Live Sound Versus Hi-Fi Sound

[Ajani]

I attended a funeral today and heard an unaplified trumpet playing and it got me thinking again about live versus Hi-Fi sound...

I've long wondered if many of us audiophiles are really chasing the Holy Grail Live Experience as we often claim....

Can we achieve a live sound if some of our HiFi components surpass the live sound in specific areas?

For example, a great deal of focus is placed on pin point imaging and soundstages in Hi-Fi, yet in live performances many of us have found that no such precision exists...

Also, we focus on being able to hear every last drop of detail... With my headphones I can just about hear sweat running down the singer's nose... but in a live performance, there is no way I'd heard anywhere near that level of detail, unless the performer was seranading me with their lips to my ear....

So if we overshoot the margin in some areas can we really achieve a live sound and is that actually even our aim?

So back to the trumpet: the sound was harsh and bright... which I found interesting considering how many times I hear audiophiles wax lyrically about the virtues of warm gear that never makes any recordings sound harsh... So how can I reproduce live sound with gear that makes everything listenable and/or sweet, considering that many live instruments and sounds are harsh and bright?

Have we moved so far away from the goal of reproducing the live event, that we now focus totally on Hi-Fi terms like prat, soundstage and detail?

[blackraven]

My magnepans give the most live sound from any speaker I have heard. The Van Alstine equipment helps.

[JoeE SP9]

Ajani, I think what you're mostly referring to are the result of overly close miking. Recordings made without close miking such as most classical and live to two track don't have that more live than live feel the spit from the trumpet sound. I settled on my ESL's because with minimally miked recordings they sound more lifelike than boxes. Unfortunately they make overly close miking and poor recording technique more obvious. We need to remember most music is not recorded, mixed, mastered or sold with "us" in mind.

Actually, I think my ESL's sound better on every type of recording.:D That's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.:ihih:

[poppachubby]

Sounds like your funeral trumpeter could use a lesson or two in harmonics and tone. Have you ever heard a player the likes of Hubbard or Hargrove play live? A trumpet is certainly brighter than many other instruments, but should never be harsh.

One of my favorite trumpet performances, and an album with great live feel, is Hancock's Empyrean Isles. Hubbard is genius harmonically on this one, he has no tenor to help smooth him out. The harder he plays, and higher the note, the more the hair stands up on my arms. Wonderful tone. The first solo in Cantaloupe Island ALWAYS gives me goose bumps, never harsh or bright.

Junk in, junk out. I agree with Joe.

I mentioned in another thread how great The Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions is for stereo imaging. It's damn near perfect. The depth is such that you feel like you can climb into the speaker. Proportionally, the instruments create the space exactly as it was. This album was recorded using a single mic in the center of the room.

Some of the older Blue Note, Verve and Prestige recordings have the same feel. Using only 2 or 3 mics and recording live off the floor, the imaging comes off amazingly potent and audible.

For me, as a bass player, nothing can replace the live experience. I just look for as much accuracy as possible with the gear I have. Right now I'm pleased with how my room sounds. It's the exact right amounts of sweetness and technicality for my ears.

[RGA]

Audio systems are designed to replay what is on the source disc. And if the material is up for it then a drum kit or a piano should very closely resemble a drum kit or a piano.

As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else. As areviewer I listen for it but as a music listener I want the whole experience. Usually, if my ear is being drawn to one perameter such as soundstaging and imaging it probably means it's tonally off or it lacks credible dynamics.

Lawrence Borden - an audiophile enamored with soundstaging write a nice article on why it's probably not the best thing to be looking for and it mirrors what you noticed about listening live. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398

[poppachubby]

As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging.

The intellectual aspect of listening should never surpass the emotional and spiritual side. That said, imaging on some recordings can give you that sense that you're in a room with the musicians, rather than an album perfectly panned from center.

[Ajani]

Sounds like your funeral trumpeter could use a lesson or two in harmonics and tone. Have you ever heard a player the likes of Hubbard or Hargrove play live? A trumpet is certainly brighter than many other instruments, but should never be harsh.

One of my favorite trumpet performances, and an album with great live feel, is Hancock's Empyrean Isles. Hubbard is genius harmonically on this one, he has no tenor to help smooth him out. The harder he plays, and higher the note, the more the hair stands up on my arms. Wonderful tone. The first solo in Cantaloupe Island ALWAYS gives me goose bumps, never harsh or bright.

Junk in, junk out. I agree with Joe.

I mentioned in another thread how great The Cowboy Junkies - Trinity Sessions is for stereo imaging. It's damn near perfect. The depth is such that you feel like you can climb into the speaker. Proportionally, the instruments create the space exactly as it was. This album was recorded using a single mic in the center of the room.

Some of the older Blue Note, Verve and Prestige recordings have the same feel. Using only 2 or 3 mics and recording live off the floor, the imaging comes off amazingly potent and audible.

For me, as a bass player, nothing can replace the live experience. I just look for as much accuracy as possible with the gear I have. Right now I'm pleased with how my room sounds. It's the exact right amounts of sweetness and technicality for my ears.

Undoubtedly, the trumpter lacked talent, but if a recording of his performance was played through a HiFi setup it should sound as bright and harsh as it did live.... A UK review mag (What HiFi?) always looks for products that are "all-rounders" i.e. if the recording is bright and harsh, then it should sound bright and harsh, if it's smooth then it should sound smooth... While there are numerous valid complaints about What HiFi's review approach (especially the length and detail in the published reviews), I do agree with the fundamental principle that a good HiFi system should not hide the fact that a recording is bright etc..

At this point in the game, nothing can fully recreate the live experience, but I still wonder if we've lost focus and are now more concerned with HiFi traits than being accurate to the live event...

When I see reviews and they say that a product lacks the detail and soundtage of more expensive models, I wonder if that detail and soundstage might actually be more than what is present in the live performance... So could it be that a mid level product with inferior soundstage and detail is more accurate to the live performance than a SOTA one (as the SOTA gear overshoots the target)?

[Ajani]

Audio systems are designed to replay what is on the source disc. And if the material is up for it then a drum kit or a piano should very closely resemble a drum kit or a piano.

As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else. As areviewer I listen for it but as a music listener I want the whole experience. Usually, if my ear is being drawn to one perameter such as soundstaging and imaging it probably means it's tonally off or it lacks credible dynamics.
Lawrence Borden - an audiophile enamored with soundstaging write a nice article on why it's probably not the best thing to be looking for and it mirrors what you noticed about listening live. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398

That's actually my belief as well: truly accurate systems should do "nothing special" i.e. I should not think "wow that midrange is so silky" or "listen to that bass extension" or "I can pick out the exact height and position of every individual in the choir"... I should just hear music....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I agree with Richard's assessment. What you are hearing using an audio system is a reproduction coming from the microphone, and the better a signal chain can do it, the more accurate and faithful to the RECORDING it will sound. What we hear in a live setting is binaural, not stereo, not mulitchannel. Multichannel just gets us closer to the live experience with the ability to recreate immersion, and reproduce audio from more points in space. The recording is only a capture from specific perspectives, not an all immersing experience like we get live(except outdoors away from walls).

A good audio chain can make a performer SEEM like they are in the room, and that is what you are looking for with HiFi. With live sound, you are in the room with the performer, and the ear/brain mechanism can easily figure that out. It has to be fooled with a audio recording, and that requires a system to have a high degree of accuracy in relation to the recording reproduction. As far as great imaging, if a recording has it(remember it is a recording with microphones positioned in space), then the audio chain should have enough resolution to reveal it, that is one of the basic tenets of audio reproduction, not live listening.

There are times when you do get some level of pinpoint imaging in live music. Try listening to a outdoor concert in the nearfield, especially acoustical music.

[Ajani]

I agree with Richard's assessment. What you are hearing using an audio system is a reproduction coming from the microphone, and the better a signal chain can do it, the more accurate and faithful to the RECORDING it will sound. What we hear in a live setting is binaural, not stereo, not mulitchannel. Multichannel just gets us closer to the live experience with the ability to recreate immersion, and reproduce audio from more points in space. The recording is only a capture from specific perspectives, not an all immersing experience like we get live(except outdoors away from walls).

A good audio chain can make a performer SEEM like they are in the room, and that is what you are looking for with HiFi. With live sound, you are in the room with the performer, and the ear/brain mechanism can easily figure that out. It has to be fooled with a audio recording, and that requires a system to have a high degree of accuracy in relation to the recording reproduction. As far as great imaging, if a recording has it(remember it is a recording with microphones positioned in space), then the audio chain should have enough resolution to reveal it, that is one of the basic tenets of audio reproduction, not live listening.

There are times when you do get some level of pinpoint imaging in live music. Try listening to a outdoor concert in the nearfield, especially acoustical music.

So then is the goal really "to extract every bit of information in the recording", rather than to recreate the live experience?

[poppachubby]

So then is the goal really "to extract every bit of information in the recording", rather than to recreate the live experience?

Yes. This is why people go to such crazy lengths with IC's, PS conditioning and speaker cables to try and squeeze every last audible sound out of the recording.

[Ajani]

Yes. This is why people go to such crazy lengths with IC's, PS conditioning and speaker cables to try and squeeze every last audible sound out of the recording.

That's what I've suspected... That our goal has long changed (or in some cases never was) from recreating the live event to being more concerned with HiFi terms created by our recording techniques...

Note: I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with that, as all that really matters is what you enjoy listening to.... But since we hear the claim of 'truth to the live event' so often touted by manufacturers, reviewers and audiophiles in general, it seems misleading to pretend that recreating the live event is always the goal...

[RGA]

I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording. And the only way to really know if a system is being accurate to the recording is for a system to show as much contrast as possible between recordings, and in fact stereo system components. If system A plays ten recordings and all of them sound completely different from each other and you can tell the difference in tonality, imaging staging, bass dynamnics etc then system A has tremendous resolution and allowing those differences to come through. While many other systems that can only play classical strings and can't play other kinds of music are very low resolution speakers because they have a gross inability to give you what is on the source disc. One of the classic speakers is the Quad 57 and 63 but they are not good resolving loudspeakers - they can play one kind of music and they can please the ear doing it no question about it - but what is also true is that they can't tell the listener the differences between recordings because they lack the ability to produce MANY and indeed "MOST" of the music on the market (which isn't classical). Such a speaker is nice to listen to but hardly accurate.

A speaker or system is a series of electrical devices and its sole purpose is to take a signal and reproduce it as the musicians intended regardless of whether it is lousy amplified music. Tupac on a Quad is horrible and the reason it is horrible is because the speaker can't produce the notes on the CD or LP. If it can't reproduce the signals of that music it also can't do the canon in the 1812 or most bass instruments properly (although it may make it all sound "nice."

This doesn't necessarily mean a big boxed speaker is going to be better but I'll put my money on the speaker that can handle all music intended by the artist first and then worry about the ultimate frequency extremes and treble issues or slight box colourations or distortion.

Granted I am in the HE/SET camp so it's interesting that my view would be that a system has to be able to do AC/DC and Tupac at high levels. I believe SETs get short shrift because they are simply connected to poor efficiency speakers. A speaker may be a horn of 100db but it doesn't mean it's easy to drive. The sad thing IMO is that the two things that a great SET amp does better by far than ANY transister I have ever heard is Transient attack and Decay. The initial sound of a guitar pick or pressed key or thwack on a cymbal - no comparison. And the decay of the piano box the lingers whilst not muddying the sound of the next transient. Sadly it becomes mud with the wrong speaker, but with the right speaker there is no going back.

Anyway, I understand the appeal of something like the Quad 2905 but I like my cake and eat it as well. I would like a speaker that does everything the Quad is capable of doing and a LOT of what the Tannoy Westminster or Acapella High Violencello is capable of doing and preferably for less than half the price of either one.

I happen to buy into getting what's off the disc not stamping a panel sound or 40 foot stage (Bose 901) onto every recording homogonizing the results. My bias is to the article written by Leonard Norwitz a classical music lover and composer and Peter Q of audio note some years back and posted on the enjoythemusic.com website http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm and it applies to any system not just that maker though that is how they design everything. Practically it's tough to do as they suggest but I think it works well if you can put the significant time in requitred for it.

[hermanv]

Define "Live".

Most "live" events I've attended were played through a mixing console and local speakers. Neither the console, the speakers nor the wages paid to the "sound engineer" were up to a real "live" quality HiFi event. In many cases the speakers in particular were quite poor with a 12" woofer and a horn mid/tweet, all in all not HiFi.

Trumpets are loud and brash , but not overly bright or harsh (HiFi definition) they sound great un-amplified.

Another problem of recreating a live event is that most people's listening room is far smaller than the room in which the live music was heard.

IMHO adjusting for these issues is perfectly acceptable. As is using equipment that doesn't subtract from a rare quality recording.

[poppachubby]

I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording.

Yes, I agree and furthermore, I want to hear everything that I was intended to. Sorry, what's that Rich?


As for soundstage - I have never understood what the driving appeal of it is and why so many glob onto soundstage and imaging. Personally if I notice it it is probably doing a whole bunch of things wrong someplace else.

Hmmm. I can appreciate that you don't dig soundstage but in staying true to a recording, you MUST consider it. Some recordings have been made to replicate the studio "environment", so that you at home may feel like you're sitting in front of the band. Where my understanding ends, is when people try to listen to a soundstage on a recording which clearly LACKS any. Some people need to realise that quite a few recordings have been panned to stimulate the senses, and NOT replicate any sense of real imaging.

As I said before, I enjoy my music in hi-fi. Imaging is a miracle of the studio, and with hi-fi we are privileged to experience it. We shouldn't ignore it but at the same time, shouldn't be overly concerned. It is what it is...

[Feanor]

I attended a funeral today and heard an unaplified trumpet playing and it got me thinking again about live versus Hi-Fi sound...
...
So back to the trumpet: the sound was harsh and bright... which I found interesting considering how many times I hear audiophiles wax lyrically about the virtues of warm gear that never makes any recordings sound harsh... So how can I reproduce live sound with gear that makes everything listenable and/or sweet, considering that many live instruments and sounds are harsh and bright?

