How to translate qualitative terms to quantitative in the sport of home audio

[phileserver39]

Howdy fellow audio addicts,

My name is Bob and I have been uncontrollably immersed in audio for at least a year.

But I shan't digress....

I can understand how we can compare the claimed manufacturer specifications of an audio component versus the "real world" or "measured" specifications (as independently tested) of the same component.


However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...

How does the human experience of these concepts translate into the their technical definition?

Thanks for your time and expertise,

Jason

[Hyfi]

However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...



For sure hard to describe

Sound Stage to me is the placement of the players as opposed to all mushed together

Forward is when a particular instrument or many are sort of in your face as opposed to up on the stage or at least 15 feet away

[JoeE SP9]

It doesn't!
AFAIK there is no objective measurement for "sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...". They are all subjective in that there is no way that I'm aware of to measure sound stage depth (for example) or any of those other things.

Everything about audio can't be expressed in a technical manner. For instance, bloom is a term used to describe the sound of many tube amps. It's not dynamics, macro or micro but is somewhat related to both. SS amps generally don't have much if any. Once you hear it you will know exactly what it is.

[phileserver39]

For sure hard to describe

Sound Stage to me is the placement of the players as opposed to all mushed together

Forward is when a particular instrument or many are sort of in your face as opposed to up on the stage or at least 15 feet away

And I, like you Hyfi, have the same "internalized, not-technically-defined, feeling" of those same concepts.

However, where does the boundary of the mathematically describable performance of a set of loudspeakers boarder the ethereal and humanistic translations of the wave? Will that disconnect ever be bridged?

I have my doubts.

J

[Mash]

If you go to headbanger concerts then that will be your live reference.

If you go to chamber music recitals, then THAT will be your live reference.

If your system matches your live reference, then don't you have what you want? If your live reference changes then perhaps your sound system will have to change. But trying to rely on the opinions of someone with a reference point very different from your own can be problematic.

This is why people sometimes post conflicting opinions here. In the end you must have (your) live music "in your ears" to find what will please you. This is why there are so MANY different designs intended for solving the same problem. Some succeed and some fade away. One approach you might find useful is to evaluate items which satisfy many people irrespective of their diverse interests.......

[phileserver39]

If you go to headbanger concerts then that will be your live reference.

If you go to chamber music recitals, then THAT will be your live reference.

If your system matches your live reference, then don't you have what you want? If your live reference changes then perhaps your sound system will have to change. But trying to rely on the opinions of someone with a reference point very different from your own can be problematic.

This is why people sometimes post conflicting opinions here. In the end you must have (your) live music "in your ears" to find what will please you. This is why there are so MANY different designs intended for solving the same problem. Some succeed and some fade away. One approach you might find useful is to evaluate items which satisfy many people irrespective of their diverse interests.......

Soooo, I am guessing that your vote is a "nay" when the (my) question is: Do you think that science will be able to quantify every perceptible nuance in a recording? Can ideas like soundstage, depth of presence, instrument separation, etc be quantified in such a way that we can compare and contrast recordings and reproduction systems without human frailties and emotion mucking everything up?

Thanks for staying with me,

Jason

[Mash]

We can listen to the same live performance and yet not hear the same details. In spite of the forgoing, I think it likely that we might agree how well a reproduction matches the original overall if we are all familar with that original and we compare the same, or essentially the same, reproduction.

So when you read or listen to another's comments you must read between the lines. The specific details may not be so important since it is unlikely that we can all hear exactly the same details at the "reference performance", and anyway communicating those differences accurately is a challenge.

[RGA]

I use the ideas based in this essay http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm when it comes to the evaluation of being accurate to the recording from a listening perspective. Live references change from the venue to the seated position and I use this article http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398 to remind me of some of the artifices that audiophiles emphasize that are not emphasized with live music.

The measurements no longer interest me beyond a "That's interesting" level. The don't influence, any more as they did at one time, my buying habits. Unfortunately there are some poor measuring gear (out of what is measured anyway) that sound considerably better than some rather terrific measuring stuff.

