-
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!
Accurate and boring or colored and fun
- Thread starter DanielT
- Start date
OP
DanielT
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #82
Regarding amplifiers. About the world's best-selling amplifier, it has been said that it had a slightly elevated base. In the thread, it has now been pointed out that an increase in the base area can be experienced as something positive. Could that be why that amplifier was (is?) so appreciated and liked?
Soft Clipping was also an advantage plus the amplifier's good ability (for that time ) to manage quite tough loads.
There has been talk in the thread about a sufficiently high signal to noise ratio. So, for this little amplifier:
75dB (MM), 110dB (line)
110 dB (line) should be enough, right? But then this with how much power is needed (I know very well that it is a combination of speakers, listening room and the type of music you play that should be weighed together with the amplifier's effect).
If you have not figured out which amplifier it is, check out the picture of my little racer. It was bought this summer because I was so damn curious of that classic
Soft Clipping was also an advantage plus the amplifier's good ability (for that time ) to manage quite tough loads.
There has been talk in the thread about a sufficiently high signal to noise ratio. So, for this little amplifier:
75dB (MM), 110dB (line)
110 dB (line) should be enough, right? But then this with how much power is needed (I know very well that it is a combination of speakers, listening room and the type of music you play that should be weighed together with the amplifier's effect).
If you have not figured out which amplifier it is, check out the picture of my little racer. It was bought this summer because I was so damn curious of that classic
Attachments
Last edited:
No reason to do so. But if he asks, what do you think about? You say for 99,999... percent of population its wrong.
OP
DanielT
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #85
Without a doubt I will keep the little racer.
Maybe not in the main system but listening to it I will do.It's damn fun to play with, you just want to play song after song.And why not, it should be fun with hifi and listening to music.
By the way, I think Amir should test one. I think there are more people who are interested in the results of such a test. Interest and curiosity perhaps for nostalgic reasons? A reason as good as anything else. I think
Last edited:
Personally I prefer more neutral presentation due to different genres I listen: more or less everything, from ECM jazz to blackened deathcore.
Something "universally bent" is not possible in such case, i think.
Unless your genres are limited to some narrow list with common sound signature, i'd take something decently flat with low distortion. After that EQ can be applied according to your taste if needed.
Something "universally bent" is not possible in such case, i think.
Unless your genres are limited to some narrow list with common sound signature, i'd take something decently flat with low distortion. After that EQ can be applied according to your taste if needed.
DSJR
Major Contributor
My little 'turntable set-up bench' from 1982 until 1998 and probably beyond, had a NAD 3020A which took all manner of punishment for many years and cost was around a hundred quid for years until it began to creep up. The slight 'warmth' was balanced with a pair of Boston A40's which may have been popular in the US (we sold a good few) but HiFi Choice was snooty about them, dismissing the phono stage (especially the MC part), yet I found it excellent. Early ones could be unreliable in early years but they improved the rats nest inside a little I gather and they were fine after that (the UK-spec 7020 receiver was great too but inclined to blow mains transformers in our locale for some reason).
It is subjective topic. Some prefer A, others B. In my car, after lot of testing I prefer flat EQ, least objectionable and tiresome in long drives. At home, for phone FLAC files - I prefer Audiotechnica M40x headphones, though they r V-shaped. For speakers - the same, I prefer V-shape.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,273
- Likes
- 12,175
Ideally a home theater set up, with at least relatively flat frequency response. That's how you are likely to hear most of the work put in to the mix
Headphones too as an alternative - though you lose the surround mix - you are likely to hear some of the detail in the mix and hear dialogue clearly (depending on the mix/headphones of course).
When doing, say, a 5.1 mix for a TV series or TV movie, the mix would be done first for the best 5.1 sound, but then checked on what was often called "the cans" which are a small set of speakers that mimicked the limitations of older TVs. Anything significant that was lost or sounded wrong would be nudged to sound ok on the smaller speakers too. This is still done in the mixing theaters, surround mix and checked against smaller frequency limited/stereo speakers.
As for dialogue intelligibility, the main problem people are having today aren't so much with "bad" mixes (though of course that can be a factor) as the increased dynamic range found in modern movie mixes. The action scene sound effects can be so much louder that when some people turn those down to comfort levels, dialogue levels go below an easily discernible threshold. This is why some people prefer adding dynamic compression schemes, often found in Audio Video Receivers and the like (and also streaming services often offer the feature), to squash some of the dynamic range so they aren't riding the volume button all the time watching a movie.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,273
- Likes
- 12,175
Thanks for listening
Ha! Probably due to the schedule I'm on now my mind turns simply to "Crazier Schedules, more work, less help, less pay." But then, much of the world has experienced a similar trajectory.
