Objective and Subjective

[egellings]

The tube amp, pre or power or both, can be considered more like pets than amplifiers. I think that the solid state power amp can perform better than a tube one because the SS amp can take advantage of direct coupling between stages and no output transformer to contend with.

 

[Jimbob54]

There are examples in life where dirty water works better. Why do people get mud baths?

1. Dirty dish or hand water isn't a mud bath. It's unclean water

2.mud baths aren't water baths. They get mud baths for the chemicals the mud imparts to the skin, plus exfoliation.

 

[AudioStudies]

If one doesn't like the result mixed by the engineer and (presumably) signed off and approved before release there are easier and more repeatable ways of changing its sound than using coloured playback equipment, which one is then stuck with overlaying the same colouration over all the recordings we play, wanted or not.

You make some excellent points. I have not ruled out experimenting with modern solid-state preamps (haven't tried one in a while) and if I really like them, gradually phase out my tube preamps in my various systems. But I explained in the original post why for my types of systems it is not so easy to manipulate (color) the sound in subsequent stages. I will try to keep an open mind. What pro audio equipment would you recommend to accomplish such tasks? I don't want a computer in my systems (except the one system I have dedicated for computer). I am trying to keep an open mind, but I will turn 65 soon, and by the time I make all the changes, it may be my time to go. Yes having the coloration in the preamp, then you hear it for all recordings, but it rarely seems like an unpleasant thing to me. So a part of me is telling myself to be more open minded, but another part of me is saying, "go with what you know" . . .

 

[AudioStudies]

1. Dirty dish or hand water isn't a mud bath. It's unclean water

2.mud baths aren't water baths. They get mud baths for the chemicals the mud imparts to the skin, plus exfoliation.

Just semantics. If its not pure H2O, then it is impure (dirty).

 

[egellings]

I'm not sure just what going from 0.01% THD to 0.001% THD by itself gets you. The electronics can get better, but the ears have been left in the dust long ago.

 

[solderdude]

With 'pleasant distortion' I refer to 'mainly 2nd harmonic distortion' which is said to sound pleasant.
Those 2nd harmonics can still be low enough in amplitude that they cannot be heard but are measured.
I can agree with just audible amounts of 2nd harmonic slightly enhancing the sound of 'simple' recordings.
With HD also comes IMD which in general isn't pleasant and usually becomes audible with more complex music and in general is not as benign as HD only.

 

[egellings]

Belief is a powerful persuader.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Chasing absolute accuracy can get just as obsessive as chasing your own interpretation of sound reproduction nirvana. I’m for neither camp. However, the arrogant side of me wants to manipulate those state of the art mastering facilities with best ears behind the console to my personal taste. But I’m open minded and I will entertain anyone’s offer to set up a perfectly flat response speakers with ultra linear, colorless front end with undetectable distortion to prove me wrong. But there’s fat chance that I would be wowed by this wonder.

You realize that once you have a nice neutral system you then have more control than if you have a system built with permanent EQ slammed into it right?

 

[AudioStudies]

You realize that once you have a nice neutral system you then have more control than if you have a system built with permanent EQ slammed into it right?

Yes, but at what cost and effort to change all the systems around? At what learning curve? Can it be done without a computer?

 

[egellings]

Some may like to look at a rose through world-colored glasses.

 

[AudioStudies]

Some may like to look at a rose through world-colored glasses.

Ten minutes seems like an eternity if your hand is on a hot stove burner, but not nearly enough time when looking at a gorgeous woman.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Yes, but at what cost and effort to change all the systems around? At what learning curve? Can it be done without a computer?

not all that much of either really. Much much less cost than many of the subjectivist systems cost...and it can largely be done without a computer for anything other than research.

 

[murraycamp]

A lot has been said on this subject.

Yep. Maybe enough.

 

[Bob from Florida]

Yes, but at what cost and effort to change all the systems around? At what learning curve? Can it be done without a computer?