But there are certain correlations that some have made through various testing - depends how much faith you put into the incomplete testing and corporate run "science."

[hifitommy]

what youre looking for cant be defined with numbers. only listening experience and reading the right magazines such as the absolute sound and stereophile, and correlating the two functions.

add in some live music like jazz and possibly some classical and you will have some good references. it also helps to have a knowledgeable audio friend that has a decent high end playback system.

by high end, i dont necessarily mean hugely expensive, i mean that it will have competent components.

another activity would be the frequenting of a couple of high end audio shops and listen both to what you want and what others there are being demonstrated to.

i learned a lot by keeping my mouth shut and listening to serious buyers and the sales personnel explaining the reasons for the resultant sound. after a while, you can differentiate a true expert from a BSer. after a long time of doing this, i became well versed in audio and could make intelligent decisions for myself.

oh, i made some mistakes but a also made some very good improvements in my system and also learned to like music i hadnt heard before.

audio listening is an acquired skill, i am glad i took the the time and effort to get there.

[Ajani]

Howdy fellow audio addicts,

My name is Bob and I have been uncontrollably immersed in audio for at least a year.

But I shan't digress....

I can understand how we can compare the claimed manufacturer specifications of an audio component versus the "real world" or "measured" specifications (as independently tested) of the same component.


However, I have a hard time finding objective definitions for subjective terms such as sound stage, depth, presence, frowardness, separations of instruments, etc...

How does the human experience of these concepts translate into the their technical definition?

Thanks for your time and expertise,

Jason

It does not...

IMO, Audio basically falls into 2 categories; art and science... The artists (subjective) tend to disregard the science and the scientists (objective) often don't fully appreciate the art...

So what that means is that there is not nearly enough effort made to quantify and measure subjective findings... Many scientists are more intent on using the measurements they know how to make, rather than trying to figure out how to measure all the other subjective areas (basically the attitude that if they don't know how to measure it, then it doesn't exist - which is not very scientific btw)... And many artists have no interest in furthering the science of the hobby - they'd be content to tune everything by ear and 'just listen'...

The obvious truth is that we need less ridiculous warring among audio factions and more collective efforts to fully understand audio...

[poppachubby]

How a persons system interprets and presents a recording is situational. As far as hard data regarding sound stage/depth, etc...yes it can be "scientifically" defined. These things are laid out in a studio, and if you source back to the master tracks, everything you hear on the recording has been purposefully placed there. Terrence can comment better on this.

Digressing back to my opening point, since everyone's systems are different, we will all hear different takes on what's essentially the same thing.

I think this point you are making is what makes our relationships in audio so special. When you find somone who is on your "wave", or who shares the same gear as you, a bond is formed in knowing you are both hearing the same thing.

That's what's tough for me, since my system is the greatest in the world, I sit atop a lonely, lonely mountain. :wink5:

[poppachubby]

what youre looking for cant be defined with numbers. only listening experience and reading the right magazines such as the absolute sound and stereophile, and correlating the two functions.

add in some live music like jazz and possibly some classical and you will have some good references. it also helps to have a knowledgeable audio friend that has a decent high end playback system.

by high end, i dont necessarily mean hugely expensive, i mean that it will have competent components.

another activity would be the frequenting of a couple of high end audio shops and listen both to what you want and what others there are being demonstrated to.

i learned a lot by keeping my mouth shut and listening to serious buyers and the sales personnel explaining the reasons for the resultant sound. after a while, you can differentiate a true expert from a BSer. after a long time of doing this, i became well versed in audio and could make intelligent decisions for myself.

oh, i made some mistakes but a also made some very good improvements in my system and also learned to like music i hadnt heard before.

audio listening is an acquired skill, i am glad i took the the time and effort to get there.


This is an excellent post. I couldn't agree more with you Tommy! I combined the knowledge of several experienced audiophiles, my local shop and finally, my own ears. Lots and lots of research, and lots of time spent listening.

The reward? I have EXACTLY the system I set out to build. I no longer want to fiddle, exchange or upgrade.

[pixelthis]

It does not...

