amplification showed how lousy and thin the instruments' output tended to be...think early analog-to-digital transfers...talk about a synergy...You really need the sound imparted by tubes for the proper balance...SS guitar amps have circuitry to mimic the sound of tubes, effects pedals are available to do the same and not vice-versa...that to me speaks volumes. Again, futzing with the source, the raw materials is way different from altering the finished product... AKA: your source material.
jimHJJ(...musical, schmoozical...personal preference is just that...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Given the disparaging difference in units sold and the lack of public clamor, yeah...I'm quite comfortable with calling the technology obsolete, despite the supplied definition(s).
The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto? Forty million Frenchmen are frequently wrong. I got over the McIntosh THD numbers game in high school. Why do the numbers on my AR integrated look so good and yet sound so bad? Hmmm... Maybe they don't mean Shack Jit. If you really believe in the relevance of low distortion stats, I sentence you to life with a Crown IC-150 (Ick) preamp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
Look, tubes sound great for instrument amplifiers, but that branch of the audio tree has tended to produce colored sound, rich in even-ordered harmonics as part and parcel of the whole thing.
Tended perhaps. Your broad comment applies today only when desired - as with Marshall amps and the like. Such widespread use of "musical amps", however, does keep the tube market alive.
There are more high fidelity tube amplifier companies today than there were twenty or even thirty years ago.
rw
-
Another correction
:smile5:
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto?
From the FI site
Quote:
The majority of modern Formula One cars use seven-speed semi-automatic gearboxes. Regulations stipulate at least four forward gears, up to a maximum of seven. All cars must also have a reverse gear. Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) systems are not allowed and cars may have no more than two driven wheels.
In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.
-
Actually you don't understand the tech
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
:smile5:
From the FI site
In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.
While they use the word "semi-automatic" the F1 transmission has very little in common with your buick automatic.
It's better understood as an auto-clutch.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.
I see you are completely unfamiliar with paddle shifters. If you had ever attended a Grand Prix such as the one at Silverstone (I've been to Indy), you would understand. They are also available in some exotic street cars such as Ferraris as well.
There is one considerable difference between paddle shifters and automatics: automatics shift themselves. Drivers, on the other hand, control the gear selection and are freed from having to depress a clutch. That's the point of using a manual. If allows the driver to select the appropriate gear to pull through corners.
There is nothing like the sound of a V-10 running at 18,000 RPM rapidly downshifting from 14,000 rpm four gears to enter a fast hairpin curve. :)
rw
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
I see you are completely unfamiliar with paddle shifters.
I had paddle shifter aka Ferrari in mind when I wrote the original post
Quote:
There is one considerable difference between paddle shifters and automatics: automatics shift themselves. Drivers, on the other hand, control the gear selection and are freed from having to depress a clutch. That's the point of using a manual. If allows the driver to select the appropriate gear to pull through corners. There is nothing like the sound of a V-10 running at 18,000 RPM rapidly downshifting from 14,000 rpm four gears to enter a fast hairpin curve. :)
Yes, there is difference between paddle shifters and automatics and you missed the main point of my post, automatic gear shifting in guise of Continously Variable Transmission (the ultimate expression of automatic gear shifting) is banned in F1, Why?It gave the original cars that employed them an unfair performance advantage.
PS: Research before you comment...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
While they use the word "semi-automatic" the F1 transmission has very little in common with your buick automatic.
It's better understood as an auto-clutch.
As I live in the UK, I do not need to think of an automatic in terms of Buick Automatic, an outdated form of automatic transmission, I am thinking of automatics in terms of the latest technology i..e variable transmission. CVT were banned in F1 because the unfair performance advantage they accorded the cars that employed.
By the way, the automatic transmission employed by US vehicles are widely regarded in Europe as clunky :) .
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
As I live in the UK, I do not need to think of an automatic in terms of Buick Automatic, an outdated form of automatic transmission, I am thinking of automatics in terms of the latest technology i..e variable transmission. CVT were banned in F1 because the unfair performance advantage they accorded the cars that employed.