Have we moved so far away from the goal of reproducing the live event, that we now focus totally on Hi-Fi terms like prat, soundstage and detail?
I listened to some live trumpets today myself during the Easter Day service. I can assure you they were very harsh & bright, just like you observed.

I listen to live music, mostly classical, from time to time. It is very clear that, depending on the venue, many instruments sound bright. Some locations are naturally reverberate and this tends to exacerbate brightness. This includes not only brass but certainly string instruments -- violins simply are not produce the dulcit, silky smooth sound that some people think they ought to. In fact they can be downright skreechy.

As for recording, part of it is the natural accoustic of the venue and the rest recording technique. I suspect close-micing also emphasizes the "grating" elements of the sound of strings for instance.

Are many people deceiving themselves about want is actually accurate? In particular, like you, I think "warmth" is overrated. Some people do admit they prefer euphonic over accurate but others are kidding themselves.

What is "accuracy"? I agree with RGA and others that it's to accurately reproduce the recording, not some hypothetical live event. On the other hand without listening with the recording engineer in the studio, it's impossible to be sure exactly what the recording is supposed to sound like, and even that is filtered through the monitors and studio's other playback equipment.

[poppachubby]

Define "Live".

Most "live" events I've attended were played through a mixing console and local speakers.

As a musician that has gigged many times, I agree with your sentiment Herman. I don't know what "live" is supposed to be in hi-fi terms, mostly, because I know what it is in the real world. There is nothing that can replicate a live musical experience IMO. Perhaps a $500,000 system can, but I'll never hear one anyhow, so what use is that to me?

One quality I do look for and enjoy with my own system, is realism. Realism in terms of sound but also in proportion of the instruments to one another. Funny, just the other day I was listening to Metallica's ...And Justice for All, my favorite album of theirs musically. But good grief, could they have made the drums any more present? Ridiculous really.

[02audionoob]

I don't have any real interest in creating the live event. I see recordings as an art form of their own. I was at a live event Friday night and the thought occurred to me that I like the sound of my own listening setup better. I certainly can't duplicate the event experience, but then that's not the point of my audio system.

[Ajani]

I believe the goal is to be accurate to the recording. And the only way to really know if a system is being accurate to the recording is for a system to show as much contrast as possible between recordings, and in fact stereo system components. If system A plays ten recordings and all of them sound completely different from each other and you can tell the difference in tonality, imaging staging, bass dynamnics etc then system A has tremendous resolution and allowing those differences to come through. While many other systems that can only play classical strings and can't play other kinds of music are very low resolution speakers because they have a gross inability to give you what is on the source disc. One of the classic speakers is the Quad 57 and 63 but they are not good resolving loudspeakers - they can play one kind of music and they can please the ear doing it no question about it - but what is also true is that they can't tell the listener the differences between recordings because they lack the ability to produce MANY and indeed "MOST" of the music on the market (which isn't classical). Such a speaker is nice to listen to but hardly accurate.

A speaker or system is a series of electrical devices and its sole purpose is to take a signal and reproduce it as the musicians intended regardless of whether it is lousy amplified music. Tupac on a Quad is horrible and the reason it is horrible is because the speaker can't produce the notes on the CD or LP. If it can't reproduce the signals of that music it also can't do the canon in the 1812 or most bass instruments properly (although it may make it all sound "nice."

This doesn't necessarily mean a big boxed speaker is going to be better but I'll put my money on the speaker that can handle all music intended by the artist first and then worry about the ultimate frequency extremes and treble issues or slight box colourations or distortion.

Granted I am in the HE/SET camp so it's interesting that my view would be that a system has to be able to do AC/DC and Tupac at high levels. I believe SETs get short shrift because they are simply connected to poor efficiency speakers. A speaker may be a horn of 100db but it doesn't mean it's easy to drive. The sad thing IMO is that the two things that a great SET amp does better by far than ANY transister I have ever heard is Transient attack and Decay. The initial sound of a guitar pick or pressed key or thwack on a cymbal - no comparison. And the decay of the piano box the lingers whilst not muddying the sound of the next transient. Sadly it becomes mud with the wrong speaker, but with the right speaker there is no going back.

Anyway, I understand the appeal of something like the Quad 2905 but I like my cake and eat it as well. I would like a speaker that does everything the Quad is capable of doing and a LOT of what the Tannoy Westminster or Acapella High Violencello is capable of doing and preferably for less than half the price of either one.

I happen to buy into getting what's off the disc not stamping a panel sound or 40 foot stage (Bose 901) onto every recording homogonizing the results. My bias is to the article written by Leonard Norwitz a classical music lover and composer and Peter Q of audio note some years back and posted on the enjoythemusic.com website http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm and it applies to any system not just that maker though that is how they design everything. Practically it's tough to do as they suggest but I think it works well if you can put the significant time in requitred for it.

All good points and I agree... though I would ask the question of "how do you know when to stop?"...

When is a component too detailed? When has it moved beyond allowing you to hear all the details as the recording engineer intended and moved to magnifying details excessively? When has it overshot the mark on soundstage?

At least (in theory anyway) with an unamplified live recording, you could compare the playback from your HiFi with the live sound and determine if you've met the goal...

Using Peter Q's approach: the system that shows the most contrast could theoretically be "painting a picture" that is magnified to well beyond its actual size...

So for example, it might be a case that say a Magnepan MG1.6/1.7 is more accurate than a MG20.1, because the 20.1 has moved beyond retrieving all information on the recording and is now magnifying/exagerating that information.... But how would we know that we should have stopped at the 1.6/1.7 if we really want accuracy?

[poppachubby]

But how would we know that we should have stopped at the 1.6/1.7 if we really want accuracy?

Through careful auditioning, this is where personal taste would come in.

[RGA]

norwitz and peter's essay doesn't need to be as complex as some read into it. If you have five piano recordings and on one system the tone and dynamics are quite a lot different from each other - perhaps one has a small pinpoint center stage - one recording is 25 feet long, one has excellent dynamics and one sounds compressed - the system is differentiating the recordings. If the other system makes everything sound compressed or 2 dimensional then it is clearly not differentiating or contrasting the differences and clearly isn't accurate.

That's within one type of genre which to me is harder to listen for - so before you even compare those kinds of music genres I would first start with hard rock and nuances well recorded classical and Jazz. The system that can play Beethoven BRILLIANTLY and can also play AC/DC (who have some very good recordings) and can play harder hitting techno - and do it all well is the speaker/system that is better able to contrast recording differences.

If the speaker bottoms out doing the harder stuff then it has some serious issues. Now certainly with Magnepan 1.6 every speaker in this price range has issues - so you have to choose the strength that works for your musical taste which is why the 1.6 is a good value if you are a classical guy. But when you get to $15k like the 20.1 and it still only does classical well then it deserves some consideration more seriously that something else is probably money better spent.

[Ajani]

Through careful auditioning, this is where personal taste would come in.

Careful auditioning of what? What's the target?

Personal taste I get and I think is really what audiophiles are after, but since we often claim some kind of objective goal to HiFi (whether recreating the live sound or accuracy to the recording), then how do we meet that objective goal?

[RGA]

Personal taste is fine Ajani if that is the choice one makes. People buy the Quad 57 and a huge segment of audiophiles hold it up as one of the finest speakers going. But most of those buyers also realize whther they want to say it or not - that they are woefully inaccurate loudspeakers. Most of us know that if one wants to listen to "Thunderstruck" on a set of loudspeakers that Quad and speakers like it are completely hopeless and that in no way shape or form do they meet even remotely the intent of the band or the recording engineers.

My issue is certainly not people's choices - I very much like the 2905 myself for what it can handle - but unfortunately a lot of people start trying to claim it as some sort of superior form of speaker or that is "accurate" because it is "lighter" and creates less distortion. My contention is that Dynamics and bass and drive (depending how you know it as) are the main sources of creating distortion (bass dynamics especially) and so it's easy to get rid of distortion by simply avoiding presenting the sound as it was intended in the first place.

Lesser boxed speakers with a lot of resonances and boxy presentations - virtually every $3,000 and under(and sometimes very expensive speakers) floorstander with several drivers stacked on each other with a metal tweeter and poly/Kevlar woofers make their boxes present on everything unfortunately.

Classical music recordings that typically focus on violin, cello, flute, clarinet, oboe, French Horn typically get butchered by a lot of gear - doesn't get buthered at all on a Quad 2905 which lives for this stuff. It has a gentle downward slope in the treble so rarely gets harsh and bass isn't really needed for it, and typical listeners don't listen very loud. Meanwhile many boxes will imprint some sort of boom or ping in there or the drivers don't integrates and you get this weird isolated sound. Even the top Wilson Maxx3 despite the huge price and being run by top tube amps sounded all over the place - something that a speaker like the KingSound and Martin Logan or Quad had virtually no issues with.

It's a fascinating industry because many makers have a variety of approaches and beliefs as to what is the superior presentation.

[Ajani]

Personal taste is fine Ajani if that is the choice one makes. People buy the Quad 57 and a huge segment of audiophiles hold it up as one of the finest speakers going. But most of those buyers also realize whther they want to say it or not - that they are woefully inaccurate loudspeakers. Most of us know that if one wants to listen to "Thunderstruck" on a set of loudspeakers that Quad and speakers like it are completely hopeless and that in no way shape or form do they meet even remotely the intent of the band or the recording engineers.

My issue is certainly not people's choices - I very much like the 2905 myself for what it can handle - but unfortunately a lot of people start trying to claim it as some sort of superior form of speaker or that is "accurate" because it is "lighter" and creates less distortion. My contention is that Dynamics and bass and drive (depending how you know it as) are the main sources of creating distortion (bass dynamics especially) and so it's easy to get rid of distortion by simply avoiding presenting the sound as it was intended in the first place.

Lesser boxed speakers with a lot of resonances and boxy presentations - virtually every $3,000 and under(and sometimes very expensive speakers) floorstander with several drivers stacked on each other with a metal tweeter and poly/Kevlar woofers make their boxes present on everything unfortunately.

Classical music recordings that typically focus on violin, cello, flute, clarinet, oboe, French Horn typically get butchered by a lot of gear - doesn't get buthered at all on a Quad 2905 which lives for this stuff. It has a gentle downward slope in the treble so rarely gets harsh and bass isn't really needed for it, and typical listeners don't listen very loud. Meanwhile many boxes will imprint some sort of boom or ping in there or the drivers don't integrates and you get this weird isolated sound. Even the top Wilson Maxx3 despite the huge price and being run by top tube amps sounded all over the place - something that a speaker like the KingSound and Martin Logan or Quad had virtually no issues with.

It's a fascinating industry because many makers have a variety of approaches and beliefs as to what is the superior presentation.

Sadly, most audiophiles would never admit that they just prefer the sound of something, it has to be justified as being the more correct approach or truer to the live performance or some such...

I am partial to designs that are all-rounders, as I have a very wide taste in music... sadly I won't be likely to hear Peter Q's designs anytime soon... I'm fascinated to discover how a SET/HE system would sound with my music... However, I've found that (for me) the best compromise in the price levels I shop at are full range (multi-driver) box speakers... However, the ones I really like use the same material from tweeter to woofer. Revel - uses OCC (some kind of ceramic composite) & Monitor Audio uses C-CAM (aluminum)... so rather than trying to blend the soumd of a metal tweeter with some other materials, Monitor Audio uses metal for all drivers, and Revel uses ceramic throughout... I find that allows the music to sound coherent as there is no change in tone, etc as you move from bass to mids to highs...

I am especially intrigued to know what AN will sound like, as I know that Peter Q and Kevin Voecks (speaker killer, I believe you call him... so though I've never heard you speak about Revel speakers, I assume you're not fond of them :) ) have very diferent approaches to speaker design... So I'd love to compare my high powered 'Revel' setup to a low powered AN setup to see whether I love both, hate the AN or change my mind on the Revels....

[Hyfi]

I have been to very few live events that I would want my system to reproduce. I do expect my system to sound true, not live. I expect a wood instrument to sound as such, tell the difference between round and flat wound bass strings, hear a symbol crash to the end and so on.

I think the term Live is not used properly here or in most cases where this topic comes up.

As said earlier, your system should reproduce the CD as it was intended, even though in most cases it sounds like crap from over compression and some engineer who puts it all together for Radio play and not High End system playback.

[O'Shag]

Hi Ajani and all,
hope you had a good holiday weekend.

From my perspective, I've not yet heard any system that can fully reproduce the type of dense resolution our ear-brain can resolve listening to live music - although I have listened to some rare systems and components that have come pretty close. Its my experience that this level of resolution - the sort that leads me to believe I'm listening to live music - requires a top-quality tube preamp at the least, and a hybrid (tube/solid-state) amplifier in combination with that preamp to get closest. I 've heard many great solid-state preamps that sound marvellous and some scoring very high on the 'very musically satisfying' scale, but SS preamps to my ears do lack that last bit of ultimate resolution the kind of completeness that leads me to believe when I close my eyes that what I'm listening to is real.

Also I find that the ultimate resolving preamps and amps whether tube or solid state do inherently have very accurate sound-staging and imaging - the best to an remarkable degree. Its just that when one listens to such a system, one ceases to analyze, because it just sound so right.

I think there are several speaker systems capable of getting close to the sound of live music, but many fall down primarily because of crossover distortion. This is why planars and singly driver speakers have such an advantage because there is no crossover and multiple driver array to distort the waveform.

When listening to a band playing even from outside the room or venue, my ear-brain can still clearly define each instrument and voice and the venue space. I don't think were quite there yet in terms of technology. Same is true of HDTV. Some have said that 1080p is all that is needed to be considered fully resolving. I disagree - in fact I think were nowhere close (although with the new Ultra High-def coming out in the not too distant future we'll be a lot closer).

I think why most systems might tend to sound harsh with some instruments such as the trumpet, is simply a lack of resolving power, and the presence of distortion of the actual sound. This and of course a recording that lacks sufficient resolution. I also think that analogue playback mediums can recreate the most lifelike reproduction of music and sounds.

