Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

[tube fan]

Actually, IMO, "high end" has been going downhill with both ss and digital. Tapes were better than vinyl; vinyl is VASTLY superior to digital; tubes are superior to ss. The best speakers I ever heard were a double pair of KLH 9s driven by tubes. Yes, today's digital is better than the first digital ("perfect sound forever"!). Yes, today's speakers play louder. Yes, they have better high and low ends. Do they sound more realistic in the midrange? Not IMO. Do they sound more like the sound of unamplified music? Not IMO.

I'm a huge fan of blind tasting in wines. I have gone to hundreds of those tastings, and there is little connection between price and quality (of course, what is "best" varies from taster to taster). I went to a 1985 California Cab blind tasting recently, and the Benziger "Sonoma Valley" Cab (original price $10) beat out the BV private reserve and 6 other "top rated" 1985 wines. I went to a 1970 blind tasting of 4 California and 4 French wines recently. The winner: the Chateau Feytit Clinet, beating out the BV Private Reserve, The Chateau LaFite Rothschild, the Chateau Latour, the Chateau Mouton Rothschild, the Robert Mondavi unfiltered, the Inglenook Estate Cask G-8 (my favorite by far, and the group's second favorite), and the Mayacamas. Trust me, if we did blind listening of speakers or amps or cables, the results would be similar.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Actually, IMO, "high end" has been going downhill with both ss and digital. Tapes were better than vinyl; vinyl is VASTLY superior to digital; tubes are superior to ss. The best speakers I ever heard were a double pair of KLH 9s driven by tubes. Yes, today's digital is better than the first digital ("perfect sound forever"!). Yes, today's speakers play louder. Yes, they have better high and low ends. Do they sound more realistic in the midrange? Not IMO. Do they sound more like the sound of unamplified music? Not IMO.
.

Tube fan, do you really expect to be taken seriously?

[GMichael]

Melvin? Is that you buddy?

[Feanor]

...

Also, don't knock on SS amps as well.
Pure Class A SS amps can hang with SET amps with much wider speaker selection. I bet Feanor's SM-70 Pro sounds freakin' sweet with a tube preamp.
He just needs a different TT and relearn to embrace analogue....

Yoh, JRA; sorry, I just notice your comment to me.

Thing about embracing "analogue" in my case is that there is nothing to embrace. Since my listening is virtually all classical, and since virtually all classical today is released only on digital what's to listen to??? The days of cheap flea market and garage sale LPs are long gone.

The Monarchys are more tube-sounding than the typical s/s amp, (although there's so much variation in tube sound that the statement is dubious). My Sonic Frontiers preamp isn't the typical warm, buttery tube sound, and to get it sounding sort of tubey, (e.g. "depth"), I have to do a lot of tube rolling. Before that it was almost indistiguishable from the passive preamp I had been using. I still suspect that the tube sound is a matter of more 2nd order distortion and not less high-order distortion as, e.g., E-Stat contends.

Before the Monarchys, I had the Bel Canto eVo2 that was definitely less mellow than the Monarchys but a bit more transparent -- and and here's the the thing, the Bel Canto actually sounded better on the best recordings.

My most recent experience with the Class D Audio SDS-258 has demonstrated once again that -- least on good recordings -- resolution is king and solid state rules, (or class D in my instances). What to buy a pair of Monarchy SM-70 Pros? Admittedly I have virtually not experience with $10,000+ amps like E-Stats, which might combine the virtues of tube & s/s. However the SDS-258 sounds a bit bright on less than really good recordings and a know that Tube Fan would hate it.

BTW, what makes a "less than reall good recording"? A lot of possibilities. But I know one major problem in case of classical music is that engineers too often try to capture a close-up sound. Given that many instruments, notably strings, can sound pretty strident especially close up, this is problem. While this close-up stridency is "accurate" and "realistic", it isn't what an audience member typically hears or wants to hear.

[Feanor]

Tube fan, do you really expect to be taken seriously?

He does. But I thing he is abused of an invalid notion of what unamplfied music really sounds like and he is confusing what he likes to hear with accuracy and realism.

I listen a often to large-scale orchestral and choral music. For this music to sound transparent & airy, resolution and low distortion are necessary. I suspect that low distortion means low distortion, i.e. low overall distortion. Low higher-order harmonics for sure, but also low 2nd order distortion.

