Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

[E-Stat]

Since we don't mix for MP3, that is an irrelevant side issue, and this does not answer my question at all.

Nor does your inability to state your tube exposure provide any validity. You take the fifth on a regular basis. I know that you'll never answer these questions, but I'll add yet more to the pile of those that you avoid answering.

!. What is the best sounding tube linestage you've heard in your system?

2. What is the best sounding tube amplifier you've heard in your system? (perhaps your choice of speakers doesn't provide good matching anyway)

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Nor does your inability to state your tube exposure provide any validity. You take the fifth on a regular basis. I know that you'll never answer these questions, but I'll add yet more to the pile of those that you avoid answering.

I am not moved by piling on, sheeple mentality is for sheeple.

!. What is the best sounding tube linestage you've heard in your system?

2. What is the best sounding tube amplifier you've heard in your system? (perhaps your choice of speakers doesn't provide good matching anyway)

rw

I am not answer a single question from you until mine is addressed. You keep sidestepping it, and that makes me disinclined to have any other interaction with you. These debates with you are all one sided, you want answers, but don't want to give any yourself. The is the second time you have went on this trip, and there will not be a third.

[E-Stat]

I am not answer a single question from you until mine is addressed.

You're too embarrassed to answer simple questions from months ago! It really is amusing. I'll give you another try

1. What cables do you use?
2. What tube components have you heard in your system? Which do you think is the best?

Why are you so insecure by answering these simple questions?

rw

[theaudiohobby]

The point is that the sins of using NFB are manifested most profoundly at the top. The result runs from a relatively benign sterility and flat perspective (McIntosh) to obnoxious hardness (Crown, older Bryston).

rw

I don't think I can agree with cause-and-effect scenarios presented here e.g flat perspective caused by NFB shortcomings in the HF, even though its the prevailing audiophile wisdom. However, its a minor point in the grand scheme of things, so I am not going to quibble about it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You're too embarrassed to answer simple questions from months ago! It really is amusing. I'll give you another try

1. What cables do you use?
2. What tube components have you heard in your system? Which do you think is the best?

Why are you so insecure by answering these simple questions?

rw

Its not insecurity(as much as your nosiness), but its just none of your damn business. My system is not the topic of this discussion.

[E-Stat]

My system is not the topic of this discussion.

Agree. The (lack of) answers to the question indicate your level of exposure to tube products which puts your comments into perspective.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Agree. The (lack of) answers to the question indicate your level of exposure to tube products which puts your comments into perspective.

rw

The lack of answers indicate it is none of your damn business, and that has nothing to do with my experience or perspective. It also has nothing to do with this topic.

[E-Stat]

It also has nothing to do with this topic.

Perhaps you need to review this thread's topic.

rw

[tube fan]

I agree with RGA that it's not just a matter of opinion. I would LOVE to set up a blind test of two systems: one ss and digital, and the other tube and analogue. Compare digital and analogue recordings of the same music. My bet: most listeners would find the tube/analogue fuller, more tonally accurate, with better micro and macro dynamics, and, yes, that the tube/analogue system put the singer or instrument (the whole singer with a real chest cavity, you know, a three-dimensional body) into the room. The ss/digital system will sound flat in comparison.

TTT, your attempt to twist JV's clear meaning reveals more about your bias than anything else. Here is some more JV in the same issue of TAS: "If I were to single out the two sonic attributes that this ARC preamp supplies that great transistor circuts usually do not (at least to the same degree), it would be precisely the same ones that analogue front ends supply and digital front ends typically don't: (1) three-dimensional body and bloom; and (2) very fine resolution of low-level harmonic/dynamic information, particularly on solo instruments or small ensembles....Take Sarah Vaughn...if you know Sarah's soaring contralto, you know that she regularly added coloratura-like touches, including a throaty vibrato and a delicious head tone, to select lyrics. To hear her voice at its splendid best, you need to capture its power, its color,, its range, and, for lack of better words, its volume--for all of her various coloratura touches come from slightly different places in the acustic space that is 'Sarah Vaughn on record' (and that was 'Sarah Vaughn in life'). She variously uses her head, her nose, her mouth (actually various parts of her mouth, including a certain 'chewiness' on select lyrics, as if she is actually tasting and savoring the words) her throat, and her chest to achieve that famous 'operatic' range, timbre, and texture. In life, these things--head, noise, mouth, throat, chest---aren't a thin flat plane in acoustic space; they aren't even a series of planes (which is the way they are generally presented on solid state). They are one continous 'volume', a single three-dimensional acoustic object.
With solid-state, you generally (not always) get a pronounced flattening of this volume, just as you do to a GREATER extent with digital sources. HP once compared the effect to looking at the world through one eye, and I can't improve on that. With the Reference 5, what seems like 'one eyed' vision becomes binocular. It is quite an amazing experience to hear Sarah go from a relatively flat image to a fully round three-dimensional one, standing in three-dimensional space and surrounded by three-dimensional space. IT IS ALSO AMAZINGLY REALISTIC. I've used the analogy before but it is really like the difference between looking at a large-format photograph and a life-sized statue." (added emphasis mine)