Best to all,

O'Shag

[blackraven]

When I posted that my Maggies were the most live sounding speaker I have heard. I did not mean it makes all music sound live. But much of the music I listen too was recorded to sound live or have prominent solo vocals. With the Maggies it feels like they are in the room with you and it sounds natural. My hybrid preamp and DAC also have a lot to do with it.

[poppachubby]

Interesting points O'Shag. I have bought an Eico HF 85 to replace my SS pre. I am looking forward to an increase in resolution, we'll see.

[Feanor]

When I posted that my Maggies were the most live sounding speaker I have heard. I did not mean it makes all music sound live. But much of the music I listen too was recorded to sound live or have prominent solo vocals. With the Maggies it feels like they are in the room with you and it sounds natural. My hybrid preamp and DAC also have a lot to do with it.
I agree, and this is an attribute of Maggies that most owners mention. Whether it's truly "accuracy" is another matter.

[frenchmon]

I attended a funeral today and heard an unaplified trumpet playing and it got me thinking again about live versus Hi-Fi sound...

I've long wondered if many of us audiophiles are really chasing the Holy Grail Live Experience as we often claim....

Can we achieve a live sound if some of our HiFi components surpass the live sound in specific areas?

For example, a great deal of focus is placed on pin point imaging and soundstages in Hi-Fi, yet in live performances many of us have found that no such precision exists...

Also, we focus on being able to hear every last drop of detail... With my headphones I can just about hear sweat running down the singer's nose... but in a live performance, there is no way I'd heard anywhere near that level of detail, unless the performer was seranading me with their lips to my ear....

So if we overshoot the margin in some areas can we really achieve a live sound and is that actually even our aim?

So back to the trumpet: the sound was harsh and bright... which I found interesting considering how many times I hear audiophiles wax lyrically about the virtues of warm gear that never makes any recordings sound harsh... So how can I reproduce live sound with gear that makes everything listenable and/or sweet, considering that many live instruments and sounds are harsh and bright?

Have we moved so far away from the goal of reproducing the live event, that we now focus totally on Hi-Fi terms like prat, soundstage and detail?

Well...a few weeks ago me and MrP went to a guys house who had a rig close to $100.000. The thing sounded live to me. He had Klipschorns... It was sterile as can be and the guy said he built it to be as transparent...free of any signature sounds. To tell you the truth, I don't want my rig sounding like that. I want some emotion...some sweetness in my rig. If I want live, im going to a live set, but in my home...I want tone...emotion...sweetness.

frenchmon

[blackraven]

Frenchie, I agree with you, thats why there are tube fans and SS fans. I like a little of both, hence my hybrid system. You can't really classify the sound of my system as tube or solid state, its somewhere in between. I guess I would call it warm without being overly warm or tubey.

[frenchmon]

The intellectual aspect of listening should never surpass the emotional and spiritual side. That said, imaging on some recordings can give you that sense that you're in a room with the musicians, rather than an album perfectly panned from center.

I agree.I have Canton speakers and these things give you the best impression that the musicians are right there in front of me playing. Canton recommends that you don't toe the speakers in, because they design them to face forward. Canton speakers are not warm, nor are they bright, My Paradigms are brighter. Cantons are not a boring speaker...they have a way of drawing you into the music... they have this mid-range thing with tons of detail that just throw music all over... I have them about 8-9ft apart on teh front wall and all the gear on the side wall. There is nothing between the two speakers the sound stage is wide an deep, and its sweet with tones of emotion.

[frenchmon]

Frenchie, I agree with you, thats why there are tube fans ans SS fans. I like a little of both, hence my hybrid system. You can't really classify the sound of my system as tube or solid state, its somewhere in between. I guess I would call it warm without being overly warm or tubey.

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

[blackraven]

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Cantons are a very good speaker. There's a local store that carry's then along with Thiels.

If your in the market for a tube preamp, consider Van Alstine with his 30day satisfaction guarentee. VA gear is one of the best kept secrets as well with a great price to performance ratio. You should check for used T-8 preamps as he has a new hybrid Vision preamp that people are buying and selling their T-8's and Hybrid Utlra's like mine.

[frenchmon]

thanks Raven...I'll keep that in mind.

fenchmon

[Ajani]

Raven...that's where im headed soon...hybrids. Now I have all SS and all who come and listen are impressed with the Rotel/Musical Fidelity/Canton out-fit. The Rotel has plenty of power @ 200 watts channel, and the Rotel preamp is one of the best that they have every made...it processes very well. The Musical Fidelity gives it a sweet tone with lots of emtion, and I just cant say enough about the Cantons...personally, I think they are one of audio hobbyist biggest secrets. Throw in some good A+ cables and speaker wire it makes for a nice pleasant tonal system. After taking the Musical Fidelity to MrP's house and connecting it to his tubed gear, I was like out done...it was made for tubes. So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Yes it was... The matching Musical Fidelity X-T100 Integrated Amp was a hybrid with a Tube Preamp and the matching DAC XDAC V8 was also tubed...

I have nothing but fond memories of extended auditioning of a Musical Fidelity X-T100/XRay V8/Monitor Audio GS20 setup...

[frenchmon]

Yes it was... The matching Musical Fidelity X-T100 Integrated Amp was a hybrid with a Tube Preamp and the matching DAC XDAC V8 was also tubed...

I have nothing but fond memories of extended auditioning of a Musical Fidelity X-T100/XRay V8/Monitor Audio GS20 setup...

Wow...I had no idea the X-T100 was a hybrid, nor the Preamp was tubes...that makes perfect sense as to why it sounded as if it was made for MrPeabodys Conrad Johnson tubes.

I see the XDAC every now and then on audiogon...as much as I want that DAC, I just cant bring my self to part with the $800-$900 they are asking for it. Im a cheap azz...Musical Fidelity I heard is coming out with a replacement for the X-DAC V8 in June...and it wont be cheap either...about $1500 I hear.

frenchmon

[Poultrygeist]

Conventional speakers are burdened by their enclosures which color the sound and keep it from sounding more like a live performance. Take a small transistor radio and place it in an empty speaker enclosure and listen to it. The sound will be crappy but when you play the same radio in free air the sound will greatly improve. With box speakers we miss out on the rear sound waves which if we hear them at all must exit back through the driver. With open baffle speakers the slightly delayed rear sound waves are able to join with the front sound waves to produce a very subtle out of phase phenomenon which makes for more live sound. In live performances as in OB all the sound does not arrive at your ears at the same time. I believe that tiny delay is what hooked me.

[poppachubby]

So I think I want to add a tube preamp sometime down the road.

frenchmon

Frenchie, I just bought an Eico HF 85 preamp. It's beyond impressive and has improved the sound 10 fold. Detail and seperation between instruments has increased. Overall there is a real immediacy that is so engaging, I don't want to turn it off. SS is a joke IMO. This is the way music should be heard. And don't think for a second it lacks bass or power. You will be deaf with this thing at half volume...

I got mine for a steal, but they can be had for $300 - 400 in good condition with the original Mullards. As far as value goes and saving a couple of bucks, think about it when you are ready. I HIGHLY recommend a tubed preamp.

http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=33683

[Ajani]

Wow...I had no idea the X-T100 was a hybrid, nor the Preamp was tubes...that makes perfect sense as to why it sounded as if it was made for MrPeabodys Conrad Johnson tubes.

I see the XDAC every now and then on audiogon...as much as I want that DAC, I just cant bring my self to part with the $800-$900 they are asking for it. Im a cheap azz...Musical Fidelity I heard is coming out with a replacement for the X-DAC V8 in June...and it wont be cheap either...about $1500 I hear.

frenchmon

The X-DAC V8 originally sold for $1500, so the replacement sounds about the right price...

I'm a Musical Fidelity fan, but my wallet is an Emotiva fan :devil:

[Poultrygeist]

Another advantage of OB is that the room becomes the "box" as is the case with live music.

[Ajani]

SS is a joke IMO.

What kind of music do you listen to?

[Ajani]

I agree, and this is an attribute of Maggies that most owners mention. Whether it's truly "accuracy" is another matter.

That's an interesting point; sounding 'live' is not necessarily the same as being accurate....

[Ajani]

I don't have any real interest in creating the live event. I see recordings as an art form of their own. I was at a live event Friday night and the thought occurred to me that I like the sound of my own listening setup better. I certainly can't duplicate the event experience, but then that's not the point of my audio system.

It's interesting how many of us in this thread admit that recreating the live experience is not the goal of our HiFi....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Another advantage of OB is that the room becomes the "box" as is the case with live music.

The problem is, your "box" was not apart of the live event. The room should not be apart of the listening experience which is why we treat them. If the room is singing along with the music, then there is no way the ear/brain mechanism is going to be fooled into thinking what it is hearing is live music.

I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of "box" speakers versus "open air" or panel designs comparing poorly made box speakers with any other speaker technology. Not all speakers boxed or not are created equal. Not every box speaker will be so poorly designed that its cabinet colors the sound, and not every panel is so open sounding that it simulates a person being in the room with you. These are extreme absolutes that are not realistic in reality. Panel owners often state their dislike of box speakers is based on box colorations when not every box speaker has them. Its an absolute that cannot be quantified. Clarity is often mention as a virtue of panels, but it is a virtue I have also found in a well designed box designs as well.

One of the things I have found in the audio hobby is that "audiophiles" do not really like accurate speakers. They are too clinical and sterile for most of them, as they are looking for a certain "sweetner" to make their listening experience more palatable. If the reproduction chain is supposed to be a "window" into the recording, then they have already clouded that window with a certain audio characteristic coming from their systems. Tubes warm up the sound, and give it a certain listening characteristic that is not apart of the recording itself. Being an audio engineer I like accurate speakers - speakers that reproduce exactly what is fed into them, flattering and unflattering alike. If the recording itself is seemingly sterile, then I want it to sound sterile. If the sound stage is flattened by the recording technique, I want to hear that.

The main job of a good audio system is to accurately reproduce every aspect of a recording whether it is analog or digital. The problem lies in the fact that not many know what accurate really is without a reference or mean. We assume what we hear is accurate because we believe we have perfectly set up our systems, chose the best speakers, amps, and pre-pros. The reality is we have set up our system to appeal to our ears, rather than to reproduce what was recorded.

I had an experience a couple of years ago with one of my closest friends who happens to be a big time audiophile. He is not a two channel guy strictly as his system is made up of five very high quality panels and a sub woofer. He has paid so much attention to every detail in the setup of his system to the point of making sure his system maintains the proper phase relationship as the signal travels through each component(this is a must IMO). I had just finished mixing a acoustical music score for a foreign film, one I recorded in DXD(floating 32bit with a sample rate of 352.8khz) and down mixed to both 24/192khz for my enjoyment, but to 24/48khz for the effects and dialog additions. He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system. A great majority of folks do not really know what "accurate" is, as their only reference point is their own systems in their own rooms, or that middle six figure system they heard a particular recording on. This is why I shrug off some folks criticisms of recording practices utilized today, as I realize they may not have a clue of what any recording truly sounds like when it is mixed and mastered.

[Ajani]

The problem is, your "box" was not apart of the live event. The room should not be apart of the listening experience which is why we treat them. If the room is singing along with the music, then there is no way the ear/brain mechanism is going to be fooled into thinking what it is hearing is live music.

I don't want to get into a debate on the merits of "box" speakers versus "open air" or panel designs comparing poorly made box speakers with any other speaker technology. Not all speakers boxed or not are created equal. Not every box speaker will be so poorly designed that its cabinet colors the sound, and not every panel is so open sounding that it simulates a person being in the room with you. These are extreme absolutes that are not realistic in reality. Panel owners often state their dislike of box speakers is based on box colorations when not every box speaker has them. Its an absolute that cannot be quantified. Clarity is often mention as a virtue of panels, but it is a virtue I have also found in a well designed box designs as well.

One of the things I have found in the audio hobby is that "audiophiles" do not really like accurate speakers. They are too clinical and sterile for most of them, as they are looking for a certain "sweetner" to make their listening experience more palatable. If the reproduction chain is supposed to be a "window" into the recording, then they have already clouded that window with a certain audio characteristic coming from their systems. Tubes warm up the sound, and give it a certain listening characteristic that is not apart of the recording itself. Being an audio engineer I like accurate speakers - speakers that reproduce exactly what is fed into them, flattering and unflattering alike. If the recording itself is seemingly sterile, then I want it to sound sterile. If the sound stage is flattened by the recording technique, I want to hear that.

The main job of a good audio system is to accurately reproduce every aspect of a recording whether it is analog or digital. The problem lies in the fact that not many know what accurate really is without a reference or mean. We assume what we hear is accurate because we believe we have perfectly set up our systems, chose the best speakers, amps, and pre-pros. The reality is we have set up our system to appeal to our ears, rather than to reproduce what was recorded.

I had an experience a couple of years ago with one of my closest friends who happens to be a big time audiophile. He is not a two channel guy strictly as his system is made up of five very high quality panels and a sub woofer. He has paid so much attention to every detail in the setup of his system to the point of making sure his system maintains the proper phase relationship as the signal travels through each component(this is a must IMO). I had just finished mixing a acoustical music score for a foreign film, one I recorded in DXD(floating 32bit with a sample rate of 352.8khz) and down mixed to both 24/192khz for my enjoyment, but to 24/48khz for the effects and dialog additions. He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system. A great majority of folks do not really know what "accurate" is, as their only reference point is their own systems in their own rooms, or that middle six figure system they heard a particular recording on. This is why I shrug off some folks criticisms of recording practices utilized today, as I realize they may not have a clue of what any recording truly sounds like when it is mixed and mastered.

I think the issue with HiFi is that there really is no objective measure of what accurate to the original recording is....

If I played a track that you mixed in your studio on my HiFi setup, how would I know that I am hearing it exactly as you intended it to be? Maybe my system is hiding some of the detail.... Maybe it is even more revealing than the equipment you used during mixing and I'm hearing detail that you never meant for me to hear....