Also, as I've said a few times recently, instruments such as strings can sound quite strident depending how and where they're played and how they're recorded. In these cases if you want to hear authentic sound, you've got to tolerate the stridency. Some people like their coffee black, some like it adulterated.

[RGA]

Thing about embracing "analogue" in my case is that there is nothing to embrace. Since my listening is virtually all classical, and since virtually all classical today is released only on digital what's to listen to??? The days of cheap flea market and garage sale LPs are long gone.

Wow I don't get that. My town has two used record shops and not that far away another town has at least 3. Classical is abundant in good shape and cheap.

Now new LP's of classical can be costly but they are available and they are being bought.
http://www.soundstagedirect.com/clas...FSFVgwodsG3T1Q

http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat....=13217&cat2=56

I can pick up 20-30 LPs for $2 at the local recycling center so if you look you can find it.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

BTW, what makes a "less than reall good recording"? A lot of possibilities. But I know one major problem in case of classical music is that engineers too often try to capture a close-up sound. Given that many instruments, notably strings, can sound pretty strident especially close up, this is problem. While this close-up stridency is "accurate" and "realistic", it isn't what an audience member typically hears or wants to hear.

Actually it is not exactly the close up sound by itself as much as it is close up sound with the Redbook sample rate. 44.1khz is a sufficient sample rate if you mike in the relative far field as it allows the air to mix with the instrument, which reduces the strident nature that can sometimes come from string instruments(and some brass as well). Close miking works better with higher sampling rates, as once again, the sample rate will allow some "air" to mix with the instrument which reduces the stridency.

[Feanor]

Actually it is not exactly the close up sound by itself as much as it is close up sound with the Redbook sample rate. 44.1khz is a sufficient sample rate if you mike in the relative far field as it allows the air to mix with the instrument, which reduces the strident nature that can sometimes come from string instruments(and some brass as well). Close miking works better with higher sampling rates, as once again, the sample rate will allow some "air" to mix with the instrument which reduces the stridency.

Sir T, thanks for the fuller explanation of what I've heard and concluded over the years.

I can believe that a higher sample rate will improve -- to use the term -- the realism and tolerability of the stridency. Again, to reiterate a couple of points:

1. Engineers/producers often aim for a closer-up sound than most listeners actually want. Maybe if I were a performer ... but I'm not and I usually sit at least a few rows back in the orchestra section -- not on stage.
2. However if a strident sound is there, either because that's what the performers were striving for, or because that's the way it was recorded, then "accuracy" means reproducing it as it is, not filtering it through either a vinyl pressing or tube equipment.

[Feanor]

Wow I don't get that. My town has two used record shops and not that far away another town has at least 3. Classical is abundant in good shape and cheap.

Now new LP's of classical can be costly but they are available and they are being bought.
http://www.soundstagedirect.com/clas...FSFVgwodsG3T1Q

http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat....=13217&cat2=56

I can pick up 20-30 LPs for $2 at the local recycling center so if you look you can find it.

Your definition of "abundant" and mine differ when it comes to classical music. The two links you indicate each have fewer than about 200 items.

What's more I'm not much interested in "old war horse" re-releases, nor Pavarotti's Greatest Hits or the like, which is what they show. The fact remains that essentially no new releases are no vinyl.

[Geoffcin]

I [*]Engineers/producers often aim for a closer-up sound than most listeners actually want. Maybe if I were a performer ... but I'm not and I usually sit at least a few rows back in the orchestra section -- not on stage

I would agree with this statement 100%. Almost all of the recordings that I have of live events have a "on stage" bias. Of course it's easier to mic all the performers closely and then mix from there, but you really do not get the sound of sitting in a venue hearing them live.

[E-Stat]

The best speakers I ever heard were a double pair of KLH 9s driven by tubes.

Then you would likely enjoy my Sound Lab U-1s driven by 300 watt VTL tube monoblocks. They have about the same panel area as double 9s, use toroidal transformers, 3 micron diaphragms and are considerably heavier (420 lbs vs. 240 lbs) because of a massive tubular steel frame for true 25 hz bass response. You're probably aware that the KLH 9 was one of Arthur Janszen's designs with input by none other than Henry Kloss. In the mid 70s, Janszen's company was sold to Electronic Industries where a Dr. Roger West became responsible for ongoing panel development - especially to improve reliability. Today, his own company makes a range of true full range electrostats (no woofer or tweeter panels) many of which are designed for use in larger arrays. If you went to RMAF in 2008-2009, you saw Ray Kimber's system using no fewer than twelve 922s in a four channel arrangement. Pics of my U-1s and Kimber's array are found in my gallery. In case you think Ray is especially short, that model is nine feet tall. You'll also find a pic of the VTL Sigfrieds with Nordost Odins I heard.