Changes for the better: Easy, the switch to digital from the old analog days. Having started in the 80's while the process was still on tape and film, I have no love lost for dealing with tape and even film. It was an incredible amount of hassle relative to working in digital.
I've followed the debates on tube amps for many years and not being an electrical engineer I'm not qualified to determine the answer.
But from what I've seen the answer to why tube amplification can be preferred by some is far from easy or established. First there's the problem of whether in any particular case, someone is actually able to hear a difference, that is if the distortion is audible, or if he is imagining it.
Then if it's granted that audible distortion is occurring, it's still vexing. The usual folk lore is that tube amplifiers distort in a pleasant way, both in clipping behavior and in the harmonics added in the distortion "primarily pleasant sounding 2nd order harmonics that can slightly thicken and brighten the sound." The problem there is that this may indeed explain *some* tube amplifier distortions, e.g. some single ended triode designs that people use to run high efficiency speakers. However plenty of tube amps, e.g. push-pull designs, seem to produce some odd order distortions just as solid state is *purported* to produce as well (though very low level). So it starts to become a head-scratcher - at least to laymen like me trying to follow the debates - as to what exactly if anything is causing the "pleasant" distortions when they occur. Some lay the blame on the tube amp output transformers. I dunno.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,273
- Likes
- 12,175
That's an understandable approach.
The effect of any added coloration will of course still depend on the individual listener's preference.
For instance, in my case I listen to a ridiculously wide range of music (not atypical for audiophiles, really). Classical, Soundtracks, Electronica of many types and EDM, R&B, Rock, Prog Rock, Fusion, Funk, Disco, Pop, Jazz, Folk, World Music, Library Music (which apes virtually every type of music), Lounge/Bachelor Pad/Exotica and on and on.
And I find I prefer the tube amps on all of it.
(And it would depend on the tube amp/speaker combo. For instance I've had smaller tube amps that started to run out of steam, or didn't quite control the bass in some music to the extent I'd like. But since long ago moving to the 'relatively powerful' 140W tube monoblocks I've had no qualms at all. All genres sound well served - having recently done a shoot out with a Bryston 4B3 in my system, the tubes left me wanting nothing for the subjective impression of power and dynamics).
I think the goal of the subjectivist is usually "what sounds the most natural", with the ears being the primary yardstick.
I think the goal of the objectivist is usually "what sounds the most natural", with measurements being the primary yardstick.
Sometimes those two yardsticks overlap. For example, here are three listener-generated steady-state in-room response curves which are arguably not "accurate" in the most absolute sense, but were "preferred" under controlled blind conditions:
Not that I'd claim the following to be either "easy" or "established", but someone who has been designing amps for over forty years explained it to me this way:
It is the high-order distortion which is objectionable way out of proportion to what we would expect from the THD numbers alone. Both tube amps and solid-state amps generally have high-order distortion, but the difference is that tube amps have vastly more second and/or third order distortion, both of which are subjectively benign.
What happens is, the relatively high levels of second and/or third order harmonics in tube amps tend to MASK the presence of those objectionable higher-order harmonics. So despite the THD spec looking far worse on a tube amp, the objectional high-order distortion that it does produce is not detected by the ears. In contrast, the high-order distortion in a solid-state amp is typically not masked.
I think the goal of the objectivist is usually "what sounds the most natural", with measurements being the primary yardstick.
Sometimes those two yardsticks overlap. For example, here are three listener-generated steady-state in-room response curves which are arguably not "accurate" in the most absolute sense, but were "preferred" under controlled blind conditions:
Not that I'd claim the following to be either "easy" or "established", but someone who has been designing amps for over forty years explained it to me this way:
It is the high-order distortion which is objectionable way out of proportion to what we would expect from the THD numbers alone. Both tube amps and solid-state amps generally have high-order distortion, but the difference is that tube amps have vastly more second and/or third order distortion, both of which are subjectively benign.
What happens is, the relatively high levels of second and/or third order harmonics in tube amps tend to MASK the presence of those objectionable higher-order harmonics. So despite the THD spec looking far worse on a tube amp, the objectional high-order distortion that it does produce is not detected by the ears. In contrast, the high-order distortion in a solid-state amp is typically not masked.