IMO, Audio basically falls into 2 categories; art and science... The artists (subjective) tend to disregard the science and the scientists (objective) often don't fully appreciate the art...

So what that means is that there is not nearly enough effort made to quantify and measure subjective findings... Many scientists are more intent on using the measurements they know how to make, rather than trying to figure out how to measure all the other subjective areas (basically the attitude that if they don't know how to measure it, then it doesn't exist - which is not very scientific btw)... And many artists have no interest in furthering the science of the hobby - they'd be content to tune everything by ear and 'just listen'...

The obvious truth is that we need less ridiculous warring among audio factions and more collective efforts to fully understand audio...

THERE is only one "category " ...science.
We had "art" for thousands of years and no audio equipment. THERE ARE some for whom
their "feelings" are more important than the engineering. THESE types tend to sit around and stare at tubes for hours, imagining all kinds of delicious sound, which exists only
between their ears. For these types what they "like" is more important than accurate
sound reproduction, delusion more important than whats real. But its solid science that
has been the real progress maker in this field, not the belly button contemplaters,
although they are quite harmless, except to their own pocketbooks.:1:

[tube fan]

If you use blind listening tests, you ALWAYS end up with you prefer! (yes, use long term blind tests). If your ears prefer one piece of equipment over another, then, unless one is much more expensive, buy the one you like!

[poppachubby]

:10:
THERE is only one "category " ...science.
We had "art" for thousands of years and no audio equipment. THERE ARE some for whom
their "feelings" are more important than the engineering. THESE types tend to sit around and stare at tubes for hours, imagining all kinds of delicious sound, which exists only
between their ears. For these types what they "like" is more important than accurate
sound reproduction, delusion more important than whats real. But its solid science that
has been the real progress maker in this field, not the belly button contemplaters,
although they are quite harmless, except to their own pocketbooks.:1:


:Yawn:

[Geoffcin]

Another qualitative discussion, and another "pix bomb". When will it end!

[Geoffcin]

Leaving idiosyncratic perferences behind, for the most part a better "spec'd" component will sound better than an inferior one. ie; If it has lower distortion, or a flatter response you should be able to pick it out as "better" just as the test equipment that doesn't have any preferences.

As to "sound staging" "imaging" and all the rest of the goodies we all know and love, ALL of them are psyco-acoustic illusions. A "better" (higher resolution) system should be able to produce them with more resolving power, hence produce a better "image" or seperate the soundstage with more clarity.

[pixelthis]

Another qualitative discussion, and another "pix bomb". When will it end!

When the sentimentalists finally die off(no changing them).
IT USUALLY takes a generation or two to change things, this is common in most areas of
human knowledge. Doctors refused to use anesthesia for years after it was invented,
for instance.
BUT when BELL LABS invented the transistor in the forties I bet they never dreamed
that a few holdouts would insist on using tubes well into the 21st century!
Shoot your horse, cars are here to stay.:1:

[Geoffcin]

Funny, but I didn't see "tubes vs transistor" at the subject. Post another off topic post and it gets deleted. You have been warned.

[Mash]

Here we are in Mad Land............

Simple answer, dude. You do your thing and let other people do their thing.

I consider spending a lot of money on exotic wires and interconnects to be pure silliness. But many people DO spend a LOT of money on exotic wires and interconnects. This does not bother me, so I do not comment on it. And I had aircooled generators for "The Company" for a while 'cause I was the only ME candidate out of a pool of 20 who knew EE, so it is not that I know nothing about the subject........

Live and let live.

[phileserver39]

Howdy All,

Thanks to everybody for their input. And to think my gf claims that I never have any thought provoking questions when I am sipping on the gin and juice.

You all have given me a lot to mull over.

Best,

j

[tube fan]

Leaving idiosyncratic perferences behind, for the most part a better "spec'd" component will sound better than an inferior one. ie; If it has lower distortion, or a flatter response you should be able to pick it out as "better" just as the test equipment that doesn't have any preferences.

As to "sound staging" "imaging" and all the rest of the goodies we all know and love, ALL of them are psyco-acoustic illusions. A "better" (higher resolution) system should be able to produce them with more resolving power, hence produce a better "image" or seperate the soundstage with more clarity.