Audiophiles often use the best sounding system they've heard as a reference for what HiFi should sound like... The obvious problem being that there is no way to know if that reference setup was in anyway accurate... So we end up buying HiFi to suit our individual tastes and proclaiming them as more live sounding/natural/accurate than others....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think the issue with HiFi is that there really is no objective measure of what accurate to the original recording is....

This has been my opinion every since I got into recording.


If I played a track that you mixed in your studio on my HiFi setup, how would I know that I am hearing it exactly as you intended it to be? Maybe my system is hiding some of the detail.... Maybe it is even more revealing than the equipment you used during mixing and I'm hearing detail that you never meant for me to hear....

Another angle would be am I hearing the detail in the way it should accurately be presented?


Audiophiles often use the best sounding system they've heard as a reference for what HiFi should sound like... The obvious problem being that there is no way to know if that reference setup was in anyway accurate... So we end up buying HiFi to suit our individual tastes and proclaiming them as more live sounding/natural/accurate than others....

That last sentence is something I find around here a lot from certain folks. Sometimes they get real high on a high chair and proclaim the folks that mixed and mastered the audio are incompetent because a certain recording does not sound good on THEIR system. How about that!

[Luvin Da Blues]

..... He wanted to hear the recording on his system, so I bought the digital file on a hard drive so we could give it a listen. While it sounded beautiful on his system, it is not what I heard through my system during mixing. When I bought him back to my studio to hear what the mix sounded like during mixing, he realized that his system was subtling adding and taking some things away from the mix in spite of the fact it sounded spectacular through his system......

And how to you determine the colorations, antenuations and distortions that your studio monitors induce into the signal?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

And how to you determine the colorations, antenuations and distortions that your studio monitors induce into the signal?

Since all components have them to some degree, you make sure that every component in the signal chain keeps it to a minimum. The fact that you have actual musicians and instruments right in the studio as a reference gives the studio a leg up on this that the casual listener does not have. Nothing like recording a piano live, and it taking seconds to cue up what you recorded and listen quickly to the results.

[poppachubby]

Putting aside the whole "live" concept, I will explain my own world of accurate. I don't agree that there are no references to be had.

"As the band/engineer intended" I suppose is a stretch, as we don't truly know what they intended. One thing I am certain of, and Terrence correct me if I'm wrong, is that the band and engineer intend for the listener to hear every nuance of recorded music. Every instrument, vocal and multi-track there of. They laboured in a dark and boring studio sometimes for months, they want you to hear what has been recorded and edited for your enjoyment.

As far as references go, my system isn't the most resolute. I start by checking the tracks notes as to which instruments appear on the song. Subtle bongo tracks? Quiet mellotron harmonies? This is the first reference point. So if I can hear all of these things in the recording, I know I am deep enough into it, and have the beginnings of accuracy.

From there, I try to listen for multi tracking and layering. This becomes more difficult for a system to output as they can be subtle and quiet. Vocal layering and harmonies, guitar multi tracking and auxilary instruments to name a few.

Lastly, I look for realism with all of these sounds. Do they sound like the real thing? Is there proper seperation between them? Are they imaged correctly in terms of size (ie guitar tracks outweighing rhythm section 3 to 1).

As I already stated, for me these are the "references" I use to determine how I'm doing. As far as SS v. tubes, some say warm and coloured, I say tonal and detailed. In the "real world", professionals all seek to play their instruments with exceptional tone. Thus when Slash plucks the intro to Sweet Child O Mine, sure its bright but its contained and rich with tone. I think tubes do the best job to convey that same tone, so that with the right speakers and source, you get a fine representation of a natural instrument.

Anyhow, great thread. Ajani, lately I have been on a jazz bender but I enjoy most genres to some degree, with the exception of country and classical. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that Roots Manuva, Gangstarr, Aesop Rock and Murs all sound incredible when presented through tubes. In fact, I was shocked at the bass response as no other genre rose to the occasion quite the same. I have also found Stephen Marley, Bounty Killer, Bob Marley, Burning Spear and Jimmy Cliff all to be excellent sounding.

OK, chat soon...

[poppachubby]

It's all about the cymbals....

I have Hank Mobley's Workout on. The Kenwood Basic C1 did not present the full resonation of the ride cymbal. The Eico now allows the cymbal to resonate until it's hit again. It's all in the details baby...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Putting aside the whole "live" concept, I will explain my own world of accurate. I don't agree that there are no references to be had.

"As the band/engineer intended" I suppose is a stretch, as we don't truly know what they intended. One thing I am certain of, and Terrence correct me if I'm wrong, is that the band and engineer intend for the listener to hear every nuance of recorded music. Every instrument, vocal and multi-track there of. They laboured in a dark and boring studio sometimes for months, they want you to hear what has been recorded and edited for your enjoyment.

I agree with this.


As far as references go, my system isn't the most resolute. I start by checking the tracks notes as to which instruments appear on the song. Subtle bongo tracks? Quiet mellotron harmonies? This is the first reference point. So if I can hear all of these things in the recording, I know I am deep enough into it, and have the beginnings of accuracy.

I don't know poppa, tracks notes do not often describe how the bongo is mixed, or its amplitude in relationship to other instruments in the mix. Music is too dynamic for that. Even if you could hear every instrument, are you hearing it in exactly the right amount of balance as the engineer intended, or with the right effect?


From there, I try to listen for multi tracking and layering. This becomes more difficult for a system to output as they can be subtle and quiet. Vocal layering and harmonies, guitar multi tracking and auxilary instruments to name a few.

The problem is that you ear/brain mechanism also hears your room along with the mix. How do you separate the two?


Lastly, I look for realism with all of these sounds. Do they sound like the real thing? Is there proper seperation between them? Are they imaged correctly in terms of size (ie guitar tracks outweighing rhythm section 3 to 1).

How does the end user determine the proper separation? How do they know what the correct imaging really is? Without a reference this is impossible to determine.


As I already stated, for me these are the "references" I use to determine how I'm doing. As far as SS v. tubes, some say warm and coloured, I say tonal and detailed. In the "real world", professionals all seek to play their instruments with exceptional tone. Thus when Slash plucks the intro to Sweet Child O Mine, sure its bright but its contained and rich with tone. I think tubes do the best job to convey that same tone, so that with the right speakers and source, you get a fine representation of a natural instrument.

Bernie Grundman a well known expert vinyl disc cutter and mastering engineer stated in Recording magazine if you are looking strictly for accuracy, stay away from tubes and vinyl. Both of these add colorations of their own.


Anyhow, great thread. Ajani, lately I have been on a jazz bender but I enjoy most genres to some degree, with the exception of country and classical. Perhaps you'd be interested to know that Roots Manuva, Gangstarr, Aesop Rock and Murs all sound incredible when presented through tubes. In fact, I was shocked at the bass response as no other genre rose to the occasion quite the same. I have also found Stephen Marley, Bounty Killer, Bob Marley, Burning Spear and Jimmy Cliff all to be excellent sounding.

OK, chat soon...

This is an example of using ones own equipment to "sweeten" the sound to taste. Tubes add coloration, even if we choose to call it something else.

[poppachubby]

I don't know poppa, tracks notes do not often describe how the bongo is mixed, or its amplitude in relationship to other instruments in the mix. Music is too dynamic for that. Even if you could hear every instrument, are you hearing it in exactly the right amount of balance as the engineer intended, or with the right effect?

How does the end user determine the proper separation? How do they know what the correct imaging really is? Without a reference this is impossible to determine.



Well again, this is my own method to try to bring things to where I like them. I have my own ideas regarding the correct imaging of say, a rock band, or a jazz quartet with a featured leader. As an engineer who also masters, I'm sure you do to. Your opinion of these things is why people use your service. Of course, I'm sure you take alot of work done to the specs of someone else, but ultimately you trust your ears based on your experience of what things SHOULD sound like. There is no manual to help you decide this.

You are most correct regarding amounts of subtle tracks in a mix. My system most certainly plays havoc with this, and it's an area I need to improve. Actually, jazz is a double edged sword for me. I enjoy it's simplicity ie. the old dual track analog recordings, and it's immediacy in my system. BUT, I find that recordings vary greatly and often. Although the leader is clearly out front and seperated, he is 5 times bigger than the rest of the band. A price to be paid I suppose.


Bernie Grundman a well known expert vinyl disc cutter and mastering engineer stated in Recording magazine if you are looking strictly for accuracy, stay away from tubes and vinyl. Both of these add colorations of their own.

This is an example of using ones own equipment to "sweeten" the sound to taste. Tubes add coloration, even if we choose to call it something else.

Yes, there are many experts and frankly, most of them would have all of us spend $150K for completely boring systems. I am not pursuing complete neutrality as I do enjoy "colouration". I think my points to tonal attributes are fair and poigniant. I have been reading Arthur Salvatore's thoughts, and although he makes so much sense coming from experience, my own system and thoughts couldn't be more different. However, I still have a ways to go and am always learning, and willing to learn.

As far as my hip/hop and reggae quip. Simply for Ajani's benefit as I know he is romancing the tube idea. Tubes are horribly discriminated against for being bassless. However, the colour in the case of these bass heavy genres has been added in the studio, not on my end. Thus the crazy extension...

[Ajani]

As far as my hip/hop and reggae quip. Simply for Ajani's benefit as I know he is romancing the tube idea. Tubes are horribly discriminated against for being bassless. However, the colour in the case of these bass heavy genres has been added in the studio, not on my end. Thus the crazy extension...

I'll add a low powered SET/Class A amp to my 2nd system eventually.... That'll also allow me to compare it with the SS amp in my main one so I can determine if I prefer SS or Tubes.... (though the way I see it is that you don't need to choose one or the other, I'd rather have both - variety is great)...

[RGA]

The problem with relying on experts of any stripe is to listen to their "results" not read their job descriptions white papers theories and blind tests.

Everyone in manufacturing is some sort of expert of varying acclaim. So when Harman International and their billion dollar company floods the market with endless babble - the first thing I want to do is go and listen to their "pinnacle" design which was the Revel Ultima Salon - which at best is a mediocre loudspeaker that I would not want to own if you cut the price in half! It doesn't remotely resemble music reproduction - if you want to hear a woofer in a box and how cool the tweeter sounds be my guest.

When a recording mastering company like Chesky Records - one of if not the best of the classical music recording studios uses tube amplifiers and the mastering engineer helped demo Audio Note in New York - a SET maker which measures shockingly badly versus regular tube amps which measure shockingly badly versus SS - well that illustrates something.

Many recordings stink - that vast majority of them are mediocre and most of the better recordings occurred back when tubes were in the recording /mastering studios. With SS and CD - recordings have began to stink - especially in the rock/pop genres. Maybe the Recording engineers are bums - but then maybe it's the solid state stuff with high negative feedback and very poor linearity that start sucking the life out of the sound.

[Ajani]

The problem with relying on experts of any stripe is to listen to their "results" not read their job descriptions white papers theories and blind tests.

Everyone in manufacturing is some sort of expert of varying acclaim. So when Harman International and their billion dollar company floods the market with endless babble - the first thing I want to do is go and listen to their "pinnacle" design which was the Revel Ultima Salon - which at best is a mediocre loudspeaker that I would not want to own if you cut the price in half! It doesn't remotely resemble music reproduction - if you want to hear a woofer in a box and how cool the tweeter sounds be my guest.

When a recording mastering company like Chesky Records - one of if not the best of the classical music recording studios uses tube amplifiers and the mastering engineer helped demo Audio Note in New York - a SET maker which measures shockingly badly versus regular tube amps which measure shockingly badly versus SS - well that illustrates something.

Many recordings stink - that vast majority of them are mediocre and most of the better recordings occurred back when tubes were in the recording /mastering studios. With SS and CD - recordings have began to stink - especially in the rock/pop genres. Maybe the Recording engineers are bums - but then maybe it's the solid state stuff with high negative feedback and very poor linearity that start sucking the life out of the sound.

This is what I find so remarkable about our hobby; how opinions can vary completely between one audiophile and another...

You regard the Ultima Salon as a mediocre speaker, yet so many other reviewers own and use Revel speakers (including the Salon) as their reference speakers... (note that I've ignored how many reviewers rave about the products and focused on the ones who were willing to spend their money to own them).

I hear many panel guys detail how dreadful box speakers sound and I hear many tube guys talk about how bad solid state is... But then I also hear box fans ripping on panels and SS fans bashing tubes... And I'm talking about persons who have auditioned the products they don't like (not just read spec sheets)...

Then we come to guys who like both box and panel speakers, tubes and SS... A reviewer at Dagogo (I can't remember his name) reviewed a pair of Audio Note Speakers and prefered them to his Revel Performa F30s, but he didn't suddenly find that he hated the Revels just that he prefered the AN...

I've seen reviewers describe Monitor Audio Gold series speakers as having an electrostatic like sound, which was something I actually got to test as I auditioned a pair of GS20s along with a pair of Final Sound 400i Stats.... I liked both and found I was in agreement with the reviewer's claim.... However, I prefered the GS20 (the box speaker) over the 400i (Panel); though the panel was a bit more 'airy', i felt the box just sounded more like 'music' to me and the bass had impact as well... But I loved both the box speaker and the panel...

The more time I spend on this hobby the more I'm convinced that 90% of our issues/debates just come down to personal preferences and have zero to do with being true to live sound or original recordings....

[frenchmon]

Yes, there are many experts and frankly, most of them would have all of us spend $150K for completely boring systems. I am not pursuing complete neutrality as I do enjoy "colouration".

