Stereophile's Jim Austin disagrees w Atkinson; says tubes have something that can't be measured

[Rottmannash]

Not really - JA2 is instead committing to a huge logic reversal. He basically wrote (my edits):

And who could argue with that? It's all completely measurable, and it brings us back to the "some people enjoy distortion" position, which we all know well. I'm surprised, though, at the blatantly ridiculous special pleading. I used to enjoy S'phile in years past, a bit like eavesdropping on semi-connected weirdos, but since JA2 took over, it has lost its appeal. Now it's like visiting the zoo.

I didn't renew my subscription a couple months ago-it was sky-high priced electronics which measured poorly with a scattering of products ASR members would consider. I believe JA2 has stated the magazine's stated purpose: : "a magazine committed to subjective experience--to listening--above all else"

 

[Waxx]

What? Taste tests are done this way all the time. Lossy codes are always rated that way as well so are speakers and headphones.

If you refer to the Harman Olive tests, those give statistics of what is most popular, but not what works for every person individually. And that data is good for companies to know what sells the most or so. But that average is not what each person wants. Double blind tests can tell maybe, but are hard to do right for each person (and shops certainly won't do that, they want to sell what brings them the most profit).

 

[Sal1950]

I didn't renew my subscription a couple months ago-it was sky-high priced electronics which measured poorly with a scattering of products ASR members would consider. I believe JA2 has stated the magazine's stated purpose: : "a magazine committed to subjective experience--to listening--above all else"

After something like 40+ years of subscription, I'm feeling the same.
It hasn't been a place for most objective folks for a very long time but there's just something about the tone that
Jim Austin has brought to the overall editorial feeling that's really putting a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[teched58]

After something like 40+ years of subscription, I'm feeling the same.
It hasn't been a place for most objective folks for a very long time but there's just something about the tone that
Jim Austin has brought to the overall editorial feeling that's really putting a bad taste in my mouth.

It's a shame because Jim is actually not a bad writer. (His columns suffer from being stodgy, but if you've ever read a news write-up from him, they are first rate.)

IMO, he's suffering from an issue common to writers who get their first editor-in-chief job, Namely, they become control freaks and want to have their hands on everything. Editors like that either grow into the job or they flame out. My humble advice to JA2 would be to act like you've sat in the chair before, and lighten up just a little bit on the control freakiness, and SP will be fine.

A last respectful comment on this to JA2 would be that you don't have to constantly remind readers and advertisers that SP is subjective first, and that you like really expensive gear. We get it, we get it. Boy do we get it.

 

[MattHooper]

I can tackle that. Labelling a car a sportscar is subjective -- it means something different to different people. But a tube amp is a tube amp --it's usually pretty black-and-white.

So...your response is to simply deny that there exists a category or reference for "Sports Car?" That doesn't seem exactly tenable.

Especially since one can find plenty of references where they are defined.

E.g.:

Definition of SPORTS CAR

a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

: a low small usually 2-passenger automobile designed for quick response, easy maneuverability, and high-speed driving

Sports car - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A sports car is a car designed with an emphasis on dynamic performance, such as handling, acceleration, top speed, the thrill of driving and racing capability. Sports cars originated in Europe in the early 1900s and are currently produced by many manufacturers around the world.

There certainly seems to be a general category of "Sports Car" within which people can discuss or reference specific types or sub categories. The rest of the world would seem to agree with me on that, which is why the term exists. That's why it is a dubious leap from: "there are many different designs and attributes of cars that people call 'sports cars' to "therefore it is an empty, made up category." That's erroneously taking the existence of variety within any category to deny the category. Which was my point. (And btw pointing to fringes, like certain people who may label their Volkswagen beetle their "sports car" - "see, anyone can call something a sports car!" - does not invalidate that the term isn't used in a more useful, restrictive way among a great many other people).

So I believe you missed the point of my analogy.

As with cars, the fact that there is variation within the category "tube amp design" and variation in how different tube amps "sound," - it does not follow therefore that there is nothing we can identify as the category "tube amp" NOR potentially identify certain sub-categories of "tube sound."

I appreciate the effort though

 

[MattHooper]

This tread is lost in a banter between two fundamentalist sections it seems.

If there is anything "fundamentalist" in what I've written I'd be happy to see it pointed out so I wouldn't repeat that mistake - especially since I'm particularly wary of fundamentalism or dogmatism of any kind. But I believe I have avoided reasoning in a way that fits that description.

And Stereophile is sponsored by the brands they review, so not objective at all.

