Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

[tube fan]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.

[RGA]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.

The Audio Note CD players sound different than everyone elses because they ARE different than everyone elses. They're designed by vinyl lovers and the only reason Peter bothered making CD playersis because a lot of good music is on CD and since he hated everyone else's CD players (he bought all the top of the line competitors) he was forced to make his own. And of course the advertising of CD was perfect sound forever - a blatent lie since those same people came out with HDCD and then SACD which recognizes the faults of Redbook CD. Although it is interesting that I have read a few reviews now of guys who own SACD machines and prefer the Redbook version through an AN digital rig. It still comes down to the actual player. The theoretical advantages of one tech over the other may be true but in the end it is the replay device that has a big influence. As good as the DACs are - Peter still says for less than half the money a good vinyl rig will beat his digital. Peter's a character - at CES not once did he talk about watts, cables, cd players, but about Slayer, Nightwish, the evil nine, noise music, where it's all going. And the guys he brought with him same thing. Music - the boxes are just boxes which is probably why most of it just looks like a box. Most rooms don't discuss that - they talk about watts per channel and cable enhancements, and driver technology.

I suppose to get digital to sound more like vinyl it has to come from people who actually LIKE and believe that vinyl is better. If you want digital to sound more vinyl - chances are you are better off not buying it from a comapany that doesn't make a turntable or has owners that don't listen to vinyl. Peter does and this quote amuses me "I just can't understand in any way why people would want to insult their beautiful music signal with a transistor!" http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/audio52.shtml

[markw]

We can close the forum and all go home now.

[GMichael]

What about BR music? Isn't that a lot closer to analog than any CD player?

[Nasir]

There should be bullets flying around by now, or maybe everybody is in a relaxed vacation mood....
One of these days, I am going to dust off the phono and connect it to my kit valve amp and see what gives.... To really do some serious listening, I would have to send the wife away on holiday or on a refresher course or something... then feed the cats and open a bottle of wine and eat something while the system is warming up and only then kill the lights and sit down in the sweetspot!!!!
From past experiences, I seem to get carried away till the early morning hours, so its best done over the weekends, otherwise a rather sleepy head syndrome will be experienced at work.
My 25W per channel valve amp sounded different from the 100W per channel Solid State amp, but this was to be expected. I am not in a position to do quick tests with one amp then connect up another, all because the moment the cats see the cables moving, its playtime for them...many is a time when I have put on a cd ( oh dear, digital again) after a long day at work only to be rewarded with music from a 1.1 system, as these 4 pawed fiends ( I mean friends ) have been trying to dewire the system in my absence!! Anyway, to cut a long story short, In my humble opinion, the valve amp seemed fuller in sound ( someone will soon say its because of the distortion, etc... ) than its SS counterpart and one can easily grow partial to that. Others may claim that the beefy SS are quietly in control, not contributing significantly with even harmonic distortions while odd harmonic distortions in little doses can enhance the music, as is the case with the tubes....
Whatever the case, has anybody tried connecting an ESL to such a low powered tube amp? My design allows no switching from 8 to 4 Ohms and the ESLs are rated 4Ohms and current hungry....

[poppachubby]

God man, this is the most redundant discussion in audio. Nobody wins, we all leave these discussions feeling angry.

I love my analog but the bottom line is to each his own. Not to mention, I think digital is catching up at a tremendous rate, although not quite there. I am speaking of products on the market, readily available for people (Terrence).

I had a real eye opening experience with the new reference Marantz amp and SACD player. Realism? In spades. The sound was beautiful, tonal and wide open. And all of this with Paradigm speakers?!? My goodness...no!!

The SM-11S1, SC-11S1 and SA-11S2....fantastic products. However, I would prefer the comparably priced analog equivelant. But to say this combo didn't sound great, is to deny oneself indulgence into wonderful sound.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3510/4569402597_7b46a55fcb_z.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3498/4570038238_76d1c01825_z.jpg

[markw]

There should be bullets flying around by now, or maybe everybody is in a relaxed vacation mood..After a period of time, most fish learn what bait to avoid.

[Feanor]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.
I have a tube preamp and a more tubey than typical sounding s/s amp -- so OK. We won't debate here whether "tonal saturation" is really just excessive 2nd order harmonic distortion.

As for analog vs. digital, it's pretty much a non-issue for me because virtually none of the music I listen to (classical) is available in anything but digital nowadays.

The non-oversampling, non-filtered AN DACs might sound nice but $5k much less $9.5k are absurd on my budget. Maybe I'll try one of the non-oversampling, non-filtered $150 Chinese knock-offs just for fun, but the word is that NOS has punchy bass but relatively poor resolution.

[Nasir]

I get it, Markw....
this fish is still green behind the ears!!!
I try not to get too involved to the point of things affecting me, but lets give our friend here a little run for his money.
I bought a tube kit for the price of a completely assembled, ready out of the box decent SS amplifier. I WANTED to find out how good valves sounded....
Next, I acquired demo ESLs, and have to yet regret the day I flashed my credit card before the salesman could triple check their price!!
Some arguments are just NOT meant to be won, after 16 years of marriage, I still argue, but I should know better, however its best to go down after putting up a little fight, rather than NON at all!!
I am still keeping my desire on hold, regarding hooking up current greedy ESLs to a 25W Valve amplifier....
I remember to this day, 20 years ago, when I walked into a dealer and asked how much the used Quad Electrostatic speakers cost. He politely asked me how much I was thinking of spending, then steered me towards a used pair of Magnepans and fired them up!!! I got hooked on their sound, but have owned other speakers. The maggies would have lost the fight in my living room against the 3 furred felines who have absolutely perfected the art of how to rub up me right way.
We may start out along the wrong path and maybe someone will point us in the right direction...

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

This is troll bait if I ever saw it.:rolleyes: Not biting on this one at all - I know the bleating of a fanboy when I see it. :hand:

[frenchmon]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.

OK...I think you are a transplant.

edit: Why?

Because its really jaded...and you knew it before you came.

[markw]

I get it, Markw....
this fish is still green behind the ears!!!
I try not to get too involved to the point of things affecting me, but lets give our friend here a little run for his money.It was simply a statement of personal preference and, as such, there is no need to respond.

Besides, in all my years on various boards, I've never seen anyone's opinions swayed by these types of threads.

IOW, it's like someone saying "Chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor."

Now, if one thinks that's worth starting a thread over, much less engaging in a discussion about, well then, go for it.

I, OTOH, see it as a form of stroking one's ego and a plea for a partner in mutual mental masturbation.

[JohnMichael]

It was simply a statement of personal preference and, as such, there is no need to respond.

Besides, in all my years on various boards, I've never seen anyone's opinions swayed by these types of threads.

IOW, it's like someone saying "Chocolate is the best ice-cream flavor."

Now, if one thinks that's worth starting a thread over, much less engaging in a discussion about, well then, go for it.

I, OTOH, see it as a form of stroking one's ego and a plea for a partner in mutual mental masturbation.




Bravo, Bravo!

[02audionoob]

I personally think iTunes is really the only way to go. I can plug my iPhone into a BOSE computer speaker setup and mop the floor with any analog system under $10k.

[poppachubby]

I personally think iTunes is really the only way to go. I can plug my iPhone into a BOSE computer speaker setup and mop the floor with any analog system under $10k.

That's an interesting point, but Bose speakers?!? I use my Beats by Dr.Dre earbuds for that ultimate, resolving tone. They go down to 130hz. Word.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That's an interesting point, but Bose speakers?!? I use my Beats by Dr.Dre earbuds for that ultimate, resolving tone. They go down to 130hz. Word.

:lol::lol::lol:

[Smokey]

Realistic sound = tubes and analogue

Of course it does. With under powered and high distortion tube amp, and low dynamic and high noise vinyl format one wonder why we ever moved on :cool:

[jrhymeammo]

Looks like you got a great analog setup.
To me, it sounds like you just found a great combination that works for you.
The Shelter 501mk2 was one of the worst sounding cartridges to my ears, but it is considered one of the best sub $1K cartridges. At more than half of its price, I find the Denon 301mk2 to perform much more true to how real music is supposed to sound.

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

[jrhymeammo]

Of course it does. With under powered and high distortion tube amp, and low dynamic and high noise vinyl format one wonder why we ever moved on :cool:

Smokey! :D

[tube fan]

Smokey! :D

Of course, the speakers have to be mated to the tube amp. My Audio Research D-70 puts out plenty of power for my Fulton J speakers. Yes, Fulton voiced their J speakers with Audio Research equipment. I don't think a SET tube unit would work.

Check out the latest Stereophile, especially the review of the Audio Research VSi60 integrated amp (given a rave review by RJR) and the measurements by John Atkinson (less than impressed with the unit based on measurements). HOWEVER, when John reviewed the $80,000 Acapella High Violoncello II speaker, the ss Classe CTM-600 and the ss Simaudio Moon EvolutionW-7 failed to produce realistic sound. The BAT VK-55SE (put in class A) sounded better, but, when John used the very same Audio Research amp that just measured OK, it raised the sound of the speakers to new heights (for John). He should try the AR amp with other speakers (plus, he should reconsider his measurements, as they clearly do not indicate how realistic an amp can make a speaker sound).

If you have not compared a vinyl version to the CD version of the same performance (using a good TT and cartridge), you are in for a shock. I know those who heard Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby" on several CD formats at the show were shocked how much better my vinyl record of the same performance was. Don't be stubborn, compare both CDs and Vinyl on the same performances, and let your ears decide.

[jrhymeammo]

I do it all the time brotha. It's just a personal preferrance, but I choose to live to analogue's shortcomings over digital flaw most of the time. But as you know, digital playback walks all over analogue from time to time.

Also, I was making a comment to Smokey because he continues to believe tube amps' 2nd order harmonic distortion harms listening pleasure.

[PeruvianSkies]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here play electric guitar? If so, have you ever played the same guitar on similar Tube-driven vs. solid state amps? What was your experience like?

I always felt that tube amps for guitars were very warm, fat, and presented the sound in a very unveiled type of way, which is also true in my limited experience with higher-end tube amps in HT and 2-channel applications.

[blackraven]

I have a tube preamp and a more tubey than typical sounding s/s amp -- so OK. We won't debate here whether "tonal saturation" is really just excessive 2nd order harmonic distortion.

As for analog vs. digital, it's pretty much a non-issue for me because virtually none of the music I listen to (classical) is available in anything but digital nowadays.

The non-oversampling, non-filtered AN DACs might sound nice but $5k much less $9.5k are absurd on my budget. Maybe I'll try one of the non-oversampling, non-filtered $150 Chinese knock-offs just for fun, but the word is that NOS has punchy bass but relatively poor resolution.

Try a Van Alstine Tube or Hybrid DAC for about $1500! And my system with both a hybrid DAC and Preamp along with my SS amp has a nice analog sound.

An I agree with Pops, Marantz CD players have a very unique analog sound and their reference series are great.

[tube fan]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here play electric guitar? If so, have you ever played the same guitar on similar Tube-driven vs. solid state amps? What was your experience like?

I always felt that tube amps for guitars were very warm, fat, and presented the sound in a very unveiled type of way, which is also true in my limited experience with higher-end tube amps in HT and 2-channel applications.

Yes, tubes rock! I just listened to the great "Dead can Dance" vinyl, and let me know when digital can come close to that sound! "Unveiled" is just another way of saying "real"!

[frenchmon]

Yes, tubes rock! I just listened to the great "Dead can Dance" vinyl, and let me know when digital can come close to that sound! "Unveiled" is just another way of saying "real"!

Your opinion concerning vinyl versus digital is just that, your opinion. Every person has one.....but the unveiled comment is clearly wrong and subject to your "witch hunt" to find the perfect live performance from tube audio. "Unveiled" does not mean real. It only describes in audio circles what is also known as clarity and/or distinction of the sound. Just as an image can be veiled, so can sound. Veil does not equate to real.

[poppachubby]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here play electric guitar? If so, have you ever played the same guitar on similar Tube-driven vs. solid state amps? What was your experience like?

I always felt that tube amps for guitars were very warm, fat, and presented the sound in a very unveiled type of way, which is also true in my limited experience with higher-end tube amps in HT and 2-channel applications.


There is little debate about tube amps to drive a guitar. While some guys prefer solid state units, they will rarely despise tubes like in the audio world. I own an Ampeg V4 which has the biggest and fattest tone I have ever heard. When I gigged regularily, guys would come after the show and comment. Tubes offer a stringed instrument everything a player could want, but tone is the key.

As for 2 channel my Golden Tube can mop the floor with alot of SS amps, and at 40 wpc it's nothing to sneeze at. Is it accurate and unveiled? Is it dark and sludgy?

It's quite frankly a giant killing, music making machine. But if someone doesn't like the sound of tubes, they won't agree. Oh well.

Today I pick up my Ariston and kiss digital bye-bye.

[markw]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here play electric guitar? If so, have you ever played the same guitar on similar Tube-driven vs. solid state amps? What was your experience like?

I always felt that tube amps for guitars were very warm, fat, and presented the sound in a very unveiled type of way, which is also true in my limited experience with higher-end tube amps in HT and 2-channel applications.Guitars depend on the added distortion of tube amps. That's why many design solid state guitar amps and accessory boxes with variable levels of distortion/crunch.

I read this somewhere, and it's truth has stuck with me ever since.

"Tubes produce music. Transistors reproduce music."

[theaudiohobby]

"Tubes produce music. Transistors reproduce music."
A'int that the truth :lol:

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Guitars depend on the added distortion of tube amps. That's why many design solid state guitar amps and accessory boxes with variable levels of distortion/crunch.

I read this somewhere, and it's truth has stuck with me ever since.

"Tubes produce music. Transistors reproduce music."

Bravo!

[RGA]

Feaner

Yes the prices of the units brought to the show were high for the common folk. They have a new zero series - a Zero dac around a grand. And a kit DAC for around that.

I was at soundhounds yesterday and heard an interesting set-up. A B&W D800 their Diamond 20K plus speakers with a soolos meridian interface with Classe's top preamp and power amp. The dealer put the the AN DAC 2.1X in (to be able to stomach it all) and I have to say it was by far the best I have heard the D800 sound. I wouldn't buy it because the bass (definitely needed the subwoofer - probably could have turned it up louder) is always so lightweight in room but the mids and highs were much better than usual. A Dac can make a nice improvement surprising because the AN Dacs don't play nice with other gear sometimes but it did here. Classe is always a nicer than usual sounding SS match with brightish speakers like the B&Ws. Terry did a good job of getting those speakers to sound good. They also have the new 1.7 and it too sounded better than the rather crappy sound of CES. My dealer carries Bryston and is smart enough not to match it up with magnepan - top end Sim Audio and it sounded quite a bit better.

PS - to the Quad poster - my dealer runs my 10 watt amp with the 2905. The Quads are not tough to drive - for decades one of the most popular amps running the Quad 57 and 63 was the Sugden A21a back then a 10 watt amp. Planars need more power which is unfortunate because they then have to use high damping factor high negative feedback amps and whatever the advantage the speaker actually may have is lost because of the amplifier. I have tried 2 digital amps with some saying they sounded like SETs with grip but I found they sound even more artificial than a good regular class A SS amp. I'd like to try a Jinro on a Maggie 1.7. The Jinro is 22 watts or something but it is stable into a dead short. It should therefore control any load presented to it. Run it from the 4ohm tap and Maggies are fairly stable.

The reason I may not like Magnepan is because they may actually be picking up MORE of the nasties that I don't like about SS amps. I'm going to have to try and get them to run a more powerful tube amp. They have a 40 watt Octave tube amp which may work better and an AN source and then I'll be able to tell what Magnepan can truly offer. Bryston (Brightsound) is not really Magnepan's fault. Why those two showed together is boggling. Bryston got 3/5 stars in Hi-Fi Choice with comments about bright edgy and that was a blind panel level matched session and the Sima Audio match up was a lot better. I may drop by again today and have another go. See what it can do with Lady Gaga at 90-100db with my 8 watt OTO. (okay not 100 db)

[GMichael]

Just out of curiosity, does anyone here play electric guitar? If so, have you ever played the same guitar on similar Tube-driven vs. solid state amps? What was your experience like?

I always felt that tube amps for guitars were very warm, fat, and presented the sound in a very unveiled type of way, which is also true in my limited experience with higher-end tube amps in HT and 2-channel applications.
I used to play and had a 100w tube driven Fender Reverb amp. I paid $250 for it in 1981 used and sold it last year for $750. It had certain tonal qualities around the mids that the SS didn’t have IMO. Not sure if that is the same for stereo amps though. Seems like a whole different ball game to me.
FYI,
That thing could heat a small house in the winter.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I used to play and had a 100w tube driven Fender Reverb amp. I paid $250 for it in 1981 used and sold it last year for $750. It had certain tonal qualities around the mids that the SS didn’t have IMO. Not sure if that is the same for stereo amps though. Seems like a whole different ball game to me.
FYI,
That thing could heat a small house in the winter.

I think that underlined statement is exactly why they are not suitable for studio monitoring situations. Tube amps have certain tonal qualities, and it would impart them on a studio master during playback. That is not what an audio engineer is looking for in a monitoring system.

[Geoffcin]

Tubed guitar amps are generally preferred simply because you CAN distort the waveform so easily with tubed gear. That "Fat" sound is a reflection of the distorted waveform and not a true representation of the actual waveform of the string.

[GMichael]

It sure kicked butt.

[Geoffcin]

Without a doubt!

[theaudiohobby]

PS - to the Quad poster - my dealer runs my 10 watt amp with the 2905. The Quads are not tough to drive - for decades one of the most popular amps running the Quad 57 and 63 was the Sugden A21a back then a 10 watt amp. Poor choices given the low sensitivity of both speakers (83-84dB./2.83V/m), the amplifier would run out of puff long before the speakers hit 93dB. While the 2905 may well sound decent sound with 10watts, it would come alive with more power.
My dealer carries Bryston and is smart enough not to match it up with magnepan - top end Sim Audio and it sounded quite a bit betterOn the otherhand, I read accounts from owners of Maggies who drive them quite happily with Bryston and have no complaints of excess brightness.

[tube fan]

The Maggie's sound great with Audio Research tubes, and I bet the AN Jinro would be a great match.

I go to a lot of blind wine tastings, and I would love to see some blind tube/ss and digital/analogue matchups. I go to a lot of live musical events (at least 3 a week), and neither ss nor digital sound real (of course to me). I still remember going to an audio store long ago that compared about a dozen speakers blind (matched for level). When they got to the AR 3a, I shouted: "that's it!" The rest of the speakers were crap in comparison. I would love to get a group together to do a blind listening event comparing ss/tubes and digital/analogue. BTW, my Audio Research tube units are nothing like "typical" tube sound (slow, fat).

[RGA]

Yes the OTO could not play the Quad very loud for sure, but then quality is not the same as quantity. The N801 sounded marvelous with an 11 watt Set from Wyatech labs or Nuvista can't remember - best actual sound quality I have heard from the speaker. But the money outlay and the volume capability limits would make the scenario unnacceptable - the problem was that they tried McIntosh, Rotel, Bryston, MF, Sim Audio, Classe (all SS brands they carry). All could play loudly to satisfy but none sounded as nice. Certainly a frustrating situation for those of us with good ears who can actually hear the limitations of both the SET and the SS.

The Quad 2905 on the other hand can't play loud and doesn't have any real bass to speak of anyway and it's not like the "typical" buyers are interested in bass and volume. I suppose people who tried stacking them realized the huge failing - wanted the midband but more drive - stack them is the answer. But virtually everyone I know who did that eventually gave up and went to a boxed speaker.

The dealer had a guy travel 500km to listen to the 2905's on their top SS power amps from MF or Classe and the guy kept wanting to turn it up and up and Paul (Soundhounds dealer) just had to say this is all it can do - they'll break beyond this. The fellow was roundly dissatisifed. They're not about loud and they're not about bass so if you play them at low medium levels the OTO can do it. (I should make a correction - this was the OTO PP version not the SE version - my mistake).

But it would be the same as the B&W SET issue that the money outlay would demand something else because you will want to turn it up from time to time. Tube amps do have a knack of sounding a little louder than their watt ratings and they also seem quite fine being pushed beyond their limits(though they distort). I'd probably look more at 40Watt+ tube amps for the Quad. Grant Fidelity's Rita is 45watts but is very powerful sounding and can ramp it up to 450watts - though it has a slightly leaner presentation. BAT makes a 150Watt zero feedback amp (monoblocks) that might be overkill. Andy Grove of Audio Note designed Quad's top amps several years back. Manley Labs also makes less expensive high power amps. Shengya PM 150 monoblocks at 300 watts into 4ohms is a very interesting tube hybrid power amp with better bass depth than the Rita and a fuller sounding presentation. And can hit very very hard. $1600 for a pair and they each weigh in at over 40lbs.

As for people liking Magnepan with Bryston - you are probably correct. I am going by a sample size of one Magnepan dealer who also sells Bryston and my own auditions. Granted subjective opinions are subjective - after all if "majority" votes counted then Bose is the best speaker maker and McDonalds makes the best hamburger. George Bush got a second term and Britanny Spears probably outsold the entire classical musical catalog combined in her big years and Ace Ventura pet Detective made a lot more money at the theaters than The Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show combined (both nominated for best picture). Like the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste."

Edit: Correction Andy Grove designed the Quad TwentyFour/II Forty preamp power amps. They are designed for the panels and are 40 watts. My prediction of 40 watts plus wasn't too shabby. http://www.allegrosound.com/Quad_II-forty.pdf

[theaudiohobby]

Yes the OTO could not play the Quad very loud for sure, but then quality is not the same as quantity. The N801 sounded marvelous with an 11 watt Set from Wyatech labs or Nuvista can't remember - best actual sound quality I have heard from the speaker. You've expressed your opinion, and here's mine, I do not regard an amp rated at 10Wch but puts out only 4 'undistorted' Wch as a quality amplifier. If a speaker has audible loudness limitations when driven by a given amplifier, the amplifier is heavily distorting and that's a not quality pairing IMO YMMV but personally do not care for high distortion even if it flatters certain simple music programs, You may like your music with huge dollops of distortion, I don't, But as you say, there's no accounting for taste. :wink5:

Certainly a frustrating situation for those of us with good ears who can actually hear the limitations of both the SET and the SSSmacks of someone who strains a gnat but then let's through a camel, doesn't say much for those of you with supposedly good ears. :aureola: :nono:

Edit: Correction Andy Grove designed the Quad TwentyFour/II Forty preamp power amps. They are designed for the panels and are 40 watts. My prediction of 40 watts plus wasn't too shabby. http://www.allegrosound.com/Quad_II-forty.pdfIMO, your prediction is unreasonably optimistic, 40Wch can barely drive the Quad ESL, claiming it was designed to drive panels is a quite a stretch.:eek6:

As for people liking Magnepan with Bryston - you are probably correct. I am going by a sample size of one Magnepan dealer who also sells Bryston and my own auditions. Granted subjective opinions are subjective - after all if "majority" votes counted then Bose is the best speaker maker and McDonalds makes the best hamburger. George Bush got a second term and Britanny Spears probably outsold the entire classical musical catalog combined in her big years and Ace Ventura pet Detective made a lot more money at the theaters than The Shawshank Redemption and Quiz Show combined (both nominated for best picture). Like the saying goes "there's no accounting for taste."All this nastiness and presumption on the basis of your auditions at your local dealer :rolleyes:,

[RGA]

The Quad amplifier was designed for their panels. Same manufacturer - If you think the Quad 24 rig can't drive the Quad then you are calling Quad incompetent - which is fine by me but then if they are stupid why would you buy loudspeakers from them. They have already demonstrated their incompetence in building a 40 watt amp and you now trust them to build your speakers? That illustrates an even dumber consumer.