Well...Peabody and I did hear a system costing close to that number, and while I must say the system was not boring at all it was very exciting and had texture....but it was void of any coloration what so ever. Now for some, they may like that sort of thing, but give me some sweetness and tone....so im with you poppaC.....by the way....the guy also had a second rig upstairs which had Marantz Reference mono blocks paired with Dynaudio c4's...and that system had tones of emotions, like it was made for acoustic Jazz.

frenchmon

[poppachubby]

Well...Peabody and I did hear a system costing close to that number, and while I must say the system was not boring at all it was very exciting and had texture....but it was void of any coloration what so ever. Now for some, they may like that sort of thing, but give me some sweetness and tone....so im with you poppaC.....by the way....the guy also had a second rig upstairs which had Marantz Reference mono blocks paired with Dynaudio c4's...and that system had tones of emotions, like it was made for acoustic Jazz.

frenchmon

For sure. It can be done to extend the positive virtues of the music, without being repititious.

[RGA]

Ajani

I know the reviewer who switched to the E from the F-30. I have not heard the F-30 so I can't say - I liked the Sophia II more than what I heard from the MAXX3 so it's always possible that a lower product in the line-up actually sounds better.

To me CES 2010 is a pretty clear indicator of what is viewed as the best stuff - in the vast majority of rooms Tube amplification was used whether the speaker was tube amp friendly or not. And in most cases the tube rooms sounded best. Martin Logan and King Sound were panels using tubes - sounded WAY better than Magnepan and SanderSound using SS.

There were some exceptions - Pass Labs sounded terrific with Sony speakers but the Pass gear didn't sound as good as Octave with Dynaudio. Technical Brain is a SS maker that made good sound and so did Heed audio.

Nevertheless, you are correct that some like Michael Fremer and several others believe that the better way forward is high powered SS. SET demands a higher price of entry to get good than solid state - you can get quite decent solid state for $500 but a good SET amp probably starts at something like the Audio Note Kit 1 which is pretty much the reference standard at just under $2k. The problem with SETs is they demand very high quality transformers to get away from some of their colourations - and the less expensive SETs that I have heard add a fair bit of flavour which one may like but it also opens them up to attack of being distortion generators.

Revel has come out with a fix - the Ultima Salon II - perhaps they figured out the mistakes that I heard and fixed them. The Wilson Sophia II sounds a lot better than the first one so maybe Revel fixed it up. My bet is that it will sound better with something like a Rogue Audio or Mystere etc than it will with (enter SS amp here).

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

The problem with relying on experts of any stripe is to listen to their "results" not read their job descriptions white papers theories and blind tests.

I agree with this, ask Roger Dressler from Dolby Labs about that.


Everyone in manufacturing is some sort of expert of varying acclaim. So when Harman International and their billion dollar company floods the market with endless babble - the first thing I want to do is go and listen to their "pinnacle" design which was the Revel Ultima Salon - which at best is a mediocre loudspeaker that I would not want to own if you cut the price in half! It doesn't remotely resemble music reproduction - if you want to hear a woofer in a box and how cool the tweeter sounds be my guest.

I have a someone different opinion of the Revel Ultima Salon than you after listening to it. I liked the sound of it. Maybe because I didn't pay any attention to the babble, and just listened to the speaker. It was not a spectacular sounding speaker, but I did enjoy its sound.


When a recording mastering company like Chesky Records - one of if not the best of the classical music recording studios uses tube amplifiers and the mastering engineer helped demo Audio Note in New York - a SET maker which measures shockingly badly versus regular tube amps which measure shockingly badly versus SS - well that illustrates something.

For the most part I agree with you about Chesky Records. However the use of tubes is not a feather in their cap. Once again, it illustrates audio sweetening to taste, as they do add a sonic character to the music.


Many recordings stink - that vast majority of them are mediocre and most of the better recordings occurred back when tubes were in the recording /mastering studios. With SS and CD - recordings have began to stink - especially in the rock/pop genres. Maybe the Recording engineers are bums - but then maybe it's the solid state stuff with high negative feedback and very poor linearity that start sucking the life out of the sound.

I agree that many recording stink, especially rock and pop. But the reasons they stink have more to do them being mixed to accommodate so many different playback sources. When you have to mix a recording that sounds good for radio, car, mobile players, AND home stereos, it is likely it will not sound very good on a great system. Too many compromises. I don't think the equipment that is used today is the problem, I think using your release product as demos for all of the different marketing outlets is the problem. In the past I have always encouraged artists to create a radio and mobile friendly mix for marketing purposes, and also create a optimum mix for sale. Most record companies balk at this approach because of costs, but lost sales from poor quality is never on their collective minds. I do not think the recording engineers are bums, but I do think the record companies are.

In saying that, I think recordings today overall are of equal quality to those produced decades ago, its just different technology. I mainly record film scores, classical, gospel and jazz concerts, and use some of the best capturing devices I can find, and an extremely clean recording chain. The only tube microphones I own and use are from Neuman, but I mostly use extremely high quality condensers for recording. IMO there is no real advantage to recording with tube microphones unless you are trying to create some sort of audio effect. There seems to be less sonic differences between most high quality condenser microphones than there are between high quality tube microphones. Much like tube amps, tube microphones bring a warmth to the voice that a condenser cannot quite do. Unfortunately that warmth is a sonic character that does not work with all applications

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is what I find so remarkable about our hobby; how opinions can vary completely between one audiophile and another...

You regard the Ultima Salon as a mediocre speaker, yet so many other reviewers own and use Revel speakers (including the Salon) as their reference speakers... (note that I've ignored how many reviewers rave about the products and focused on the ones who were willing to spend their money to own them).

I hear many panel guys detail how dreadful box speakers sound and I hear many tube guys talk about how bad solid state is... But then I also hear box fans ripping on panels and SS fans bashing tubes... And I'm talking about persons who have auditioned the products they don't like (not just read spec sheets)...

Then we come to guys who like both box and panel speakers, tubes and SS... A reviewer at Dagogo (I can't remember his name) reviewed a pair of Audio Note Speakers and prefered them to his Revel Performa F30s, but he didn't suddenly find that he hated the Revels just that he prefered the AN...

I've seen reviewers describe Monitor Audio Gold series speakers as having an electrostatic like sound, which was something I actually got to test as I auditioned a pair of GS20s along with a pair of Final Sound 400i Stats.... I liked both and found I was in agreement with the reviewer's claim.... However, I prefered the GS20 (the box speaker) over the 400i (Panel); though the panel was a bit more 'airy', i felt the box just sounded more like 'music' to me and the bass had impact as well... But I loved both the box speaker and the panel...

The more time I spend on this hobby the more I'm convinced that 90% of our issues/debates just come down to personal preferences and have zero to do with being true to live sound or original recordings....

The last paragraph really sums it all up. Audio is a personal taste affair with some liking it just as it is, and other insisting on sweetening it up a bit. Neither is a "correct" way, but a matter of personal taste. This is why I refuse to get into pissing contests regarding components, wires, and speakers. In the end nobody is correct, and everyone is at the same time, at least from a personal perspective.

[Ajani]

I have a someone different opinion of the Revel Ultima Salon than you after listening to it. I liked the sound of it. Maybe because I didn't pay any attention to the babble, and just listened to the speaker. It was not a spectacular sounding speaker, but I did enjoy its sound.

I've never heard a Revel speaker that sounded "spectacular", but I thought that was the point of Revel speakers; to be more accurate and neutral than coloured and exciting... If I wanted a bit of added excitement I'd go with my other favourite brand; Monitor Audio....

As for modern recordings; I wonder what kind equipment was used to record Michael Jackson's albums... I alway find them to be of exceptionally good quality... And I always use some MJ tracks to demo new gear...

[Ajani]

Ajani

I know the reviewer who switched to the E from the F-30. I have not heard the F-30 so I can't say - I liked the Sophia II more than what I heard from the MAXX3 so it's always possible that a lower product in the line-up actually sounds better.

To me CES 2010 is a pretty clear indicator of what is viewed as the best stuff - in the vast majority of rooms Tube amplification was used whether the speaker was tube amp friendly or not. And in most cases the tube rooms sounded best. Martin Logan and King Sound were panels using tubes - sounded WAY better than Magnepan and SanderSound using SS.

There were some exceptions - Pass Labs sounded terrific with Sony speakers but the Pass gear didn't sound as good as Octave with Dynaudio. Technical Brain is a SS maker that made good sound and so did Heed audio.

Nevertheless, you are correct that some like Michael Fremer and several others believe that the better way forward is high powered SS. SET demands a higher price of entry to get good than solid state - you can get quite decent solid state for $500 but a good SET amp probably starts at something like the Audio Note Kit 1 which is pretty much the reference standard at just under $2k. The problem with SETs is they demand very high quality transformers to get away from some of their colourations - and the less expensive SETs that I have heard add a fair bit of flavour which one may like but it also opens them up to attack of being distortion generators.

Revel has come out with a fix - the Ultima Salon II - perhaps they figured out the mistakes that I heard and fixed them. The Wilson Sophia II sounds a lot better than the first one so maybe Revel fixed it up. My bet is that it will sound better with something like a Rogue Audio or Mystere etc than it will with (enter SS amp here).

I'm not sure whether CES 2010 is the best evidence of the 'preference of tubes over SS'.... Let's consider the kind of music generally played at audio shows like CES; generally the standard audiophile approved jazz, simple acoustics and classical. all of which are well served by tubes (and usually vinyl).... If the manufacturers at CES demoed their gear with a wider variety of music; Electronica, Hip Hop, Reggae etc I suspect we'd have seen far more SS in the demo rooms...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've never heard a Revel speaker that sounded "spectacular", but I thought that was the point of Revel speakers; to be more accurate and neutral than coloured and exciting... If I wanted a bit of added excitement I'd go with my other favourite brand; Monitor Audio....

You summed it up nicely. I didn't find them spectacular sounding, but they indeed sounded just like what was fed to them. I did find them uncolored and neutral, which is why this speaker is finding its way into more and more recording studios all over the world.


As for modern recordings; I wonder what kind equipment was used to record Michael Jackson's albums... I alway find them to be of exceptionally good quality... And I always use some MJ tracks to demo new gear...

Every since Quincy started working with Michael he has used the best pro digital gear in the market. Quincy and I share one basic characteristic, we are perfectionist that pay attention to every detail of the recording and mixing process. It takes us longer to get things done, but the end results are always head and shoulders above the rest. I got a chance to work with him on a television gospel special that aired back in the 90's. It was a great experience that has stuck with me over the years.

[poppachubby]

I'm not sure whether CES 2010 is the best evidence of the 'preference of tubes over SS'.... Let's consider the kind of music generally played at audio shows like CES; generally the standard audiophile approved jazz, simple acoustics and classical. all of which are well served by tubes (and usually vinyl).... If the manufacturers at CES demoed their gear with a wider variety of music; Electronica, Hip Hop, Reggae etc I suspect we'd have seen far more SS in the demo rooms...

It's not the music selection that allows the tube amps to sound nice, it's more the fact that they use reference amplification which costs infinite amounts of cash. At that level, tubes or SS will both sound wonderful. You can't dismiss CES and the choices most manufacturers make when showing their wares, it says alot about great sounding gear. They are not playing to the deaf masses but rather to overwhelmingly picky reviewers and audiophiles, totally unforgiving.

[Ajani]

It's not the music selection that allows the tube amps to sound nice, it's more the fact that they use reference amplification which costs infinite amounts of cash. At that level, tubes or SS will both sound wonderful. You can't dismiss CES and the choices most manufacturers make when showing their wares, it says alot about great sounding gear. They are not playing to the deaf masses but rather to overwhelmingly picky reviewers and audiophiles, totally unforgiving.

Picky reviewers and audiophiles who only regard specific genres as being 'music'; that is the reason speakers such as the Magnepan MG1.6/1.7 can be regarded as the greatest bargain in audiophile history.... If you listen to a wide range of music (including modern fare) then such a speaker would probably not even make a top 20 list... So yes musical selection has a great deal to do with it...

It's why it makes little sense to get excited about the latest product raved about by X reviewer, unless you have similiar musical tastes and preferences...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Poppa, I have to admit Ajani does have a point. I like an extremely wide variety of music, and because of that, I always choose high quality box speakers(large and small) paired with high quality SS amps. Some people pick a certain speaker technology because it reproduces the kind of music they love best exceptionally well. Electrostatics sound wonderful on minimal miked music, and small scale classical and jazz music. The do not sound good to me (IMO) reproducing FFF passages of large orchestral, organ, and large chorus works which is something most high performance box speakers can do well. That goes the same way for tubes versus SS, and this is from my experience with listening to both. So I do think there is much merit to Ajani opinion of people taste in music being married to the speakers and amps they choose for critical listening. While reviewers and audiophiles can be unforgiving, they can also be quite biased as well.

[poppachubby]

Let me ask you this, if you guys were at the CES show, what would your impressions be? I suppose biased AGAINST what you're hearing because it's a manipulated choice of music, chosen for it's simplicity in reproduction?

All I am saying is you can't write off a $10 000 reference tube amp because it's being used to play a simple style of music. I would also like to add that Rich reported back that Audio Note were using modern rock and heavy, guitar driven tracks.

I would say for the purpose of this conversation, I might agree that a lower end tube amp could very likely reproduce a coloured sound. But the crazy high end gear they have at CES can't be pigeon holed as such. Have you guys heard high end Manley gear for example?

I have a feeling that regardless of the music, the amplification would speak for itself. I also want to add that the idea of vendors rigging up the music selection, bothers me to no end.

[RGA]

Picky reviewers and audiophiles who only regard specific genres as being 'music'; that is the reason speakers such as the Magnepan MG1.6/1.7 can be regarded as the greatest bargain in audiophile history.... If you listen to a wide range of music (including modern fare) then such a speaker would probably not even make a top 20 list... So yes musical selection has a great deal to do with it...

It's why it makes little sense to get excited about the latest product raved about by X reviewer, unless you have similiar musical tastes and preferences...

The interesting thing though was that at CES the rooms that played the loudest and the hardest hitting music Hip Hop Trance metal were ALL tube amp run rooms.

Audio Note with their 20 watt amp played at ridiculous levels music like Nightwish, The Evil Nine, Slayer, Rammstein, Slipknot with a 20 watt amp. This was played at very high levels with first rate bass impact where you get the sensation of the room going "whoomp whoomp" as if the walls were breathing with the bass lines. That is extremely impressive for 8 inch woofers and to play at very high levels without a hint of distortion anywhere and treble that extended way up to that level where it borders on pain. Dave Cope a distributor had to leave.