Garbage in, garbage out! Most measurements do NOT correlate to the quality of sound. JA's meaningless measurements are constantly contradicted by other reviewers (at Stereophile). JA is constantly writing: "I don't know why AD, WP, or many others love the sound of this piece of equipment when it measures so poorly." JA's OWN subjective rating of components (at least one: the ARVSi60 integrated amp) contradicts his measurements.
THOUSANDS of factors are at work, and, at this stage, human ears are MUCH more accurate than measurements. Those who praise recent advances in digital or ss sound, by and large, have ALWAYS praised digital and ss (pure crap, FOR SURE, when introduced!!!).

[pixelthis]

Funny, but I didn't see "tubes vs transistor" at the subject. Post another off topic post and it gets deleted. You have been warned.

Thats the way to go!
SILENCE ALL DISSENT.
Sorry to go against your preconceived notions.
CARRY ON(what is this thread about? TITLE is a tad vague):1:

[Geoffcin]

Garbage in, garbage out! Most measurements do NOT correlate to the quality of sound. JA's meaningless measurements are constantly contradicted by other reviewers (at Stereophile). JA is constantly writing: "I don't know why AD, WP, or many others love the sound of this piece of equipment when it measures so poorly." JA's OWN subjective rating of components (at least one: the ARVSi60 integrated amp) contradicts his measurements.
THOUSANDS of factors are at work, and, at this stage, human ears are MUCH more accurate than measurements. Those who praise recent advances in digital or ss sound, by and large, have ALWAYS praised digital and ss (pure crap, FOR SURE, when introduced!!!).

As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.

[pixelthis]

As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.

SET (single end triode) was obsolete decades ago, and people "loving" this type of inaccurate
poorly operating junk is a testament to the success of MADISON AVE brainwashing.
AND WHAT YOU SAY IS EXACTLY TRUE. The measurements are not meaningless,
indeed with the fallibility of human perceptions they are the only way to determine the
accuracy of equipment.
And that, not the imagination of listeners, is what will lead to accurate, and better sounding,
gear.:1:

[Geoffcin]

Obsolete does not equate to unloved. Some people like the sound and that's it! There's no "brainwahing" involved at all. There's no right or wrong with personal preference.

[poppachubby]

" Yes Ma'am, the new Brand X Model 1 has moved the cup holder to the right, and made it 1.345 times bigger. The effects of this are almost immeasurable, but we are quite certain that it enhances the car's performance by at least 4.6 megahindabats..."

"Gee, I don't know. Are you sure?"

"Ma'am let me tell you something. I used to have a horse and buggy, and then cars were invented. I have owned many, and none of them performed like this baby. The cup holders were simply always dragging down the overall peformance. You would be crazy to drive a car with the old style of cup holder with what we know now."

:nonod:

Honestly, move on Pix, we all get it. Funny thing about Kool-Aid is when you drink your own you can choose the flavour.

I have access to some of the best solid state machines being made today. They are great, but they don't make tube technology obsolete. Not by a long shot. Solid State is not as great as you think, it's prone to it's own issues.

You are laughing at tube lovers, but you are the one beginning to look silly. Do you really believe that simply because things are more convenient, they are better? It may appear that I want an answer, but really i don't.

Just dig and let dig...

[tube fan]

As always your generalizing and provide no real facts to back up your argument. Audio testing is done with precision measuring equipment, listening with ears. Poor specs often mean that the item offers some type of idiosyncratic behavior, a'la SET with it's wildly non-linear response, and added second order harmonics. That people love this type of gear does not render the measurements meaningless. Far from it! It renders the measurements as a testament to how idiosyncratic peoples opinions of good quality sound is.


As always, YOU miss the point. NOTHING I posted indicates that precision measuring equipment is not used by those doing the measuring (like JA).
FACT: JA measured the AR VSi60 integrated amp with "precision" equipment, and found that the unit only measured average. HOWEVER, when JA actually listened to the unit driving the Acapella High Violoncello II ($80,000 speaker), he found that ONLY the average measuring AR amp produced great sound with the expensive speaker. NOW, you have to ask yourself if you buy audio equipment to listen to it or to measure it!