Last edited:
Galliardist
Major Contributor
@MattHooper The term "High Fidelity" was as I understand it, coined in advertising for acoustic gramophones in the 1920s, when the first electric models appeared. It was a marketing term used by the lower fidelity alternative, trying to stave off the inevitable.
Pretty much ever since, it's been used to mean whatever the marketer concerned has meant it to mean. Or, in other words... "but how high?"
Pretty much ever since, it's been used to mean whatever the marketer concerned has meant it to mean. Or, in other words... "but how high?"
In my case tube amps that work well on thick modern metal mix had prohibitive pricing, so it was not an option.
And then i moved to active solutions and life became even easier.
OP
DanielT
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #96
Thanks for listening
Ha! Probably due to the schedule I'm on now my mind turns simply to "Crazier Schedules, more work, less help, less pay." But then, much of the world has experienced a similar trajectory.
Changes for the better: Easy, the switch to digital from the old analog days. Having started in the 80's while the process was still on tape and film, I have no love lost for dealing with tape and even film. It was an incredible amount of hassle relative to working in digital.
I've followed the debates on tube amps for many years and not being an electrical engineer I'm not qualified to determine the answer.
But from what I've seen the answer to why tube amplification can be preferred by some is far from easy or established. First there's the problem of whether in any particular case, someone is actually able to hear a difference, that is if the distortion is audible, or if he is imagining it.
Then if it's granted that audible distortion is occurring, it's still vexing. The usual folk lore is that tube amplifiers distort in a pleasant way, both in clipping behavior and in the harmonics added in the distortion "primarily pleasant sounding 2nd order harmonics that can slightly thicken and brighten the sound." The problem there is that this may indeed explain *some* tube amplifier distortions, e.g. some single ended triode designs that people use to run high efficiency speakers. However plenty of tube amps, e.g. push-pull designs, seem to produce some odd order distortions just as solid state is *purported* to produce as well (though very low level). So it starts to become a head-scratcher - at least to laymen like me trying to follow the debates - as to what exactly if anything is causing the "pleasant" distortions when they occur. Some lay the blame on the tube amp output transformers. I dunno.
I have heard the same explanation regarding tube amplifiers. Then it's as usual. There are good and poorly constructed.
It was not a wild guess that you would mention the development of the digital.
This is probably the largest development in general, which has taken place in recent decades.
IT, data, internet, the digital can qualify in the top ten of the human, through the ages, greatest inventions, I think ...... even five greatest?
What you should mask at 0,000x% thd?
OP
DanielT
Major Contributor
- Thread Starter
- #98
Me too. A permanent for example boost of the base, is not something I'm interested in.On the other hand everynow and then for some song EQ. I usually do that.I would get bored with the same color every day!
Tone controls, EQ, can make sense to use if you have a party for example. Rock music thumps on. Full of party people. The sound should be heard by everyone who is in different places in the listening room. Then it may make sense to EQ. Compare that to "fine" listening when you listen yourself placed in sweetspot.
Edit:
When I think about it. If you are going to turn your listening room into a disco, fill the room with dancing people, then maybe you should think of a completely different solution than the one you have for everyday life? That could be the topic for a new thread here at ASR.
Last edited:
The tube amp discussion, its boring.
To avoid it i take the subjective point of view. We are all subjects and what we hear is influenced by a lot of things. Even the glow of tubes can influence what you hear. Thats why abx not works in that area.
People love there tube amps couse they have some magic that SS not have.
Thats ok for me. As a technical person class d has some magic for me. What is good for me, couse they are much more economic.
To avoid it i take the subjective point of view. We are all subjects and what we hear is influenced by a lot of things. Even the glow of tubes can influence what you hear. Thats why abx not works in that area.
People love there tube amps couse they have some magic that SS not have.
Thats ok for me. As a technical person class d has some magic for me. What is good for me, couse they are much more economic.
Last edited:
Accurate need not be boring. Neither is coloured really fun. ITs all up to individual preference, gear and even occassion, type of music and recording.
The trouble is that sometimes, accurate may not be what a person likes. One most common example is sound that is too bright for some. Trumpet, singer's "SSS" etc... if its too bright, it becomes irritating. So, you might want to roll off the treble a bit.
Then its also limited by the gear you have, esp. speakers. If your gear can't do it, EQ can't do anything. Things like speaker limitation, amp power limitation and even budget. The KEF R1 is a great speaker. Can you afford it? This is what I meant by budget limitation.
Similar threads