As for your "theory" I have actually auditioned the OTO with the 2905 - You like making guesses about what things you have never bothered to try. And why on earth would the dealer with all those amplifier choices sit in the big comfy chairs and listen to the OTO driving the Quads? I guess none of the guys working there have good ears right. The 20,000 LPS and almost that in CDs and selling almost every brand for 35 years would decide to just bad-partner gear for the heck of it. Lame posters look at a spec sheet and draw conclusions based on zero experience. The fact that Audio Note's boss owns several Quad electrostatic panels and sold them for decades himself can't be right that the SET tube amp sounds better with Quads.

And Quad has to be clueless as well because they thought so highly of Audio Note UK amplifiers with their Quad Electrostatic loudspeaker that they hired the AN UK amplifier designer and trusted him with arguably the face of their amplifier line. That's not theory - that's fact.

So let's see - You have AN UK'S Boss who sold Quad for decades and tried every amp he sold or made with them. You have Quad like the match so much they hired the AN UK guy to build the amp for the panels - both manufacturers and all the designers think it's a good match. And then my dealer who carries a pile of highly raved about high power solid state designs decide to run a low powered tube cause it sounds better.

All of them are wrong and a guy on a forum with zero credentials and zero actual experience with the actual products is correct because he read a spec sheet. :frown2:

40 tube watts isn't enough to play the Quads - LOL.

[E-Stat]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation.
While I am also a fan of tube gear and have owned various ARC components since 1981, I will have to disagree here. I think you'll find that a REF5 sounds considerably more neutral than your SP-8 (I had an SP-6 myself). I have heard some exceptional SS (and digital) stuff from a number of companies. I use a mix of tube and SS along with analog and digital in both my music systems.

rw

[E-Stat]

Guitars depend on the added distortion of tube amps.
You'll find a substantial difference in the design, execution and resulting audio performance between a Mesa Boogie and a Joule Electra Rite of Passage amp. First of all, high fidelity tube amps run Class A or highly biased Class AB for optimum linearity. Such is NOT the case with guitar amps. They are biased very *cool* for maximum output capability AND intentional crossover distortion. Secondly, the characteristic tone has to do with the clipping characteristics of the guitar amp and the tubes used. They refer to this constant clipping as its "overdrive" characteristics. In effect, they are always turned up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10. I think you'll find that if you always clipped your SS amps, that there would be pretty high distortion, too - at least until they failed ! As for me, I don't run my amps in constant clipping. Do you? The following will help describe this intentional distortion approach better found here. (http://www.gmarts.org/index.php?go=217)

The Fender and Marshall designs use class AB for their output designs, biased with the valves almost off with no signal. This is more efficient (more watts per tube), and better for tube life. When you play, tubes take turns handling each half of the signal. This leads to some minor distortion as the tubes cross over which is all but eliminated with the negative feedback. Class A designs are rare in medium to high power guitar amps, but true class A has the tubes operating at half power with no signal applied. When you play, the tube fluctuates between full and no power, so there is no switching to add unwanted distortion.

rw

[markw]

As for me, I don't run my amps in constant clipping. Do you?Your entire post starts from and simply expands on what I said. If anything, it strengthens my point.

So, why the confrontational tone here?

I'm not a guitar player but I've heard enough and know enough that I can say with confidence that the great majority prefer tubes for their tone in their guitar amps. Surprisingly enough, the few I know well enough to call friends have SS for their home stereos.

[E-Stat]

Your entire post starts from and simply expands on what I said. If anything, it strengthens my point.
This statement: "Tubes produce music. Transistors reproduce music." is conditional based upon two factors:

1. Using a design that is NOT intended for linearity.
2. The device is intentionally overdriven for creating the desired "effect".

If that was your point, it was not very well qualified. It depends upon choices, not inherent qualities.


Surprisingly enough, the few I know well enough to call friends have SS for their home stereos.
There is no doubt that SS is usually cheaper and more practical.

rw

[GMichael]

I think I just got called cheap. If so, you're right. I am cheap.

[E-Stat]

Tube amps have certain tonal qualities, and it would impart them on a studio master during playback. That is not what an audio engineer is looking for in a monitoring system.
Only a fool would use a low fidelity guitar amp like a Fender for musical reproduction since they were not intended for that use. That would be like selecting a pickup truck for autocross racing.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

The slight twist to your story is noted, now the amp is designed to drive Quad stat panels

The Quad amplifier was designed for their panels. Same manufacturer - If you think the Quad 24 rig can't drive the Quad then you are calling Quad incompetent - which is fine by me but then if they are stupid why would you buy loudspeakers from them.
Quad make electrostatic speakers and tube amplifiers therefore their 40Wch tube amplifier is designed to drive panels, a very good example of simplistic thinking. At least your new story is partially correct as the minimum recomended power for the 2905 is 40Wch.

As for your "theory" I have actually auditioned the OTO with the 2905I do not doubt that you did so, probably sounded nice on some recordings too, it is still a daft pairing, you just done telling us that the pairing could not go loud a few posts ago, i.e. dynamically stunted at 79dB/1m that's unsurprising, a 10Wch amplifier can go only so far before it runs out of puff.

You have AN UK'S Boss who sold Quad for decades and tried every amp he sold or made with them.He is hardly a disinterested party, the guy's peddling low power tube amps.:rolleyes:

[theaudiohobby]

...Secondly, the characteristic tone has to do with the clipping characteristics of the guitar amp and the tubes used. They refer to this constant clipping as its "overdrive" characteristics. In effect, they are always turned up to 11 on a scale of 1 to 10RGA's account above of driving the Quad 2905 (79dB) with the OTO, 4 'low distortion' Wpch, would most probably produce similar results to the above i.e. heavily distorted output from the amp, comments to the effect that the pairing could not go loud is a telltale sign of how hard the amp was working.

[E-Stat]

RGA's account above of driving the Quad 2905 (79dB) with the OTO, 4 'low distortion' Wpch, would most probably produce similar results to the above i.e. heavily distorted output from the amp, comments to the effect that the pairing could not go loud is a telltale sign of how hard the amp was working.
Perhaps, although the circuit topology of guitar amps is comparatively crude and anything but single ended Class A. The trick is that guitar players want to clip the amp!

rw

[RGA]

Perhaps, although the circuit topology of guitar amps is comparatively crude and anything but single ended Class A. The trick is that guitar players want to clip the amp!

rw

Exactly and the home audio user can avoid clipping the amp by not being heavy handed with the control knob. Hence the entire point of "not" being able to play the Quad loud witht the OTO.

[markw]

This statement: "Tubes produce music. Transistors reproduce music." is conditional based upon two factors:

1. Using a design that is NOT intended for linearity.
2. The device is intentionally overdriven for creating the desired "effect".

If that was your point, it was not very well qualified. It depends upon choices, not inherent qualities.Since you adamantly prefer tubes,they must add something to the music that you feel is missing from sold-state units. That's all well and good, but it still seems that that "added" something is an additive quality. What would one call that?

But, hey, it's all good. Some people prefer to slather mushrooms, onions, and steak sauce on a fine aged porterhouse. As long as it's not my steak, what difference is it to me? And, if one prefers their music with just a smidgen of even order harmonics, that's no skin off my teeth either.


There is no doubt that SS is usually cheaper and more practicalI think "more economical" would have been a better word than "cheap", but I guess you subconsciously chose that for some strange reason. As another possible positive attribute to SS, perhaps good ones are just a tad more accurate to the source signal?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Only a fool would use a low fidelity guitar amp like a Fender for musical reproduction since they were not intended for that use. That would be like selecting a pickup truck for autocross racing.

rw

I was not referring to guitar amps, and am not sure why you thought so. I guess If I don't put everything out there in great detail, you will just fill in the blanks with your assumptions. Keep in mind when you do this - it is YOUR assumptions, not my detail.

[RGA]

Since you adamantly prefer tubes,they must add something to the music that you feel is missing from sold-state units. That's all well and good, but it still seems that that "added" something is an additive quality. What would one call that?

That depends on the way you hear it. You are assuming that the perception is that the tube is adding something while my perception is that the SS is "missing" something - most of everything that matters.

My perception of the sound mirrors this "The word “semiconductor” really means what it says and it says it all, “half”-conductor, sonically this could be translated to mean half the signal! Which is really what it sounds like. Pure and simple, transistors are highly un-linear and need a lot of correction (feedback of some sort) to have a bandwidth wide enough to be able to reproduce any music signals, they are not natural voltage amplifiers." And I would add as a result don't sound natural.

People tend to prefer tubes because they sound more natural, more like instruments, more like voices, more like real music. Most people under the age of 50 grew up on solid state amplification and while Tubes may "add" some unwanted things I would rather that than take out some noise but gut chunks of the music signal.

SS typically all sounds the same. There is a reason why no one passes double blind listening experiemnts because while the very same SS supporter will dump in tube amps they will happily tell people that spending $30,000 on a top bryston sounds SO MUCH better than a 3BSST. Which in reality that person will NEVER pass a blind test EVER. The same people who trust the "science" of SS is best will then throw it out and "trust" their ears that the $30k bryston is better sounding. That is truly hilarious and patently hypocritical.

Tubes and SET are what many audiophiles end up with after owning the likes of Bryston. This is not a retro movement with 70 year olds longing for the old days of tubes out of nostalgia. Actually some of the older farts probably need the shrieking treble of SS to help out their loss of HF hearing. :ciappa:

[markw]

That depends on the way you hear it. You are assuming that the perception is that the tube is adding something while my perception is that the SS is "missing" something - most of everything that matters.

My perception of the sound mirrors this "The word “semiconductor” really means what it says and it says it all, “half”-conductor, sonically this could be translated to mean half the signal! Which is really what it sounds like. Pure and simple, transistors are highly un-linear and need a lot of correction (feedback of some sort) to have a bandwidth wide enough to be able to reproduce any music signals, they are not natural voltage amplifiers." And I would add as a result don't sound natural.

People tend to prefer tubes because they sound more natural, more like instruments, more like voices, more like real music. Most people under the age of 50 grew up on solid state amplification and while Tubes may "add" some unwanted things I would rather that than take out some noise but gut chunks of the music signal.

SS typically all sounds the same. There is a reason why no one passes double blind listening experiemnts because while the very same SS supporter will dump in tube amps they will happily tell people that spending $30,000 on a top bryston sounds SO MUCH better than a 3BSST. Which in reality that person will NEVER pass a blind test EVER. The same people who trust the "science" of SS is best will then throw it out and "trust" their ears that the $30k bryston is better sounding. That is truly hilarious and patently hypocritical.

Tubes and SET are what many audiophiles end up with after owning the likes of Bryston. This is not a retro movement with 70 year olds longing for the old days of tubes out of nostalgia. Actually some of the older farts probably need the shrieking treble of SS to help out their loss of HF hearing. :ciappa:As I said earlier:


But, hey, it's all good. Some people prefer to slather mushrooms, onions, and steak sauce on a fine aged porterhouse. As long as it's not my steak, what difference is it to me? And, if one prefers their music with just a smidgen of even order harmonics, that's no skin off my teeth either.

[theaudiohobby]

Exactly and the home audio user can avoid clipping the amp by not being heavy handed with the control knob. Hence the entire point of "not" being able to play the Quad loud witht the OTO.Unfortunately, it's not that simple :)

[RGA]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple :)

Fortunately, it is that simple. :)

[theaudiohobby]

Fortunately, it is that simple. :)How does such a set up deal with dynamic peaks? :idea: turn down the control knob? :)

[RGA]

If the amp has a 4ohm tap, which it does, the dynamic "request" the speaker makes on the amp will not require it to work hard - amplifiers also have reserves for "peak" requests such as dynamic swings. If the volume in this case is relatively low and most normal medium/low listening is 75db-80db or lower at the listening chair (including the peaks) an amplifier barely needs a watt. At higher volumes low power mated to low sensitivity is a problem - but then I already said that. :)

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

If the amp has a 4ohm tap, which it does, the dynamic "request" the speaker makes on the amp will not require it to work hard - amplifiers also have reserves for "peak" requests such as dynamic swings. If the volume in this case is relatively low and most normal medium/low listening is 75db-80db or lower at the listening chair (including the peaks) an amplifier barely needs a watt. At higher volumes low power mated to low sensitivity is a problem - but then I already said that. :)

It's is not that simple really. If the peak is in the midrange or high frequencies, it may have the dynamic reserves to cover that peak. When it occurs in the bass frequencies, the demands on an amplifier become quite large, in some cases double or triple the output than the midrange or high frequencies would require.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

SS typically all sounds the same. There is a reason why no one passes double blind listening experiemnts because while the very same SS supporter will dump in tube amps they will happily tell people that spending $30,000 on a top bryston sounds SO MUCH better than a 3BSST. Which in reality that person will NEVER pass a blind test EVER. The same people who trust the "science" of SS is best will then throw it out and "trust" their ears that the $30k bryston is better sounding. That is truly hilarious and patently hypocritical.

As a person who CAN hear the difference between the 3BSST, and the 28BSST I beg to differ with your hypothesis. SS do not all sound exactly the same, there are very subtle differences between any SS amp when paired to a speaker sitting in a room.

Those differences may not be punch you in the face differences(and I never expect them to be), but they are audible, even if subtle, but you can hear them.

However, that is not a reason to choose a 28BSST over a 3BSST. I have a VERY large room with 9 very large speakers in it. Because of the speaker placement(and the size of the room) I get no room gain in the lower frequencies. So while a 150 wpc 3BSST would do well to push the low frequencies in the room, a 1000 watt monoblock 28BSST does it with ease. What differences can you hear. It is what I call "system ease". It is when a system sounds totally relaxed while reproducing extremely demanding passages. That is the audible difference between a 3B and a 28B. Example, when I auditioned the 3B and the 28B, I used Micky Hart's Planet Drum project. One particular piece called "Temple Caves" has a VERY deep bass drum part that really distinguished the differences between these two amps. The 3B impressively played the big bass part, and it really sounded good. However when the 28B played back that same part, the very low end really bloomed in the room, and you could feel the bass wave move through the room. Even at high volumes, the 28B sounded more powerful, and more relaxed at reproducing this difficult for any amplifier to reproduce passage. More of the fundamentals of the drum were exposed, and its decay was fully realized, and that didn't quite happen with the 3B. No matter what we listen to, whether it be the High Altitude Drums, or the Canon shots in the 1812, the 28B was just better at fleshing out clearly the difficult to reproduce passages in each recording. Where there any magical differences in the midrange and high frequencies? No, not to these ears, but the dynamic capabilities when paired with my SC-V's showed a very noticeable difference. This also went for the 4B, and to a lesser degree on the 7B and the 14B.

One of the first things I learned about critical listening, is to not listen for the obvious, but to listen to what would not be obvious.

[RGA]

It's is not that simple really. If the peak is in the midrange or high frequencies, it may have the dynamic reserves to cover that peak. When it occurs in the bass frequencies, the demands on an amplifier become quite large, in some cases double or triple the output than the midrange or high frequencies would require.

That is not entirely correct. Impedence typically drops with lower frequencies as do some speakers in the treble. If a speaker dips to 2 ohms that requires double the amplifier power on the 4 ohm tap. But that only depends on the speaker's minimum impedence. A stable loudspeaker that does not go below 4ohms on a 4 ohm tap of the amplifier places no such demand on the amplifier. A 20hz note at 4ohms places no greater demand on an amplifier than a 1khz note at 4ohms. Amplifiers don't care about frequency the care about impedence - so while it is true that bass (of the speaker) usually presents a more difficult impedence on the amplifier that really depends on the loudspeaker and not the amplifier's watt rating. Amplifier power supplies are not all created equally despite the watt rating.

The only reason Bass is any sort of issue is because the speaker that is rated 8 ohms with a low power amp at 8ohms will have trouble if the speaker drops to 2-3ohms which "usually" occurs in the bass region. The amplifier is asked to draw many times it's rated power to successfully reach the note. That still comes down to not pushing the amplifier. It is easier with amplifiers with a watt meter and a tube amp was running in a Vancouver shop and it would play music and you could see the amp hovering at 1watt. Under a dynamic swing the meter would jump to 8-12 watts. But this was playing very very loud with bass and with reltaively hard to speakers. Even an 85db sensitive speaker gets that with 1 watt at 1 meter - most people don't listen that loud. 75db at the listening chair is pretty loud and you're arguably getting this with less than a watt of power regardless of the amplifier. Even if you measure the bass line peak at 85db which IMO is excessive but even if you did running the 4 ohm tap from the tube amp with a reasonably stable impedence speaker it is not like you're pushing the amp into distortion at all into these levels. If you raise all these db levels by 10db and running 8db with a swing into the 95db-100db range then the 5-8 watt amp is going to be out of the question. It won't be able to handle the dynamic swings and it won't be able to carry the bass which will sound bloated muddy/mushy.

That is why I said - it can't play loud but the impedence swing only becomes an issue if the swing itself rises above the amp's capability to meet the swing. The OTO and most good amps are able to easily swing many times their power ratings. The Rita is 45 watts but can jump to 450watts to meet dynamic needs.

Here is an example:

To give you some perspective on music playback in the home, "quiet" music would fall in the 75-dB range, whereas "quite loud" music would measure about 85 dB SPL at your favorite spot on the couch. For purposes of illustration, let's go back to our example of listening to a recording of a solo concert-grand piano of Chopin piano works at average levels of 76 to 86 dB, using a pair of M80ti loudspeakers at a distance of 12 feet. According to our previous calculations, this would require perhaps 1 watt per channel of amplifier power, a modest demand for even the least expensive A/V receiver or small amplifier. If the pianist on the CD was playing Chopin's Grand Polonaise, however, and one of those spectacular chords in the bass octaves of the piano comes along, your amplifier and speakers will suddenly have to produce levels of 96 or 100 dB SPL without distorting, because Chopin's piano works have sudden and extreme changes in musical dynamics. Remember that a 10-dB increase in subjective loudness ("twice as loud") demands ten times as much power, or in our example, 10 watts, a level any receiver or amp will easily produce."

Obviously no one would ever bother to buy a 4 watt amplifier with the Quad 2905 a 83db sensitive speaker like I say - it can't play all that loud without having a problem. But it's what the amp does at 1watt that sees every SS amp in the store off. Even a "bad match" with the Quad in a volume level scenario still sounds better when the music is in the 75-85db range. The guys selling them find this to be so. And it's why Quad themselves make the partnering 40 watt tube. That amp can easily cover any dynamic swing the 2905 has at the volume the speaker is typically able to produce. So while a dynamic swing may be 10db higher than average - you simply factor that into the volume level you set a lower powered amp at. Tubes typically soft clip under dynamic extremes and is less of an issue than hard clipping nature of solid state amps. For an amp such as the OTO it would be best to have 90db easy load speakers at the minimum in a small/medium room.

[theaudiohobby]

That is not entirely correct. Impedence typically drops with lower frequencies as do some speakers in the treble. If a speaker dips to 2 ohms that requires double the amplifier power on the 4 ohm tap. But that only depends on the speaker's minimum impedence. A stable loudspeaker that does not go below 4ohms on a 4 ohm tap of the amplifier places no such demand on the amplifier. A 20hz note at 4ohms places no greater demand on an amplifier than a 1khz note at 4ohms. Amplifiers don't care about frequency the care about impedenceYou are way off the mark. For example, have a look at this amplifier(a Rogue Tempest II), for a power output 10W, it puts out at least 2X more distortion at 50Hz than it does at 500Hz, and distortion worsens as the power output increases, therefore during a dynamic peak with significant bass content this amplifier would produce considerably higher distortion in comparison to a peak with little bass content.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/rogue_tempest_ii/chart3.gif

[RGA]

You are way off the mark. For example, have a look at this amplifier(a Rogue Tempest II), for a power output 10W, it puts out at least 2X more distortion at 50Hz than it does at 500Hz, and distortion worsens as the power output increases, therefore during a dynamic peak with significant bass content this amplifier would produce considerably higher distortion in comparison to a peak with little bass content.

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/rogue_tempest_ii/chart3.gif

Does every tube amplifier on the planet do this? Is this what you are saying that every tube amp on the planet at 50hz exhibits 2X more distortion? Twice the distortion - umm under 1% at 50hz and under 1% under 500hz. At 20hz the amp is under 1.5% - have you lost the plot. I know you love arguing theory but let's try to put things into some rational perspective. You will NEVER hear any of this.

Though I find it interesting that once again the review where you took that from, Soundstage, the reviewer bought the amplifier - even after he saw the measurements of the SS amps on his own website. LOL. Too funny.

[tube fan]

While I am also a fan of tube gear and have owned various ARC components since 1981, I will have to disagree here. I think you'll find that a REF5 sounds considerably more neutral than your SP-8 (I had an SP-6 myself). I have heard some exceptional SS (and digital) stuff from a number of companies. I use a mix of tube and SS along with analog and digital in both my music systems.

rw

I'm not a fan of CJ tube gear: too slow, too soft. Also not a fan of the AR SP-6: too much ss in it. My AR SP 8 puts most "modern" phono units, ss OR tube to shame.

BTW, it's interesting that not only did JA have to turn to an AR tube unit to get the Acapella speaker to sound realistic (full, rich, balanced), Jon Valin had to use AR tubes to get the new Magneplaner 1.7 to keep from sounding two-dimensional. Yes, you can get depth and warmth from ss, but you never get the sense of three-dimensional instruments or singers; the body is missing. As AV puts it: "its rather as if you are getting a slice off the front of the instrument instead of the whole enchilada

[tube fan]

And, yes, I want the full enchilada!