FACT: You yourself have a tube unit, and I am sure many comparably priced ss units measure better.

Fact: JA's measurements of the Harbeth M40.1 speaker (at $11,995) were
better than those of the Audio Note AN-E/SPeHE ($7,600). HOWEVER, JA actually preferred the Audio Note speaker when he listened to both in AD's home. The Harbeth unit sits in Class A, and the better sounding Audio Note unit sits in class B.

FACT: most ss units, and, yes, from the VERY beginning of ss equipment, measured superior to tube units (in almost every measurement , meaningless to actual sound quality IMO). Almost every serious audio critic now admits that the early ss sound was HORRIBLE, and, when ss was introduced, tubes were far better.

FACT: We were told by measurements that digital was superior to analogue FROM THE VERY MOMENT digital was introduced. Few would now contend that early digital was superior to analogue. At the recent CAS, NOT ONE of the salesmen I asked preferred the current digital sound to the best current analogue sound, despite the fact that ss continues to measure better than analogue. This was true even the rooms which only had digital equipment (like in the Audio Note room!

Some comments from Michael Fremer in the recent Stereophile: comparing a Pantera album on vinyl to a 24-bit/192kHz file, "the audience listened to selections from both the CD and LP editions, and even from where we sat on stage, BEHIND the speakers, it was clear to us and to EVERYONE in the audience that the LP KILLED the CD. Despite CD's supposed greater dynamic range than LP, the CD had been dynamically 'smashed' in the current fashion, while Doug had cut the vinyl to fully express the hi-rez master's wide dynamic range But, in addition to that, the vinyl did the lifelike things vinly does that, in my opinion, CDs just don't do." Fremer adds: " The human ear is far superior to any measurement device in determining the totality of what's heard. Yet the measurements crowd has held sway, and look at what's happened to sound."

15 to 20 years ago, if you went to an Audio show, most rooms used digital and ss. Today a HUGE number use analogue and/or tubes (and ALL of those producing the most pleasing AND most accurate sound IMO). I am far from being alone in this opinion. As I factually said: thousands of factors are at work in reproducing sound, and the current set of measurements simply fail to measure factors that real humans consider most important in sound quality.

[JoeE SP9]

tube fan, what's your point? We all agree with you that actually listening to gear is the only way to finalize a buying decision.

Specs, well they are important but should not be the deciding factor. As a tube user I'm well aware of that. Perhaps you should be asking how many of us use tubed gear. We (tube users) rely less on specs than most other audiophiles. "pixie" seems to be the only poster with a bias against "ancient and obsolete" technology

[Ajani]

thousands of factors are at work in reproducing sound, and the current set of measurements simply fail to measure factors that real humans consider most important in sound quality.

1) That's why I respect the work at Revel (Harman International), which attempts to tie the factors most important to sound quality to measurements... It's nowhere near perfect but it is a major step in the right direction IMO.

2) You're wording could use a lot of work: I'd say "factors that many humans consider important"... Seriously, WTH is a "real human"? Flat frequency response may not be important to you, but it is to many persons...

3) I lay a lot of blame at the feet of tube and vinyl manufacturers and fans for not pushing for the development of more comprehensive measurements.... Measurements that would show the actual advantage of a SET amp in reproducing some factor that is critical to sound reproduction... Instead of attempting to prove the tubes and analog have some scientifically verifiable advantage, they just push the mantra of "just listen" which makes us all look like unscientific fools, who are prone to bias and imagination...