So the measurements aren't "objective" at all?

JA's measurements very often point how how manufacturers have not met their claimed specs, and sonic defects of all kinds are seen in the measurements. Stereophile measurements have been referenced a great many times in this forum, often showing how they pulled the pants down from one manufacturer or another. So you may be stretching the cynicism a bit too far.

 

[BlackTalon]

My mom's definition of quick response, easy maneuverability and high speed driving is not the same as mine. Easy for whom to maneuver? So a '60s or '70s car that has manual steering cannot be a sportscar? Is a Miata, which has a top speed of under 150 mph 'high-speed' when there are many cars that can exceed 200 mph? A 356 definitely would not make the cut, as they are pretty slow compared to modern sports sedans. It is subjective, much more so than identifying an amp as tube vs solid state (vs hybrid)

 

[MattHooper]

My mom's definition of quick response, easy maneuverability and high speed driving is not the same as mine. Easy for whom to maneuver? So a '60s or '70s car that has manual steering cannot be a sportscar? Is a Miata, which has a top speed of under 150 mph 'high-speed' when there are many cars that can exceed 200 mph? A 356 definitely would not make the cut, as they are pretty slow compared to modern sports sedans. It is subjective, much more so than identifying an amp as tube vs solid state (vs hybrid)

You are doing it again: searching for areas of disagreement, possible gray areas, to ignore any useful consensus. Finding instances where some people disagree does not obviate categories where people can agree.

Question:

Take a large number of people, especially car enthusiasts, and present them with two photos, one of a classic Dodge Station Wagon, the other a classic Corvette Stingray convertible:

If asked "which of these is a sports car?" which one do you think most people will identify? You don't really imagine mass confusion and disagreement,
do you?

Car categories exist because even if one can find gray areas, categories are still possible, and useful, even subcategories of sports cars:

PROGRAMS - Road Racing - Car Classifications and Groups

65,000+ door-to-door, cone clipping and dirt-throwing individuals make us the largest amateur motorsports club in the United States.

www.scca.com

Anyway, enough with the cars...no biggie either way.

 

[Mojo Warrior]

No one has devised an instrument to measure snake oil, yet.

However, Stereophile is pegging the VU meters on my BS Detector.

 

[Sal1950]

No one has devised an instrument to measure snake oil, yet

Snake Oil is like pornography,

In his concurring opinion in the 1964 Jacobellis v. Ohio case, Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart delivered what has become the most well-known line related to the detection of “hard-core” pornography: the infamous “I know it when I see it.” statement.

“I have reached the conclusion . . . that under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

 

[Waxx]

For me a racecar is a car tuned to take the maximum performance out of it. The Renault R5 TDC below is such a car, altough it doesn't have the typical cliche racecar body style, it's small but it is tuned for that body style. It glues to the track, and is very fast with relative small engine (1.4L I4 turbo with 207 hp) and is one of the best handling cars of the 1980's (and still very good today).

This Dodge Challenger T/A is not a racecar, this is a musccle car with a big engine, but terrible handling in corners and the engine was not efficient at all. It uses a big noisy 5.0 L (304) V8 engine with 209HP and looks like a sports car, but would loose any race with the R5 TDC that is not in a straight line, and even in a straight line it probally would. But it's a lot of fun to drive, that is why the are so popular (even in Europe). And yes, i drove it. A friend had one of those for years...

And to get back on the topic, tube amps and class A amp are like that dodge, technical inferior but a lot of fun.

 

[amirm]

If you refer to the Harman Olive tests, those give statistics of what is most popular, but not what works for every person individually.

That is not a component of what I proposed. Individual statistics are available for all listeners in research papers anyway including error bars.

In this case you and Austin are saying tube sounds better when you can look at said gear and without matching levels. I am saying we can conduct the very test again but this time without your eyes/knowledge of what you are listening to with levels matched. Your specific feedback will then be recorded and we can see if it matches when done sighted and uncontrolled.

And yes, we are very interested in seeing your, or I should say, Austin's performance in such a controlled test. If he needs his eyes to prove tube amps sound better then we know for sure we can't measure that because our test gear measures sound, not what your eyes receive!

 

[Blumlein 88]

For me a racecar is a car tuned to take the maximum performance out of it. The Renault R5 TDC below is such a car, altough it doesn't have the typical cliche racecar body style, it's small but it is tuned for that body style. It glues to the track, and is very fast with relative small engine (1.4L I4 turbo with 207 hp) and is one of the best handling cars of the 1980's (and still very good today).