I have enjoyed tube equipment - preamps and power amps for the last 20 years. Speakers impedance plots have a lot do with whether the tube amp will mate well with the speakers. That being said I made the transition back to solid state this year because of speakers I acquired last year. My previous speakers were 8 ohm and 96 db efficient - the new speakers are 5 ohm and 90 db. The tube amps I was using were 80 watt monoblocks with 4 and 8 ohm taps. I ended up getting a Luxman 507 mark 2 integrated and it mates much better with my new speakers than the tube amps. This is not to say the tube amps are bad - they played the old 8 ohm speakers phenomenally well. It just means synergy is very important with tube amps in general.
This new arrangement is very neutral and the Luxman has full tone controls and loudness compensation should you desire- or run it in tone bypass. No computer required - although room treatments can be very effective.
Enjoy the journey as you make your choices.

 

[Frank Dernie]

You make some excellent points. I have not ruled out experimenting with modern solid-state preamps (haven't tried one in a while) and if I really like them, gradually phase out my tube preamps in my various systems. But I explained in the original post why for my types of systems it is not so easy to manipulate (color) the sound in subsequent stages. I will try to keep an open mind. What pro audio equipment would you recommend to accomplish such tasks? I don't want a computer in my systems (except the one system I have dedicated for computer). I am trying to keep an open mind, but I will turn 65 soon, and by the time I make all the changes, it may be my time to go. Yes having the coloration in the preamp, then you hear it for all recordings, but it rarely seems like an unpleasant thing to me. So a part of me is telling myself to be more open minded, but another part of me is saying, "go with what you know" . . .

Maybe I am not the right person to advise, I didn't find a special difference between the valve pre I owned (Audio Research) and the various solid state ones from Hafler, Musical Fidelity, Krell, Spectral and Goldmund I have owned.
OTOH about 10 years ago I did experiment with a recorder which could have various "plug-in" emulators put in circuit to colour the sound, several valve amp types, reel-to-reel tape saturation - that sort of thing. One did need a computer to set the box up and load the plug ins but then the device worked as set up after the computer was disconnected.
It was interesting and fun but I haven't done it for years. Being software based the thing will have been so far changed and updated since that I probably would have to learn to how to use it again.
I settle for reproducing the recordings I have as well as I can and just enjoy the music, I am no fan of playing about with equipment, so not a proper hifi enthusiast...

 

[NTK]

The science is clear. We can only reliably tell which audio gear sounds better in well constructed double blind (i.e. ear only) tests. The flip side of it is clear too. When we listen sighted, all bets are off. If our brains believe we hear something (which isn't totally controllable by us), we will hear it.

If you flat out refuse to ever set foot into a double blind listening test (>99.9% of the population won't have the opportunity), nothing can prove to you a better sounding gear (as determined in double blind tests) will indeed sounds better to you than a poorer one, if your brain has already made up its mind and the piece of kit isn't truly atrocious. [Of course certain things are obvious, such as insufficient output capacity and/or frequency extension, and we need to satisfy those needs.]

I think we all should just relax, sit back, and enjoy what comes out of our gear. Nobody I know listen blind for entertainment. If you are happy with the gear that you have or like to have, and you are not going into financial hardship for it, there is no need to get all stressed over by some numbers and graphs.

 

[AudioStudies]

Luxman has full tone controls and loudness compensation should you desire- or run it in tone bypass. No computer required

Are you saying that tone controls and loudness settings can completely emulate a tube preamp?

 

[Wes]

1. Dirty dish or hand water isn't a mud bath. It's unclean water

2.mud baths aren't water baths. They get mud baths for the chemicals the mud imparts to the skin, plus exfoliation.

I bet an exfoliating power amp would sell really well

 

[AudioStudies]

I bet an exfoliating power amp would sell really well

Especially if it looked like Audio Jewelry . . .

 

[Wes]

somebody contact Gwyneth Paltrow so she can add it to her product line...