[hifitommy]

i think tube fan was just reacting to being admonished. pixi on the other end of the stick is just flailing around flinging excrement all over the place.

long ago, i was critical of spending more than a dollar a watt on amplifier power. then the electro research 70wpc amp came out, the one designed by john iverson. i couldnt imagine that it could sell for $2000 (about 1978). it was being sold at music and sound (mel schilling's california store) and during a demo, i kept my mouth shut and just listened to the infinity QRSs being demoed. and the sales guy who was explaining that an amp should of course start quickly on transients.

then he said it should also STOP quickly when required and in that way you can hear the silence between the notes.

the electro sounded different from most other amps i had heard in that way. i stopped mouthing to my fellow audio buddies that power should be no more than a dollar a watt. i also learned to not be so vociferous about my beliefs as they could be deflated as well as bolstered.

sharing ideas isnt the same as pushing them on others.

[tube fan]

No, I was objecting to the claim that I don't use facts in making my points.
And I am the one urging DBTs!

The claim by Joe E (whose system looks like one I would love; he even has a set of Dynaco Mark III amps, which I used 40 years ago to drive a pair of AR3a speakers) that all agree that listening to music is crucial in buying audio units, is wrong IMO. I know many audiophiles who buy mostly on specs and ratings, without even listening for more than 10 minutes to a unit.

I was objecting to the tired old claim that those of us who prefer tubes and analogue do so, in spite of the "fact" that ss and digital measure better.

[hifitommy]

my bad, i should pay more attention. but then i am the one who calls
DBTs--BTs4Ds blind tests for dummies. they DO have their place but not in audio equipment selection for an individual. its much too difficult to implement properly.

[JoeE SP9]

No, I was objecting to the claim that I don't use facts in making my points.
And I am the one urging DBTs!

The claim by Joe E (whose system looks like one I would love; he even has a set of Dynaco Mark III amps, which I used 40 years ago to drive a pair of AR3a speakers) that all agree that listening to music is crucial in buying audio units, is wrong IMO. I know many audiophiles who buy mostly on specs and ratings, without even listening for more than 10 minutes to a unit.

I was objecting to the tired old claim that those of us who prefer tubes and analogue do so, in spite of the "fact" that ss and digital measure better.

I may have been misunderstood. Actually, I believe everyone should listen before buying. Unfortunately many don't listen and buy on specs alone. It's been my experience that systems bought on specs alone generally sound awful to me. Tube driven stats seduced me years ago. Everything else has been acquired to enhance them.

My Mark-III's have little resemblance to the originals. Only the transformers are original. Even the chassis' are new Hammond's. The old ones didn't have enough space for WBT connectors an IEC socket and other things. I'm the original builder and owner of them.

[tube fan]

I may have been misunderstood. Actually, I believe everyone should listen before buying. Unfortunately many don't listen and buy on specs alone. It's been my experience that systems bought on specs alone generally sound awful to me. Tube driven stats seduced me years ago. Everything else has been acquired to enhance them.

My Mark-III's have little resemblance to the originals. Only the transformers are original. Even the chassis' are new Hammond's. The old ones didn't have enough space for WBT connectors an IEC socket and other things. I'm the original builder and owner of them.
Van Alstine modified my Mark-IIIs. Many friends tried to convince me that ss amps were better. When we actually compared the ss amps to the Mark-III, THEY were convinced that their ss amps were, in comparison, crap!

[pixelthis]

Van Alstine modified my Mark-IIIs. Many friends tried to convince me that ss amps were better. When we actually compared the ss amps to the Mark-III, THEY were convinced that their ss amps were, in comparison, crap!

SO THEY don't know how to buy a SS amp.
"Listen before you buy" is just not plausible sometimes, and in the case of an amp selling
for 250$ with a return policy not really nessesary, as in my case.
BUT WHY TALK about amps that much when the major influence on sound is
the speakers. THEY ARE the most important aspect of your system and can sometimes salvage crappy electronics.
And sink good electronics.:1:

[tube fan]

SO THEY don't know how to buy a SS amp.
"Listen before you buy" is just not plausible sometimes, and in the case of an amp selling
for 250$ with a return policy not really nessesary, as in my case.
BUT WHY TALK about amps that much when the major influence on sound is
the speakers. THEY ARE the most important aspect of your system and can sometimes salvage crappy electronics.
And sink good electronics.:1:
NOTHING can salvage crappy electronics!!!

[hifitommy]

right tubey!