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That is not entirely correct. Impedence typically drops with lower frequencies as do some speakers in the treble. If a speaker dips to 2 ohms that requires double the amplifier power on the 4 ohm tap. But that only depends on the speaker's minimum impedence. A stable loudspeaker that does not go below 4ohms on a 4 ohm tap of the amplifier places no such demand on the amplifier. A 20hz note at 4ohms places no greater demand on an amplifier than a 1khz note at 4ohms. Amplifiers don't care about frequency the care about impedence - so while it is true that bass (of the speaker) usually presents a more difficult impedence on the amplifier that really depends on the loudspeaker and not the amplifier's watt rating. Amplifier power supplies are not all created equally despite the watt rating.

The only reason Bass is any sort of issue is because the speaker that is rated 8 ohms with a low power amp at 8ohms will have trouble if the speaker drops to 2-3ohms which "usually" occurs in the bass region. The amplifier is asked to draw many times it's rated power to successfully reach the note. That still comes down to not pushing the amplifier. It is easier with amplifiers with a watt meter and a tube amp was running in a Vancouver shop and it would play music and you could see the amp hovering at 1watt. Under a dynamic swing the meter would jump to 8-12 watts. But this was playing very very loud with bass and with reltaively hard to speakers. Even an 85db sensitive speaker gets that with 1 watt at 1 meter - most people don't listen that loud. 75db at the listening chair is pretty loud and you're arguably getting this with less than a watt of power regardless of the amplifier. Even if you measure the bass line peak at 85db which IMO is excessive but even if you did running the 4 ohm tap from the tube amp with a reasonably stable impedence speaker it is not like you're pushing the amp into distortion at all into these levels. If you raise all these db levels by 10db and running 8db with a swing into the 95db-100db range then the 5-8 watt amp is going to be out of the question. It won't be able to handle the dynamic swings and it won't be able to carry the bass which will sound bloated muddy/mushy.

That is why I said - it can't play loud but the impedence swing only becomes an issue if the swing itself rises above the amp's capability to meet the swing. The OTO and most good amps are able to easily swing many times their power ratings. The Rita is 45 watts but can jump to 450watts to meet dynamic needs.

Here is an example:

To give you some perspective on music playback in the home, "quiet" music would fall in the 75-dB range, whereas "quite loud" music would measure about 85 dB SPL at your favorite spot on the couch. For purposes of illustration, let's go back to our example of listening to a recording of a solo concert-grand piano of Chopin piano works at average levels of 76 to 86 dB, using a pair of M80ti loudspeakers at a distance of 12 feet. According to our previous calculations, this would require perhaps 1 watt per channel of amplifier power, a modest demand for even the least expensive A/V receiver or small amplifier. If the pianist on the CD was playing Chopin's Grand Polonaise, however, and one of those spectacular chords in the bass octaves of the piano comes along, your amplifier and speakers will suddenly have to produce levels of 96 or 100 dB SPL without distorting, because Chopin's piano works have sudden and extreme changes in musical dynamics. Remember that a 10-dB increase in subjective loudness ("twice as loud") demands ten times as much power, or in our example, 10 watts, a level any receiver or amp will easily produce."

Obviously no one would ever bother to buy a 4 watt amplifier with the Quad 2905 a 83db sensitive speaker like I say - it can't play all that loud without having a problem. But it's what the amp does at 1watt that sees every SS amp in the store off. Even a "bad match" with the Quad in a volume level scenario still sounds better when the music is in the 75-85db range. The guys selling them find this to be so. And it's why Quad themselves make the partnering 40 watt tube. That amp can easily cover any dynamic swing the 2905 has at the volume the speaker is typically able to produce. So while a dynamic swing may be 10db higher than average - you simply factor that into the volume level you set a lower powered amp at. Tubes typically soft clip under dynamic extremes and is less of an issue than hard clipping nature of solid state amps. For an amp such as the OTO it would be best to have 90db easy load speakers at the minimum in a small/medium room.

If you are correct on this(and you are not) then why do we need larger drivers for the bass frequencies, and larger amps to power them. If everything relied solely on impedence, then there would be no need to bi amp anything, it is all the same to an amp.

The reason why we use subwoofers is to take the strain off the the main amps. Bass at 20hz requires WAY more power than a signal at 20khz or 1khz for that matter. I thought everyone knew this very basic information. It takes a big driver to reproduce the wavelengths of bass frequencies, and it take a lot of power to move the driver. Since the movements of a midrange and tweeter drivers are less, they require less power to move them. This is regardless of impedance. This is basic audio I thought....

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not a fan of CJ tube gear: too slow, too soft. Also not a fan of the AR SP-6: too much ss in it. My AR SP 8 puts most "modern" phono units, ss OR tube to shame.

BTW, it's interesting that not only did JA have to turn to an AR tube unit to get the Acapella speaker to sound realistic (full, rich, balanced), Jon Valin had to use AR tubes to get the new Magneplaner 1.7 to keep from sounding two-dimensional. Yes, you can get depth and warmth from ss, but you never get the sense of three-dimensional instruments or singers; the body is missing. As AV puts it: "its rather as if you are getting a slice off the front of the instrument instead of the whole enchilada

You NEVER get a sense of three dimensional instruments or singers, the body is missing??? Please tell me you are kidding, so I don't think that you are off your rocker.

One of the very things I love about the Bryston 28BSST is that sense of three dimensionality you get when the recording allows it. Lateral imaging and sound stage depth are some of that amps strong suits, especially when you combine it with a speaker like the SC-V.

[RGA]

If you are correct on this(and you are not) then why do we need larger drivers for the bass frequencies, and larger amps to power them. If everything relied solely on impedence, then there would be no need to bi amp anything, it is all the same to an amp.

The reason why we use subwoofers is to take the strain off the the main amps. Bass at 20hz requires WAY more power than a signal at 20khz or 1khz for that matter. I thought everyone knew this very basic information. It takes a big driver to reproduce the wavelengths of bass frequencies, and it take a lot of power to move the driver. Since the movements of a midrange and tweeter drivers are less, they require less power to move them. This is regardless of impedance. This is basic audio I thought....

You would think so but you would still not entirely be correct because larger loudspeakers ALSO tend to be MORE sensitive than small speakers meaning that larger speakers tend to be easier to drive. The easiest speaker I have in my home to drive is my Wharfedale - By far my OTO has the easiest time with this speaker despite the fact that it is a 3 driver speaker and uses a 10 inch woofer. The woofer cone does not need to be pushed as far. The piddly little standmounts from Totem need huge power to get their little 4 inch long throw woofers to work and their sensitivity and efficinecy are generally appalling. My amp by far would have more trouble driving that speaker using a 4 inch woofer than my wharfedales with an extra driver and a 10 inch woofer. And the Wharfedales have deeper bass and can play a lot louder with ease. The previous speaker to my Wharfedale is here and even they note that a flea watt amp can easily drive them. http://www.hi-fiworld.co.uk/hfw/oldeworldehtml/wharfedalee70.html

The Vanguard was a late 80's version with better drivers and a better layout - 40hz-23khz with a flatter frequency and better staging.

If you look at the VAST majority of all systems using a 1.5 watt SET the owners of such systems use massive speakers with massive woofers (Avantegarde for example). The bigger the driver the less it has to move in order to push the air.

I thought all of this was perfectly obvious but apparently it isn't. For decades entire theaters were powered with less than 30 watts with lots of bass. The fact that designers would rather use cheap parts and are incompetent and need a billion watts to make any noise says more about their talent than the few designers out there that actually know what the hell they're doing. The older Cerwin Vegas could be driven off of flea amps and they used 15 inch+ woofers and the bigger ones had heart pounding bass ability. The speakers may not have sounded very good but they had lots of bass and some were 112db sensitive and even higher. Big woofers can in fact be moved out stop and back with very little watts.

And if Tube Fan is correct it would seem even the big Acapella loudspeakers with their powerful bass are quite happy to show with Einstein and relatively low powered amplifiers and JA prefered it with a tube maker in ARC than the big SS beasties.

Sorry but I still don't buy your argument - big speakers from competent designers are easier to drive and easier for low powered amps. bad speakers with poor bass need big high powered SS amplfiers to make them "kind of" sound realistic and "kind of" have some bass output. Bass can be achieved with low power if it is intelligently designed and quality drivers are used. If a system needs 100 watts to get good bass and good levels in an average sized listening room - then IMO it's not a well designed loudspeaker.

As for Subwoofers - A tube amp can certainly be used but there is a space and heat issue with creating such a system. Subwoofers are primarily a creation for the home theater crowd not the home audio 2 channel crowd. Very few speaker designers also make amplifiers - if a Speaker designer makes a subwoofer they are more likely to go with off the shelf SS amps out of China to stick into their subwoofers. A good tube amp will cost more money and tubes need to be replaced. All of the issues for why a tube isn't used has zilch to do with the ability of the tube amp and entirely to do with profit motivations or ergonomics or aesthetics or a lack of knowledge, or size constraints.

Incidentally Audio Note has been working on a SET powered subwoofer for Several years with a prominant UK sub woofer maker - so it can be done.

[theaudiohobby]

Does every tube amplifier on the planet do this?Isn't that a question you should ask yourself, you made the original assertion that "amplifiers do not care about frequency.

Is this what you are saying that every tube amp on the planet at 50hz exhibits 2X more distortion? Twice the distortion - umm under 1% at 50hz and under 1% under 500hz. At 20hz the amp is under 1.5% - have you lost the plot. I know you love arguing theory but let's try to put things into some rational perspective. You will NEVER hear any of this.You do not understand the graph nor seem to get the point, do you? The graph above is for an amplifier rated at 90Wpch, its distortion at 1W and 10W will be minimal however it still varies with frequency, at a dynamic peak it will output more power and distortion. Does this graph, Song Audio SA-300 (8Wpch), put things into perspective for you


http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/song_sa300_mb/distortion_frequency.gif

Though I find it interesting that once again the review where you took that from, Soundstage, the reviewer bought the amplifier - even after he saw the measurements of the SS amps on his own website. LOL. Too funny.What I find interestering about you is your seeming inability to tell the forest for the trees as well as your propensity for making blanket statements that are totally off the mark.

[GMichael]

And we keep circling the landing strip.

[E-Stat]

I was not referring to guitar amps, and am not sure why you thought so.
Hmmm. Review post #32 here (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=337947&postcount=32) where GM is specifically referring to a Fender reverb amp (your quoted comments from GM clearly includes that reference) and your response to the Fender is:

"I think that underlined statement is exactly why they are not suitable for studio monitoring situations. "

The underlined statement clearly references the Fender. And you conveniently ignored that last two statements where he did NOT suggest that would necessarily be the case with high fidelity equipment.


I guess If I don't put everything out there in great detail, you will just fill in the blanks with your assumptions.
Or, choice "B" - you either have difficulty remembering what you've said or have poor reading comprehension. There was only one subject to which "it" referred.

rw

[E-Stat]

Also not a fan of the AR SP-6: too much ss in it.
You must have that model confused with something else. The only SS device used in the SP-6 series is for power supply regulation - just like the SP-8. Take a look at the board layouts at the ARC database.


My AR SP 8 puts most "modern" phono units, ss OR tube to shame.
Others like Harry Pearson will readily disagree with that statement.


Yes, you can get depth and warmth from ss, but you never get the sense of three-dimensional instruments or singers; the body is missing.
Such can be found in SS, if not from the particular units Valin chose. I've heard a number at Sea Cliff which are capable.

edit: The REF5 to which I referred earlier is not a C-J unit. Look ARC REF5 (http://www.arcdb.ws/REF5/REF5.html).

rw

[E-Stat]

Since you adamantly prefer tubes,they must add something to the music that you feel is missing from sold-state units.
First of all, I differ from others here in that I both own and find many SS products to be exceptional. You will find them in all of my systems. In the very best components, however, I find that the best tubes trump the best SS I've heard when it comes to reproducing acoustical music (and I confess that I have not heard many of the newer $40k -$100k pretenders to the throne).


That's all well and good, but it still seems that that "added" something is an additive quality.
Disagree. I would call it retention of subtle qualities that are most often lost with most SS amps which necessarily use a lot of corrective band-aids. Focus. Harmonic integrity of acoustical instruments. More lifelike rendition of vocals. You will not find me adding tube buffer circuits to "improve" the signal. For CD playback in the main system, I bypass the hybrid tube preamp altogether because it degrades the sound quality a bit in a couple of respects.


And, if one prefers their music with just a smidgen of even order harmonics, that's no skin off my teeth either.
I'll take a smidgen of even order harmonics over odd order products any day.


I think "more economical" would have been a better word than "cheap", but I guess you subconsciously chose that for some strange reason.
Sorry if that word offends. There is a premium to be paid for the tube products to which I refer.


As another possible positive attribute to SS, perhaps good ones are just a tad more accurate to the source signal?
By what criteria? Simplistic metrics rendered using test tones? I learned that lesson thirty plus years ago when I was a teenager. Why did the AR amplifier sound so poor when the McIntosh lab proved that it met spec and delivered low distortion? I was even presented with the graph to prove it. My Crown amp measured even better using those metrics - and yet sounded decidedly amusical. I use the sound of unamplified acoustical music as my reference and have the ability to hear it on almost a daily basis hearing my wife play her baby grand. It would indeed be wonderful IF - and only IF such metrics correlated with what we hear.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I'll take a smidgen of even order harmonics over odd order products any day.I leave markw to answer this in detail, I am open to correction here but contrary to common knowledge with most amplifiers, tube variety included, you do not get the choice, you get both even and odd order harmonics, now even harmonics may be higher in level in some designs e.g. single-ended circuits, but there is hardly ever a scenario where odd-order harmonics are totally absent, they come with the 'distortion' package.

[theaudiohobby]

And we keep circling the landing strip.Unfortunately so because folks keep revisiting old ground with the same old tired arguments.

[RGA]

Isn't that a question you should ask yourself, you made the original assertion that "amplifiers do not care about frequency.
You do not understand the graph nor seem to get the point, do you? The graph above is for an amplifier rated at 90Wpch, its distortion at 1W and 10W will be minimal however it still varies with frequency, at a dynamic peak it will output more power and distortion. Does this graph, Song Audio SA-300 (8Wpch), put things into perspective for you


http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/song_sa300_mb/distortion_frequency.gif
What I find interestering about you is your seeming inability to tell the forest for the trees as well as your propensity for making blanket statements that are totally off the mark.

I understand the graph thatnk you - I see that the distortion rises in the lower frequencies very likely due to the tranformers they're using. SETS and tubes have higher distortion - I think everyone gets that. The forrest is the resulting sound quality - the trees is looking at compartmentalized aspects of measured results and drawing conclusions - and you know you're the latter - every post every thread.

[RGA]

Unfortunately so because folks keep revisiting old ground with the same old tired arguments.

So why do you keep posting to the same people making them? Pot see kettle.

[GMichael]

Would a SS amp that is pure class A still only give half a sound wave?

[E-Stat]

I leave markw to answer this in detail, I am open to correction here but contrary to common knowledge with most amplifiers, tube variety included, you do not get the choice, you get both even and odd order harmonics, now even harmonics may be higher in level in some designs e.g. single-ended circuits, but there is hardly ever a scenario where odd-order harmonics are totally absent, they come with the 'distortion' package.
The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent.

rw

[RGA]

Would a SS amp that is pure class A still only give half a sound wave?

If it is SE and doesn't use feedback - the Sugden A21a would be a Solid State exception and there may be others. The Sugden A21a (not the newer one the 1992osh model) was the first time I heard an amp that sounded quite a lot better than the other amps in the store - this was waaay back in Vancouver in the early mid 90's. But I was much more of a measurements follower and had Bryston at home and saving for it and eventually went with the highest reviewed affordable amplifier at the time - the Arcam Delta 290. It was the only amp in its budget to get Stereophile Class B and 5 stars in the British mags blah blah. So I trusted the ears of the experts and the measurements and left the A21a at the store.

The fact that it sounded so much better to actually listen to music on - well I had the graphs, the specs, the charts, the reviews, the name brand appeal by a much bigger maker - they sold more so they must be better. I was missing the forest for the trees - I was looking at all the technical arguments and all the outside influences to make a purchase of what actually sounded better in the room. Class A single ended no feedback - Solid State it can be done it's not done enough IMO. That is why the Sugden a21 is the longest running amplifier selling for over 40 years with better heat handling upgrades and cosmetics and ergonomic changes over the years and very few of those. The Arcam - long gone - they got their bucks asnd changed models once they went through the review circuit.

[theaudiohobby]

The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent.

rw:rolleyes: There you go again, forget Stereophile please tell, how does a Class A or AB amplifier cancel out odd-order harmonics? I am all ears

[theaudiohobby]

I understand the graph thatnk you - I see that the distortion rises in the lower frequencies very likely due to the tranformers they're using. SETS and tubes have higher distortion - I think everyone gets that. The forrest is the resulting sound quality - the trees is looking at compartmentalized aspects of measured results and drawing conclusions - and you know you're the latter - every post every thread.:rolleyes: I thought you just done saying tube amplifiers don't care about frequency but now just maybe not :rolleyes:, I for one am indifferent to your preferences, what irks me is the steady stream of blatantly wrong statements you espouse in support those preferences. :frown5:

[GMichael]

If it is SE and doesn't use feedback - the Sugden A21a would be a Solid State exception and there may be others. The Sugden A21a (not the newer one the 1992osh model) was the first time I heard an amp that sounded quite a lot better than the other amps in the store - this was waaay back in Vancouver in the early mid 90's. But I was much more of a measurements follower and had Bryston at home and saving for it and eventually went with the highest reviewed affordable amplifier at the time - the Arcam Delta 290. It was the only amp in its budget to get Stereophile Class B and 5 stars in the British mags blah blah. So I trusted the ears of the experts and the measurements and left the A21a at the store.

The fact that it sounded so much better to actually listen to music on - well I had the graphs, the specs, the charts, the reviews, the name brand appeal by a much bigger maker - they sold more so they must be better. I was missing the forest for the trees - I was looking at all the technical arguments and all the outside influences to make a purchase of what actually sounded better in the room. Class A single ended no feedback - Solid State it can be done it's not done enough IMO. That is why the Sugden a21 is the longest running amplifier selling for over 40 years with better heat handling upgrades and cosmetics and ergonomic changes over the years and very few of those. The Arcam - long gone - they got their bucks asnd changed models once they went through the review circuit.

I think you are saying that the use of feedback is more important (or at lease as important) as the class A. Is this something that is hard for SS to do? If not, then I'd expect more to try it.

[RGA]

:rolleyes: I thought you just done saying tube amplifier don't care about frequency but now just maybe not, I for one am indifferent to your preferences, what irks me is the steady stream of blatantly wrong statements you espouse in support those preferences. :frown5:

The amplifiers do distort more at the frequency extremes - or distort less within the frequency extrmes depending how you look at it. I do find it strange that it would - a frequency without a load should not matter to an amplifier. It simply takes the signal read from the preamp stage and makes those signal louder and it should treat them all the same. Putting a load on the amp is when it should distort - bass drivers present a harder load in general and will distort more than mid/treble drivers. What have I missed?

[E-Stat]

... how does a Class A or AB amplifier cancel out odd-order harmonics? I am all ears
What does that have to do with my comments?

rw

[RGA]

I think you are saying that the use of feedback is more important (or at lease as important) as the class A. Is this something that is hard for SS to do? If not, then I'd expect more to try it.

It's more expensive although the Sugden is under $3k so it should not be prohibitive. The tradeoff is a lack of power and heat - though pure Class A tends to run just as hot.

Measurements can be manipulated - I remember when I bought my first CD player that the CD industry was trying to kill off vinyl as fast as possible. They posted a Wowo and Flutter spec on the CD player like "beyond measurable or .000001 or whatever which destroyed the Wow and Flutter of any turntable (the fact that good tables have a wow and flutter lower than any human and most bats can detect is beside the point) - the number looked better.

The Sugden's measurements or any no negative feedback amp doesn't.

The bottom line my dealer noted to me - was simple. When they go to their home to listen to music what is it that they want to listen to. The technical arguments of distortion, frequency response, accuracy, neutrality, bass, treble, staging, IM distortion, Class A, B, A/B, T whether it has tubes, transformer types are all interesting isolated discussions.

People including me I'm as guilty as the next guy tend to stick a flag in a camp and then justify the position. My camp is right because the measurements are flat and have low distortion therefore it is accurate and the subjective experience is meaningless because I want what's on the disc. The alternate is they guy who just want to enjoy the music and have something "musical" and most of us are in between the two extremes - we want to know that is accuate but it also has to be musical.

And what I have learned is that no matter how much typing is done on a forum - you will NOT change the person's mindset on what he/she holds as the truth.

SET amps by far measure worse than any other amplification device. SET guys (I include the SS SET amps) know that - most of them grew up with the SS (The best measuring devices). If the SET was a "trick" that could seduce you over a short period the trick would come to an end and the person would dump the SET and move back to SS. So it's not a trick - it has to be that whatever goes on sounds more natural. It's tough for me to use the word accurate because the logic side of my brain says - well the measurements are not that great so it's not "accurate" according to the graph but the fact that it sounds more accurate in the subjective audition means that I have a problem wrestling with what I am reading on the page and experiencing.

This is no different than listening to a class A amp and a Class B receiver. You arguably chose the amplifier you chose based on a listening audition. Perhaps you have found a correlation over the years that Class A amps usually sound better than Class B or Class A/B types. The measurements don't support that but you hear it. Thus like it or not it causes a problem associating what you experience with what you read.

At the end of the day you have to live with the stuff. I hooked up an NAD, a Rotel, a Bryston, a Musical Fidelity and OTO and a Meishu to the AN E and played a relatively simple piece - forget conversations about full scale drums - just Jackson Browne on a Guitar live solo. The two tube amps let me hear more of the string had a three dimensional stage, sounded cleaner, had better decay. How the hell does that happen? If disotrtion was an issue then his voice would warble - I would hear fuzz or something truly off putting. Change the music and it's pretty much the same results across the genres. I could go with the science part of me and say despite what I am hearing I will trust the measurements. But I have to actually live with it and having the poor sounding but better measuring system sitting in the room in the better sounding "off" position is not something I want. Though it would be nice to be in the easy arguing position on internet forums.

Negative feedback class A http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

[tube fan]

You NEVER get a sense of three dimensional instruments or singers, the body is missing??? Please tell me you are kidding, so I don't think that you are off your rocker.

One of the very things I love about the Bryston 28BSST is that sense of three dimensionality you get when the recording allows it. Lateral imaging and sound stage depth are some of that amps strong suits, especially when you combine it with a speaker like the SC-V.

You are confusing lateral imaging and sound stage depth with the three-dimensional realism of each instrument or singer. I already pointed this out, but I guess you just missed it.