The RA Box from Trenner and Freidl was played considerably louder again with similar music and had huge hit you in the face impact - think top of the line visceral impact with terrific bass and thwack - tube amps - and the Heed SS they had is only 30 watts and unique design for SS.

Acapella was unparalleled in the treble thwack on cymbals and dynamics - bass was deep and powerful and they could really play at supreme levels - Einstein tube amps driving that room.

These three rooms had the confidence to play anything you requested at any volume you requested. Not so with many of the SS rooms where the brittleness and lack of bass show up very quickly. Magnepan/Bryston - controlled all the music for example - probably more for the Magnepan shortcummings than the Bryston but Bryston has never had any real bass depth - it just sounds thin and fake. Perhaps they have frequency limiters but even Sugden Integrateds for a fraction of the price have depth and bass weight.

I heard many years ago a Sophia with Krell and Levinson (an over $50,000 front end) and along comes a Rogue tube amp of a fraction of the power and price playing trance at high level embarrasses the Krell Levinson gear. This is arguably some of the "supposed" pinnacles of SS manufacturers and Rogue is a barely known tube maker and plays at leave the room levels with some truly exceptional treble speed and openness - there is nothing "tubey coloured" about it. Bass was high impact as well. The Wilson on the $50k+ of Krell/Levinson didn't have the treble or the bass and sounded washed out and gave me the "Where's the bass" feeling.

I dunno but every room I went to it was consistently the tube based rooms that were playing louder more dynamically and had more bass depth and drive. So either the entire industry has fixed up their tube amps or all the speaker makers have dramatically improved efficiency - but when big tougher to drive speaker makers like Dynaudio show up the game with Octave tube amps rather than the likes of Krell - I wonder. In fact I didn't see Krell or Levinson anywhere. I saw a lot of VAC.

It costs these guys over $10k to show be at these shows - they want to show with the best matches - I would say 75-90% of the rooms used tube front ends.

All the rooms in my top 5 used tubes.

[Ajani]

Let me ask you this, if you guys were at the CES show, what would your impressions be? I suppose biased AGAINST what you're hearing because it's a manipulated choice of music, chosen for it's simplicity in reproduction?

Not biased, just highly skeptical... If the manufacturer was willing to play my own CDs, then I'd be happy.... But I won't assume that a product sounds good with all genres, unless I hear it with a sufficient number of genres to make that determination...


All I am saying is you can't write off a $10 000 reference tube amp because it's being used to play a simple style of music. I would also like to add that Rich reported back that Audio Note were using modern rock and heavy, guitar driven tracks.

I would say for the purpose of this conversation, I might agree that a lower end tube amp could very likely reproduce a coloured sound. But the crazy high end gear they have at CES can't be pigeon holed as such. Have you guys heard high end Manley gear for example?

I have a feeling that regardless of the music, the amplification would speak for itself.

Rich's wide taste in music and the fact that Audio Note has the balls to play music other than the standard audiophile fare is why I'm so interested in AN... If all Rich listened to was Jazz, then AN would not be on my "must audition" list ...

And there are undoubtedly high quality tubes capable of tackling all genres of music, but how do I determine which of the tubes at CES fall into that category if they only play audiophile approved music?


I also want to add that the idea of vendors rigging up the music selection, bothers me to no end.

Yep, that's the issue I have with a lot of the CES demos... It's why I question whether CES is really proof of Tube preference in the industry... I'm not saying that Tubes are bad, but I seriously question whether there would be such widespread use of tubes, if demos were done with rap. reggaeton and rock instead of jazz....

[poppachubby]

Yep, that's the issue I have with a lot of the CES demos... It's why I question whether CES is really proof of Tube preference in the industry... I'm not saying that Tubes are bad, but I seriously question whether there would be such widespread use of tubes, if demos were done with rap. reggaeton and rock instead of jazz....

Yes, audiophiles enjoy jazz, but I think you are underestimating the dynamics on a typical hard bop style of album. You yourself were discussing the bright highs of the trumpet. I'm not just talking about the old recordings either, Roy Hargrove is an excellent and modern example.

A typical quartet or quintet:

Drums: Cymbals of course being VERY hard to replicate realistically
Upright acoustic bass: Hard to get resolution to include subtle plucking and fret hand noise. Deep notes that require fidelity to be heard as such, and not as "tones"
Piano: Melodic and quiet, percussive and ebrasive
Trumpet: You know this one
Tenor/Alto Saxophone: The sax is super tough to get just right. It has remarkable tone yet can reach extreme highs and lows. A very breathy instrument. Joe Henderson's Inner Urge is a great example. With correct fidelity, you can hear his fingers pumping the valves.

Now, a system must be resolute to cover all the dynamics of these instruments. More importantly, seperation is incredibly necessary, and difficult to achieve. Anyhow, it can be every bit as dynamic as rock. Instead of a troubled singer screaming and yelping, you have a troubled trumpeter voicing and blasting.

[O'Shag]

When referring to the advantage of crossoverless designs I cited Planars. I was referring to electrostatics, which do not have crossovers. I heard some Quad 2905s the week before last and they were wonderful. I could hear that extra level of cohesiveness and 'of-one-voice' sound.

[Feanor]

....

I dunno but every room I went to it was consistently the tube based rooms that were playing louder more dynamically and had more bass depth and drive. So either the entire industry has fixed up their tube amps or all the speaker makers have dramatically improved efficiency - but when big tougher to drive speaker makers like Dynaudio show up the game with Octave tube amps rather than the likes of Krell - I wonder. In fact I didn't see Krell or Levinson anywhere. I saw a lot of VAC.

It costs these guys over $10k to show be at these shows - they want to show with the best matches - I would say 75-90% of the rooms used tube front ends.

All the rooms in my top 5 used tubes.
I don't know either, that's for sure. Certainly quality tube equipment can sound great; I don't dispute that for moment, (I do use an all-tube pre myself). But the CES is after all a "consumer" show.

Furthermore it caters to "audiophiles". I have to wonder whether the selection of tube equipment is an effort to pander to the biased expectations, as well as tastes, of self-annointed audiophiles. :devil: We can see that real pros, like Sir TtT, tend to prefer s/s, (yes, even the maligned Bryston), with the odd exception. The pros critereon is uncolored accuracy, not euphonics.

[Ajani]

I don't know either, that's for sure. Certainly quality tube equipment can sound great; I don't dispute that for moment, (I do use an all-tube pre myself). But the CES is after all a "consumer" show.

Furthermore it caters to "audiophiles". I have to wonder whether the selection of tube equipment is an effort to pander to the biased expectations, as well as tastes, of self-annointed audiophiles. :devil: We can see that real pros, like Sir TtT, tend to prefer s/s, (yes, even the maligned Bryston), with the odd exception. The pros critereon is uncolored accuracy, not euphonics.

:thumbsup: so many "Audiophiles" expect tubes and vinyl, that I'm not suprised that so many manufacturers would cater to that... So as I've said a few times: the widespread use of tubes at CES is not necessarily an indication of an industry wide preference for tubes...

[RGA]

In general audiophiles "listen better" than most people - and I would say that includes recording engineers who are not necessarily "good listeners" because they know how to run mixing boards or have engineering degrees.

Tubes are not used because they have a much higher degree of downtime and lower warranties - Bryston carries a 20 year warranty, is cheap (relatively) and thus for a business where downtime means dollars they won't be used. The better tube devices are truly linear amplifying devices - no non SE SS amp is regardless of price.

Recording studios make choices that affect dollars. But it is interesting to note that plenty of artists are using tube amplifiers to record - as an example Jackson Browne interestingly uses Manley Labs to record his stuff and it's funny but Jackson Browne albums happen to be some of the very best recordings I own in that genre. And Manley isn't exactly the be all and end all of tube gear. And I only learned that by fluke as I brought an album to the Manley room that they were playing and I made the comment that I brought the same one and the conversation ensued.

I am getting quite excited to see how and when Audio Note starts rolling out their new digital conversion, mixing boards, microphones, etc.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

In general audiophiles "listen better" than most people - and I would say that includes recording engineers who are not necessarily "good listeners" because they know how to run mixing boards or have engineering degrees.

Wow, that is quite a statement to make, as I have found the exact opposite. Maybe because I work around a bunch of recording engineers that are actually good listeners, and have always worked around recording engineers that are good listeners, and that has shaped my experience. Rich, I do not know what recording studios you have been around, the quality of engineers, or their experience, but the four cities I work in are full of recording engineers that are good listeners, and create very good sounding projects.


Tubes are not used because they have a much higher degree of downtime and lower warranties - Bryston carries a 20 year warranty, is cheap (relatively) and thus for a business where downtime means dollars they won't be used. The better tube devices are truly linear amplifying devices - no non SE SS amp is regardless of price.

Another reason tubes amps are not used is they cannot stand the rigor and punishment of being used 12-15 hours a day being pushed to high levels on occasion. They just do not have the stamina.


Recording studios make choices that affect dollars. But it is interesting to note that plenty of artists are using tube amplifiers to record - as an example Jackson Browne interestingly uses Manley Labs to record his stuff and it's funny but Jackson Browne albums happen to be some of the very best recordings I own in that genre. And Manley isn't exactly the be all and end all of tube gear. And I only learned that by fluke as I brought an album to the Manley room that they were playing and I made the comment that I brought the same one and the conversation ensued.

Are you referring to tube pre-amps and microphones? Or tube guitar amps? All of these have been used for years in recording studios. They are used to take the edge off of digital recordings, and they are particularly effective at doing it.


I am getting quite excited to see how and when Audio Note starts rolling out their new digital conversion, mixing boards, microphones, etc.

I would be curious to see how they will differentiate themselves from others in an already very crowded market.

[RGA]

Perhaps I am coming at from a different perspective. Most of my personal experience is with Audio Note - by personal - I mean owning it and so I can't discuss what the long term lifespans of gear is other than my own experience and of course I don't run the gear 15 hours a day. Peter Qvortrup is fine with his amps being run 24/7 and with running a dead short by placing a screwdriver over the terminals

The CD players are rated to run 100,000 hours continuous - that's about 11 years 24/7 so I am not so sure that a tube amp can't handle being on for long durations. Perhaps bad tube amps can't be run and Chesky records seems fine with running tube gear - it's all tube gear. Jackson Browne isn't just using tubes in the guitar amp - Manley doesn't make tubes - they make preamp, integrated, power amps...I am not sure where and how they're used in the studio - I suppose I should have asked in more detail - but it didn't terribly interest me.

I think the issue may be the the tube power amp stage where tube life is considerably shorter than a 12AX7 preamp tube so you may get as little as 2000 hours and in a studio I would agree that is pretty terrible and VERY costly as some of these tubes can run $300 to over $1500 pair and maybe more. Even if the recording studio engineer truly did like it better that is not money likely to be spent when CD sales are down and the vast majority of listeners don't really care about audio anyway.

So that leaves a small niche of audiophiles who will pay a premium for quality recordings. To answer that question - that is where I suspect Audio Note would target themselves. They have spent years remastering a lot of very old recordings - I am not really knowledgeable about where they are or what exactly they plan on doing - Fred Crowder visited their plant and knows more about the recording somewhere in his article on the factory tour http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=581 (one of the last paragraphs on the last page I believe so skip to it) Can't remember which component but it is different than anything else out there and is patented. Don't know until I hear it but I know Peter would buy the best mixers on the planet, and the best analog to digital recorders available and then he will build his unit and it will no doubt destroy what is currently on the market - or he would not bother. There's no real money in any of this and certainly no commercial appeal.

My comments about RE not being good listeners - I think I was being somewhat unfair but not so unfair when so many recordings sound so poor - someone should be listening and deciding that this CD is unacceptably bad and needs to be fixed. And the excuse that it needs to sound good for a car or MP3 is bogus. The stuff that sounds great on a high end system - also sounds better than bad recordings on my ipod or in my car with stock stereo speakers. And the Bad CD's sound worse regardless of the stereos.

I don't pretend to know how ALL recording studios operate but I can tell you that the people who recorded Madonna's "Like A Prayer" and "Immaculate Collection" did a pretty darn good job with this music while the people who did the much newer "Confessions on a Dance Floor" were pretty hopeless. And that's just 20 years.

I have LP's from the 60s such as Ray Charles that are leagues better than virtually any recording on either format I own today - with the exception of noise floor but that's hardly the only parameter going. And LP has serious measurement disadvantages if you think about which is even more telling of how truly good the recordings were.

I think my point of contention in this entire discussion is that people view tubes merely as a way to tailor the sound and are inaccurate. And certainly tubes CAN be used this way. I suppose in many people's experiences this is the majority. But in my direct experience comparing a Bryston to a SET - it was interesting to note that the one that sounded distorted was the Bryston. How can the SET be distorted when there was no audible noise, no audible warbling of voices, no flab in the bass, not highs sounding buzzy. The SET had faster transients, far better decay, separation - you could hear more of the instruments - the picks plucks, breathing, trumpet valves, it sounded faster(nimbler) and cohesive. I suppose my issue here is I can't separate the listening experience from my opinion on the matter. Because looking at the specs the Bryston kills the SET. The listening experience is just so not in the same class as to having the Yankees play a team of five year olds - or the Pirates (sorry Pirates fans).

I would accept arguments of Euphonics (not a bad word since it means pleasing) if the sound coming from the SET was syrupy slow had oozing bass over tight articulate fast bass. I even prefer systems on occasion that lean warm over bright - but when you get the twang of a guitar pick and the reverberation of the guitar box and it sounds supremely natural - and the Bryston doing the same thing gets a bright pluck doesn't follow the note through and then you hear the next pluck and ask where did the guitar go - it sounds so 2dimensional. And if the recording studio is using IMO broken amplification - how on earth can any of these Recording engineers possibly put together a quality recording. I suspect they can't do the job with this stuff very well and probably why all the best recording I have seem to be from the 1960's and older. Despite some noise.