BTW, I hope JA has the decency to put the AR VSi60 integrated amp in class A if he
puts the Acapella speaker, which sounded realistic only with the review sample from RJR's rave review ("In the VSi60, Audio Research has produced an integrated amplifer of staggering quality, versatility and value"), in class A. However, considering that he put the Harbeth M40.1 speaker in class A (restricted LF), and the Audio Note AN-ESPe HE in class B (full range), when he admitted that the Audio Note sounded better in Art's room and despite the fact that Art wanted a class AAA rating, and despite the fact that Wes Phillips said an Audio Note system produced the most realistic sound he had ever heard, perhaps he will put the AR amp in class B.

[markw]

This thread is kinds like walking through the monkey house at the zoo...

..think about it. (DUCK!)

[GMichael]

This thread is kinds like walking through the monkey house at the zoo...

..think about it. (DUCK!)

Did you just put butter on THAT?

[JSE]

In just to say I was a part of this thread! Hah!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps you need to review this thread's topic.

rw

The topic has nothing to do with my equipment, I don't own anything tube. Perhaps you should review the topic so you can stop bringing in extraneous nonsense into the thread.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with RGA that it's not just a matter of opinion. I would LOVE to set up a blind test of two systems: one ss and digital, and the other tube and analogue. Compare digital and analogue recordings of the same music. My bet: most listeners would find the tube/analogue fuller, more tonally accurate, with better micro and macro dynamics, and, yes, that the tube/analogue system put the singer or instrument (the whole singer with a real chest cavity, you know, a three-dimensional body) into the room. The ss/digital system will sound flat in comparison.

I'll bet you will lose that bet. What if the recording was originally digital? Could you make the same statement? I doubt it. Since almost nobody records in analog anymore, just finding material that is recorded in both digital and analog would be next to impossible.

The state of the art in recording is DXD, which has far more ability to capture fine detail, and is far more tonally accurate than any analog recording I have made. It can also be transcoded to 24/192khz PCM, Dolby TruHD, and Dts HD Master Audio with any loss. There is no analog equivalent to 32/354.2khz bit and sample rate of DXD, it is beyond what any analog medium can acheive.

When you make a claim that all analog is better than all digital, it might be helpful if you are specific with the resolution of digital you are referring to. I have yet to hear any analog that has the resolution of 24/192khz digital.

[E-Stat]

The topic has nothing to do with my equipment , I don't own anything tube. Perhaps you should review the topic so you can stop bringing in extraneous nonsense into the thread.[

I will once again agree with you. Perspective doesn't has to be limited to one's own system. Most of the best systems I've heard are not my own.

Now, look up on your screen. With Firefox, the tab clearly states the title of the topic. Can you say tubes? The topic IS "Realistic sound = tubes and analogue". The relevance to my observations is your lack of exposure to the best tube components. Your silence and protestations over backing your rhetoric with facts speaks volumes.

BTW, Happy Birthday. While we have different perspectives on audio, I really do appreciate your expertise in HT matters. Perhaps discussing our passions over a beer might work better.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I will once again agree with you. Perspective doesn't has to be limited to one's own system. Most of the best systems I've heard are not my own.

Okay....

Now, look up on your screen. With Firefox, the tab clearly states the title of the topic. Can you say tubes? The topic IS "Realistic sound = tubes and analogue". The relevance to my observations is your lack of exposure to the best tube components. Your silence and protestations over backing your rhetoric with facts speaks volumes.

What you call observation(of which you cannot have over the internet) is really just plain old assumption. You have no idea of what equipment I have heard, you are just filling in the blanks(since I have no intention on telling you) with your own perspective, which does not have a damn thing to do with me. So there is no relevance to your observations,as your observations are uneducated and lack any fact whatsoever.

I was not silent on my observation, I was silent about my equipment. There is a difference. One is relevant to the the topic at hand, the other is not.

BTW, Happy Birthday. While we have different perspectives on audio, I really do appreciate your expertise in HT matters. Perhaps discussing our passions over a beer might work better.

rw

Thanks for the B-day wishes. I don't think we have such different perspectives on audio as we have differences on the equipment and format we choose to listen to it through.

[E-Stat]

You have no idea of what equipment I have heard...

Which is repeatedly why I ask the simple question. Most folks don't get all huffy and upset over such an impersonal topic.