At any rate, yes, no ss amp can reproduce this sound as both JA and JV found in the lastest issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound. Here is a fuller quote from Valin:

"I don't mean perspectival (front-to-back, side-to-side) clarity, which is another Maggie strength. What I do mean is that the image of a voice or a violin coming off the 1.7s' screens can sound rather the way it would look if it were projected ONTO those screens. In other words, it can sound a bit flat and two-dimensional, particularily with solid-state electronics.

I talk about image volume in my ARC Reference 5 review (elsewhere in this issue), and it is not, inherently, one of the 1.7s' strenghts. The funny thing here is that these slightly flattened, seemingly 'projected' images don't want for natural richness of color or detail or power or even body, in the sense of natural tonal weight; they just don't seem as filled-out, as three-dimensional as voices and violins can sometimes sound with cone speakers. IT's RATHER AS IF YOU ARE GETTING A SLICE OFF THE FRONT OF THE INSTRUMENT INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

There is a partial cure for this problem, however. Tubes. Particularly ARC tubes."

Without this added diminesional fullness, you never get the feeling that the singer or the instrument is IN your room.

[GMichael]

It's more expensive although the Sugden is under $3k so it should not be prohibitive. The tradeoff is a lack of power and heat - though pure Class A tends to run just as hot.

Measurements can be manipulated - I remember when I bought my first CD player that the CD industry was trying to kill off vinyl as fast as possible. They posted a Wowo and Flutter spec on the CD player like "beyond measurable or .000001 or whatever which destroyed the Wow and Flutter of any turntable (the fact that good tables have a wow and flutter lower than any human and most bats can detect is beside the point) - the number looked better.

The Sugden's measurements or any no negative feedback amp doesn't.

The bottom line my dealer noted to me - was simple. When they go to their home to listen to music what is it that they want to listen to. The technical arguments of distortion, frequency response, accuracy, neutrality, bass, treble, staging, IM distortion, Class A, B, A/B, T whether it has tubes, transformer types are all interesting isolated discussions.

People including me I'm as guilty as the next guy tend to stick a flag in a camp and then justify the position. My camp is right because the measurements are flat and have low distortion therefore it is accurate and the subjective experience is meaningless because I want what's on the disc. The alternate is they guy who just want to enjoy the music and have something "musical" and most of us are in between the two extremes - we want to know that is accuate but it also has to be musical.

And what I have learned is that no matter how much typing is done on a forum - you will NOT change the person's mindset on what he/she holds as the truth.

SET amps by far measure worse than any other amplification device. SET guys (I include the SS SET amps) know that - most of them grew up with the SS (The best measuring devices). If the SET was a "trick" that could seduce you over a short period the trick would come to an end and the person would dump the SET and move back to SS. So it's not a trick - it has to be that whatever goes on sounds more natural. It's tough for me to use the word accurate because the logic side of my brain says - well the measurements are not that great so it's not "accurate" according to the graph but the fact that it sounds more accurate in the subjective audition means that I have a problem wrestling with what I am reading on the page and experiencing.

This is no different than listening to a class A amp and a Class B receiver. You arguably chose the amplifier you chose based on a listening audition. Perhaps you have found a correlation over the years that Class A amps usually sound better than Class B or Class A/B types. The measurements don't support that but you hear it. Thus like it or not it causes a problem associating what you experience with what you read.

At the end of the day you have to live with the stuff. I hooked up an NAD, a Rotel, a Bryston, a Musical Fidelity and OTO and a Meishu to the AN E and played a relatively simple piece - forget conversations about full scale drums - just Jackson Browne on a Guitar live solo. The two tube amps let me hear more of the string had a three dimensional stage, sounded cleaner, had better decay. How the hell does that happen? If disotrtion was an issue then his voice would warble - I would hear fuzz or something truly off putting. Change the music and it's pretty much the same results across the genres. I could go with the science part of me and say despite what I am hearing I will trust the measurements. But I have to actually live with it and having the poor sounding but better measuring system sitting in the room in the better sounding "off" position is not something I want. Though it would be nice to be in the easy arguing position on internet forums.

Negative feedback class A http://stereophile.com/reference/70/

I agree that it would be better to have a system that sounds better (to me) than to have one that measures better. But, when I worked at the IBM Research center, I found that there is equipment that can hear and measure things far beyond what human ears can. It would make sense to me that there is a way to measure what good sound is. Maybe it’s not the same as “accurate” sound, but at least measurable in some way. Has anyone done research to find out what makes sound more enjoyable to the masses? (other than Bose that is)

[theaudiohobby]

What does that have to do with my comments?

rwEverything....I have just done saying that 'odd-order' harmonics always come with the distortion, to which your retort was

The difference is by degree and varies by frequency. While the Stereophile tests of a 50 hz tone provide a reference, such does not necessarily model behavior at higher frequencies where the audibility of high frequency trash caused by higher NFB is more apparent. I am simply making sure that it is clear that odd-order harmonics are always present in the distortion exhibited by amplifiers, or do you disagree?

[E-Stat]

I am simply making sure that it is clear that odd-order harmonics are always present in the distortion exhibited by amplifiers, or do you disagree?
I agree and will repeat what constitutes the difference: it is by degrees. The low frequency test found in SP does not provide a picture of what happens with the dynamic handling of higher frequency fundamentals especially in light of the greater reliance of NFB with most SS amps. NFB works great with bass tones. I voiced no concept of "canceling out" anything.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

The amplifiers do distort more at the frequency extremes - or distort less within the frequency extrmes depending how you look at it. I do find it strange that it would - a frequency without a load should not matter to an amplifier. It simply takes the signal read from the preamp stage and makes those signal louder and it should treat them all the same. Putting a load on the amp is when it should distort - bass drivers present a harder load in general and will distort more than mid/treble drivers. :yikes: Most of what you've just written is a red herring

What have I missed?That your prior post(s) on the issue was plain wrong.
:idea:

[theaudiohobby]

I agree and will repeat what constitutes the difference: it is by degrees. The low frequency test found in SP does not provide a picture of what happens with the dynamic handling of higher frequency fundamentals especially in light of the greater reliance of NFB with most SS amps. NFB works great with bass tones. I voiced no concept of "canceling out" anything.

rwThanks for the clarification, IMO, SP low frequency test is a red herring in this discussion, as I have just done sayiing in another post, In many tube amps, distortion varies with frequency and output power, NFB reduces distortion at all frequencies not just bass frequencies. Consequently, its fair to note that NFB amplifiers have relatively higher distortion at all audio frequencies.

[E-Stat]

NFB reduces distortion at all frequencies not just bass frequencies. Consequently, its fair to note that NFB amplifiers have relatively higher distortion at all audio frequencies.
The point is that the sins of using NFB are manifested most profoundly at the top. The result runs from a relatively benign sterility and flat perspective (McIntosh) to obnoxious hardness (Crown, older Bryston).

rw

[RGA]

I agree that it would be better to have a system that sounds better (to me) than to have one that measures better. But, when I worked at the IBM Research center, I found that there is equipment that can hear and measure things far beyond what human ears can. It would make sense to me that there is a way to measure what good sound is. Maybe it’s not the same as “accurate” sound, but at least measurable in some way. Has anyone done research to find out what makes sound more enjoyable to the masses? (other than Bose that is)

Actually there is an easy way to measure what is "perceived" as being good sound. Identify the pleasure center of the brain hook up the gear that shows you on a screen your brain (brain scan) listen to music on said systems and you will be able to see which system fires that section of the brain. I should think this would be fairly expensive and the audio hobby is not exactly a priority when the machines are used for oh say detecting Alzheimers. I believe a few studies were done on this but they're too few. They have been done on Stress aspects of Blind tests however which is why there has been a shift away on relying on them too much. Most of this is in the education field and why teachers tend to want to move away from putting too much stock in a students abilities on a test. You can know it and then lose it under "pressure" just as you might "hear it" and lose it under test.

[JoeE SP9]

tube fan; What JV is referring to is what I call the cardboard cutout effect. Sure there is depth but all of the individual images are like cardboard cutouts. That's why I use tubes on my ESL's.

[GMichael]

Actually there is an easy way to measure what is "perceived" as being good sound. Identify the pleasure center of the brain hook up the gear that shows you on a screen your brain (brain scan) listen to music on said systems and you will be able to see which system fires that section of the brain. I should think this would be fairly expensive and the audio hobby is not exactly a priority when the machines are used for oh say detecting Alzheimers. I believe a few studies were done on this but they're too few. They have been done on Stress aspects of Blind tests however which is why there has been a shift away on relying on them too much. Most of this is in the education field and why teachers tend to want to move away from putting too much stock in a students abilities on a test. You can know it and then lose it under "pressure" just as you might "hear it" and lose it under test.
Someone in some Marketing field somewhere may have put it to good use already. I bet that it could be modified for about any field. It’s just a matter of tracking them down and cornering them. Talk about a double blind test. But then what would we have left to debate?

[tube fan]

tube fan; What JV is referring to is what I call the cardboard cutout effect. Sure there is depth but all of the individual images are like cardboard cutouts. That's why I use tubes on my ESL's.
BTW, I used to have a set of Mark IIIs (modified by VA). Do they compare well to today's tube amps?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You are confusing lateral imaging and sound stage depth with the three-dimensional realism of each instrument or singer. I already pointed this out, but I guess you just missed it.

I don't think I missed anything but a bunch of esoteric mumbo jumbo. When audio engineers talk about three deminsionality, they are talking about the ability of a images to be projected widely(laterally) and with depth(which means both in front of the baffle of the speaker, and deep behind as well).


At any rate, yes, no ss amp can reproduce this sound as both JA and JV found in the lastest issues of Stereophile and Absolute Sound. Here is a fuller quote from Valin:

"I don't mean perspectival (front-to-back, side-to-side) clarity, which is another Maggie strength. What I do mean is that the image of a voice or a violin coming off the 1.7s' screens can sound rather the way it would look if it were projected ONTO those screens. In other words, it can sound a bit flat and two-dimensional, particularily with solid-state electronics.

This is exactly the esoteric BS that I was talking about. The very idea of talking about any projection onto a screen refers to the ability of the sound images that have depth, clearly a front to back perspective much like 3D video. What he was saying based on this has nothing to do with SS amps specifically, but what happens when a SS amp is paired with the 1.7, it can sound flat and two-deminsional. Notice he is commenting on the 1.7's, and he says WITH SS amps it can sound, not that all SS amps can sound a bit flat and two-deminsional. There is no way any smart reviewer would make such a definate analysis like this unless he was profoundly prejudiced against SS amps, which would make him a not so credible reviewer.


I talk about image volume in my ARC Reference 5 review (elsewhere in this issue), and it is not, inherently, one of the 1.7s' strenghts. The funny thing here is that these slightly flattened, seemingly 'projected' images don't want for natural richness of color or detail or power or even body, in the sense of natural tonal weight; they just don't seem as filled-out, as three-dimensional as voices and violins can sometimes sound with cone speakers. IT's RATHER AS IF YOU ARE GETTING A SLICE OFF THE FRONT OF THE INSTRUMENT INSTEAD OF THE WHOLE ENCHILADA.

There is a partial cure for this problem, however. Tubes. Particularly ARC tubes."

Without this added diminesional fullness, you never get the feeling that the singer or the instrument is IN your room.

This is all just opinion, bias, and esoteric nonsense. This smacks of personal bias plain and simple, much like the title Realistic sound = tubes and analog.

I think you have already stated a preference for tubes and analog, but you have to keep in mind - your preferences are just yours. They are not scientific, transferable, not fact, but they are your opinion and you have a right to voice it. I also have a right to accept it for what it is - your personal opinion.

If tubes are so wonderful, how do you reconcile with a tubeless recording chain?

[E-Stat]

If tubes are so wonderful, how do you reconcile with a tubeless recording chain?
When the primary music delivery method is 128k MP3 and quality is largely irrelevant to the market at large, it is quite easy to reconcile the business model. Building a twenty-four channel board using Audio Research REF5 linestages would be both impractical and expensive. Which in no way addresses the "which is better" question.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

When the primary music delivery method is 128k MP3 and quality is largely irrelevant to the market at large, it is quite easy to reconcile the business model. Building a twenty-four channel board using Audio Research REF5 linestages would be both impractical and expensive. Which in no way addresses the "which is better" question.

rw

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

[E-Stat]

Since we don't mix for MP3, that is an irrelevant side issue, and this does not answer my question at all.
Nor does your inability to state your tube exposure provide any validity. You take the fifth on a regular basis. I know that you'll never answer these questions, but I'll add yet more to the pile of those that you avoid answering. :)

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

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

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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


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

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

rw

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

[E-Stat]

I am not answer a single question from you until mine is addressed.
You're too embarrassed to answer simple questions from months ago! It really is amusing. I'll give you another try :)

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

Why are you so insecure by answering these simple questions?

rw

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

Why are you so insecure by answering these simple questions?

rw

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

[E-Stat]

My system is not the topic of this discussion.Agree. The (lack of) answers to the question indicate your level of exposure to tube products which puts your comments into perspective.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

rw

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

[E-Stat]

It also has nothing to do with this topic.
Perhaps you need to review this thread's topic. :)

rw

[tube fan]

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

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

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

[markw]

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

..think about it. (DUCK!)

[GMichael]

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

..think about it. (DUCK!)

Did you just put butter on THAT?

[JSE]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Perhaps you need to review this thread's topic. :)

rw

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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



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

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

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

[E-Stat]

The topic has nothing to do with my equipment , I don't own anything tube. Perhaps you should review the topic so you can stop bringing in extraneous nonsense into the thread.[
I will once again agree with you. Perspective doesn't has to be limited to one's own system. Most of the best systems I've heard are not my own.

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

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

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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


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

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

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


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

rw

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

[E-Stat]

You have no idea of what equipment I have heard...
Which is repeatedly why I ask the simple question. Most folks don't get all huffy and upset over such an impersonal topic.


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


Thanks for the B-day wishes. I don't think we have such different perspectives on audio as we have differences on the equipment and format we choose to listen to it through.
You're welcome. That is likely correct. Borne of different priorities and exposure to different stuff.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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


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

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



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

rw

Which does not mean you experience trumps mine.

[PeruvianSkies]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[E-Stat]

Experience has taught me that you dismiss specifics, which is why I am not wasting my time giving it to you.
If you refer to Onkyo power amps, then I will continue to objectively place them into context among what is available performance-wise in the market. Just like I do my NAD receiver.


Which does not mean you experience trumps mine.
It is, however, different and most likely from a wider pool - having known three audio reviewers for over thirty years. Most guys just say "here's what I've heard". You freak out.

rw

[PeruvianSkies]

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

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

[PeruvianSkies]

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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



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

rw

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Don't think, you are not good at it.

It wasn't me who was in the off topic section crying like a baby because a poll was made on me. Apparently you do more to annoy folks, which is why your sorry a$$ was banned before.

[Geoffcin]

WTF?!

Last I looked this was the ANALOG room.

I'm not having this place jammed up with personal crap. Take it somewhere else or I will do it for you.

[E-Stat]

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


When I say this is what I heard, YOU have freaked out demanding an extensive equipment list, something I have never asked you, or your reviewer friends to do.
I simply asked "on what tube gear is your judgment of the superiority of SS over ALL tube gear based"? Such a grandiose statement must assuredly be based on some substance.


When some says this is what I heard, my only question would be compared to what? Most reviewers don't know if what they are hearing is truly accurate. Most have not compared what they hear to the master file or tape, so how do they know what is accurate, and what is not?
The master tape played back using what? The master tape Bernie uses with his tube recorder? Truly, the only reference is live unamplified music, but one can tell a good bit comparing two electronic products when one has frequent exposure to the sound of live music.


Don't make an assumption you have heard from a wider pool, you don't know that.
In the past five years, I have heard the following tube gear in an exceptional and familiar system:

Aesthetix Callisto Signature
ASL Hurricanes
Atma Sphere M-100s
Conrad-Johnson ART II
Conrad-Johnson ART III
Conrad-Johnson MET-6
Hovland HP-100
Joule Electra Rite-of-Passage
VTL 7.5 II
VTL Wotans
VTL Siegfrieds
Western Electric WE-97A

I would like to hear the later Audio Research amps such as the REF210 and 610T along the Wolcott models as well. I'm told the latest McIntosh 2301 is also very good. The list of SS gear is about as lengthy. In addition to having owned other VTL, Manley and Audio Research gear for nearly thirty years. If their exposure to tube gear is as wide, why do you have a problem with pointing out what that is? The number of guys you have has no bearing on the variety of that which they've heard in a familiar environment. Especially when none of them uses tubes! Right?

rw

[Geoffcin]

I simply asked "on what tube gear is your judgment of the superiority of SS over ALL tube gear based"? Such a grandiose statement must assuredly be based on some substance.

rw


I would say that this is a very pertinent question, especially if your posting a statement like that in the Analog room.

[tube fan]

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

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

When you make a claim that all analog is better than all digital, it might be helpful if you are specific with the resolution of digital you are referring to. I have yet to hear any analog that has the resolution of 24/192khz digital.
Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!

[PeruvianSkies]

Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!

I am definitely a recent convert as well, which is why my goal by the end of this year is to create an analogue system.

[E-Stat]

NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!
I have a reviewer friend who has some really nice stuff. One of his favorite listening demo recordings is Howard Hanson's The Composer and His Orchestra. I've heard it through the magnificent Clearaudio Statement / Goldfinger cartridge / Zanden phono pre vs. an EMM Labs CD-SAse using VTL 7.5 II line stage, Siegfried amps, Odin cabling and Scaena 1.4s. I have to confess that the digital version (merely 44.1 at that) is darn close and infinitely easier to deal with. Don't get me wrong about turntable hassle - I've futzed with a Souther TQ-1 (now Clearaudio) linear arm for over twenty five years. Arguably, the Zanden does a bit better with harmonic fullness, but the digital flavor is quieter and every bit as dynamic. I have not had a chance to visit him since he changed over to using the better still EMM Labs XDS1 player which replaces the two stage op amp output with a single discrete stage and more stable Teac Esoteric transport. I suspect the differences are going to be closer still. On the other hand, the Clearaudio table is simply a magnificent and gorgeous 800 pound device. The upper platter is driven magnetically from the lower platter and the whole upper assembly gimbals like a ceiling fan suspended by hundreds of pounds of counterweights. Yet, you can nudge the platter and it will gently sway at your command.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/statement2.jpg

I cut my teeth on vinyl back in the late 60s and still have a goodly collection that I play on two tables, but I find that digital has come a long way in the past decade. My garage system uses a Manley DAC which has a simple 12AU7 based line stage with analog gain controls that drives the amp directly. While that is not on the level of high resolution of the EMM Labs units, the simple triode output obviates the need for an additional line stage and sounds pretty sweet.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Surely you realise that a huge number of pure analogue vinyl via tubes is available. Check out Acoustic Sounds, among many. NO ONE I talked to at the California Audio Show thought digital could match the realism of analogue. NOT ONE!

The amount of new vinyl released this year compared to CD is less than 1% according to my NDP stats. There is no new analog recording technology moving forward through the pipeline that I have seen, but there is ton's of new recording technology for digital.

In talking with other audio engineers all over this country in the last two years, I know of no one who has done an analog recording over the last five years, everyone is doing digital these days.

Since I saw no DXD based recordings at the California Audio show, as a matter of fact, I saw no new digital recordings there at all except the ones they were doing live at the show(under perhaps the worst recording conditions I have seen). So it seems your comparison are only based on Redbook CD, which among digital formats used now days, a low fi medium. Comparing 16bit to vinyl is no contest. Comparing vinyl to DXD is no contest.

One of the things I took note to and mentioned to my buddy is that not one of the exhibitors used any 24 bit recordings with their demo's. Everything was either 16bit digital, or vinyl. There were a few SACD recordings, but they were sourced from 16/88.2 PCM masters, not DSD. In other words, there was no real high resolution recordings except the ones I brought on the days I attended. So to say that vinyl was better than digital, isn't saying much at all when it comes to that audio show.

[PeruvianSkies]

Wow man, great photo!

Wish we could keep this thread about tubes and analog (analogue) since I am trying to learn more about it as I make my first venture into this world.

[E-Stat]

So to say that vinyl was better than digital, isn't saying much at all when it comes to that audio show.
That was a very informative summary for one who did not attend the show. Thanks for providing that level of detail.

rw

[E-Stat]

... since I am trying to learn more about it as I make my first venture into this world.
I am going to make a heretical statement to some: unless your budget can encompass units such as the ARC REF2 here (http://www.arcdb.ws/REFPHONO2/REFPHONO2.html) the Zanden 1200 here (http://www.zandenaudio.com/products/english/1200.html) or a select few others which are loftily priced statement products, I think you get more bang for the buck using single ended zero feedback Class A FETs for the phono stage. There are a host of fine examples, especially in my budget range. The noise level of even good tubes cannot do justice to medium output moving coil cartridges. As one who finds low level resolution important, I'd rather swap noise out for a tad less harmonic richness.

rw

[poppachubby]

I think if I had the cash, I would go with Micro Seiki. Their tables are true analog statements, yet considerably less cash than the other "big boys". Take this SX-8000 II for example. I think the most expensive offering still comes in under $20K...

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Site_Images/micro%208000-2.jpg

[RGA]

E-Stat

Sir T did attend the CA Show.

Sir T. The problem with talking about higher level digital formats is that you are coming at this from an RE perspecitve. That's not a problem for you of course but the "public" and to nearly the same degree the "press" come by the best retail products at audio shows. That's where the manufacturers show their wares. Unless the technology is available to the public it doesn't matter if the bit rate is 40 billion and samples a trillion times if the public can only buy CD and SACD music then that is the standard that it makes sense to compare to.

Even if we assume SACD sounds better than CD - and I am not convinced because certain players with CD make SACD sound pale and washed out - but even if we accept SACD as superior it has not sold to the point of remotely becoming the dominant format.

The format needs both wide and deep software support.

I have long said that if you actually cared a damn about music then you need both CD and Vinyl in your system because there is plenty of software on each not available on the other. The fact that one sounds better is moot. And as you know many vinyl versions sound better than their CD counterparts due to the "dumped on" recordings of early CDs. A remastered CD may be better but they didn't remaster everything in the 1980s and part of the 1990's. It doesn't matter if the technology is better - it matters only at the replay level - if the LP was recorded very well and the CD version was corrupted by marketing departments that want it compressed to get loud then the vinyl version will kill it. Whatever theoretical advantage CD had over the vinyl counterpart is lost in the recording process.

SACD - well my dealer carries nice machines and there are some very good recordings but some real disasters and he is of the opinion that far too many of them sound horrible considering that it's supposedly the "new and better" CD, you simply can't put out soooo many dogs when you want people to spend an extra 30-40% on the album. He purchased the same album about 7 times remastered CD's, SACD versions DVD Audio and the vinyl still sounded better.