This Dodge Challenger T/A is not a racecar, this is a musccle car with a big engine, but terrible handling in corners and the engine was not efficient at all. It uses a big noisy 5.0 L (304) V8 engine with 209HP and looks like a sports car, but would loose any race with the R5 TDC that is not in a straight line, and even in a straight line it probally would. But it's a lot of fun to drive, that is why the are so popular (even in Europe). And yes, i drove it. A friend had one of those for years...

And to get back on the topic, tube amps and class A amp are like that dodge, technical inferior but a lot of fun.

This is a street version of the R5 Turbo. They only made something like 200. Most of the cars like the street car you pictured had a more powerful engine. They made tens of thousands. The street legal R5 is slower. So essentially you can take a limited production street car and turn it into a full blown race car which can beat many street cars. Gee, who would have ever guessed? Not to mention this whole car comparison thing is bonkers in this topic.

 

[amirm]

Double blind tests can tell maybe, but are hard to do right for each person (and shops certainly won't do that, they want to sell what brings them the most profit).

They are hard to do with speakers and headphones but very feasible for amplifiers. Yes, there is some trickiness with matching levels when output impedance of the tube amp makes variable level shifts based on frequency. Other than that, you just need an AB switch and you are ready to do the testing. You can start single blind and see how far you get. If you fail that test, i.e. get different results sighted vs unsighted then no need to worry about double blind.

 

[Talisman]

That is not a component of what I proposed. Individual statistics are available for all listeners in research papers anyway including error bars.

In this case you and Austin are saying tube sounds better when you can look at said gear and without matching levels. I am saying we can conduct the very test again but this time without your eyes/knowledge of what you are listening to with levels matched. Your specific feedback will then be recorded and we can see if it matches when done sighted and uncontrolled.

And yes, we are very interested in seeing your, or I should say, Austin's performance in such a controlled test. If he needs his eyes to prove tube amps sound better then we know for sure we can't measure that because our test gear measures sound, not what your eyes receive!

@amirm your next audio measurement tool

 

[MattHooper]

If someone makes a positive claim they wish others to accept, that person has the burden of proof. And the type of evidence that will suffice will also rely on the person to whom the claim is being made.

So for instance, if Sulu makes the claim he heard a pleasant sonic difference in favor of his new tube amp that is replacing his solid state amp, among the
possible response could be:

1. Kirk: Cool! Where can I buy one??

2. Scotty: Well, he hasn't provided a rigorous methodology to establish it isn't just his imagination. Nonetheless, it seems to me the technical prospect of a tube amp sounding different in his system is plausible, so I'm fine accepting his claim, with appropriate caveats.

3. Spock: I'd like a higher confidence level. I'll await more rigorous, reliable evidence - measurements, and blind test, please - before I accept your claim, Mr Sulu.

Seems to me that at least #2 and #3 are intellectually acceptable positions.

I'd never think that anyone taking the #3 (or even #2) position ought to take purely subjective claims about tube amps, mine or anyone else's, as establishing something
as fact. I also agree with Amirm and others that it's wise to question the entire proposition that "tube amps sound like X..." and that one would ideally want to see tests done
controlling for "glowy-tuby-sighted bias." (That's one reason I've attempted such a blind test).

As for Jim Austin I don't have the low opinion some have of Stereophile's new editor (even though I understand the criticisms). He seems like a good fella and intellectually honest in the few times I've engaged him. However, I don't think his follow up did anything at all to move his position in to a more reasonable realm, from the perspective of a forum like this.

 

[Oristo]

The funny thing is that there is no doubt whatsoever you can recreate the exact tube harmonics and distortion with "solid state" stuff. But if you advertized it that way it would convince not one single tube believer.