Trust me, if we did blind listening of speakers or amps or cables, the results would be similar.

Sorry, my direct experience has convinced me otherwise. I would still prefer using current technology electronics and cabling. I will respectfully disagree that any early 80s electronics can match the best of today's breed.

rw

[mlsstl]

Engineers/producers often aim for a closer-up sound than most listeners actually want. Maybe if I were a performer ... but I'm not and I usually sit at least a few rows back in the orchestra section -- not on stage.

I've got one CD - the Emerson String Quartet's "Mendelssohn's Complete String Quartets" where 14 mikes were used to record the four performers. It actually sounds better than one might think, but is still a good example of an "in your face" recording that would have been still better with a bit more restraint on the recording engineering side of things.

Unfortunately, the fashion these days, even for classical, is often highlight mikes galore and plenty of mixing board action. Sometimes it seems the musical performance is almost secondary.

[tube fan]

And yet many of the top reviewers at TAS and Stereophile and Drago prefer tubes and analogue. Jonathathan Valin: "I listen to music almost every day. Which is to say, I hardly ever listen to CDs." I go to live musical events 2 or 3 times a week, and ss or digital NEVER captures the micro/macro dynamics, the three-dimensional impact of instruments or singers, or the harmonics of live, unamplified music. Many of my friends are shocked at how mellow live music is, be it classical or jazz.

Yes the Soundlabs speakers are as good as it gets for me. You DO need a very large room, but, given the room, and great tubes, those speakers are extremely lifelike.

I agree that cables and caps are better than those of 30 years ago. However, I DON"T agree that that means that modern equipment beats the best of 30 years ago. It's much more complicated. The same holds true in a comparison of modern wines with those of decades ago. I've gone to dozens of vertical wine tastings (same winery, different vintages), and I consistently prefer older wines, not just because they have grown more complex with age, but also because the wines of decades ago were more balanced (MUCH lower alcohol and higher acid).

[E-Stat]

And yet many of the top reviewers at TAS and Stereophile and Drago prefer tubes and analogue. Jonathathan Valin: "I listen to music almost every day.

I've known Harry Pearson for over thirty years and his opinion differs. I've heard quite a few of his systems at Sea Cliff since then. He really likes the 28B and uses a multi-channel Edge amp driven by a C-J MET6 in his HT using Valhalla of course. And regularly goes to symphony in the city as well. And, he's never tried to sell loaned gear. So what?

I agree that cables and caps are better than those of 30 years ago. However, I DON"T agree that that means that modern equipment beats the best of 30 years ago. It's much more complicated..

Fine. That's where we agree to disagree. I've never heard anything else like HP's systems. I think you would agree that the Clearaudio Statement is quite nice. My point of reference has been recalibrated there several times over the years.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And yet many of the top reviewers at TAS and Stereophile and Drago prefer tubes and analogue. Jonathathan Valin: "I listen to music almost every day. Which is to say, I hardly ever listen to CDs." I go to live musical events 2 or 3 times a week, and ss or digital NEVER captures the micro/macro dynamics, the three-dimensional impact of instruments or singers, or the harmonics of live, unamplified music. Many of my friends are shocked at how mellow live music is, be it classical or jazz.

So, you would consider the Firebird Suit played live by a 110 piece symphony orchestra mellow? All live music isn't mellow, and if you go to concerts, you would know that. To say something NEVER does something would mean you would have to hear all incarnation of that something. Since you have not heard much digital above the Redbook standard, then your never is a incomplete supposition.

I agree that cables and caps are better than those of 30 years ago. However, I DON"T agree that that means that modern equipment beats the best of 30 years ago. It's much more complicated. The same holds true in a comparison of modern wines with those of decades ago. I've gone to dozens of vertical wine tastings (same winery, different vintages), and I consistently prefer older wines, not just because they have grown more complex with age, but also because the wines of decades ago were more balanced (MUCH lower alcohol and higher acid).