To everyone else

The guys at Puget Sound put on a demo at CES they claim is one of the highest bit rates in the digital world - their demonstration therefore is the best digital out there for playback in terms of specs.

And I have to say that Sir T is correct - the digital had a full bodied sound and quite three dimensional and it was hooked up to SS amplifiers and Usher speakers. This was a GREAT sounding room and it was not ridiculous - the speakers were something like $17,000 but it was a lot better than most rooms. I regret now not covering the room more. Had I been more of a digital fan I would have stayed and reported more on the digital front end. But it was my first show report and a lot of things I would handle better next time.

But before all the tube vinyl guys get on Sir T - I think you really should hear the high bitrate (pardon my horrid terminology) of the digital that goes beyond CD/SACD. You may still "like" tube/vinyl" better but you will at least see where Sir T is coming from because that digital didn't sound digital - it sounded very very real and not as washed out and thin. And that was on a system that I didn't think I would care for. I covered the room too briefly and no photo of the puget sound DSD guys http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=683

Here is the system that JVS of Stereophile noted and I believe was the same one at CES

"Bruce had brought along a Pyramix DSD/DXD workstation, and a Digit Audio Denmark converter capable of 32-bit/352.8kHz operation. He was also especially enthused about the forthcoming FIM Super Sounds, USB cards with 24/176.4 files. To my mind, this seems like an immensely practical, compact alternative to Reference Recordings' 24/176.4 HRx master DVD-Rs. I can't wait to audition one."

I am a SE tube guy, I like the simple is better approach and lord knows people think I am insanely (note insane) biased towards it but people are dumping in Sir T for not trying certain things but at the same time are doing the same by not at least auditioning the DSD/DXD set-up. I can tell you it souned bloody awesome. We can't just make an assumption that because something is one technology it is automatically bad.

I spent several hours last week auditioning Sim Audio SS and an apple iMac into a Ayre DAC into Dynaudio Focus 220 II loudspeakers and another system with a Soolos interface with Audio Note DAC 2.1 through Classe power amps into B&W D802 speakers.

It's really interesting to hear the different technologies and mixed together. The D802 actually sounded quite clear and more dynamic in the midband. The Soolos is great - Terry treats it like the ultimate FM radio without the commericals - you could play music for a year solid and never hear the same song twice. Looking at it that way it's great as background and I felt it was quite good in the foreground - Yes the LP on the LINN sounds better but trying to find the record of the song you want to hear could have you spending an hour - (he owns 20,000+ records) - with Soolos you type in the first few letters of the name and it pops up and you push a button on the screen and lists all the songs - all the musicians who play on the track and even a review of the album - then you can call up the musicians and see if they have an album. Say what you will about the sound quality but the music access is stunning - you know music - the stuff that got us into this in the first place!

The Dynaudio sounded very good as well - a little washed out on the CD player - oddly it sounded more three dimensional on the iMac - but given the price of the front end gear the speakers did a fine job of telling you which source was better. The treble was quite controlled but still open and they could play fairly loud without compression - don't know what the speakers cost but they would not be out of place at $3-5k. Perhaps a little dark but they're tougher to drive speakers and the Sim Audio was an integrated so it may not have had quite the grunt.

The point I guess is to keep an open mind on digital and keep listening because the digital engineers(the ones who care about music and the ones not working for reject marketing departments who have it all compressed) do in fact strive to make it better. Too many audiophiles heard digital in 1984 and said it sucks and forever decide it's horrible. It's a lot better than it was.

[E-Stat]

E-Stat

Sir T did attend the CA Show.
I know. That's why I thanked him for providing a summary that, well necessarily meant that he attended. Maybe my wording was clumsy as the "for one" would be me - who did not attend.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Sir T. The problem with talking about higher level digital formats is that you are coming at this from an RE perspecitve. That's not a problem for you of course but the "public" and to nearly the same degree the "press" come by the best retail products at audio shows. That's where the manufacturers show their wares. Unless the technology is available to the public it doesn't matter if the bit rate is 40 billion and samples a trillion times if the public can only buy CD and SACD music then that is the standard that it makes sense to compare to.

Here is the rub Richard, there are DXD based recordings out there, it is just that because its on the Blu ray disc, audiophiles dismiss it(especially vinyl lovers), even those that love classical music. Even if you don't own a Blu ray player, they are also on SACD as demonstrated here.

http://www.mamut.net/lindberglyd/shop/

There are high resolution FLAC files here

http://www.klicktrack.com/2l/search?l=2L+FLAC+96kHz+24+bit

and here:

http://www.klicktrack.com/2l/search?l=2L+FLAC+192kHz+24+bit

This is just a few, but the point I am trying to make is that DXD based recordings are out there, the public and press just needs to go seek them out, as they are not that hard to find. While it is now limited to classical music, with more support, it will spread to other genre's.



Even if we assume SACD sounds better than CD - and I am not convinced because certain players with CD make SACD sound pale and washed out - but even if we accept SACD as superior it has not sold to the point of remotely becoming the dominant format.

The format needs both wide and deep software support.

You are right, but just like DVD-A, SACD, CD at one time, you have to start somewhere. The support is definately growing, I can see that. But some of the DXD based titles are already on Amazon for pete sake!!!

http://www.amazon.com/Divertimenti-Hybrid-SACD-Blu-Ray-Disc/dp/B0025ZIU82/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1282435751&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDIOPHILE-REFERENCE-RECORD/dp/B0025ZITT2/ref=pd_cp_d_1_img

http://www.amazon.com/2L-NORDIC-AUDIOPHILE-REFERENCE-RECORD/dp/B0025ZITT2/ref=pd_cp_d_1_img

Some audiophiles are embracing these recordings, but the vinyl crowd(and the audio press) have not embraced it(or are slow to), but continue to white knuckle their vinyl collections.

When I first entered this thread, I clearly stated I was coming from an recording engineers perspective, which I stated was quite a different perspective than most here. I thought I made that pretty clear at the onset.


I have long said that if you actually cared a damn about music then you need both CD and Vinyl in your system because there is plenty of software on each not available on the other. The fact that one sounds better is moot. And as you know many vinyl versions sound better than their CD counterparts due to the "dumped on" recordings of early CDs. A remastered CD may be better but they didn't remaster everything in the 1980s and part of the 1990's. It doesn't matter if the technology is better - it matters only at the replay level - if the LP was recorded very well and the CD version was corrupted by marketing departments that want it compressed to get loud then the vinyl version will kill it. Whatever theoretical advantage CD had over the vinyl counterpart is lost in the recording process.

I agree with this. Too bad I gave all of my vinyl collection and TT away to somebody who would appreciate it far more than I did. I get my analog fix from on a Tascam 85 16b, with 2" tapes run at 30IPS with Dolby SR. I have about 100 classical recordings on 2" reel to reel, and another two or so dozen recordings I have done myself. That is the extent of my analog listening these days, and it only happens occasionally.


SACD - well my dealer carries nice machines and there are some very good recordings but some real disasters and he is of the opinion that far too many of them sound horrible considering that it's supposedly the "new and better" CD, you simply can't put out soooo many dogs when you want people to spend an extra 30-40% on the album. He purchased the same album about 7 times remastered CD's, SACD versions DVD Audio and the vinyl still sounded better.

Remasters are only as good as the remastering engineer. The key to getting good SACD recordings comes from recording in DXD, mix and master in DXD, and transcode the final mix to a DSD stream. That stream must be decoded by a DSD decoder on a pre-pro or high end receiver. Once DSD is turned into PCM, it degrades the sound overall IME. 2L makes some of the best DSD based SACD recordings I have ever heard.



The point I guess is to keep an open mind on digital and keep listening because the digital engineers(the ones who care about music and the ones not working for reject marketing departments who have it all compressed) do in fact strive to make it better. Too many audiophiles heard digital in 1984 and said it sucks and forever decide it's horrible. It's a lot better than it was.

Not only is it a lot better than it was, it is a lot better today than 5 short years ago thanks to DXD and DSD128(of which not many have used, or still use, but I still use).

[RGA]

Well I just bought a Blu-Ray machine yesterday - a PS3 but it's still a Blu-Ray. May as well try some music - Stereophile gave a relatively good review to the PS1 for sound quality so who knows the PS3 seems to do everything.

PS: The TV I ended up with was a 32 inch Insignia. http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-32-1080p-120hz-lcd-hdtv-ns-l32x-10a/10124365.aspx?path=242c6bdd9d012e018709118b402ba0a een02

I know not a name brand from Sony or LG. But the retail price was $550 1080p and 120hz. They had a sale to $399 and I got the demo with a 4 year warranty for $349. Frankly, my eyes can't tell the difference - it looks quite good to my eyes and the sound is quite a lot better than our 40 inch Sony. It also has a headphone jack and swivels which some TV's don't possess. Granted the demo has been on the shelf for 5 months at 10 hours or so a day - so there's a lot of hours on it - on the flip side at least I know it made it that long (kind of a burn in) without clunking out. I basically went off the customer reviews http://milo.com/insignia-32-class-1080p-120hz-lcd-hdtv#description - for $350 it cost what the PS3 cost. In a few years I'll go with the big 60-80 inch beasties and by then they'll probably be half the price they are now.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Well I just bought a Blu-Ray machine yesterday - a PS3 but it's still a Blu-Ray. May as well try some music - Stereophile gave a relatively good review to the PS1 for sound quality so who knows the PS3 seems to do everything.

Good show with the PS3, I does a lot of things well. It is an excellent Blu ray player, great gaming machine, very nice CD player, and does very well as a SACD player even though it converts the DSD to PCM. It does this conversion exceptionally well, and at a high bit and sample rate of 24/176.4 which would make it lossless to the DSD stream, and also lessen any degradation that would come from the conversion. If you need any help tweaking the PS3 for getting the best sound from it, hit me up, I got the best settings from the guys that did the algorithm.


PS: The TV I ended up with was a 32 inch Insignia. http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-32-1080p-120hz-lcd-hdtv-ns-l32x-10a/10124365.aspx?path=242c6bdd9d012e018709118b402ba0a een02

I know not a name brand from Sony or LG. But the retail price was $550 1080p and 120hz. They had a sale to $399 and I got the demo with a 4 year warranty for $349. Frankly, my eyes can't tell the difference - it looks quite good to my eyes and the sound is quite a lot better than our 40 inch Sony. It also has a headphone jack and swivels which some TV's don't possess. Granted the demo has been on the shelf for 5 months at 10 hours or so a day - so there's a lot of hours on it - on the flip side at least I know it made it that long (kind of a burn in) without clunking out. I basically went off the customer reviews http://milo.com/insignia-32-class-1080p-120hz-lcd-hdtv#description - for $350 it cost what the PS3 cost. In a few years I'll go with the big 60-80 inch beasties and by then they'll probably be half the price they are now.

Good luck on your new purchase, and get that thing calibrated! There are a couple of Blu ray based calibration disc out there....the best being the Spears & Munsil calibration disc

http://www.amazon.com/Spears-Munsil-High-Definition-Benchmark-Blu-ray/dp/B001UM29OC

[tube fan]

I've been hearing the same story (it's getting better) ever since digital disgraced the "high" end audio scene. I repeat: NO ONE, either salesman, or customer, thought that digital could come close to analogue in realism. Only a very few defended ss over tubes, but NO ONE defended digital. I repeat: at one room I heard several, ever higher digital formats of Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby". But when I got them to play my Acoustics Sounds' analogue vinyl version, EVERYONE admitted that digital was still far behind. There are countless purely analogue vinyl records out there, and, unless I actually hear good digital, I see no reason to switch.

Another quote from the latest Stereophile: "When you played records, you wanted to hear more records," said Malcolm jones, the jazz writer from Newsweek, unaware that the analogue archnid was about to pounce. "There was just something in there that made you want to keep putting another disc on the turntable. And when you play digital, that's not there."

"My famous quote," sayeth Sir Fremer the Shy, "back in 1983, was that digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it amd it lasts forever."

Also, there is this: TTT could not hear the clear superiority of tape copies of masters in the Evolution Acoustics room. I spent a large portion of the three days in that room, marveling at the pure realism of the sound when the tapes were playing. It was like being at the musical event. When they switched to their high end digital system (a Playback Designs MPS-5-Reference SCAD/CD Player with 24/192 input, $15,000), the sound was a little better than average. If you could not hear the difference (again, EVERYONE in the room when I was there could clearly hear a HUGE difference), you should get your hearing checked!

[poppachubby]

I don't know tube fan. At that price point (10K+), digital becomes quite competetive. With the right source material, I'm not sure the difference is night and day anymore. Don't be fooled, I am for analog but I have been convinced that digital is indeed heel biting.

A wealthy customer at my local shop was coming in to audition a pair of Audio Physics. He had made the jump into digital, having recently been convinced that it had "caught up". They had him come in the evening, when the shop is closed.

On the condition that I help set the room up, and be a servant boy (yes they were laughing at me), I was allowed to sit in.

Anyhow, he brought his "second system" of Pass Labs pre and power, but the real deal breaker for me was a Zanden Model 5000 DAC. I forget what we used as a transport, but that's unimportant really. I think I grabbed one of the newer Arcam units.

Anyhow, the exact word anyone in the room had, was realism. It was uncanny. I have yet to hear anything come close to the Zanden. That really helped to broker my love for Philips chips, the only chip Zanden will use apparently. I was surely convinced to say the least.

Man we listened to that thing for about 4 or 5 hours, most of the time, in complete silence. All in reverance to what we were hearing. I wanted to hook up the Pro-Ject 9.1, but we never did.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I've been hearing the same story (it's getting better) ever since digital disgraced the "high" end audio scene. I repeat: NO ONE, either salesman, or customer, thought that digital could come close to analogue in realism. Only a very few defended ss over tubes, but NO ONE defended digital. I repeat: at one room I heard several, ever higher digital formats of Bill Evans' "Waltz for Debby". But when I got them to play my Acoustics Sounds' analogue vinyl version, EVERYONE admitted that digital was still far behind. There are countless purely analogue vinyl records out there, and, unless I actually hear good digital, I see no reason to switch.

The digital you heard at that show was 16bit digital, that is all they had there. And what SACD's they had were played through players that transcoded the DSD stream to PCM, which is the worst way to handle SACD. There were ZERO demonstrations of high resolution audio done right - and the only one that had any high resolution recordings done right was me. When you have nothing legitimate to compare too, it is easy to make the argument that vinyl sounded better. Another thing is there were far more tube based amps at this show than SS, and most of them were in the larger rooms where the sound could stretch its legs sort of speak. This show was more tailored to vinyl and tubes than any show I have ever been to. I think CES is better at having more of a variety of both high end digital and analog, and high end tubes and SS.


Another quote from the latest Stereophile: "When you played records, you wanted to hear more records," said Malcolm jones, the jazz writer from Newsweek, unaware that the analogue archnid was about to pounce. "There was just something in there that made you want to keep putting another disc on the turntable. And when you play digital, that's not there."

He was referring to 16bit digital, and we are now at 24 and 32 bit digital. It looks to me like the older guys are slow to move on. :yesnod:


"My famous quote," sayeth Sir Fremer the Shy, "back in 1983, was that digital preserves music the way formaldehyde preserves frogs. You kill it amd it lasts forever."

1993 was seventeen years ago...:rolleyes5: Do you really think that digital technology has stood still for that long?


Also, there is this: TTT could not hear the clear superiority of tape copies of masters in the Evolution Acoustics room. I spent a large portion of the three days in that room, marveling at the pure realism of the sound when the tapes were playing. It was like being at the musical event. When they switched to their high end digital system (a Playback Designs MPS-5-Reference SCAD/CD Player with 24/192 input, $15,000), the sound was a little better than average. If you could not hear the difference (again, EVERYONE in the room when I was there could clearly hear a HUGE difference), you should get your hearing checked!

They played plain old 16bit digital or DSD transcoded to PCM on that rig, hardly a way to present SACD. And finally, I know that reel to reel tape sounds better than most digital, we actually agree on this.

Tube Fan, you really need to get out and hear DXD based recordings. You probably won't give up either tubes or vinyl after listening to it(you are much too emotionally tied to both), but at least it will reset your notions of the current state of the art in digital, instead of you hanging on to a thirty year old memory.

I am beginning to get a clearer picture of why some wax nostalgic over tubes and vinyl, they are very emotionally attached to it. When you are this emotionally attached to something, you psychologically block out everything else(including what sounds better) to maintain that psychological connection. (now putting on my RE coat) Those of us that do not have that connection, don't really "marry" ourselves that closely to any format unless it has a sonic superiority over a previous format. When the next better sounding format comes along, we move on to that. We progress, and are not inclined to wax nostalgic over something when something better comes along. I am also beginning to think there is an age component to this as well.

[PeruvianSkies]

Could we please stay on topic here? Start a new thread and talk about digital vs. analog.

[poppachubby]

Could we please stay on topic here? Start a new thread and talk about digital vs. analog.

This thread was born out of a debate regarding SS v tubes, digital v. analog. Perhaps you should revisit the original post and familiarize yourself.

[JohnMichael]

I'm starting another thread as instructed. IMO, ss and digital flatten sound, reduce micro dynamics, and reduce music's tonal saturation. The best digital formats are getting better, but, despite being a pain in the ass, for now, I'm sticking to tubes and vinyl for serious listening. I hated all the digital based systems at the California audio Show, except for the Audio Note one. Both Audio Note CD players (one $5,500, one $9,500) had plenty of tonal saturation. I want to hear more from these units.



You are correct Poppachubby that is what this thread is about.

[JohnMichael]

Oh and it seems to be another commercial for AudioNote.

[RGA]

Sir T

I didn't even know the PS3 was a SACD machine. I just checked the box and it says "playback of Super Audio CD is not supported. Apparently they pulled it from the newer slim machines :-(

Apparently only the 60 and 80 gig versions will play SACD and these were the machines that would also play PS2 games - the new PS3 machines will not play PS2 games (which I think is monumentally stupid) But no one ever said that large companies cared about quality or logic just the bottom line. Here is a list of which PS3 machines play it http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc180147566


There is some rumbling from some Sony Reps that they may be pulling out of SACD. Both from making the hardware and software as they've been losing a lot of money on it. I fear that if Sony pulls out it will end SACD. As this author notes that it was near dead back in 2007 and it has not improved since. SACD sales was propped up because they included it on many budget DVD players and those 400 disc do everything mega changers. So every one of those that sold could be said was a SACD hardware sales but in reality probably less than .01% of the buyers were buying those machines because it had SACD support. Sony seems to have pulled out of including the technology largely I suspect due the horrid sales of the music. And even the sales of SACD music - some of that was propped up here because it includes the regular Redbook version to play in redbook machines. So it would be tough to determine if even SACD sales were truly about the consumer buying it for SACD or buying it because it happened to be the artiest they wanted and the only version the store had. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9680711-1.html

FWIW my dealer seems to prefer the sound of DVD-A over SACD by a significant margin from his level of enthusiasm in our discussion. At least with the machines he has and the software he has. I have not heard DVD-A enough because the stores that carried it seem to drop it so fast. The music selection at all the stores up here - Future Shop, Best-Buy and HMV have pathetic music selections. I have to buy used or online to get any quality music. Classical is almost completely gone from the box chains, Jazz has one rack and only mainstream big well known Jazz artists like krall, Miles Davis, Coltrane, Brubeck and even then only the latest couple of albums or compilations. Best Buy here did not have a classical CD outside of the 5 CD cheapo sets of Mozart and Beethoven.

Strangely HMV was selling a vinyl of Radiohead. But they have both moved into the video game and movie sales.

[RGA]

Sir T

I didn't even know the PS3 was a SACD machine. I just checked the box and it says "playback of Super Audio CD is not supported. Apparently they pulled it from the newer slim machines :-(

Apparently only the 60 and 80 gig versions will play SACD and these were the machines that would also play PS2 games - the new PS3 machines will not play PS2 games (which I think is monumentally stupid) But no one ever said that large companies cared about quality or logic just the bottom line. Here is a list of which PS3 machines play it http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc180147566


There is some rumbling from some Sony Reps that they may be pulling out of SACD. Both from making the hardware and software as they've been losing a lot of money on it. I fear that if Sony pulls out it will end SACD. As this author notes that it was near dead back in 2007 and it has not improved since. SACD sales was propped up because they included it on many budget DVD players and those 400 disc do everything mega changers. So every one of those that sold could be said was a SACD hardware sales but in reality probably less than .01% of the buyers were buying those machines because it had SACD support. Sony seems to have pulled out of including the technology largely I suspect due the horrid sales of the music. And even the sales of SACD music - some of that was propped up here because it includes the regular Redbook version to play in redbook machines. So it would be tough to determine if even SACD sales were truly about the consumer buying it for SACD or buying it because it happened to be the artiest they wanted and the only version the store had. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9680711-1.html

FWIW my dealer seems to prefer the sound of DVD-A over SACD by a significant margin from his level of enthusiasm in our discussion. At least with the machines he has and the software he has. I have not heard DVD-A enough because the stores that carried it seem to drop it so fast. The music selection at all the stores up here - Future Shop, Best-Buy and HMV have pathetic music selections. I have to buy used or online to get any quality music. Classical is almost completely gone from the box chains, Jazz has one rack and only mainstream big well known Jazz artists like krall, Miles Davis, Coltrane, Brubeck and even then only the latest couple of albums or compilations. Best Buy here did not have a classical CD outside of the 5 CD cheapo sets of Mozart and Beethoven.

Strangely HMV was selling a vinyl of Radiohead. But they have both moved into the video game and movie sales.

[GMichael]

Sir T

I didn't even know the PS3 was a SACD machine. I just checked the box and it says "playback of Super Audio CD is not supported. Apparently they pulled it from the newer slim machines :-(

Apparently only the 60 and 80 gig versions will play SACD and these were the machines that would also play PS2 games - the new PS3 machines will not play PS2 games (which I think is monumentally stupid) But no one ever said that large companies cared about quality or logic just the bottom line. Here is a list of which PS3 machines play it http://www.ps3sacd.com/faq.html#_Toc180147566


There is some rumbling from some Sony Reps that they may be pulling out of SACD. Both from making the hardware and software as they've been losing a lot of money on it. I fear that if Sony pulls out it will end SACD. As this author notes that it was near dead back in 2007 and it has not improved since. SACD sales was propped up because they included it on many budget DVD players and those 400 disc do everything mega changers. So every one of those that sold could be said was a SACD hardware sales but in reality probably less than .01% of the buyers were buying those machines because it had SACD support. Sony seems to have pulled out of including the technology largely I suspect due the horrid sales of the music. And even the sales of SACD music - some of that was propped up here because it includes the regular Redbook version to play in redbook machines. So it would be tough to determine if even SACD sales were truly about the consumer buying it for SACD or buying it because it happened to be the artiest they wanted and the only version the store had. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-9680711-1.html

FWIW my dealer seems to prefer the sound of DVD-A over SACD by a significant margin from his level of enthusiasm in our discussion. At least with the machines he has and the software he has. I have not heard DVD-A enough because the stores that carried it seem to drop it so fast. The music selection at all the stores up here - Future Shop, Best-Buy and HMV have pathetic music selections. I have to buy used or online to get any quality music. Classical is almost completely gone from the box chains, Jazz has one rack and only mainstream big well known Jazz artists like krall, Miles Davis, Coltrane, Brubeck and even then only the latest couple of albums or compilations. Best Buy here did not have a classical CD outside of the 5 CD cheapo sets of Mozart and Beethoven.