Bob Carver sort of did that, before deciding to actually make tube amplifiers.
Carver Silver Seven-t
He recreated tube response by null match, instead of attempting to reduce tube amplifier (mis)behavior to numbers.
The Carver Challenge
This suggests that tubes have something that could be measured and perhaps has been measured, but discounted or ignored.
One possibility is interaction with loudspeakers other than simply damping ratio or available peak voltage, current and power.
Just to throw something out there, that (mis)behavior may be more characteristic of output transformers, rather than tubes per se.
To throw another something out there, in addition to tube connectors,
Danny Richie promotes premium capacitors with exceptionally low ESR and parasitic inductance,
claiming that they audibly improve e.g. decay of musical notes.
Supposing that is audible, then reverberation added by playing a turntable in the same room with loudspeakers is also easily audible;
instead of analog per se, it is turntable reverb that provokes some to disdain digital audio.
Perhaps frequency-dependent damping from vacuum tube output transformers also augments musical decays.
While the Harmon Curve is based on blind testing, that is for preference, not accuracy.
A substantial portion of the audio community seemingly accepts that phase fidelity in unimportant in speakers,
but just as Harmon's blind testers need training in order to yield consistent results,
perhaps they are also implicitly trained to discount e.g. phase errors considered important by Jim Thiel and Richard Vandersteen.
At around 17:30 of this interview, Vanderstein states that phase coherence is not the most important parameter in speaker design,
compared to e.g. distortion and tonality, but needs learning.

Requiring customers to learn to appreciate and pay for subtleties in any product will be an uphill battle for any hobby.

 

[tuga]

I just want to make it clear that the opinion expressed by Jim Austin here, is not well-supported nor universally shared.

It's true--no one connected with reality can deny it--that certain features in old-school tube amps cause departures from neutrality, especially with loudspeakers with impedance curves that drop below, let us say, 4 ohms, which is most modern loudspeakers. No one can deny it because they are measurable at clearly audible levels.

There's another school of thought--embraced by certain Stereophile and other writers that believe the same thing --they believe (as there is no proof it is a belief) that something less tangible is retained in some such amplifiers yet is lost in, demonstrably, more accurate ones. Alas that what is supposed to be lost is not defined. Such opinions are based on subjective experience--self-perceived connection with the music. This makes them dismiss-able since they cannot be tested objectively, so they can be contradicted, which is quite obvious as they are just opinions and cannot be proven --yet (and this is my opinion, as some rando idiot on ASR), and committed to expose subjective bollocks-- to listening and correctly interpreting an as complete as possible measurement suite that is correctly measured -- above all else, such subjective opinions must be dismissed out of hand and 'we' should look at facts rather than beliefs.

Edit: I thought I should add that the opinions/beliefs I'm referring to are held by many of the most experienced, devoted, passionate audiophiles. I do take that lightly because of how they are and what the believe instead of know.

Solderdude, random idiot
ASR member

If some people consistently (over a 20 or 40 year period) choose 'lower-fi' or lower accuracy equipment I would tend to accept that such is their preference.


The problem, in my view, is that:

a) many subjectivity-driven audiophiles refuse to accept that such equipment is indeed 'lower-fi' or lower accuracy

and

b) many objectivity-driven audiophiles refuse to accept that some people prefer 'lower-fi' or lower accuracy equipment

 

[amirm]

If some people consistently (over a 20 or 40 year period) choose 'lower-fi' or lower accuracy equipment I would tend to accept that such is their preference.

I wouldn't. I don't know why this is stated over and over again with no data to back it. Absent that, I think they are either following the crowd, or visual impression of a tube product makes them think it sounds better than it does.

Some adopt tube amps because they go to a friend's house, hear his complete system including tubes and goes home thinking he also needs tube amps, forgetting about everything else that was different. The height of silliness is them coming back thinking they should buy all the same cables! That, we know is not based on facts.

 

[notsodeadlizard]

Yes, tube audio equipment has something that is not measured.
And vinyl has something.
This something can be called a culture of listening to music.
Because if you need to warm up the amplifier, remove the static charge from yourself, carefully remove the plate from the sleeve (for which you put on gloves because you don’t like fingerprints on the plate), carefully place the record on the turntable, clean the plate of dust and remove static, check the stylus load with gauge (it doesn't take long and it won't hurt), and etc., then you are definitely going to listen to music. You have the time for it, you have the mood for it, you have the space for it. And you listen to music.
And the music will sound different than the background blaring from your mini desktop speakers when you're sitting at your computer.
And what about that THD (knowledge of the meaning of which there is very little), you are least of all worried, because most likely this is not your first system and you have already heard enough of everything, and you are absolutely not nervous because of the difference between 0.5% THD and 0.005% THD.

What is funny, I have not seen, relatively speaking, "subjectivists" who would have fought so stubbornly and importunately with the results of measurements.
Because for any decent audio equipment, the parameters are _perfectly sufficient_.
"Subjectivists" simply turn on their favorite test compilation of tracks and say - I like this sound or don't like it.
It doesn't override the measurements because it's about something else, it's about perception.
And in their perception, people are not free only under totalitarian regimes.

I don't see anything here that a worthy person would fight.