Waffling on a tube amp

[restorer-john]

Interesting.

The thing about the HF noise, is it is a 'tell' and I can easily perceive it, which is about the same as what I 'perceive' (not discretely hear) around 18kHz with a pure tone at low level. 16-16.5kHz is easy 100% of the time at a moderate volume of his speaking voice as a reference. I'm 56yo.

I think his 'test' is fun, but not really much more than that.

The other issue of course is the relative flatness of the headphones I am using. The 16kHz tone comes out of nowhere (it's in a FR hole but easy to hear) and the rest of this response below, neatly corresponds with what I just heard. (found this plot after the 'test') It would mean the 702s are pretty much totally useless for checking HF hearing with a response like that eh?

Makes me want to get my ears tested properly- it's been a long time.

 

[Mr. Widget]

The thing about the HF noise, is it is a 'tell' and I can easily perceive it, which is about the same as what I 'perceive' (not discretely hear) around 18kHz with a pure tone at low level. 16-16.5kHz is easy 100% of the time at a moderate volume of his speaking voice as a reference. I'm 56yo.

I think his 'test' is fun, but not really much more than that.

Lucky you! I haven't heard 18kHz in decades.

8kHz Right!

I just ran a a signal generator app on my iPhone and could hear the iPhone speakers playing up to 11,500Hz. Not sure if it was the speaker, the iPhone amp, or my hearing, but 12kHz was gone.

The last time I tried hearing test tones on a system capable of wide bandwidth I dropped off around 14-15kHz... somehow playing test tones through a pair of headphones makes me nervous. When I went to the audiologist a number of years ago, they were focused on functional hearing and their test only went to 8KHz. I was disappointed. I was hoping to get a calibrated HF evaluation, but they were not set up for that.

 

[dguillor]

What about buying a near perfect solid state amplifier and a tube emulator. Then you could have several different types of tube amps to listen to.

 

[restorer-john]

When I went to the audiologist a number of years ago, they were focused on functional hearing and their test only went to 8KHz. I was disappointed. I was hoping to get a calibrated HF evaluation, but they were not set up for that.

That's interesting.

My concern is all those low cost/free 'hearing tests' are just gearing people up for expensive hearing aids as they work hand in hand with each other.

 

[Steven Holt]

Where did you get this "known fact?"

I believe that it came from one of the 'Harry Potter' books, forget which one.

 

[Mr. Widget]

That's interesting.

My concern is all those low cost/free 'hearing tests' are just gearing people up for expensive hearing aids as they work hand in hand with each other.

My test was per my request through my healthcare provider. It was performed by a licensed technician at one of their medical facilities... but as I mentioned, it was geared toward basic hearing and not a deeper dive.

 

[Blumlein 88]

My test was per my request through my healthcare provider. It was performed by a licensed technician at one of their medical facilities... but as I mentioned, it was geared toward basic hearing and not a deeper dive.

I've been given hearing tests like this and never do they go over 8 khz. I asked them to and they just aren't set up for that and don't do it. If your hearing is still within parameter guidelines to 8 khz then speech should be no problem and that is their focus.

 

[valve_integrator]

"It's a known fact any male over 45-50 is incapable of hearing much over 8khz,"

That's wrong. Full stop. Easily debunked (as I just did).

It seems most of the people who posted afterwards agreed with me.

Like it or lump it.
Do you really want to disagree with a medical journal as serious as the Lancet?

I also agree about the headphones.
Unless you have a proper calibration standard and a DSP to correct the obvious and terrible non linearity of all headphones, it's still a lottery to get any serious hearing test at all.
(I use a DSP and known headphone characteristics to get somewhere close).

We then have to add in the good old human hearing curves (Fletcher - Munson, equal loudness...) which vary with intensity as well as frequency.
They are pretty non linear also.

ie. "The hearing curves show a significant dip in the range 2000-5000 Hz with a peak sensitivity around 3500 -4000 Hz. This is associated with the resonance of the auditory canal."

You stated you kept the level low in your test, (also using low grade tranducers) which of course means the test produces an even greater dip of probably around another -18dB SPL between 5khz-10khz as shown above.

If we add a hearing aging loss of -20dB at your age to the -18dB above we get a combined loss of acuity of close to -40dB. This very high.
(Please not this is not adhominem, it's just being objective as an example)

Because a girl of 12 - 17yrs old might hear these levels at the threshold of pain, (and I have done those tests with my Russian daughters briefly) it proves my statements pretty conclusively why any man over the age of 40-50 would be claiming to hear things they can't.
(I have to add Dr Tomatis held the view, that Russian language has the greatest variation in frequency during speech tests, so it's likely someone who uses it, has a better audition via training than most, but that's another story...Tomatis' work in psychology and hearing is very famous.)

"Tomatis Listening Therapy has shown to substantially improve auditory processing difficulties, by ameliorating auditory sequential memory difficulties, the ability to distinguish speech against a variety of background noises, as well as assisting in the acquisition of phonemic discrimination and phonological awareness."

Which of course brings me back to the old thing about masking effects increase as age increases, and only a certain amount of training can make up for the deficiencies.

I do find it fascinating in blind testing, some so called "hi end" (male) audiophiles actually prefered mp3 of live music we had recorded to the original 24bit audio.
The only explanation I could find is they really couldn't hear the difference when you added back "richness" in the music, and that is probably why they liked their 'orrible distorting Jadis amps, and I don't.

 

[computer-audiophile]

Not even vaguely. LED bias is (assuming done correctly) close to a perfect common-cathode situation. Dynamic impedances are on the order of 2R and the noise is stunningly low (I use them in the first stage of my phono preamps). Now, if your sonic evaluations are done without basic ears-only controls, you can make all sorts of wonderful judgements having nothing to do with sound.