Strangely HMV was selling a vinyl of Radiohead. But they have both moved into the video game and movie sales.

I think you are right about the newer PS/3’s not having SACD, but I’ve heard that the BR music format is very good. Have you tried any of those?

[tube fan]

The digital you heard at that show was 16bit digital, that is all they had there. And what SACD's they had were played through players that transcoded the DSD stream to PCM, which is the worst way to handle SACD. There were ZERO demonstrations of high resolution audio done right - and the only one that had any high resolution recordings done right was me. When you have nothing legitimate to compare too, it is easy to make the argument that vinyl sounded better. Another thing is there were far more tube based amps at this show than SS, and most of them were in the larger rooms where the sound could stretch its legs sort of speak. This show was more tailored to vinyl and tubes than any show I have ever been to. I think CES is better at having more of a variety of both high end digital and analog, and high end tubes and SS.



He was referring to 16bit digital, and we are now at 24 and 32 bit digital. It looks to me like the older guys are slow to move on. :yesnod:




1993 was seventeen years ago...:rolleyes5: Do you really think that digital technology has stood still for that long?





They played plain old 16bit digital or DSD transcoded to PCM on that rig, hardly a way to present SACD. And finally, I know that reel to reel tape sounds better than most digital, we actually agree on this.

Tube Fan, you really need to get out and hear DXD based recordings. You probably won't give up either tubes or vinyl after listening to it(you are much too emotionally tied to both), but at least it will reset your notions of the current state of the art in digital, instead of you hanging on to a thirty year old memory.

I am beginning to get a clearer picture of why some wax nostalgic over tubes and vinyl, they are very emotionally attached to it. When you are this emotionally attached to something, you psychologically block out everything else(including what sounds better) to maintain that psychological connection. (now putting on my RE coat) Those of us that do not have that connection, don't really "marry" ourselves that closely to any format unless it has a sonic superiority over a previous format. When the next better sounding format comes along, we move on to that. We progress, and are not inclined to wax nostalgic over something when something better comes along. I am also beginning to think there is an age component to this as well.

You 100% incorrect that I have ANY emotional ties to either analogue or digital. Both are a huge pain. Tubes age and go bad. TTs and cartridges have numerous problems. However, until I hear digital that sounds realistic, I am forced to stick to analogue. I check out the shows and our top audio stores every 6 months, and I've never been impressed with the ss or digital sound.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I think you are right about the newer PS/3’s not having SACD, but I’ve heard that the BR music format is very good. Have you tried any of those?

Agreed. I have reviewed just about every title released, so if you need some pointers, I can help you out.

I forgot about SACD and the new players.

It would not surprise me one bit if Sony drops SACD. Now with the Blu ray disc, they have a chance to revive high resolution music without supporting tools that are not normally found in studios(all DSD workflow in a all PCM world).

[tube fan]

Are there ANY stores where I can hear this wonderful new digital sound in the SF bay area? Is there much software?

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You 100% incorrect that I have ANY emotional ties to either analogue or digital. Both are a huge pain. Tubes age and go bad. TTs and cartridges have numerous problems. However, until I hear digital that sounds realistic, I am forced to stick to analogue. I check out the shows and our top audio stores every 6 months, and I've never been impressed with the ss or digital sound.

I am not convinced by this statement. First, if you read the review of the Bryston 28BSST here:

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/108bry/index1.html

Notice this quote

The 28B-SST's midrange was just as sweet, clear, and open as its treble, and full of new musical information—all reminiscent of the triode mode of the VTL S-400 tube amplifier, which I used to review VTL's TL-6.5 preamplifier (Vol.30 No.6).

So Larry Greenhill is comparing the excellent qualities of the 28BSST a SS design, to the same excellent qualities of the VTL S-400 tube amp, an amp of which I have heard before. If this reviewer finds qualities they both share, why can't you?. As much as I like SS designs, I recognized there are certain qualities of tube designs I can appreaciate. I am not so biased in favor of SS designs that I cannot recognize some great qualities of a tube design. If you have not heard a single SS amp that sounds as good as a tube amp, you are A) not looking.B) do not want to recognize any good qualities of a SS design or,C) you purposely don't into rooms at shows that feature SS designs. The same goes for digital sound. Puget sound was at the California Audio Show, did you bother to listen to the DXD based recordings they had?

I fully understand your prejudice against 16bit digital, I don't care for it either. But it is difficult for me to believe that you go to all of these shows, and have never heard a high resolution digital source that offered the same realism as analog. 24/96 DVD-A has been out for years, almost a decade now, 24/192khz has been around for at least that long as well(but not widely used until the last five years), and you have never heard it at a show?

This seems very curious to me because at CES a couple of years ago, 24/96khz, 24/192khz, SACD, and DXD recordings were all over the place. Based on your claimed exposure(of which I don't doubt), you should have heard an excellent presentation of high resolution digital by now. Personally, I think when you hear or see the words digital, you shut off any objectivity before you even hear it. The slant and tone of your postings sure bare that out.

[tube fan]

The only digital based system I have ever heard that came close to my system (remember I have Audio Research tube units, more ss in tonal balance than 98% of other tube units) was in the Audio Note room at the recent show. I have never gotten three-dimensional sound out of any ss unit. Note that others prefer tubes because they have qualities that elude all ss units. I would VASTLY prefer a ss unit to my AR gear, if it could match my Audio Research units (say at $15,000 or less). Note that ss amps and pre-amps should be much less expensive to maintain than tube units, a huge plus for ss. What ss units should I try to hear in my system (Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers, VPI Scoutmaster with Benz Ruby 3 cartridge)?

I have the same objection to mm cartridges compared to mc ones. The only non-mc cartridge I have liked was the London Decca, which is probably more trouble than mc cartridges.

[E-Stat]

What ss units should I try to hear in my system (Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers, VPI Scoutmaster with Benz Ruby 3 cartridge)?In addition to the latest Bryston 28B Sir T mentioned (not earlier amps), have you tried anything from Pass Labs? ASR? Spectral? I confess that I would really like to hear what a clean kilowatt would sound like on my stats.

rw

[tube fan]

I have heard, and hated ss from Spectral and Pass. Many of the top reviewers in the Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and Drago prefer tubes to ss. Ditto for analogue over digital. I'm sure they have heard most of the top ss units, and they still favor tubes and analogue. The Audio research VSi60 integrated amp which got such a rave review in Stereophile only costs $4,000. I'll check out the Bryston, but I doubt that it will impress me as I was unmoved by the Spectral and Pass ss units I heard.

[E-Stat]

I'll check out the Bryston, but I doubt that it will impress me as I was unmoved by the Spectral and Pass ss units I heard.
HP says it sounds pretty darn good on the Scaenas and the Sanders.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I have heard, and hated ss from Spectral and Pass. Many of the top reviewers in the Absolute Sound, Stereophile, and Drago prefer tubes to ss. Ditto for analogue over digital. I'm sure they have heard most of the top ss units, and they still favor tubes and analogue. The Audio research VSi60 integrated amp which got such a rave review in Stereophile only costs $4,000. I'll check out the Bryston, but I doubt that it will impress me as I was unmoved by the Spectral and Pass ss units I heard.

Keep an open mind, if you go in to a listening session with this attitude, there is no way an objective evaluation is possible. If you walk in with the attitude that you will not be impressed, then you probably won't be.

I would bet this is the attitude you take anytime your hear the words "digital" and "solid state".

[RGA]

In addition to the latest Bryston 28B Sir T mentioned (not earlier amps), have you tried anything from Pass Labs? ASR? Spectral? I confess that I would really like to hear what a clean kilowatt would sound like on my stats.

rw

My issue with SS has long been that they sound too much alike and that "alike" sound isn't all that good. If you can't differentiate them in a blind level matched session then the differences just are not that noticable to be worth an extra $20,000 so unless it's about power in a big room then the difference in an average listening room on 87-90db easyish speakers then throwing money at SS isn't really getting you anywhere. In other words a Classe set-up sounds a lot more like a Sim Audio and a Rotel front end than does an Audio Note versus Jolida versu Cary.

I find that tube fans get attacked for not keeping an open mind but a lot of SS guys take one look and see a tube and automatically project "euphony" and have their own set of predispositions and will hear into things that are not there. They have every bit the bias a tube guy has. I have read moronic statements that you can add a resister to the cable to get "tube" sound - which implies that tube amps all sound the same. Tube amps sound a lot more different than SS amps so SS supporters often over generalize the so called "tube sound." A Jolida 302b sounds all warm and mushy and some like it. The ASL AQ 1003DT same price range same tubes sounds lean and mean like some SS amps They are entirely different sounding amps.

The Tube Fan is not mishearing things. SS has a certain flatness and throwing money at it doesn't necessarily help. I liked the Technical Brain amps - these are a bit different in design from the usual and judging byt the people who liked the Lotus set-up probably were responding to the TB amps. But sure it gets good at $80,000+ and TB has a track record that every unit that has been sold in North America breaks down. See Valin's review of them. The Bryston 28b at CES didn't convince me - the room they were in was arguably bottom two or three I heard there.

I had a guy selling panels and his own 1000 watt amps telling me how you need 1000 watts to get the dynamics and scale of music - 10 rooms down the hall I heard the Jinro (20 watts) on twa ways blow his panels and his 1000 watt system into next week and sound a lot better cleaner and less chaulky sounding in the treble. The words organic and real pop up a lot with tube gear because there is more "meat" and body to instruments and vocals.

My dealer has sold virtually every big audiophile brand noted - with great tube gear you hear the "room" on the recordings - with SS even his best SS you simply never do. You hear a washed out 2 dimensional presentation that is very clear and crisp and "tight" and those are commendable things but to my ear and obviously to Tube Fan's ears something got hacked off to get that crispy clean front. Some SS keeps it intact better than others. Class A single ended amps like the Sugden - but even then factoring in the price I ask can a tube do the same or better for less and while I absolutely love the circa 1992- versions of the A21a - I still prefer other tube amps for less money. I did enjoy an inexpensive Heed Audio SS amp at CES which was surprisingly good for the money and has an interesting design approach.

The problem for a lot of tube guys keeping an open mind is that once you've heard say 5-10 of what are considered the best SS amps and you see $70,000 price tags and you say - gee my $3000 tube amp sounds a lot better then it's hard to blame folks for giving up. I mean I have heard Krell, Levinson, Classe, McIntosh, Bryston, Rotel, Creek Audio, Naim, Arcam, Rega, NAD, Sugden, Linn, YBA, Meridian, Sim Audio, Musical Fidelity, at considerable length. Then there are all the brands at shows and fellow audiophile houses and various short auditions like Edge, Boulder, Pass, Technical Brain, etc.

At some point you make a decision that wehn a $4000 tube integrated sounds better than a $80,000 Krell Levinson then you stick with the pain of buying tubes every couple of years. And if it is that your ear/brain is being seduced by beautiful second harmonic distortion and euphony then so be it. Better sound is better sound no matter the reasons for why it sounds better. And since better is somewhat subjective - what are you gonna do? I think I get why people like the sound of Krell and Bryston. But I grow weary when they imply they have better ears because it is "more accurate" and star doling out graphs to convince others. If you need a graph to convince people something sounds "good" then you have just admitted you don't have the ears to determine that for yourself. And if you don't have the ears for this then stop spending money and go to Best Buy and get one of those receivers and a nice little Klipsch home theater in a box set-ups and spend the money on some other hobby.

[Feanor]

My issue with SS has long been that they sound too much alike and that "alike" sound isn't all that good. If you can't differentiate them in a blind level matched session then the differences just are not that noticable to be worth an extra $20,000 so unless it's about power in a big room then the difference in an average listening room on 87-90db easyish speakers then throwing money at SS isn't really getting you anywhere. In other words a Classe set-up sounds a lot more like a Sim Audio and a Rotel front end than does an Audio Note versus Jolida versu Cary.

...
Oh! All of a sudden blind tests are important to you, RGA. I never cease to marvel at your self-contradiction and hypocracy.

The fact of the "alikeness" of solid state would tell an open-minded person something, i.e. maybe, (just maybe), s/s does something right that the myriad variations of tube sound cannot.

I was surprised at the significant differences between my s/s, yet fine-sound, Monarchy amps, and my recently DIY'd Class D Audio SDS-258, (see the AA review and further comments HERE (http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/amp/messages/15/157758.html)). And price difference is far, far from $20,000 let me assure you. The transparency and dimensionality of the latter (even more than the former), is astounding. What's more, it's ability to convey the authentic harmonics of instruments is outstanding and the best I've heard in my system.

Are the "dimensionality" and "authentic harmonics" that I refer above the same as the "depth" and "tonal richness" (or whatever the phrase) attributed tube equipment? I've heard the latter on occassion and I would say they're probably not the same thing. As for which is are accurate, I'd say the former. Which is more pleasant is a harder call; perhaps that depends whether you can handle the truth.

[RGA]

Feanor

i don't tend to trust reviews from DIYers because there is a known bias to such pride of ownership accomplishments.

As for DBT's I am not a supporter of them for many valid reasons but in general people who wax poetic on Solid State like to go to the "science" as to why they're superior to tubes so if you go to the well you should not be a hypocrite and you should also go to the science that clearly illustrates that you won't tell one SS amp from another one level matched assuming both don't go into clipping at the given level. Tube amps won't all be differentiated in a DBT against SS either - depends on the amp.

"The fact of the "alikeness" of solid state would tell an open-minded person something, i.e. maybe, (just maybe), s/s does something right that the myriad variations of tube sound cannot.

So you're saying they're "alike" and that is a good thing and try to slam tubes but then proceed to say that SS sounds a lot different (a lot means very noticable and even though I am not for DBT's they will show up hugely noticable differences - so they're not hugely noticable). And a LOT of SS makers tend to to state things like "valve-like" and our amps sound more analog etc. Such makers I applaud for knowing which sounds better but then I wonder why they just didn't make a tube amp since that is clearly their reference standard goal. I read Heed Audios page and even they were talking about getting the superior dynamics blah blah of valve designs. Fascinatingly I like their amps before I read the website and now I get an idea of why it sounds good.

I am not against class D - I have heard a few pretty good ones and PS Audio has some interesting amps at $999 which are appealing from a price size perspective.

The fact that tube amps have a lot of variation can be viewed to be varying degrees of inaccuracy since if they sound different then they can't all be accurate. But then I don't believe anything out there is truly accurate so my view is to have it sound "good" and generally the tube amps tend to sound better out of what I have heard. SS may sound better out of what you have heard but we both have not heard everything. It comes down to experiential listening and most people have not heard the systems I have heard so there is no point in having the discussion.

[Geoffcin]

What a priggish thing to say!


Feanor

i don't tend to trust reviews from DIYers because there is a known bias to such pride of ownership accomplishments.

You've just proven my view that your speakers are nothing more than overpriced poorly designed boxes with middling drivers in a simplistic array that only a person who was foolish enough to purchase at an outrageous price would defend as "state-of-the-art". That "would be pride of ownership" talking on your part, and it would discount your views on these speakers entirely!

[tube fan]

I just read the Stereophile review of the Bryston 28b, and they caution to use it with 6 or 8 ohm speakers. That lets me out! Trust me, I have a completely open mind. Remember, my favorite system at the CAS was the Evolution Acoustics when playing copies of master tapes and driven by ss units. The Audio Note system was in my top 3 rooms, and they only used CDs. Looking back on the show, I am still shocked how realistic the Audio Note system sounded. How much was due to the Jinro integrated amp, and how much to the Audio Note speakers, could not be determined. I am going to
audition the Audio note speakers with analogue front end on Friday. It might get expensive!

[RGA]

What a priggish thing to say!



You've just proven my view that your speakers are nothing more than overpriced poorly designed boxes with middling drivers in a simplistic array that only a person who was foolish enough to purchase at an outrageous price would defend as "state-of-the-art". That "would be pride of ownership" talking on your part, and it would discount your views on these speakers entirely!

This is not a priggish thing to say - you can do the research on this yourself if you were the slightest bit interested - that the do it yourself creations tend to bias the people who build the unit to like it more than if they had not built it. This has been studied and you can check it out.

I have never said that the Audio Note line of speakers were "state-of-the-art" in fact I have said that many other speakers have certain attributes that I think are considerably better - thus in those area those other speakers would or could be called "state-of-the-art."

And before you start doing your wonderful moderating job of not starting flames - I would consider the cost of your own speakers before you start deriding what others own. I am fortunate to have a dealer who knows the mark-up of Magnepan and now I also know them. As well as the parts cost since they are a Magnepan repair facility. With that knowledge I certainly would not be poking fun at "any" other speaker brand.

[RGA]

I just read the Stereophile review of the Bryston 28b, and they caution to use it with 6 or 8 ohm speakers. That lets me out! Trust me, I have a completely open mind. Remember, my favorite system at the CAS was the Evolution Acoustics when playing copies of master tapes and driven by ss units. The Audio Note system was in my top 3 rooms, and they only used CDs. Looking back on the show, I am still shocked how realistic the Audio Note system sounded. How much was due to the Jinro integrated amp, and how much to the Audio Note speakers, could not be determined. I am going to
audition the Audio note speakers with analogue front end on Friday. It might get expensive!

Do your best to audition an All AN system. Not that other gear can't sound good with it but in general the speakers tend to like their own amps. The amp/speaker are designed together (voiced together). The turntable so long as it is good should be fine if it's from someone else. AN CD replay is really good - but even Peter says good vinyl beats his best digital at half the price. He along with everyone else making CD players is still ultimately limited to the CD format - there is only so much that can be done.

I'm quite surprised they didn't bring the entry level turntable. Mario ran the room and he's the guy who builds them. I think you would be impressed at what an MM cart can do when it's designed properly!

[Geoffcin]

This is not a priggish thing to say - you can do the research on this yourself if you were the slightest bit interested - that the do it yourself creations tend to bias the people who build the unit to like it more than if they had not built it. This has been studied and you can check it out.
.

Oh really, it's been studied eh? Please show me one of these "studies" that you are quoting from.

I for one trust Feanors appraisal of his amp better than any you would give me, even if you are a self proclaimed "reviewer". :ciappa:

[Feanor]

Feanor

i don't tend to trust reviews from DIYers because there is a known bias to such pride of ownership accomplishments.

....
Ha! You are right about that in general. ;) Of course in my case I can't take any credit for the amp design or construction -- I just put it in a box.

As for skepticism, I'm by no means convinced by those who say they know about amps and any sort of equipment at consumers shows or even in retail show rooms. There might be a partial exception in case of speakers, though as you know well, we constantly here how the speakers couldn't be set up properly in some hotel room or wherever. The fact is even a (self-proclaimed) "expert" such as yourself can only fairly judge components in a familiar room and equipment setting.

[RGA]

Oh really, it's been studied eh? Please show me one of these "studies" that you are quoting from.

I for one trust Feanors appraisal of his amp better than any you would give me, even if you are a self proclaimed "reviewer". :ciappa:

yeah I didn't think you'd want to know how much the parts are in a Magnepan. I did not insult his gear - read it again. I said that someone who builds it himself has a bias - I am not hunting down the quotes and articles to satisfy you. If you can't see the basic psychological logic of it then I can't help you.

[GMichael]

I said that someone who builds it himself has a bias -.

Are you saying that the sub I built isn't really as good as I thought? You take that back Mister.

[Geoffcin]

Are you saying that the sub I built isn't really as good as I thought? You take that back Mister.

That's exactly what he's saying, and even more; He's saying that you as a builder are in some way unable to grade your own work because it's so dear to you.

What a load of crap!

If anything people who build their own gear are MORE astute about what is, or is not good about the build. I would say that this goes across the board from audio, to just about anything else that is hand made.

[RGA]

Ha! You are right about that in general. ;) Of course in my case I can't take any credit for the amp design or construction -- I just put it in a box.

As for skepticism, I'm by no means convinced by those who say they know about amps and any sort of equipment at consumers shows or even in retail show rooms. There might be a partial exception in case of speakers, though as you know well, we constantly here how the speakers couldn't be set up properly in some hotel room or wherever. The fact is even a (self-proclaimed) "expert" such as yourself can only fairly judge components in a familiar room and equipment setting.

Yes and that's the same excuse many IMO lesser product makers always give. I'll give you that listening to something once in an unfamiliar room that may not be set up properly can be unfair to the maker. At a show like CES pretty much every room on a given floor is the same. All makers have very similar room conditions with which to work. And every maker has to deal with things they don't like. I can forgive some of them but in the end stereos are designed to work in rooms. Manufacturers are given the room dimensions ahead of time. The makers who have done this for years have no excuse - first time guys fine they're still learning the layouts.

Some companies can't afford the big rooms or signed up late and the room they got was all they had left. Some stuff I have heard in half a dozen rooms before I went to the show and which have been set up by professionals so I can tell the difference of how the showroom treats certain speakers. Most nearfield listening speakers can be auditioned with little room effect which is kind of the point with nearfield speakers.

The AN speakers at CAS were too big for that room, not positioned in corners and it probably had about 60% of what they're about. But I think people could still get a general idea at least in the mids and treble. I have long said they're room friendly because even when they're not at their best they still sound "good" maybe not great but good.

No I was not there but I have heard those speakers in similar compromised set-ups. And they still were generally very well liked. They were compromised - and still some reviewers found them to be the best they heard at the show and that without proper bass and a frequency that was likely out of whack. They showed enough to have people want to try and listen again in a better set-up. But they have to at least do that in a show environment because they are still "rooms" and a speaker needs to work in them. Ideal or not.

And ultimately an audition, even if not perfectly ideal, is still better than judging stuff without any audition of any kind! Plenty of people here seem to have lots of opinions on something they have never auditioned - even the "audio forum" moderator for heaven sake whos is supposed to have some level of objectivity to be given the position in the first place.

By the way I was not saying your DIY amp was poor - just that people who build things themselves have a bias to liking it more than if they had not built it themselves. There is a good article and a famous DIY quote on this phenomenon but I can't remember the title or the author. And since it also applies to AN kit builders I figured it would not be taken the way it was.