"NOTHING can salvage crappy electronics!!!" its kinda like polishing a turd.

[tube fan]

right tubey!

"NOTHING can salvage crappy electronics!!!" its kinda like polishing a turd. I wonder how well ss turds would measure!!!

[hifitommy]

not shiny

[swan24]

Look how badly single ended tube amps spec, but they sound very musical... I go for overall musicality... You create a believable illusion... That's what you do when you choose equipment wisely, specs aside... (m.)

[pixelthis]

Look how badly single ended tube amps spec, but they sound very musical... I go for overall musicality... You create a believable illusion... That's what you do when you choose equipment wisely, specs aside... (m.)

THERE are better (and cheaper) ways to create an "illusion".
I love accurate clean sound, that is what is difficult. I LOVE MY MUSIC,
not some "illusion". GET A BOOMBOX at WALFART, let your imagination be your guide.:1:

[swan24]

THERE are better (and cheaper) ways to create an "illusion".
I love accurate clean sound, that is what is difficult. I LOVE MY MUSIC,
not some "illusion". GET A BOOMBOX at WALFART, let your imagination be your guide.:1:


To each his [or her] own... I've been playing and recording live music for over 40 yrs., and to my ears, a single ended tube amp sounds about right, despite the specs... (m.)

[hifitommy]

i have never been given a formal demo of a SET/sensitive speaker setup. i am not willing to give up the very low freqs but that can usually handled by a capable sub.

here in LA, i am sure i can get a decent demo, maybe from elliott midwoood, he has the products.

http://www.acousticimage.com/

i have seen/heard some awesome products at his home/showrooms, next time SETs.

[pixelthis]

To each his [or her] own... I've been playing and recording live music for over 40 yrs., and to my ears, a single ended tube amp sounds about right, despite the specs... (m.)

For the same reason that people who have been watching CRT tv sets for fourty years
prefer plasma. THEY THINK PLASMA "LOOKS" OKAY because plasma is basically a
squished CRT. It "looks" like what they are used to,
WHICH IS FINE, my folks (and most around these parts) watch channel six like they always have, just try to get them to watch the HD channel without turning it over for them.
But my problem is when tube heads tout their inferior, obsolete gear as Superior.
CAMPING OUT is fun, but is living in a tent full time really better than a house?:1:

[swan24]

For the same reason that people who have been watching CRT tv sets for fourty years
prefer plasma. THEY THINK PLASMA "LOOKS" OKAY because plasma is basically a
squished CRT. It "looks" like what they are used to,
WHICH IS FINE, my folks (and most around these parts) watch channel six like they always have, just try to get them to watch the HD channel without turning it over for them.
But my problem is when tube heads tout their inferior, obsolete gear as Superior.
CAMPING OUT is fun, but is living in a tent full time really better than a house?:1:


I think the whole issue is highly subjective... IMHO, if you match up a SET amp with the right speakers, they sing to me... Your experience may differ...

[hifitommy]

" It "looks" like what they are used to," &
"when tube heads tout their inferior, obsolete gear"

pixie PLEASE stop exhibiting your uninformed biases. it makes you look much worse than you really are. i have tried addressing you in a civil manner when youre being decent and then you revert.

take your meds or something!

[JoeE SP9]

pixel, Plasma TV's look like what "they" are used to because Plasma screen technology is close to CRT technology. As to a Plasma's picture quality, check the link below..
http://www.crutchfield.com/S-pcaYTypQpLC/learn/learningcenter/home/tv_flatpanel.html

As for tubed audio gear, We Luddites will keep on enjoying our "obsolete and antique" gear that to us sounds better

[tube fan]

i have never been given a formal demo of a SET/sensitive speaker setup. i am not willing to give up the very low freqs but that can usually handled by a capable sub.

here in LA, i am sure i can get a decent demo, maybe from elliott midwoood, he has the products.

http://www.acousticimage.com/

i have seen/heard some awesome products at his home/showrooms, next time SETs.
I heard the Audio Note speakers produce extremely low, accurate bass, driven by a $21,175 Jinro SET integrated amp.

[hifitommy]

pocket change!