Can we just feed the digital through a 300B to smooth it out?
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Take the blind challenge! 300B SET vs. Straight Wire with Gain
- Thread starter GXAlan
- Start date
dasdoing
Major Contributor
here is a metal song recorded on true analog:
I must say it makes metal more intresting fmpov lol
That conversion to digital completely destroyed what must have been an amazing analog recording!
- Thread Starter
- #24
It’s interesting in that when I did the DSD vs CD layer comparison, when I matched RMS, I was able to ABX as easily as the original unmatched one. When I matched peaks, I was not able to discern the difference as well.
Anyway, we will see how the numbers pan out. Test #3 is at risk of everyone just picking the louder track.
computer-audiophile
Major Contributor
I think I have expressed myself unclearly. I wanted to say that I don't think much of such sound comparisons on the internet, when it comes to the absolute subtleties. For example, I can't judge the sound of a good amplifier by playing a recording of it it through another chain. If the system I listen to with was perfect and nothing in between, then you might be able to get an idea. But it's not exactly the same impression as if I had the amp here myself.It's a good thing that no recordings today are done or mastered using digital... right?
Last edited:
If you have significant energy above the audible range in one file and none in the other (DSD vs PCM), you'll want to first filter the files to limit them both to the same audible range, say 24kHz before measuring level differences in DW:
- Thread Starter
- #27
It’s not perfect but the E1DA measures all sorts of things that we cannot hear. The “all tube” recordings from Tacet Audio are still favored by listeners, not to mention the
What you lose are the ultrasonics which may contribute to IMD. I recorded at 44.1 — but I am still waiting to get a decent sample size.
If I don’t tell the audience what the amplifiers are, the audience might not be interested. The risk of telling what the amplifiers is that listeners cannot hear the difference and they don’t want to vote that way.
If you cannot hear the magic of the 300B once it has been recorded at 44.1, go ahead and vote that you have no preference for the three songs.
computer-audiophile
Major Contributor
Thank you, I will not vote in this context. I know the magic of the 300B and other direct heated triodes very well, and have for decades.
Keith_W
Major Contributor
I voted 3 and 4, and found it extremely difficult to tell the difference between 2 and 5. I was listening on my DCA Stealth via a Violectric headphone amp / DAC.
BTW, how does this test control the expectation bias of people who think that all amps sound the same? If enough of those people vote, that would bias the result towards null. Perhaps it would have been better if you did not divulge what was being compared.
BTW, how does this test control the expectation bias of people who think that all amps sound the same? If enough of those people vote, that would bias the result towards null. Perhaps it would have been better if you did not divulge what was being compared.
dasdoing
Major Contributor
if an amp has "a sound" it will be preserved if the other chain is transparent.
in fact if you like saturation you don't even have to pay thousands of $ for a "good sounding amp". you can totaly create the saturation you like in the digital chain. with the benefit that you can ajust it to your likings
danadam
Major Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2017
- Messages
- 1,016
- Likes
- 1,583
If anyone wants to take a shot at ABX, aligned and LUFS matched versions are in attachments.
Code:
sox "1.flac" "A1.flac" trim 22050s 13.5 gain -0.26
sox "3.flac" "A2.flac" trim 44930s 13.5
sox "2.flac" "B1.flac" trim 4283s
sox "5.flac" "B2.flac" trim 0 591067s gain -0.16
sox "4.flac" "C1.flac" trim 28472s gain -1
sox "6.flac" "C2.flac" trim 0 461038s
Code:
-15.0 LUFS, A1.flac
-15.0 LUFS, A2.flac
-26.4 LUFS, B1.flac
-26.4 LUFS, B2.flac
-15.5 LUFS, C1.flac
-15.5 LUFS, C2.flac
I didn't realize wax could do video.
Does the color of the wax affect the white balance?
- Thread Starter
- #33
It's the challenge -- I suppose if I didn't say what was being tested, no one would be excited to try.
Given this audience, I would expect most people to expect the 300B SET to sound worse, especially when looking at the measurements of the 91E which is similar.
@computer-audiophile, your vote still encourages people to try a 300B for themselves if there are a lot of votes. If the recording takes the magic away, but in the absence of magic, it is as good as a straight wire with gain, it probably will make listeners curious to hear the real thing! The recording into a resistor takes away some of the speaker interaction which can also be preferred.
It’s really hard to tell the difference, which means that a very low SINAD and very high SINAD is not nearly as different as we think, if the low SINAD measurement is from a 300B.
This amp sounds great to me, but it will be interesting to see how a very transparency focused crowd perceived these recordings.
- Joined
- May 26, 2021
- Messages
- 516
- Likes
- 817
SETs are typically weak in the bass; 300b version are about as powerful as you can get and still be flat to 20Hz. I don't recall that Yes album having any real bass energy...
Good job matching these up!
- Thread Starter
- #36
I think what is interesting for anyone who has only read about tubes but never listened to tubes is how good it sounds despite bad measurements. Hopefully it encourages people to try out something new including your products!
- Thread Starter
- #38
That frequency response rolloff is also captured in the REW sweep. That alone *should* help people hear a difference between the two as well. I am waiting on a set of 300B tubes to "roll into" the chain for comparison measurements.
In a way, this test is like that "1-bit Paul" sound file. I can no longer find the link, but someone took a classic Paul McCartney song and decimated it to a square wave with 1-bit precision and it was incredible how it still was "music" with a lot of noise of course.
With these comparisons, I think many are going to be surprised a how something that measures so poorly can still sound "pretty good."
The PK Metric for the comparisons are also in the threshold where you should be able to hear a difference.
By the way, to point out the (mostly) obvious, an SET-type amp will behave very differently into a more complex/difficult load, like a real speaker. This is possibly where the SET "magic" occurs
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
