-
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.
-
Pix should have been a car salesman...
" 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...
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffcin
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.
-
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
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeE SP9
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!
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tube fan
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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!!!
-
right tubey!
"NOTHING can salvage crappy electronics!!!" its kinda like polishing a turd.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by hifitommy
right tubey!
"NOTHING can salvage crappy electronics!!!" its kinda like polishing a turd.
I wonder how well ss turds would measure!!!
-
-
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.)
-
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.)
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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.)
-
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.
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by swan24
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:
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by pixelthis
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...
-
" 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!
-
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-pcaYTyp...flatpanel.html
As for tubed audio gear, We Luddites will keep on enjoying our "obsolete and antique" gear that to us sounds better
-
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
I heard the Audio Note speakers produce extremely low, accurate bass, driven by a $21,175 Jinro SET integrated amp.
-
|