Wine tasting and listening to loudspeakers are not quite the same thing. Taste buds, and eardrums have very little in common.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T, thanks for the fuller explanation of what I've heard and concluded over the years.

I can believe that a higher sample rate will improve -- to use the term -- the realism and tolerability of the stridency. Again, to reiterate a couple of points:

1. Engineers/producers often aim for a closer-up sound than most listeners actually want. Maybe if I were a performer ... but I'm not and I usually sit at least a few rows back in the orchestra section -- not on stage.
2. However if a strident sound is there, either because that's what the performers were striving for, or because that's the way it was recorded, then "accuracy" means reproducing it as it is, not filtering it through either a vinyl pressing or tube equipment.

Unfortunately because of the acoustics of some venues, a few rows back perspective tilts the room versus orchestra balance more towards the room - hence why a conductors perspective is often the perspective of choice for a live audio recording. A good conductor will balance his orchestra from "his" perspective, which makes his perspective the ideal place to capture the sound.

Your last statement I totally agree with!

[tube fan]

No analogy is perfect, but blind tastings of wines and blind listening sessions, comparing audio components, do have this in common: those who rate the wines or audio gear will not be influenced by name or reputation.

yes, live music is sometimes bright and hard. That I why I have prefered AR tubes over SET gear; the AR tubes can sound bright when the music calls for it. I've been told that some SET units can produce correctly bright sound when the vimyl calls for it.

No one has replied to my request for some audio store where I can hear this wonderful new digital sound. I suspect TTT, along with others, were on board with ss and digital from the start. I know REG was.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

No analogy is perfect, but blind tastings of wines and blind listening sessions, comparing audio components, do have this in common: those who rate the wines or audio gear will not be influenced by name or reputation.

No, they are apparently influenced by the technology - hence you constant repeating of a basic mistruth that tubes and analog are better than SS and digital.

yes, live music is sometimes bright and hard. That I why I have prefered AR tubes over SET gear; the AR tubes can sound bright when the music calls for it. I've been told that some SET units can produce correctly bright sound when the vimyl calls for it.

So now SOME tubes can sound bright when the music calls for it. That is not the same statement as tubes and analog sound better than SS and digital. I guess you are walking that statement back.

No one has replied to my request for some audio store where I can hear this wonderful new digital sound. I suspect TTT, along with others, were on board with ss and digital from the start. I know REG was.

Don't assume what you don't know. As far as I know stores sell gear, they don't demonstrate digital formats. Since you go to all these shows every year, there is a good chance one of the shows you attend may demonstrate it. The California audio show had a DXD demonstration, but you apparently(or purposefully)missed it(maybe cause it was digital!). One of things I do when I go to shows is to look and listen to things I don't ordinarily listen to(like tube amps and vinyl), instead of running around to things I have already heard over and over again(like you seem to do). I also do not need anyone to co-sign my opinions(as if to give credence or relevance to it). I like what I like, you like what you like. I do not need everyone in the room to agree with me to make my opinion valid(like you seem to do).

[RGA]

No, they are apparently influenced by the technology - hence you constant repeating of a basic mistruth that tubes and analog are better than SS and digital.

Now to be fair this goes the other way as well. People can take a look at a tube and immediately draw a conclusion and hear what it is they expect to hear. That is expectation bias and it works both ways. And the word "better" is problematic. Most of the high end speaker manufacturers at CES are under the impression that tubes sound better since most of the rooms (and most of the best sounding ones) used tubes. The tube fan is not alone in this and considering by rights tube technology "should" be dead the only reason it survives in home audio is because of audiophiles who are people who generally have better ears and care more about sound reproduction - it is these people who kept it alive. Of course they also make $150,000+ solid state amps and ultra expensive CD players too so it's not like all Audiophiles are remotely in agreement.

[tube fan]

TTT I bet YOU were on board with ss and digital decades ago. I am NOT interested in some "wonderful new" digital system that I cannot hear or that has little or no software. I can buy thousands of analogue vinyl records of my favorite performances. Let's match them to the digital versions!