Of course this is just moot - I still buy and like new music regardless of the recording quality - but I would sure like to see it greatly improved. Hopefully the Audio Note guys can do something - Peter seems to go on at length about the microphones being hugely problematic today. I guess whenever the product actually comes out that results will determine whether it truly is better than the best microphones out today. We'll see or hear.

[Ajani]

Perhaps I am coming at from a different perspective. Most of my personal experience is with Audio Note - by personal - I mean owning it and so I can't discuss what the long term lifespans of gear is other than my own experience and of course I don't run the gear 15 hours a day. Peter Qvortrup is fine with his amps being run 24/7 and with running a dead short by placing a screwdriver over the terminals

The CD players are rated to run 100,000 hours continuous - that's about 11 years 24/7 so I am not so sure that a tube amp can't handle being on for long durations. Perhaps bad tube amps can't be run and Chesky records seems fine with running tube gear - it's all tube gear. Jackson Browne isn't just using tubes in the guitar amp - Manley doesn't make tubes - they make preamp, integrated, power amps...I am not sure where and how they're used in the studio - I suppose I should have asked in more detail - but it didn't terribly interest me.

I think the issue may be the the tube power amp stage where tube life is considerably shorter than a 12AX7 preamp tube so you may get as little as 2000 hours and in a studio I would agree that is pretty terrible and VERY costly as some of these tubes can run $300 to over $1500 pair and maybe more. Even if the recording studio engineer truly did like it better that is not money likely to be spent when CD sales are down and the vast majority of listeners don't really care about audio anyway.

So that leaves a small niche of audiophiles who will pay a premium for quality recordings. To answer that question - that is where I suspect Audio Note would target themselves. They have spent years remastering a lot of very old recordings - I am not really knowledgeable about where they are or what exactly they plan on doing - Fred Crowder visited their plant and knows more about the recording somewhere in his article on the factory tour http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=581 (one of the last paragraphs on the last page I believe so skip to it) Can't remember which component but it is different than anything else out there and is patented. Don't know until I hear it but I know Peter would buy the best mixers on the planet, and the best analog to digital recorders available and then he will build his unit and it will no doubt destroy what is currently on the market - or he would not bother. There's no real money in any of this and certainly no commercial appeal.

My comments about RE not being good listeners - I think I was being somewhat unfair but not so unfair when so many recordings sound so poor - someone should be listening and deciding that this CD is unacceptably bad and needs to be fixed. And the excuse that it needs to sound good for a car or MP3 is bogus. The stuff that sounds great on a high end system - also sounds better than bad recordings on my ipod or in my car with stock stereo speakers. And the Bad CD's sound worse regardless of the stereos.

I don't pretend to know how ALL recording studios operate but I can tell you that the people who recorded Madonna's "Like A Prayer" and "Immaculate Collection" did a pretty darn good job with this music while the people who did the much newer "Confessions on a Dance Floor" were pretty hopeless. And that's just 20 years.

I have LP's from the 60s such as Ray Charles that are leagues better than virtually any recording on either format I own today - with the exception of noise floor but that's hardly the only parameter going. And LP has serious measurement disadvantages if you think about which is even more telling of how truly good the recordings were.

I think my point of contention in this entire discussion is that people view tubes merely as a way to tailor the sound and are inaccurate. And certainly tubes CAN be used this way. I suppose in many people's experiences this is the majority. But in my direct experience comparing a Bryston to a SET - it was interesting to note that the one that sounded distorted was the Bryston. How can the SET be distorted when there was no audible noise, no audible warbling of voices, no flab in the bass, not highs sounding buzzy. The SET had faster transients, far better decay, separation - you could hear more of the instruments - the picks plucks, breathing, trumpet valves, it sounded faster(nimbler) and cohesive. I suppose my issue here is I can't separate the listening experience from my opinion on the matter. Because looking at the specs the Bryston kills the SET. The listening experience is just so not in the same class as to having the Yankees play a team of five year olds - or the Pirates (sorry Pirates fans).

I would accept arguments of Euphonics (not a bad word since it means pleasing) if the sound coming from the SET was syrupy slow had oozing bass over tight articulate fast bass. I even prefer systems on occasion that lean warm over bright - but when you get the twang of a guitar pick and the reverberation of the guitar box and it sounds supremely natural - and the Bryston doing the same thing gets a bright pluck doesn't follow the note through and then you hear the next pluck and ask where did the guitar go - it sounds so 2dimensional. And if the recording studio is using IMO broken amplification - how on earth can any of these Recording engineers possibly put together a quality recording. I suspect they can't do the job with this stuff very well and probably why all the best recording I have seem to be from the 1960's and older. Despite some noise.

Of course this is just moot - I still buy and like new music regardless of the recording quality - but I would sure like to see it greatly improved. Hopefully the Audio Note guys can do something - Peter seems to go on at length about the microphones being hugely problematic today. I guess whenever the product actually comes out that results will determine whether it truly is better than the best microphones out today. We'll see or hear.

The Immaculate Collection is indeed a well recorded album and is likely an example that good recordings can be made with SS and CD....

I agree that a good recording will sound good regardless of what it is played on....

I have no doubt that true high end tubes (where the aim of the manufacturer is more to be accurate and realistic than euphonic, syrupy and warm) can sound brilliant, but I question why there should be the belief that the same isn't true of the best SS gear...

At the entry level box speakers tend to sound... well... boxy... and panels fail miserably at providing bass... but as you climb the price scale you can find boxes that sound open and panels that produce full range sound.... so I'd expect a similar situation with tubes and SS...

And by the best SS, I don't necessarily mean 1000 Watt beasts.... How about the more modestly powered Class A gear??? You like mid priced Class A like Sugden, so how about something from Pass Labs or maybe the Musical Fidelity AMS35i (35 watt pure Class A Integrated at $9K)? That should sound very different from Musical Fidelity's usual monster class A/B amps (which I know you don't like)....

[RGA]

Ajani

You raise a good point here and many have made the same point that as you move up in the price spectrum sound is much improved whether we're talking SS or Tube.

I prefer some SS over tubes at the lower price points myself as you rightly note - The Sugden A21a I have been on about for over a decade. And I would take this over tube amps I have heard under it - though I may have to take issue with myself on this view.

I don't want to come off as loathing all SS - I have a preference for SE tubes but there are plenty of SS amps that I like and recommend. Though after a certain price point I believe the better tube amps take the lead and don't give it up. If this is so in playback and the vast majority of the best speaker makers seem to agree then why would it be any different in the recording studio? It doesn't and shouldn't but it does because of money. It's too expensive to buy the best tube amps (or even the best Solid State amps) and so they attempt to justify the choice via technical arguments that IMO don't fly.

Everything is compromised and nothing is perfectly accurate. As you move up the price realm (assuming it's a product that actually truly does live up to the price - most doesn't) then in theory you reduce many of the compromises whether it is SS, tubes, panels or boxes etc.

And since everything is inaccurate you may as well make choices you can live with. That is why I can see why some people like panels - you and I and probably Sir Terrence won't buy the small ones because they simply lack dynamics bass and the ribbon varieties usually have an incredibly tight head in the vice quality to retain any semblance of soundstage. And they require power, and they can't play very loud. But I can see that some would choose such speakers to avoid box colourations and hand over mouth quality of many boxed speakers under $2k - even if they have more bass dynamics etc they also bring annoyances. People choose their compromise.

Take amplifiers - I just reviewed two Tube Hybrid Monoblock power amps. They EACH way 40lbs and have a tube stage for rolling and the monoblocks are rated as 10 watts class A - then switch to class A/B 150watts 8ohm and 300watts 4ohms. They sound so very much better than a Bryston 4BST or anything else I have heard from bryston in my opinion it's not even funny. The amplifiers are made by Shengya out of China and imported by Grant Fidelity - who is also a recording engineer and who has used Bryston for many years. There just is no comparison.

Price for the monoblocks $2400 pair and they are giving you a preamp to go with it - I can't say anything about the preamp but... It's built FAR better than Bryston, costs less, has more power, and much better bass depth and control. And they actually look great to boot (the pictures suck unfortunately).

You can see the mono blocks on the floor - silver ones - These were the ones I reviewed I believe as I shipped it back to them so they could bring them to the show. http://grantfidelity.com/site/

[Poultrygeist]

With my SET I get to hear Mile's trumpet spit :-)

[poppachubby]

With my SET I get to hear Mile's trumpet spit :-)


I'm with you on that PG. Not sure if you saw, but my earlier post discussed Joe Henderson's Inner Urge. His breathy style is audible as is the sound of his fingers pumping the valves. Man I love that...

[frenchmon]

I'm with you on that PG. Not sure if you saw, but my earlier post discussed Joe Henderson's Inner Urge. His breathy style is audible as is the sound of his fingers pumping the valves. Man I love that...

I hear that with my SS.

frenchmon

[poppachubby]

I hear that with my SS.

frenchmon


No doubt, Have you got Inner Urge frenchie?

[Feanor]

I hear that with my SS.

frenchmon
I'm with you, Mon. My s/s Monarchys will do that too, no sweat. Overall they'll beat any tubes at or close their price, and not just for power.

[Luvin Da Blues]

I hear that with my SS.

frenchmon

Hell, my Marsh does this also, even at extremely low levels. Too many people talk in absolutes on this forum.

[Ajani]

Too many people talk in absolutes on this forum.

Too often Audiophiles get caught up with a specific technology and forget that there are good and bad examples of each type... Just because someone hasn't heard a type they like, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just wanted to take the time to address some of the issues that RGA has brought up concerning recording engineers. First, things have changed in the recording industry since the 80's. Since RGA brings up Madonna earliest recordings as an example, back when those two album's he mention where recorded, the audio engineer(who most of the time was the project producer as well) had the last word on every decision of the sound of the end product. When we were meticulous on every detail of the recording process, it showed up in the end product as a good sounding album. Most recording was analog, and with analog being around so long, the analog recording process was quite refined, including the equipment used. A lot of great audio engineers were around back then, customizing everything under the sun to get the best studio sound(and live sound as well). These days are long gone, and the changes that have come along has buried the audio engineer in the process.

These days the audio engineer has no say so in how the album is going to sound in the end. The marketing people and bean counters rule that area now. That is unless the audio engineer is the producer and is very powerful in the industry(Quincy Jones for example). Most all recording of pop and rock is done in pro tools, a digital processing platform. The platform is extremely powerful and efficient(it is ubiquitous in the film recording as well for this same reason), but its D/A converters are quite frankly awful.(I never use them, and neither does our studio). The bean counters follow the entire recording process continually trying to hurry the process along which means corners are sometimes cut. When the recording is done and we hit the mastering process, the marketing people enter the picture with their louder is better mantra. At that point we are forced to cripple our own baby, as we have to compress and compress to make the end product sound good on radio, and to be louder than the next competitors project. If we do not do what the marketing people ask, they threaten to take the project elsewhere thereby effecting the recording studio(and engineers) income. It is for these reasons I no longer will accept a project from a major record company, but do projects where creativity and audio quality are first.

I do not know any recording or mastering engineer who likes what is going on with recording practices today. We fuss over the recording chain to make sure it is as clean as possible, we try to use processing only for the artistic means of the artist, pick the best equipment we can find, and work like the devil himself to draw good performances from the artists only to have our fussed over project get turned into crap by the marketing folks. It is frustrating, as we get blamed for what the end product sounds like, but have little to no input on the ultimate sound quality. Compression is a great tool in skilled hands, as we can make it sound completely transparent while blending audio stems together. It is the tool of the audio devil in the wrong hands, as it can steal the very soul out of a mix, and make a great mix sound like mush. Clipping is rampant as we are asked to push the volume louder and louder, and to compensate for that request, we compress the hell out of the peaks to keep digital zero from being overshot.

I really do not like that the audio engineer is getting blamed for something that is totally out of their control, and it is time(or passed time) to let audio enthusiasts know that it is the record company's that should be blamed for the sound of audio today. They have killed their own sales with ugly sounding products made for radio playback(in cars), and not playback on home stereos where critical listening is often done. We have to mix for the lowest common denominator, and not for the highest. This is why CD's sound they way they do, and it is time to throw the blame back to the source. The record companies are the ones that approve the end product, and if it sound like crap, that is what they approved. The audio engineer is nothing more than a project coordinator and facilitator these days, and we have no say so on what the end product is going to sound like.

As far as Bryston products, the 4BST is an amp that is no longer made, and what it sounded like is far different than what current Bryston amps sound like today. I use the 7B SST, and the 28B SST amps(as well as several others) in my studio, and the sound from these amps are far better than the 4BST on every level.

[frenchmon]

No doubt, Have you got Inner Urge frenchie?

what do you mean by Inner Urge?

frenchmon

[poppachubby]

what do you mean by Inner Urge?

frenchmon

http://img.maniadb.com/images/album/163/163386_1_f.jpg

[Poultrygeist]

"A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown

[02audionoob]

After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.

[frenchmon]

http://img.maniadb.com/images/album/163/163386_1_f.jpg


Ohhhh. Inner Urge!

No...never heard of that one...have to look in to that one....I love me some Henderson.

I have Lush Life by Henderson http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/625/41fq1deh9flsl1102523292.jpg (http://img708.imageshack.us/i/41fq1deh9flsl1102523292.jpg/)

And New York Reunion with McCoy Tyner Ron Carter and Al Foster.http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/928/51wnuizedlsl500aa300264.jpg (http://img689.imageshack.us/i/51wnuizedlsl500aa300264.jpg/)

Gotta Look for Inner Urge! Oh and by the way...that may be Tyners album, but its all Joe...he makes it what it is with his horn.

frenchmon

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.

I think it is too subjective to summarize. Some folks like it plain, some folks like salt, pepper, or herbs. I think that is what makes this hobby quite special.