[Geoffcin]

yeah I didn't think you'd want to know how much the parts are in a Magnepan. I did not insult his gear - read it again. I said that someone who builds it himself has a bias - I am not hunting down the quotes and articles to satisfy you. If you can't see the basic psychological logic of it then I can't help you.

No I really DO want to know what it all costs, since it's been about 10 years since I bought my first repair kit from Magnepan. ($46.50)

While you at it please give me the markup costs that your dealer told you. I hope you know that divulging proprietary info like that can cost your dealer more than his Magnepan dealership. I'm sure a lot of other manufacturers will want to know that he's giving out their confidential info to punters like yourself.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I just read the Stereophile review of the Bryston 28b, and they caution to use it with 6 or 8 ohm speakers. That lets me out! Trust me, I have a completely open mind. Remember, my favorite system at the CAS was the Evolution Acoustics when playing copies of master tapes and driven by ss units. The Audio Note system was in my top 3 rooms, and they only used CDs. Looking back on the show, I am still shocked how realistic the Audio Note system sounded. How much was due to the Jinro integrated amp, and how much to the Audio Note speakers, could not be determined. I am going to
audition the Audio note speakers with analogue front end on Friday. It might get expensive!

Ummm Tube fan, either you cannot read very well, or you are purposefully trying to be misleading. Here is the quote from the article on what you said

Bryston publishes only the 28B-SST's maximum power output into 8 ohms; no ratings are offered for loads of 4 or 2 ohms. However, run into 4 ohm loads, with the rear-panel circuit breaker bypassed, the amplifier won't clip until it's continuously delivering 1800W. The resulting current flow will trip the 15-amp breakers in most homes after 10–20 seconds of continuous power. Chris Russell explained that, because regulatory agencies test an amplifier at its rated power under home conditions, for the 28B-SST Bryston chose a power rating into 8 ohms that would not trip the average home's circuit breaker.

Here is your caution, which is not a caution at all:

While it definitely works better with speakers having impedances of 4 ohms or greater, Bryston's 28B-SST joins that select group of very-high-powered amplifiers that have sufficiently low noise and distortion to reproduce high-resolution digital recordings without compromise.

While it definitely works better, does not mean it cannot work at all. And what he means by work better is outlined in the above statement. It works better with speaker loads greater than 4 ohms because it does not trip the breakers in most folks home. For those like me who use 20 amp and 40 amp circuits, this is not a problem.

[RGA]

No I really DO want to know what it all costs, since it's been about 10 years since I bought my first repair kit from Magnepan. ($46.50)

While you at it please give me the markup costs that your dealer told you. I hope you know that divulging proprietary info like that can cost your dealer more than his Magnepan dealership. I'm sure a lot of other manufacturers will want to know that he's giving out their confidential info to punters like yourself.

Actually they can't because we're talking about the cost of the materials not overall costs. Cost of materials is far eaiser to find. Simply rip it apart. The "general" information provided was not specific to any model. Since other dealers have said the same thing - it is not like this is confidential knowledge. Several manufacturers have admitted it on AudioAsylum as well. The owner of Merlin speakers and PQ among some others.

Just saying when you say a product uses cheap parts you should look at the level of parts that are in the speakers in your stable.

And you need to put your magnepan fanboy views aside when moderating. You are sending e-mails to them, you are attacking an audio manufacturer that you have never once auditioned, threatened and implied law-suit against an audio dealer? And calling forum poster's names. And basically because someone doesn't like the speakers you own and only brings them up because you attack a speaker you've never heard.

[Geoffcin]

Actually they can't because we're talking about the cost of the materials not overall costs. Cost of materials is far eaiser to find. Simply rip it apart. The "general" information provided was not specific to any model.

Just as I thought, never did know the markup did ya? Next time you CLAIM to have info be prepared to get called out again.

[mlsstl]

...I said that someone who builds it himself has a bias - I am not hunting down the quotes and articles to satisfy you. If you can't see the basic psychological logic of it then I can't help you.
The only catch is that, in my experience, people who buy things are just as emotionally invested as those who build their own. One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.

In fact, over the years I can think of several DIYers I knew who were considerably more modest about their gear than those whose sole contribution was taking their purchase out of the box. The latter are quite proud of their superior taste. Not everyone is capable of making such a refined and subtle choice! ;-)

[Geoffcin]

While it definitely works better, does not mean it cannot work at all. And what he means by work better is outlined in the above statement. It works better with speaker loads greater than 4 ohms because it does not trip the breakers in most folks home. For those like me who use 20 amp and 40 amp circuits, this is not a problem.

It seems strange to me too that one of the most powerful amps in the world would not be rated for 4 ohms? Turns out it can drive a dead short to 1800 watts.

[Geoffcin]

One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.


HA!!! They got nuthing on Porche owners!

[RGA]

Just as I thought, never did know the markup did ya? Next time you CLAIM to have info be prepared to get called out again.

Well what i know and what I will tell someone who will attempt to use it against me is another matter.

[RGA]

The only catch is that, in my experience, people who buy things are just as emotionally invested as those who build their own. One only has to spend a few moments with a BMW owner to realize their pride of ownership would lead you to think they supervised the pour of the engine block casting themselves.

In fact, over the years I can think of several DIYers I knew who were considerably more modest about their gear than those whose sole contribution was taking their purchase out of the box. The latter are quite proud of their superior taste. Not everyone is capable of making such a refined and subtle choice! ;-)

I think everyone is biased to some degree or another when they buy or build something. I have bought many items over the years. And I have no problems admitting that I am a FAN of Audio Note gear. Not because I own it though I am glad that I do. I owned a LOT of audio products before Audio Note and still own other products. I am not necessarily a "fan" of those. For me it has to make me a fan. I have never owned a car for example from the same manufacturer. I have had one Ford, one Pontiac, one Honda, one Toyota, one Kia and it's not like I am tied to any one of them - although I certainly disliked some of them and probably would not buy from some of them again.

There are audio products I like from some makers that overall I have not liked products from, and there are products from Audio Note that I don't like - like the AX One speakers and some I am not excited about - they're not bad but not great like the SORO, OTO PP, and some that I think are good but I think would make more sense to buy separates at the price like the Meishu which is pricey and doesn't exactly save space. It's a fine amp but at the price one can buy separates that offer more. My dealer is pretty honest about all the gear he sells and would skip the M1 or M2 preamp. People have a right to express their opinions but it would be nice if people actually auditioned the gear they opine about.

[RGA]

Material costs of speakers runs at 10:1 - a $2000 pair of loudspeakers from most manufacturers has a material cost of less than $200 per pair or less than $100 per speaker. That ratio is often higher with bigger manufacturers because they are covering other costs and reduced with companies that do not have as much tertiary costs such as marketing catalogs, advertising etc. That applies to most manufacturers. If they would like to prove differently they can post on a forum and tell us the ratio is lower and how and why it is lower. The more expensive models usually have even higher difference between cost to retail. That is no secret and it applies to most of the speakers mentioned in this thread.

Scaled further down A $500 pair has less than $50 a pair or less than $25 in material costs per speaker. A $5k speaker has $500 worth of materials and so on. Some manufacturers have posted they do considerably better at 3-5 times the material cost.

Some makers have more labour intensive practices which drive costs further up - some have less cost with mass production and Chinese or other cheap labour practices, fair wages, benefits, or where they don't have any environmental levies to worry about which will cut costs further.

PS: This is common knowledge across most industries not just audio.

[Geoffcin]

Material costs of speakers runs at 10:1 - a $2000 pair of loudspeakers from most manufacturers has a material cost of less than $200 per pair or less than $100 per speaker.

PS: This is common knowledge across most industries not just audio.

This is one of the most absurd statements you've ever posted, and that's saying something! Where exactly are you getting your figures? Or did you just rip off a page from the AN playbook and extrapolate it to the entire industry?

[tube fan]

I was just directly quoting JA'S warning. Silly me. Actually, $17,000 for an amp is over my price point. I want to hear ss units that better my AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint SA-2, for $15,000 or less. My tube units are not available, but you can probably get better sound from the tube AR VSi60 integrated amp and the tube Fosgate phono amp (total: $6,500).

I'm going to hear Audio Note speakers today playing some of my vinyl records. I'll let you know how they compare to other systems I heard my vinyl through at the show.

I've still received no reply to my request for an audio store in the SF bay area, where I can hear this wonderful new digital sound. ALL the digital set ups I have heard so far, with the exception of the Audio Note one, have sounded hard, thin, and flat. Perhaps it was the tubes in the Audio Note CD players (and, of course, the Jinro $22,000 integrated amp) that produced that wonderful sound from the Audio Note digital system.

[E-Stat]

I want to hear ss units that better my AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint SA-2, for $15,000 or less.
Have you heard the ARC Reference 110 (http://www.arcdb.ws/REF110/REF110.html)? I think you'll find it is not nearly as "sweet" as your mid 80s D70s if that is the sound you seek. Those older mylar coupling caps tended to soften transients. I had a later VT100 MKII for a while which was further along the pathway towards neutrality. As for SS, have you heard a pair of Pass Labs XA60.5s? The single chassis half-power flavor was compared quite favorably with the reviewer's tube amps here. (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/passlabs/xa305.html)

rw

[RGA]

This is one of the most absurd statements you've ever posted, and that's saying something! Where exactly are you getting your figures? Or did you just rip off a page from the AN playbook and extrapolate it to the entire industry?

If you meet me in person without a wire I shall tell you. But I have concerns about you.

My figures are accurate whether you wish to believe them or not is up to you. and we shall leave it at that. Without giving you information to use against me later I will say that there are loudspeakers that Parts Express sells for $300 that also sell from manufacturers that retail for $2,000 - $3,000. That is $300 retail kit though so they are still making money on that kit. Meanwhile a retailer is selling the same speakers for up to 10 times the price. They said it at the show in Vegas and I have to say looking at the Cabinet it was very very nice for $300 and indeed would not look out of place at $3,000 if you put a nice logo on the front most people would not blink.

My B&W 302 was pulled apart and was found to have less than $30 in parts. It retailed for $300 and could be had after negotiating for about $225. That is nearly 10 times the price and on a lower priced model - the ratio is often higher on higher priced models.

This does not include labour.

These figures are obvious and I can't believe you would even question this which illustrates how little you know of manufacturing. You have a manufacturer who has to make a profit and a dealer who has to cover all his operating costs, employees, and ALSO has to make a profit. The dealer mark-up is in the range of 25-100% on audio. If something retails for $2000 the dealer alone is making $500 to a $1000 on it. They have to because the salemsan gets his cut and so does the store owner. The manufacturer has to pay for shipping, crates/boxes, marketing, shows, his employees, and has to make money on it as well. Add in repair services, and R&D and that $2000 retail product that the dealer has made $500 on and that is ultra "low" leaves $1500 and the manufacturer has no more than $500 in it (and that is very high). That $500 covers everything including the labour which is generally more costs than the parts. Even if you say the labour is 50% (which is low) then that means the $2000 speaker could not possibly have more than $250 of actual parts in it - it would be lower because this still has no manufacturer profit calculate in.

Back before I was a reviewer I knew the big Canadian dealer of a major Canadian amp maker - we'll call the maker "B". I knew the purchasing agent for the dealer carrying this amp. Their mark-up was 40% because he told me that he got amp "B" at their cost. $2000 retail means that dealer made $800 on every unit. And this is in Canada without a lot of shipping. $1200 is what the dealer paid. What you think "B" only makes a $100 on it?. If the dealer is making $800 you know the manufacturer is making at least the same amount since they are the ones who have even higher costs to cover and actually have to have some R&D - they have all the manufacturing costs, advertising, the long warranty, shipping, employees, governmantal taxes, pension plans, etc. They make at LEAST $800-$1000 on it to cover their costs and to make a profit to be able to buy the fancy new workshops and let the owner live the good life. That leaves $200 - $400 worth of actual parts that are inside the amplifier (and I am betting closer to $200 since the parts don't seem the least bit exotic in the amps made by "B"). This is no knock on "B" - the purchasing rep said the mark-up was actually quite low which means most of the other stuff sold there was considerably higher.

And don't even get started on Cables. The manager at A&B Sound who could import virtually anything you wanted told me a lot of stuff - That is no industry secret since he turned the computer screen around and showed me the margin. He made more money on a $60 cable than he made on a $600 TV. Interestingly, TV margins are not as high as you might think since they take up space and they factor in delivery to the home etc.

Every store seems to say they lose $10-$20 on the PS3 selling at $299 - not sure I believe that but it could be so given they make the real money on the games. Same with those $49 printers where the ink can cost $80. Give the person the cow for free but charge $50 for a glass of its milk.

None of this is any secret by the way. It's the same in every other manufacturing industry. Watch the movie the Corporation. Alpine car decks that cost $ 0.61 to make and sell for $300 and probably $400 back when the movie was made. So company "B" look spretty damn good now doesn't it. And Alpine is considered to be one of the better sounding and built car cd players.

Think about it - the car cd player has far more stress on it than a home unit has. So start looking at the costs of things. Burr Brown used to have a web-site up that listed the price of their DACs. They ranged in price from something like .40 each to $1.80. None were over $2. You see advertisements - "this special deluxe CD player uses Burr Brown Chips" as if this was some sort of great selling feature and rather than spend $500 for the cd player it will cost you $2000. If that is what it costs to buy a Burr Brown what does it costs to buy the really cheap stuff. .2? Still holy Mark-Up Batman.

Pull your speaker apart and get back to me.

Look at those USB flash drives. A 2gig one sells for something like $8.99 while a 16gig will sell for $59 or some stupid price. It doesn't cost more to make - it's the same technology same size. And that 16gig one in 3 years will be selling for $8.99 because the 2 gig one three years ago was selling for $59. They're making money at $8.99 - they just make a lot more at $59.

[Geoffcin]

We CAN agree that the markups on SOME kit is ridiculous. Cables, power cords, interconnects, 1000% markup or MORE is usual. However that doesn't apply to ALL of audio And yes, retail markups are in the order or 20%-50% depending on brand.

There are exceptions though; I can tell you from my own experience that if I wanted to build a sub woofer of the quality of the Axiom EP500 it would have cost me the same or MORE. Just the plate amp alone would be worth $400-$500.

In any case, this thread has drifted so far off line that I think it's best to end this discussion.

[RGA]

Geoofcin I think where you are coming from is for YOU to be able to match what the manufacturer is doing - we agree. We can't in your sub example because the maker can buy at reduced prices while we're stuck buying at retail.

[tube fan]

Have you heard the ARC Reference 110 (http://www.arcdb.ws/REF110/REF110.html)? I think you'll find it is not nearly as "sweet" as your mid 80s D70s if that is the sound you seek. Those older mylar coupling caps tended to soften transients. I had a later VT100 MKII for a while which was further along the pathway towards neutrality. As for SS, have you heard a pair of Pass Labs XA60.5s? The single chassis half-power flavor was compared quite favorably with the reviewer's tube amps here. (http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/passlabs/xa305.html)

rw

My AR D-70 is certainly NOT "sweet" like 98% of other tube amps. It is very ss in its tonal balance, i.e., neutral. When the recording calls for it, the D-70 can produce hard edged sound (powering either my Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV speakers, both of which have extended high ends). I do have new caps, but, even with the original ones, it sounded very ss in balance (nothing like the CJ or SE tube units). The Pass ss amps sound just OK (failing again in three-dimensional sound). My objection to most tube amps is that they make all records sound mellow. ALL ss amps I have heard make anything other than master tapes sound bright, thin, and hard. AR amps have always tended toward a neutral sound.

[E-Stat]

My AR D-70 is certainly NOT "sweet" like 98% of other tube amps.
Have you heard their current higher end models as a point of comparison like a REF110? I assure you they sound different than their '83 flavors.


The Pass ss amps...
That was not exactly my question. Have you heard one of the XA.5 series?


AR amps have always tended toward a neutral sound.
Yet their sound has evolved considerably over the past thirty five years. Their current line stages do not sound like an SP-8, either.

As for me, I've found that the better models from tube and SS alike have converged over the years. Historically, tubes ruled the midrange, but suffered at the extremes. SS excelled at the extremes, but not in the middle. Today, if you were to compare a 610T or Siegfrieds vs. the best SS, I think you'll find more similarities than differences. I bought VTL monoblocks almost ten years ago because they provided for me the most compelling midrange and thus realism of any $10k amps (better than the VT100MKII) along with good bass response. Arguably, it is a touch rolled off at the top but such is a sin of omission and could be due to the reactive character of my speakers.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

As for me, I've found that the better models from tube and SS alike have converged over the years. Historically, tubes ruled the midrange, but suffered at the extremes. SS excelled at the extremes, but not in the middle. Today, if you were to compare a 610T or Siegfrieds vs. the best SS, I think you'll find more similarities than differences. I bought VTL monoblocks almost ten years ago because they provided for me the most compelling midrange and thus realism of any $10k amps (better than the VT100MKII) along with good bass response. Arguably, it is a touch rolled off at the top but such is a sin of omission and could be due to the reactive character of my speakers.

rw

I have to agree with this whole paragraph, I do think the better models of both tube and SS have converged over the years.

[tube fan]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used. Both my Fulton Js and Dunlavy SC-IV have extended high ends (the Fultons go much lower), and need no high end punch.

[tube fan]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used. Both my Fulton Js and Dunlavy SC-IV have extended high ends (the Fultons go much lower), and need no high end punch.

[E-Stat]

Most of the difference in sound between my AR SP-8 and D-70 and the new AR gear vanishes when new caps and resistors are used.
I'm not sure I agree entirely. The 6H30 tubes have a slightly different character from the traditional 12AX7s and 6922 / 7308 variants. Have you found a source for replacing the mylar coupling caps with the ones ARC now uses? They have also more than doubled the power supply capacity and require balanced connections.


...and need no high end punch.
Hmmm. I wouldn't characterize high frequency extension exactly as "high end punch". On the contrary, I enjoy hearing the innately soft and natural upper harmonics of bell trees, triangles, etc. Air is nice.

rw

[Geoffcin]

I'm not sure I agree entirely. The 6H30 tubes have a slightly different character from the traditional 12AX7s and 6922 / 7308 variants. Have you found a source for replacing the mylar coupling caps with the ones ARC now uses? They have also more than doubled the power supply capacity and require balanced connections.


Hmmm. I wouldn't characterize high frequency extension exactly as "high end punch". On the contrary, I enjoy hearing the innately soft and natural upper harmonics of bell trees, triangles, etc. Air is nice.

rw

Is ARC using the 6H30 tube now? I know that BAT was using that tube for their gear. I've had a chance to hear BAT amps several times. Was impressed about how NOT traditionally "tube" sounding they are.

[E-Stat]

Is ARC using the 6H30 tube now?
Yes, they've been using the "super tube" for ten years now. All of their top gear today uses them.

rw

[tube fan]

The high frequencies of my system (Fulton J or Dunlavy SC-IV, AR SP-8, AR D-70, Counterpoint CA 2, VPI Scoutmaster, Benz Ruby 3) sound as extended as any I have heard, including the $400,000 ones at the California Audio Show. More expensive does not always equal better (in sound or in wines). For example, check out RJR's review of the ARVSi60 integrated amp ($4,000) in the Sept Stereophile. He owns the AR Reference 110 ($10,000), and seemed to prefer the sound of the $4,000 unit in the bass:
"I felt that the VSi60 bettered the Audio Valve/Ref 110 combo in every aspect of bass articulation and definition." My system could use more control, both in the top and bottom frequencies, on demanding orchestral vinyl, similar to what RJR felt were the flaws in the AR VSi60 amp. Still, he considered selling the $20,000 combo for the $4,000 one! ("What stopped me from doing so was not the VSi60's sound, but an equipment reviewer's need to have a separate line stage and power amp in order to review a broad range of electronics").

Consider the sound of the first Quad (now called the "57") to the newest versions. I VASTLY prefer the sound of the 57 to all later versions. The 57 is alive, while the later versions are dead in comparison.

I check out the "latest and greatest" gear at audio stores several times a year, and I don't hear any sigificant improvement over my system. Three exceptions that I am checking out: the tape copies of master tapes, the Teresonic speakers, and the Audio Note gear.

[E-Stat]

More expensive does not always equal better (in sound or in wines). For example, check out RJR's review of the ARVSi60 integrated amp ($4,000) in the Sept Stereophile. He owns the AR Reference 110 ($10,000), and seemed to prefer the sound of the $4,000 unit in the bass:
And yet elsewhere, he commented that the ARC / Not-ARC combo retrieved more detail, low level dynamics and ambience. Regardless, it makes perfect sense that the two current product ARC products using similiar topologies, active devices (JFETs, 6H30 tubes) and passive parts would sound similar. Further, the VSi60 has a very appealing attribute that I find improves resolution in my system: a passive line level section. I'm not exactly sure, however, what this conversation has to do with comparing either current production model to that of nearly thirty years ago.


I check out the "latest and greatest" gear at audio stores several times a year, and I don't hear any sigificant improvement over my system.
I'm glad you're happy. Others, however, have found that the past three decades in electronics development have not stood still.

rw

[tube fan]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

Tube fan, do you really expect to be taken seriously?:rolleyes5:

[GMichael]

Melvin? Is that you buddy?

[Feanor]

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Feanor]

Tube fan, do you really expect to be taken seriously?:rolleyes5:
He does. But I thing he is abused of an invalid notion of what unamplfied music really sounds like and he is confusing what he likes to hear with accuracy and realism.

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

Now new LP's of classical can be costly but they are available and they are being bought.
http://www.soundstagedirect.com/classical.shtml?gclid=CN3llebq4aMCFSFVgwodsG3T1Q

http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat.asp?style=music&cat=13217&cat2=56

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

[Feanor]

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

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

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

[Feanor]

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

Now new LP's of classical can be costly but they are available and they are being bought.
http://www.soundstagedirect.com/classical.shtml?gclid=CN3llebq4aMCFSFVgwodsG3T1Q

http://www.cduniverse.com/browsecat.asp?style=music&cat=13217&cat2=56

I can pick up 20-30 LPs for $2 at the local recycling center so if you look you can find it.
Your definition of "abundant" and mine differ when it comes to classical music. The two links you indicate each have fewer than about 200 items.