...you are just filling in the blanks...

Filling in the blanks? Why would I do that? The only thing to be found from you is blanks! I assume nothing beyond the demonstrated lack of exposure.

Thanks for the B-day wishes. I don't think we have such different perspectives on audio as we have differences on the equipment and format we choose to listen to it through.

You're welcome. That is likely correct. Borne of different priorities and exposure to different stuff.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Which is repeatedly why I ask the simple question. Most folks don't get all huffy and upset over such an impersonal topic.

Experience has taught me that you dismiss specifics, which is why I am not wasting my time giving it to you.

Filling in the blanks? Why would I do that? The only thing to be found from you is blanks! I assume nothing beyond the demonstrated lack of exposure.

BS and you know it. You insult my intelligence with the passive/agressive BS. Again your comment on the lack of exposure is filling in the blanks, because you don't really know the depth of my exposure because I have not told you. Just because I have not told you does not mean there is a lack of experience, and by you saying this over and over, you are filling in the blanks.

You're welcome. That is likely correct. Borne of different priorities and exposure to different stuff.

rw

Which does not mean you experience trumps mine.

[PeruvianSkies]

Looks like someone is trying to give you the "fastest gun in the west trick"......

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Looks like someone is trying to give you the "fastest gun in the west trick"......

And it looks like you are doubling as Pinnochio brother. Look, nobody needs your sideline baiting. Grow up, participate in the discussion, or just not post anything. This comment is not related to the topic at hand, and there has already been enough off topic postings in this thread. You are behaving like a troll....which maybe.....

[E-Stat]

Experience has taught me that you dismiss specifics, which is why I am not wasting my time giving it to you.

If you refer to Onkyo power amps, then I will continue to objectively place them into context among what is available performance-wise in the market. Just like I do my NAD receiver.

Which does not mean you experience trumps mine.

It is, however, different and most likely from a wider pool - having known three audio reviewers for over thirty years. Most guys just say "here's what I've heard". You freak out.

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

And it looks like you are doubling as Pinnochio brother. Look, nobody needs your sideline baiting. Grow up, participate in the discussion, or just not post anything. This comment is not related to the topic at hand, and there has already been enough off topic postings in this thread. You are behaving like a troll....which maybe.....

Actually I post lots of things around here, and begin lots of new threads. You are a hypocrite, you chime in on just about everything around here acting as if you are the Almighty Being on All Things AR and very rarely, especially lately...contribute anything helpful, most of your submissions are nothing but arguments and debates back and forth about non-sense. Why don't you do a bit of inward analysis.

[PeruvianSkies]

If Sir T you truly believe that I am "bait" then quit falling for it and put me on the ignore list, that's what it's designed for. I think you choose to NOT put me there because you like arguing and you like battling back and forth over things, which maybe that brings excitement into your life, but it annoys the rest of us.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If you refer to Onkyo power amps, then I will continue to objectively place them into context among what is available performance-wise in the market. Just like I do my NAD receiver.

You cannot subjectively do anything without listening. These are amps we are talking about, not somebodies looks. Onkyo is not NAD, and the modifications done on my amps would make it not so Onkyo anymore. You cannot compare a modified product with an unmodified one unless you are verifying the mod actuall made an improvement. You cannot do that without listening to them.

It is, however, different and most likely from a wider pool - having known three audio reviewers for over thirty years. Most guys just say "here's what I've heard". You freak out.

rw

We have 20 staff audio engineers, all with different equipment. 10 of those guys have changed their equipment several times over the years, and I have heard every change they have made. I have been an audio engineer for close to thirty years and have used many different piece of equipment depending on where I am mixing. What makes their word more valid than mine, or Bernie's, Elliott''s or Chuck's?

When I say this is what I heard, YOU have freaked out demanding an extensive equipment list, something I have never asked you, or your reviewer friends to do. When some says this is what I heard, my only question would be compared to what? Most reviewers don't know if what they are hearing is truly accurate. Most have not compared what they hear to the master file or tape, so how do they know what is accurate, and what is not?

Don't make an assumption you have heard from a wider pool, you don't know that.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually I post lots of things around here, and begin lots of new threads. You are a hypocrite, you chime in on just about everything around here acting as if you are the Almighty Being on All Things AR and very rarely, especially lately...contribute anything helpful, most of your submissions are nothing but arguments and debates back and forth about non-sense. Why don't you do a bit of inward analysis.

And you little troll make lots of comments that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, like this one. You make everything too personal, because you don't have the wherewithal to discuss much intelligently. You are a troll, and I have never said I was an almighty anything. Your problem is you have a insecurity and a inferority complex, because you cannot stand toe to toe on the issues.