[JoeE SP9]

"A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown


Hey c'mon! There are plenty of us for whom SET's Lowther's and OB's just ain't the thing. In my 40+ years at this I've never once wanted a SET, a Lowther or an open baffle speaker and I've heard plenty. I've also heard plenty of horns and I don't want them either

[Ajani]

After 90 posts, I'm wondering if someone could summarize the final answer for me.

Summary:

This thread is actually about the difference between Live and HiFi sound and whether the goal of HiFi is really to recreate the live event: the answer was pretty much that for many persons recreating the live event is not the goal....

The thread then turned to a discussion of plannar versus box speakers and finally to tubes versus SS: It became clear that which is better is totally up to the individual as some persons worship tubes while others hate them with a passion (same for SS)...

[Ajani]

I'm with you, Mon. My s/s Monarchys will do that too, no sweat. Overall they'll beat any tubes at or close their price, and not just for power.

Have you tried the Monarchy as a stereo amp? I'm interested to know how it compares as a stereo (RCA) versus as a balanced mono....

[Feanor]

"A typical audiophile spends over 40 years in his quest for the best amp.

The 1st 10 years he spends all his money and time on ss amps.

The 2nd 10 years he discovers tube amps and spends all his money and time on both ss
and tube amps as well as cables, speakers etc.

The 3rd 10 years he discovers SET tube amps but spends all his money and time back and forth on ss, push pull, and SET tube amps.

The last 10 years he finally stays with a low power SET tube amp and takes it with him to heaven." - author unknown
I realize that these aren't your words, Poultry. But this is a very "niche" opinion; in fact really only the author's opinion though he/she probably has some buddies who feel the same. Or to put it another way, it's bullsh!t.

[Feanor]

Have you tried the Monarchy as a stereo amp? I'm interested to know how it compares as a stereo (RCA) versus as a balanced mono....
Yes, briefly a few years ago with my Magneplanar MMGs. The character of the SM-70 Pro sound was identical to a pair used as balanced monoblocks, only the dynamics weren't as good, especially at higher volumes of course. Bear in mind that used as a stereo amp, the power is only 40 wpc into 8 ohms, (vs. 120 wpc into 4 ohms as a monoblock), so it is hardly more powerful that a typical tube amp.

[poppachubby]

It is for these reasons I no longer will accept a project from a major record company, but do projects where creativity and audio quality are first.



So what areas are left in which an engineer has some control? I would imagine that there are many smaller labels that would offer artists and studios some creative space. The problem is, the money would be less.

Pro Tools is an awesome program when used correctly and not to auto tune or edit a drum kits output. What's that called, a click track? When they use the best snare shot and insert it into the whole track.

[Feanor]

Summary:

This thread is actually about the difference between Live and HiFi sound and whether the goal of HiFi is really to recreate the live event: the answer was pretty much that for many persons recreating the live event is not the goal....

The thread then turned to a discussion of plannar versus box speakers and finally to tubes versus SS: It became clear that which is better is totally up to the individual as some persons worship tubes while others hate them with a passion (same for SS)...
Pretty reasonable summary, Ajani. In particular, it think it's fair to say that record producers & engineers typically are not attempting to reproduce a live event as it might actually be heard in some venue, but their to own create their own, personal presentation of a performance.

I would say there was a minor digestion into the definition of "accuracy". I think there was a consensus that the proper narrow defintion is fidelity to the recording on it's medium. But, further, that what the groves or pits on the disc sound like apart from the reproduction equipment is impossible to really know.

[E-Stat]

Another reason tubes amps are not used is they cannot stand the rigor and punishment of being used 12-15 hours a day being pushed to high levels on occasion. They just do not have the stamina.
Such is an utterly ridiculous statement that ignores the first forty years of their use in ALL aspects of radio transmission and recording. Yes, they do generate lots of heat and require retubing which can be expensive.

rw

[Ajani]

Yes, briefly a few years ago with my Magneplanar MMGs. The character of the SM-70 Pro sound was identical to a pair used as balanced monoblocks, only the dynamics weren't as good, especially at higher volumes of course. Bear in mind that used as a stereo amp, the power is only 40 wpc into 8 ohms, (vs. 120 wpc into 4 ohms as a monoblock), so it is hardly more powerful that a typical tube amp.

Thanks... I wouldn't need the extra power as I have the Emotiva to handle any heavy lifting... I was more thinking of a SM-70 Pro for use in my eventual 2nd system (or maybe my main if I find I prefer its sound to the XPA-2).... So knowing that all I would lose by using the SM-70 Pro as a stereo amp is power/dynamics is fine...

[Feanor]

Thanks... I wouldn't need the extra power as I have the Emotiva to handle any hard lifting... I was more thinking of a SM-70 Pro for use in my eventual 2nd system (or maybe my main if I find I prefer its sound to the XPA-2).... So knowing that all I would lose by using the SM-70 Pro as a stereo amp is power/dynamics is fine...
I need to correct myself. According to the Monarchy webside, (here (http://www.monarchyaudio.com/)), the SM-70 Pro specs for power are these:

Power Output:
Stereo Mode: 8 Ohm Load: 25 Watts rms x 2
4 Ohm Load: 40 Watts rms x 2
Mono Mode: 8 Ohm Load: 80 Watts rms
4 Ohm Load: 120 Watts rms
So it is evident that this amp is really designed as a momoblock. But note that each unit has 60,000 uF capacitance which is huge for the power output, consequently the dynamics are really good to which I can atest.

Here is a Soundstage review of the SM-79 Pros. (http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/monarchy_sm70pro.htm) Quote from that review, "If the Monarchy SM-70 Pros have taught me one unexpected lesson, it is that the swing from silence to a full-blown crescendo is far greater than we normally settle for, even in ambitious systems -- and that's something the SM-70s re-create in their balanced configuration better than any number of ordinary amplifiers."

[E-Stat]

But note that each unit has 60,000 uF capacitance which is huge for the power output...
Yes and no. Power supply stiffness as measured in joules is determined by multiplying the capacitance by the square of the rail voltage divided by 2. While 60,000 uF per amp is relatively high, the rail voltage is only 24 volts yielding a total of just under 35 joules for 60 watts / channel output (8 ohms) for a bridged pair of amps. Which is identical in voltage and capacitance to the power supply found in the 15 watt / channel First Watt F3. My '81 Stasis 3 has 90 joules for 100 watts / channel output (50,000 uF @ 60 v) and the VTL MB-450s have 500 joules (3,300 uF @ 550 v) for 300 watts / channel output. Truly heroic amps like the 600 watt / channel VTL Siegfrieds have 1500 joules while the Audio Research 600Ts have 2000 joules.

SM-70s (http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/media/AE500GG.pdf)

rw

[Feanor]

Yes and no. Power supply stiffness as measured in joules is determined by multiplying the capacitance by the square of the rail voltage divided by 2. While 60,000 uF per amp is relatively high, the rail voltage is only 24 volts yielding a total of just under 35 joules for 60 watts / channel output (8 ohms) for a bridged pair of amps. Which is identical in voltage and capacitance to the power supply found in the 15 watt / channel First Watt F3. My '81 Stasis 3 has 90 joules for 100 watts / channel output (50,000 uF @ 60 v) and the VTL MB-450s have 500 joules (3,300 uF @ 550 v) for 300 watts / channel output. Truly heroic amps like the 600 watt / channel VTL Siegfrieds have 1500 joules while the Audio Research 600Ts have 2000 joules.

SM-70s (http://www.audioxpress.com/reviews/media/AE500GG.pdf)

rw
Thanks for that technical information that I'm glad to learn.

I note that the Audio Electronics review you reference discussed the SM-70 not the SM-70 Pro which was significantly upgraded over the former. I can't find a reference to the latter's output rail voltage, however Gary Gallo, in a follow-up Pro review stated the raw rails were +- 32 VDC.

In any case it's not entirely fair to compare the modestly priced SM-70 Pro with much more expensive equipment.

[E-Stat]

In any case it's not entirely fair to compare the modestly priced SM-70 Pro with much more expensive equipment.
Changing the rail voltage would require using completely different outputs. I suspect the upgrades were in the passive components. I was responding to the unqualified "huge" adjective. It is definitely stiffer than you would find on most consumer amplifiers and receivers, but not exceptional. There was an earlier thread about a McIntosh 2105 where someone commented on the large capacitors used in its power supply. Similarly, the Mac runs fairly modest rails for a good, but not extraordinary result (35v, 78000uF ~ 50 joules). The rail voltage has a far greater impact than the capacitance.

rw

[poppachubby]

Ralph did you see my post at the Vintage Asylum? I was hoping you would comment here or at AA, what are your thoughts about EICO gear and more specifically the HF 85 pre amp. I got one for a steal and it sounds lovely. Tommy didn't know too much. Mike Samra at AA helped me out with the sale, so I pounced.

[E-Stat]

what are your thoughts about EICO gear and more specifically the HF 85 pre amp.
Sorry for not responding. EICO is a venerable brand which produced some fine gear. I would consider them in the same favorable light as Dynaco who also offered kits. I think the preamp I owned some time ago was a HF-85. It had nice sound and I ended up giving it to a girlfriend. Back in my teens, I had fun building two Dyna kits. Great bang for the buck!

Speaking of power supplies, the first thing that Frank Van Alstine did with any Dyna product was to substantially beef up the power supply. I had the FET-5 upgrade to a PAT-5 back in the 70s.

rw

[Feanor]

I was responding to the unqualified "huge" adjective. It is definitely stiffer than you would find on most consumer amplifiers and receivers, but not exceptional. There was an earlier thread about a McIntosh 2105 where someone commented on the large capacitors used in its power supply. Similarly, the Mac runs fairly modest rails for a good, but not extraordinary result (35v, 78000uF ~ 50 joules). The rail voltage has a far greater impact than the capacitance.

rw
I do understand that the rail voltage is the primary determinent of output power. I also understand that there is the opinion that "excessive" capacitance is worthless anyway.

So of course I was comparing the SM-70 Pro to other amps in its price range, (<$2000 for stereo), not to much more expensive equipment (which would include the Mac 2105 priced in today's dollars).

FWIW, in a follow-up review for the Pro version, Gary Gallo mentioned that the raw rail voltage was upped to 32 VDC vs. 30.

[E-Stat]

I also understand that there is the opinion that "excessive" capacitance is worthless anyway.
My direct experience suggests otherwise. I find that *conventional* engineering practice is woefully inadequate. I owned an Audire amp back in the 70s in the heyday of Frank Van Alstine's "Double Dyna 400". I rigged a similarly configured supplemental power supply to the Audire by upping the capacitance to 120,000 uF (and a new 30a bridge!). Dynamic swings were handled with a greater impact and ease driving Magnepan MG-IIs. Every amp I've heard that I would consider to possess that elusive sense of "authority" has considerable power supply stiffness.


FWIW, in a follow-up review for the Pro version, Gary Gallo mentioned that the raw rail voltage was upped to 32 VDC vs. 30.
It is the regulated value that the output devices actually see.

rw

[poppachubby]

Sorry for not responding. EICO is a venerable brand which produced some fine gear. I would consider them in the same favorable light as Dynaco who also offered kits. I think the preamp I owned some time ago was a HF-85. It had nice sound and I ended up giving it to a girlfriend. Back in my teens, I had fun building two Dyna kits. Great bang for the buck!

Speaking of power supplies, the first thing that Frank Van Alstine did with any Dyna product was to substantially beef up the power supply. I had the FET-5 upgrade to a PAT-5 back in the 70s.

rw

Thanks for the input E. I will be modding the cramped RCA inputs. Also, EICO has laid out the inputs in a non conventional manner, in terms of current day pre amps. I will switch them around. It has the original Mullards and overall is dead quiet, so I won't mess with too much more. The previous owner recapped it.

The real question is whether or not the RIAA circuit can be made to sound sweet. I have a Creek OBH 18 into the line stage, which is dead quiet and detailed.

I have decided my upgrade path...an ARC SP9 into dual mono Golden Tube SE 40. I have a while to go still...

[E-Stat]

It has the original Mullards and overall is dead quiet, so I won't mess with too much more. The previous owner recapped it.
Good plan.


I have decided my upgrade path...an ARC SP9 into dual mono Golden Tube SE 40. I have a while to go still...
I'm very pleased with my SP-9 for use with vinyl. As a hybrid, it has lots of gain and is very quiet. I use a mid output MC cartridge. I would, however, recommend getting at least a MKII. I began with that and had it factory updated to the final MKIII version. The MKIII has slightly better resolution, more punch (again that doubling the capacitance thing) and has a more neutral lower midrange tonal response. The earlier versions were a touch thin there. The only nit I have to pick with the SP-9 is its crosstalk on the line stage which narrows the sound stage on CDs. Which is one of the reasons why I use passive attenuators instead of it with my CD source.

rw

[poppachubby]

Vinyl ( as you know) is the reason I want an SP9. ARC assume much about their market. I would rather have them leave out added circuitry, switches, etc in favour of adjusting the resistors myself.

I had an older vintage amp, a rebadged Goldstar with gain adjustemenbt by the turn of a knob. 1.2 / 2.4 / 4.6. Very convenient but a look inside would indicate a price to be paid for it.

I like the stripped down simplicity compared to the SP11, and of course the stripped down cost never hurt anyone either.

What adjustments have you had to make to allow the MC to sound it's best?

[E-Stat]

What adjustments have you had to make to allow the MC to sound it's best?
None. My experience and that of a mentor finds that loading down MC cartridges is not beneficial. There are, however, loading "turrets" on the SP-9 designed for that purpose which require soldering. If you wish to experiment, I would suggest an approach I learned over at AA: solder the resistors to one leg of a Y adapter. That allows for quick changes.

John Elison's adapter approach (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=vinyl&n=409356&highlight=adapter+john+elison&r=)

rw

[poppachubby]

Wow, that looks great. I have read about shunt resistance for quick changes. This looks amazing. What's more incredible is that John Elison uses Monster products! :eek6:

[JoeE SP9]

High output MC carts work fine into the SP-9's 47K impedence. A low output MC would see the load the head amp or step up transformer has. Low output MC's like very low loads. My Marcof head amp has a 36 Ohm load.