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

[E-Stat]

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


Trust me, if we did blind listening of speakers or amps or cables, the results would be similar.
Sorry, my direct experience has convinced me otherwise. I would still prefer using current technology electronics and cabling. I will respectfully disagree that any early 80s electronics can match the best of today's breed.

rw

[mlsstl]

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

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

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

[tube fan]

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

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

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

[E-Stat]

And yet many of the top reviewers at TAS and Stereophile and Drago prefer tubes and analogue. Jonathathan Valin: "I listen to music almost every day.
I've known Harry Pearson for over thirty years and his opinion differs. I've heard quite a few of his systems at Sea Cliff since then. He really likes the 28B and uses a multi-channel Edge amp driven by a C-J MET6 in his HT using Valhalla of course. And regularly goes to symphony in the city as well. And, he's never tried to sell loaned gear. So what?


I agree that cables and caps are better than those of 30 years ago. However, I DON"T agree that that means that modern equipment beats the best of 30 years ago. It's much more complicated..
Fine. That's where we agree to disagree. I've never heard anything else like HP's systems. I think you would agree that the Clearaudio Statement is quite nice. My point of reference has been recalibrated there several times over the years.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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



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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

Your last statement I totally agree with!

[tube fan]

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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


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

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


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

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

[RGA]

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

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

[tube fan]

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

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

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

Your last statement is very true indeed.

[RGA]

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

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

Your last statement is very true indeed.

I'm 36 and still hear above 16khz.

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

[Feanor]

I'm 36 and still hear above 16khz.

Isn't that the strange thing. By the time you have the money to finally be able to afford the best equipment you're too old to hear all it is capable of. While when your 16 you have the ears for it but can only afford the iPod and then because daddy bought it for them.
Sadly so, RGA. Like George Bernard Shaw said, youth is wasted on the young.

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

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

[Feanor]

...
I repeat: NO salesman at the California Audio Show contested my claim that today's analogue simply DESTROYS today's digital (yes, even in the Audio Note room which had only the inferior digital). REG has been praising digital for decades, and I suspect you have been on board with him.
This is so-call "confirmation bias". You have decided analog & tubes sound best, so you selectively hear the best qualities of these media and equpment. "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest", to quote the song.

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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


Wow, talk about hitting the nail directly on the head!

The only thing I would add is that shows like this also bring out people who want to see "audio jewlery" How it sounds, even if it's only mediocre, doesn't matter. Some of this gear is pure eye candy for audio geeks, and they will lust after it at all costs. .

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

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

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

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

Excellent!!.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm 36 and still hear above 16khz.

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

Because of my job, I get my ears tested every year. I am lucky that after all these years(I am 45) that I can still hear up to 17khz, and can still feel pressure on my ears to 18khz. The interesting thing is now I am beginning to see some deterioration, as I could hear up to 18khz last year, and it has dropped to 17kHz this year. I can still hear the 15khz tone coming from the flyback transformer of a CRT television. The balance between the left and right ears is almost perfect except a small notch in my right ear at 800hz which is not in my left ear.

Being a jazz and gospel keyboardist all of my life, I always stuck a piece of cotton, or earplugs in my ears during gigs. The stereo Leslie speakers on my Hammond B3 are pretty loud, and I often have to sit pretty close to them because of the size venue the band often plays in(small clubs and bars).

[RGA]

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

This is simply expectation bias but if we concede that tube guys will pre-judge SS gear then you have to conced that it works the other way as well. The as soon as a SS guy sees a tube amp he will automatically think "fuzzy second order euphony" and then will "expect" to hear just that and attempt to hear all the worst qualities in the technology real or not.

This goes to the maggie fan at the dealer. I suggested he try something and he said I don't need to hear it has a box. That's expectation/confirmation bias - see a box and it therefore has box resonance so cross it off the list.

The tube fan suggested that it be better to take the eyes out of the picture which is not a bad argument. The first time I heard a SET amp I didn't know what I was listening to. I saw a giant silver "covered" that looked like a big Krell. That experience was a fortunate one because I could not make any of the silly stereotype pre-bias I would have possibly made had I known it was 8 watts of tube.




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


Shows are set up for dealers most of whom want to carry stuff to sell that causes the least amount of time. They don't particularly like to carry tube amplifiers because they usually have to set it up for customers show them how to bias them etc. From a sales/customer service perspective they're more work. In this day and age it's also a tougher sell since most of them don't come with remotes or subwoofer connection, cost more, and they have to deal with tube failures, and generally don't sell the the numbers first crowd, and generally they have lower warranty lengths. They also don't sell in near the numbers of mainstream SS staples so chances are a dealer only carries them because he likes them. They will sit on his shelf longer so even if the margin is higher (which is also doubtful) then it's also less profitable. A big dealer in Vancouver won't sell tube gear - not because he doesn't like it but because there is no money in it according to him. He sells B&W, Naim, and Rotel for example.



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

The issue is that SS guys don't let it go. The attitude is no different except the argument behind it. The tube guys will argue their preference is correct because it is "obvious" to the ears. The SS guys will say their "preference" is right because here is a graph and it's "accurate" and the only reason Tube guys like tubes is because they were incorrectly seduced by distortion - noting the word "incorrectly". SS guys basically argue that the tube guys preferences are wrong and/or misguided and that sir is why every forum has threads the devolve into this kind of thread.

I can't get out of them myself because as much as I like to go with the specs and graph and "science" evidence in most things in life I can't get past hooking up some amps and saying wow amp A sounds cleaner less distorted more open, faster, better timing, transients, decay, depth of staging, and deeper fuller bass response while the other one sounds closer to what the telephone provides. As much as the Vulcan part of my mind wants to discount what my ears tell me, I can't shake it because it happens every time I audition. Most of the tube guys I talk to grew up on solid state amplification and made the switch. How many did it the other way around? Sure the 50-60 year olds may have went from tube to SS (but many of these audiophiles also went back to tubes) tubes then were nothing like they are today.

What I find odd is that panel guys I would think would be more into tubes than any other group. Nobody uses Panels in the mainstream recording industry or in the consumer world - the VAST and I mean VAST majority of engineers think a dynamic systems is 10 times better than any panel. probably 99% of the industry and their techy teams all make some sort of dynamic speaker, recording industry ovrwhelmingly concludes the same thing. No rock concerts or night club is using any panel and please don't point to the one that does - one means nothing. 99.9999% don't. All of the evidence and most of the , recording engineers, critics, audiophiles and most of the public use a dynamic loudspeaker of some sort (even one of the biggest panel makers, Martin Logan) has concluded they need a dynamic woofer). Sure half the subscribers of Stereophile may like a panel but that is not correlated with what their staff owns. And for every subscriber there are at least 10 who read it, and didn't fill out the survey.

Bottom line is that the VAST majority of listeners who have heard panels don't like them. And nothing I have seen in the measurements indicate anything good either. So like Tubes they are relegated to a niche within a niche and yet the same owners who dump on tubes for conning people due to pandering to tube lore don't perhaps see that maybe a lot of panel guys bought them because more than sound (which the vast majority don't buy into) were conned into their "conversation starter appeal" and "funky looks" and "size" and for that fact that they get to stand out from the 99.99999% of people who own boxes. They get to be a member of the "panel club."

There are lots of biases from technology to visuals(sleek and sexy, thin) alone that sway people into making decisions on gear and companies know this. Tube amps don't need to look like Shanling but it certainly doesn't hurt to make them look funky and some would say artistic (some would say tacky) but it sets them apart perhaps over an Antique Sound Labs which may have the same sound for half the money.

Bias:
Technological arguments - fill enough baffle gab and it sounds like Spock and Scotty built the thing transported back in time to sell their wares.

Appearance (lines sleek womanly curves, piano black glossy finishes, rosewood side panels, chrome plating etc). Tube glow is also a pretty element to some and some will be seduced by that.

Warranty (longer implies better parts and better build - which is not necessarily true but it puts that in people's minds)

Price (high must be better to one set of consumers or audio jewelry to another set)

Build quality (built like tank - strong)

Stand apart from the crowd bias - the need to be different than others. Most of us don't get it in any real way but there is opportunity in things we buy. Sort of.

The need to impress others - there are genuine car guys who buy a fancy car because they like it and others who buy it to show off. It is not dissimilar to "conspicuous green" a term used for folks who like to show off how green they are by buying certain green cars that may in fact not be so green after all.

Weight (the heavier it is the better it is because the transformer is better - seemed to be the in thing in the 1990s when it came to receivers). Weight also implies superior build quality using superior parts and thus probably sounds superior.

Internet argument factor bias. People argue with people and they further entrench into their positions or dislike the person they argue with so how can they be unbiased when they do eventually audition the product. Personal bias is huge. The fact that a politician on the opposite side of their aisle may in fact enact the exact same policy as the team they like will still be met with opposition. If you're on the blue team you're wrong no matter what the policy is - it's wrong because I'm not on the team.

Big - big is better - more drivers means it must have more expensive parts. If you can't "see" the expense then it must be cheap. 2 way is two thousand, three way is three thousand. Big implies more expense, exotic materials implies more expense - more expense implies better sound.

I am quite fine with blind listening because some of the best sound I ever heard was from a company that made products that looked boring as hell, didn't have a name on the speakers, never heard of the company, - sat in a chair listened and then inquired as to what the hell that was. No preconceived notions to bias me.

[GMichael]

I don’t really have a horse in the race, so let me say what I see from this debate.

Tube guys are bias against SS, but accuse SS guys of being bias against tubes.
SS guys are bias against tubes, but accuse tube guys of being bias against SS. (this one is a draw)

Tube guys say, close your eyes and just listen. Graphs and charts don’t matter.
SS guys say, close your eyes and listen, but charts and graphs do matter as well. (Can’t really blame them there. Being able to say that the music in equals the music out, with nothing added, removed or changed is a pretty compelling argument. I have heard tubes though, and there is a little something to them that makes the mids sing to me) (another draw)

As far as sellers only carrying tubes because they like them? I call BS. Sellers carry things to sell them and make money. If they like them, then they will be in their home instead of for sale.

Panels vs boxes: I like them both, and also see/hear why someone might prefer one over the other. Which is best is up to the individual. It could have to do with what type of music you like, or how loud you like to listen. It might be the shape of your ears. In the end, both can be made to sound fracking great. (another draw)

OK, I’m done. You guys can ignore me and go back to your regularly scheduled debate.

[Geoffcin]

I don’t really have a horse in the race, so let me say what I see from this debate.

Tube guys are bias against SS, but accuse SS guys of being bias against tubes.
SS guys are bias against tubes, but accuse tube guys of being bias against SS. (this one is a draw)

Tube guys say, close your eyes and just listen. Graphs and charts don’t matter.
SS guys say, close your eyes and listen, but charts and graphs do matter as well. (Can’t really blame them there. Being able to say that the music in equals the music out, with nothing added, removed or changed is a pretty compelling argument. I have heard tubes though, and there is a little something to them that makes the mids sing to me) (another draw)

As far as sellers only carrying tubes because they like them? I call BS. Sellers carry things to sell them and make money. If they like them, then they will be in their home instead of for sale.

Panels vs boxes: I like them both, and also see/hear why someone might prefer one over the other. Which is best is up to the individual. It could have to do with what type of music you like, or how loud you like to listen. It might be the shape of your ears. In the end, both can be made to sound fracking great. (another draw)

OK, I’m done. You guys can ignore me and go back to your regularly scheduled debate.

Wow, this has gotta be a first. Two posts in one thread that I'm nearly 100% in agreement with!? We might as well all join hands and sing kumbaya now!

The only problem I'm having now is that I'm BOTH a SS and Tube guy. (In addition to being a Panel & Box guy too!) I better make an apointment with the shrink ASAP, this is going to be costly..... :out:

[Feanor]

This is simply expectation bias but if we concede that tube guys will pre-judge SS gear then you have to conced that it works the other way as well. The as soon as a SS guy sees a tube amp he will automatically think "fuzzy second order euphony" and then will "expect" to hear just that and attempt to hear all the worst qualities in the technology real or not.

This goes to the maggie fan at the dealer. I suggested he try something and he said I don't need to hear it has a box. That's expectation/confirmation bias - see a box and it therefore has box resonance so cross it off the list.

...
A lot of truth here, Richard. But you misjudge me -- I'm not nearly so pro-s/s nor pro-panel as your are against them or pro-Audio Note. :p

[Geoffcin]

Audio Note. :p

NO!!! Not the word!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/eb/Knightni.jpg/400px-Knightni.jpg

"Bring us a shrubbery or we will say it again!

[blackraven]

This whole thread is nuts. I've heard SS systems to die for and tube systems to die for. Same goes for box and panel speakers. The bottom line is that we all have our personal preferences for sound and none of it is close to live music. I like air, transparency and resolution. I have not been to a concert yet (including small intimate venue's) where the music is transparent and airy.

[frenchmon]

This whole thread is nuts. I've heard SS systems to die for and tube systems to die for. Same goes for box and panel speakers. The bottom line is that we all have our personal preferences for sound and none of it is close to live music. I like air, transparency and resolution. I have not been to a concert yet (including small intimate venue's) where the music is transparent and airy.

I agree with you 100% Raven

[RGA]

Wow, this has gotta be a first. Two posts in one thread that I'm nearly 100% in agreement with!? We might as well all join hands and sing kumbaya now!

The only problem I'm having now is that I'm BOTH a SS and Tube guy. (In addition to being a Panel & Box guy too!) I better make an apointment with the shrink ASAP, this is going to be costly..... :out:

I think most of us don't really project what we're all about on forums as well as we would in person. If you defend a point on a forum for the defending of the side and you do it enough then you will be perceived as being completely in that camp.

I reviewed my top systems at CES and I have a couple of two way boxes, a panel, a horn, a single driver, a couple of 3 ways, a couple of 5 driver systems fronted by SET, PP Tube amps, and low and high power SS systems with CD and or VInyl and or DSD recordings. Looking at the various system types that I liked it makes me look like an Audiophile slut.

My latest audio Purchase was a Rotel RC-1082 solid State preamplifier. And I own more equipment not from Audio Note than equipment from them - as crazy as that may sound!

[theaudiohobby]

I reviewed my top systems at CES and I have a couple of two way boxes, a panel, a horn, a single driver, a couple of 3 ways, a couple of 5 driver systems fronted by SET, PP Tube amps, and low and high power SS systems with CD and or VInyl and or DSD recordings. Looking at the various system types that I liked it makes me look like an Audiophile slut.
You do not need to worry about that, you've made enough utterances on this board and so many others that just about about everyone who reads your posts know where your preferences lie. A few token acquisitions is hardly going to change that perception, not in the short term anyway.

[RGA]

You do need to worry about that, you've made enough utterances on this board and so many others that just about about everyone who reads your posts know where your preferences lie. A few token acquisitions is hardly going to change that perception, not in the short term anyway.

TAH

There is a lot of gear that I like but at the same time I do have a preference. Interestingly I don't own that preference or any of the components in that preference system. If I were to rate systems on anumeric scale then I generally like to go to the one I hold as the best and work down from there. Yes I hold the system above everything else I have heard but so what. If the person arguing against it has heard that is one thing. If they take pot shots because they heard one component that is not even part of the system I am talking about or worse none of the components then why have a problem with my view of it.

I think it is critical for the reader to know where a preference lies from a reviewer any reviewer. No one is unbiased whether they try to project that or not - I would rather an honest bias than dishonest objectivity and because no one is completely objective it would be nice to know their preferences. And of course you can then discount them if they don't believe the same things you do. For instance you and I so not share a similar ear even remotely I don't believe so whatever you like I probably won't and vice versa and that's fine. I don't share the same ear with most reviewers and even the guys at Dagogo. Nice guys some of them hear it the same and some don't. But sometimes you don't know where people stand and that to me is a problem.

I certainly like a lot of stereos of different designs but I still have my personal preference and like any consumer I will make a choice to live with something long term. Some people flip components in and out just to try new stuff and don't maintain a referencial system which is also fine.

Here is my concluding show report from CES



Conclusion

CES 2010 is over and there were many fine rooms at CES 2010 and some rooms I didn’t get much of an opportunity to audition. A number of rooms were hampered by their choice of room size while other rooms were hampered by their set-up and possibly their associated gear. Still, I have decided to select my 5 favourite budget rooms that had loudspeakers retailing for under $10,000 and my five favourite rooms with speakers above $10,000.

Rooms with speakers under $10,000 (alphabetical order):

• Audio Note AN-E/Spe HE Loudspeakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=706

• Gallo 3.5 http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=713 Perhaps the most surprising in that I didn't care much for the 3.1

• Kingsound Prince II Electrostatic loudspeakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=717 Finally a panel I would be happy with - though I'd still probably want a sub.

• Sonist Recital 3 loudspeakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=715 Least expensive speakers on the list.

• Studio Electric Type Three Loudspeakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=683 Who? Yeah a 2 man operation took out a lot of big boys.


Rooms with speakers above $10,000 (alphabetical order):

• Acapella High Violoncello II http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=717 The most expensive on the list

• Audio Note AN-E Sec Signature Discussed above in post #27 and Fred Crowder's report for similar response and pictures http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=694

• Silbatone Aporia Full Range http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=718

• Teresonic Ingenium loudspeakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=715 These speakers like Audio Note can be purchased in versions under $10,000.

• Trenner and Friedl RA Box http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=721

Yes you can see the RGA preference but if you look at the other systems there you will see quite a diverse selection.

And the runner up rooms like the Usher room, Sony/Pass, Reference 3a, Martin Logan/Myster, Wilson/Rogue were all in my top 10 and all sounded very good.

So yes a few people who read the forums - maybe 20 guys who are forum regulars know what I like - but the many thousands of readers of the online magazine get a more balanced perspective of what I like.

[RGA]

TAH

I don't know if I have brought this point up before but I think I will here. If you think about it what is an audio component? Is it the label on the box or what is inside the box and or the designer's end result. You could say the people share a certain "ear" for products which is why I believe there are ears that follow certain traits and those that follow others. Two people can hear two amps a SS and a Tube and walk away with very different takes on what they heard. Warm 3 dimensional anr real while the other guy fuzzy, distorted, thick. It is not dissimilar to the analogy over the actual music played. One person can be moved to tears with classical the other finds it boring and wishes Tupac was playing at 100db.

I believe my "ear" is closer to Peter's ear because unlike a LINN, Audio Note is a shared company in a lot of ways. Different designers. When a person owns a Linn system they are getting what LInn designed. With AN you get the logo on the boxes and certainly they made some changes turbo charging certain things but it's not really a "buying one brand" approach.

Speakers: Snell
Turntables: Systemdek or Voyd
Arms: Rega, Heleus
Cartridges, Kondo, Grove, Goldring
Amps: Kondo, Guy Adams(of Voyd), or Andy Grove
DA converters: Andy Grove, Michael Kerster (Sonic Frontiers) and a guy who works now for Sugden but I forget his name.

The USB boards are made by the Jim Hagerman of Hagerman Technologies in the United States

This is an example using the TT1 turntable - we're too attached to logos and company presidents that skew our view http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/what_hifi_awards_2003_an_tt1.pdf


Even in the bigger mainstream companies there are designers that people follow. I forget the fellow's name but certain NAD amps are more prized than others based on the designer. Infinity has the same issue as does Kondo/AN UK Quad and others where people will like the designs of one group over the next. Restaurants have a different Chef working certain nights and plays with the regular actor versus the under-study some will prefer the under-study or the Tuesday chef. I prefer the Adams designed OTO over the non Adams designed Soro - despite the Soro costing a grand or two more - and interestingly the less expensive OTO is often the one they more often bring to shows - some people like the Soro more though and some like the K more than the J and some hate the K. Some like the older Dehay designed Reference 3a over the new ones and some think the new ones are a lot better.

We are far too name brand conscious where it is not the personality of the guy owning the company or the label on the box but the designers.

My system is essentially:

Snell speakers (hotrodded)

Systemdek turntable, rega arm, goldring cart, AN UK motors and platter, Kondo cables (hotrooded). At least four companies have a major imput on the sound of this one table

Voyd EL34 based tube amp designed by Guy Adams - OTO. You could say in a way it is a Voyd amp. And probably why the Phono stage section is unusually good at the price.

Cambridge Audio CD player

Skylan turntable base

Rotel preamp (under a different designer than the previous incarnations)

Sennheiser HD 600 headphones

Antique Sound labs headphone amp.

The fact that some of these have the same label on the front does not mean all that much except that I share an ear similar to a guy who elected to put certain pieces of kit together and tweak them to be in sync whith each other. In some ways this is not different that a very good dealer who puts systems together that sound really nice. It's just that they have a very good ear for it IMO and it takes so much of the complexity, work, and expense out of it. The amp works with the speakers about as well as an amp can work with them and the cables and the sources. It's far harder to do flying blind by simply trying 25 amplifiers buying them bring them home only to find out that the real culprit was the speaker or the cd player. I see a lot of people flipping a lot of components where I think if one is on the right track they would be able to stick with something for a decade. If you have to flip it every few months something IMO is not right in the system. That's just my opinion and in no way should be construed as me saying my opinion is a fact but we all have some sort of view of it and that's mine.

I could certainly put a Shindo amp in my system and very likely be amazed - more so than if I put in a SORO. That may not come through in my posts but it is my belief. I am not convinced that putting in a Bryston 28B and pream would be a good match because I have auditioned other SST2 amps with the speakers and was roundly unimpressed. They may work with other speakers but not mine.

Indeed most of the products out there with whatever name badge on the front uses "parts" from some other company. Philips, Sony, Sanyo or Teac transports mostly and transformers from other parties, speaker drivers outsources or made in house. Even the in house ones will sell to competitors - Dynaudio used to do that, but others do as well.

[tube fan]

Blind listening of hifi gear is just as important as blind tasting of wines. If you see what your are tasting and rating, your bias will influency your rating. So too will your bias in stereo equipement influency your rating. Be sure to match sound levels when comparing systems.

[frenchmon]

The first thing I noticed about the little Dynaudio Contour S1.4 standmounts at $3,500.00 pair was their impressive bass depth coming from relatively tiny boxes. I would not be at all surprised if they were hitting in the 40Hz region. Bass was deep, but I felt it was affecting the pace and timing of the speaker a little, masking the midrange and treble, creating a less open dynamic presentation.

In general, when listening to any Dynaudio speakers, my thoughts are as yours..."impressive bass depth" and " masking the midrange and treble, creating a less open dynamic presentation."

[Enochrome]

I have no experience with tubes, but would like to try.

Can you plug your TT into a tube line stage and then to the preamp, or does it
have to be RIAA equalized first and then tubed?

[E-Stat]

Can you plug your TT into a tube line stage and then to the preamp, or does it have to be RIAA equalized first and then tubed?
The question of whether or not a preamp (phono or line stage) is tube, SS based or both - doesn't matter when it comes to how you connect it. What does matter is that you must match sensitivities and overload characteristics. Piping the 2 volt output of a line stage into a phono stage expecting a .005 volt (or less) input would severely overload it. Phono stages, therefore, always preceed line stages.

rw

[Enochrome]

Thanks, that's what I needed to know.