I repeat: NO salesman at the California Audio Show contested my claim that today's analogue simply DESTROYS today's digital (yes, even in the Audio Note room which had only the inferior digital). REG has been praising digital for decades, and I suspect you have been on board with him.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

TTT I bet YOU were on board with ss and digital decades ago. I am NOT interested in some "wonderful new" digital system that I cannot hear or that has little or no software. I can buy thousands of analogue vinyl records of my favorite performances. Let's match them to the digital versions!

Your assumptions are once again incorrect. I owned a Conrad-Johnson Premier Five monoblocks, Conrad-Johnson PV9 preamplifier, paired with Klipschorns for years. That was my first serious system back in the late eighties, so there goes your theory up in smoke.

I repeat: NO salesman at the California Audio Show contested my claim that today's analogue simply DESTROYS today's digital (yes, even in the Audio Note room which had only the inferior digital). REG has been praising digital for decades, and I suspect you have been on board with him.[/QUOTE]

More co-signing. Well at least you are consistent. Like a salesman word is to be taken seriously.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Now to be fair this goes the other way as well. People can take a look at a tube and immediately draw a conclusion and hear what it is they expect to hear. That is expectation bias and it works both ways. And the word "better" is problematic. Most of the high end speaker manufacturers at CES are under the impression that tubes sound better since most of the rooms (and most of the best sounding ones) used tubes. The tube fan is not alone in this and considering by rights tube technology "should" be dead the only reason it survives in home audio is because of audiophiles who are people who generally have better ears and care more about sound reproduction - it is these people who kept it alive. Of course they also make $150,000+ solid state amps and ultra expensive CD players too so it's not like all Audiophiles are remotely in agreement.

The whole notion that "audiophiles" have better ears is hogwash. At the California Audio show, most of the people in attendance looked like they were over 50 years old. The high frequency loss at that age is pretty profound, so I don't think their ears are any better than anyone else. I also read the average age of stereophile subscribers was also over the age of 50.

Tubes and analog will always have their supporters, but that does not mean that tubes and analog is superior to SS and digital.

Your last statement is very true indeed.

[RGA]

The whole notion that "audiophiles" have better ears is hogwash. At the California Audio show, most of the people in attendance looked like they were over 50 years old. The high frequency loss at that age is pretty profound, so I don't think their ears are any better than anyone else. I also read the average age of stereophile subscribers was also over the age of 50.

Tubes and analog will always have their supporters, but that does not mean that tubes and analog is superior to SS and digital.

Your last statement is very true indeed.

I'm 36 and still hear above 16khz.

Isn't that the strange thing. By the time you have the money to finally be able to afford the best equipment you're too old to hear all it is capable of. While when your 16 you have the ears for it but can only afford the iPod and then because daddy bought it for them.

[Feanor]

I'm 36 and still hear above 16khz.

Isn't that the strange thing. By the time you have the money to finally be able to afford the best equipment you're too old to hear all it is capable of. While when your 16 you have the ears for it but can only afford the iPod and then because daddy bought it for them.

Sadly so, RGA. Like George Bernard Shaw said, youth is wasted on the young.

Personally my hearing is limited to 10 kHz. This is partly my age but I suspect I've had slightly worse than average for high-frequencies for several decade. Nevertheless it is easy for me to hear differences between speakers and amps: I'll admit I have a lot more difficuty with cables & interconnects, and more still with power cords for example.

Perceiving difference in sound of equipment, not to mention caring about these differences, is at least as much motivation as it is basic hearing ability. I visit a couple of classical music sites regularly, and while a certain proportion have mid- and high-end equipment, the majority are quite content with compact systems and many listen almost exclusively to portable players.

[Feanor]

...
I repeat: NO salesman at the California Audio Show contested my claim that today's analogue simply DESTROYS today's digital (yes, even in the Audio Note room which had only the inferior digital). REG has been praising digital for decades, and I suspect you have been on board with him.

This is so-call "confirmation bias". You have decided analog & tubes sound best, so you selectively hear the best qualities of these media and equpment. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest", to quote the song.

These shows attract people like yourself and accordingly, makers and their salesmen who will cater to your tastes and reasure your biases. In many cases they share your biases but even if they don't they will stroke them in the hope that you'll buy or recommend their stuff.

Perhaps I'm being just a bit unfair, though. You are looking for the sound you prefer and there is nothing wrong with that. The bad part is that you refuse to concede the matter of taste and continue to insist your preferences are the necessarily more realistic, authentic sound.