By the way, the automatic transmission employed by US vehicles are widely regarded in Europe as clunky :) .
Actually Buick uses a very sophisticated electronically controlled 4 speed auto that has nearly inperceptable shifts. In tech terms, these are wonderful examples of modern CAD produced engineering.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by theaudiohobby
Why?It gave the original cars that employed them an unfair performance advantage.
Why do you suppose there are zero high performance cars available today using CVTs?
rw
-
Talk about painting...
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-Stat
The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto? Forty million Frenchmen are frequently wrong. I got over the McIntosh THD numbers game in high school. Why do the numbers on my AR integrated look so good and yet sound so bad? Hmmm... Maybe they don't mean Shack Jit. If you really believe in the relevance of low distortion stats, I sentence you to life with a Crown IC-150 (Ick) preamp.
Tended perhaps. Your broad comment applies today only when desired - as with Marshall amps and the like. Such widespread use of "musical amps", however, does keep the tube market alive.
There are more high fidelity tube amplifier companies today than there were twenty or even thirty years ago.
rw
...with a broad brush...or are you planning to put up some wallpaper...
Re: the car analogy...You cite instances were driving itself is an art...obviously better control can be had when the driver uses his instincts and abilities as opposed to some sort of pre-sets...How is there any parallel in hi-fi? Driving is active, listening (no matter how involving it may be) is a passive activity.
There are any number of folks who are of the off-road, stump-jumping mindset...some want manuals, others say slush-boxes are the way to go...others who prefer the normal aspiration of a carb (even if off-camber travel hangs up their float now and again)...others who want EFI and spend big-bucks to retrofit. Each has advantages that are use specific...rock-crawlin' or mud-boggin or anything in between...the last time I looked, listening to music involved source material and a listener.
Good numbers/bad sound...well with all due respect, sez you! Your personal preference is just that...all of the unsolicited testimonials in the world (IMHO the fertilizer that keeps the tweakier stuff a-growin') mean very little...Maybe a solution would be SS amps which could be dialed-in to mimic tube characteristics...in fact didn't Bob Carver do something like that some time ago...analyze some waveforms and distortion components, design a circuit to replicate them and bada-bing-bada-boom "musicality" to order...sorta' like the pre-RIAA EQ standard...instead of having settings like "Columbia" and "European" you could have "Audio Research" and "SET"...of course, to be totally accurate the knob/switch should be labeled Color...or perhaps given the penchant for audio things of European origin, perhaps Colour...just an add-on to impart a sound...
Re: tube gear mfrs....I've got some old issues of Audio Engineering (formerly "Radio") and the precursor to AUDIO that shows me at one time there was nothing but tubed electronics...and slowly, but surely, things changed...and much the same arguments of mono vs. stereo and analog vs. digital accompanied the transition...go figure...
jimHJJ(...always fodder for endless debate...)
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
You cite instances were driving itself is an art...obviously better control can be had when the driver uses his instincts and abilities as opposed to some sort of pre-sets...How is there any parallel in hi-fi? Driving is active, listening (no matter how involving it may be) is a passive activity.
Evidently, that is where we differ. The active pursuit of hearing subtle differences (if one is so inclined) requires training, experience, and exercising lots of neurons. When I was much younger, I confess that I did not hear quite a few things that my older and more experienced (in music) reviewer friends were consistently observing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
There are any number of folks who are of the off-road, stump-jumping mindset...some want manuals, others say slush-boxes are the way to go.
Right, few corners to set up the weight balance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
in fact didn't Bob Carver do something like that some time ago...analyze some waveforms and distortion components, design a circuit to replicate them and bada-bing-bada-boom "musicality" to order.
In the parlor games sense that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Resident Loser
...and much the same arguments of mono vs. stereo and analog vs. digital accompanied the transition...go figure...
Bad example. So, how many labels release mono recordings today? The answer is clearly economics - which also accounts for the success with MP3s.
rw
|