Here's the ultimate in LED biasing.

Well, it works, and you can't really go wrong with it. If you are happy with the sound, then everything is fine.

 

[MaxBuck]

... class D with it's nasty sterile lifeless dead body tat.

Only by "audiophiles" are honesty, precision and accuracy derided. Oh, and perhaps by some political figures, but that's off-topic.

I understand people enjoying the distortion pattern of some tube amplifiers, but don't come here parroting this nonsense. People like what they like, but in the case of tube components it's got sweet FA to do with science. And as a reminder this is Audio Science Review.

 

[SIY]

Well, it works, and you can't really go wrong with it. If you are happy with the sound, then everything is fine.

I'm making no sonic claims- noting that the worry about "nonlinearity" of LEDs used as biasing is entirely misplaced and unsupported by data.

 

[Dismayed]

I have a Woo Audio tube headphone amp. It's beautiful, and it sounds just fine. And it doubles as a hand warmer during our long New England winters. Yes, a solid-state amp might have cost less, and it would be accurate and quiet. But it is interesting to see how well old technology can work. FYI - I use a solid-state amp to drive my loudspeakers!

 

[MattHooper]

It seems most of the people who posted afterwards agreed with me.

Like it or lump it.

Wha?

What thread are you reading?

Literally no one in this thread expressed agreement with your claim in question here:

"It's a known fact any male over 45-50 is incapable of hearing much over 8khz,"

It is the confident absolutism of that claim that is being challenged.

Virtually everyone who actually responded to the discussion of that claim has counter-indicated against your claim! 6 members in this thread have said they can hear well above 8K.

I can literally test your claim in real time and find it false!

Appealing to studies using median age results doesn't justify the strength of the claim as you put it.

Further, there are studies that explicitly repudiate your claim.

For instance here:

Extended high-frequency audiometry in healthy adults with different age groups - Journal of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery

Background It was well-documented that extended high-frequency (EHF, above 8 kHz) hearing test could be more sensitive comparing with the conventional measurement on frequency below 8 kHz, regarding the early prediction of auditory damage in certain population. However, hardly any age-specific...

journalotohns.biomedcentral.com

This is a study that ends up advocating for using Extended High Frequency Audiometry tests to predict hearing loss - that is testing for the range beyond 8k.

Where you claim it's a "known fact ANY male over 45-50 is incapable of hearing much over 8khz" this study found that:

"More than 90% of the ears in the 41 ~ 50 group responded at frequencies up to 12.5 kHz,"

The study says a similar percentage of those over 51 responded to frequencies up to 11.5k. Which of course leaves plenty of room for individuals 45 and older to hear well past 8k. And that is indeed reflected in the hearing threshold-by-age charts the study generated:





So we can see that 41-50 year olds could respond to frequencies up to 14k and beyond, as well as my category (51-60 year old) being able to hear up to 14k and even some beyond that.

So...enough already. You made an overly confident, overreaching claim. End of story.

 

[valve_integrator]

"It's a known fact any male over 45-50 is incapable of hearing much over 8khz,"

It is the confident absolutism of that claim that is being challenged.

So we can see that 41-50 year olds could respond to frequencies up to 14k and beyond, as well as my category (51-60 year old) being able to hear up to 14k and even some beyond that.

So...enough already. You made an overly confident, overreaching claim. End of story.

Sadly you didn't read what I said.
You make a totally invalid and fake test, then claim you can "hear" those frequencies, whether you like it or not with a hearing deficiency of some 30-40dB.
You then effectively wind up the level so you can actually detect something then claim you can "hear" it.
(Ie. reach the threshold which makes it possible to hear them).
This is nonsense, it's nothing to do with science, and you have nothing in the way of calibration to back this up.

Finally you continue to insist, but lets face it, if the normal dynamic range of most stereo recordings doesn't exceed about 35dB (best case) that means in effect you cannot hear those frequencies, they are below your actual threshold of hearing, which is exactly what I said in the beginning.
You cannot hear those frequencies, but sure as anything a girl of 14 can, because they are not masked for them by hearing acuity loss.

I have remarked before the very small number of female participants in this type of forum.
I explained this to 2 of them this evening, and they just laughed.

(In addition you made not a single answer to my equally valid observations about fletcher-munson equal loudness contours and data from the Tomatis institute, - so we have a typical case of the blind talking to the deaf).

No dialogue is possible because you don't answer the question you come up with yet another "Whataboutism", and the graphs above are utter nonsense because they should reflect Fletcher-Munson in the 21-30 age group and don't.
They don't even have the peak showing at the ear cavity resonance, which is a banal well known phenomenon!

I invite you to a test.
Let's see you pass it. BLIND.

 

[MattHooper]

Sadly you didn't read what I said.
You make a totally invalid and fake test, then claim you can "hear" those frequencies, whether you like it or not with a hearing deficiency of some 30-40dB.
You then effectively wind up the level so you can actually detect something then claim you can "hear" it.
(Ie. reach the threshold which makes it possible to hear them).
This is nonsense, it's nothing to do with science, and you have nothing in the way of calibration to back this up.

Finally you continue to insist, but lets face it, if the normal dynamic range of most stereo recordings doesn't exceed about 35dB (best case) that means in effect you cannot hear those frequencies, they are below your actual threshold of hearing, which is exactly what I said in the beginning.
You cannot hear those frequencies, but sure as anything a girl of 14 can, because they are not masked for them by hearing acuity loss.

I have remarked before the very small number of female participants in this type of forum.
I explained this to 2 of them this evening, and they just laughed.

(In addition you made not a single answer to my equally valid observations about fletcher-munson equal loudness contours and data from the Tomatis institute, - so we have a typical case of the blind talking to the deaf).

No dialogue is possible because you don't answer the question you come up with yet another "Whataboutism", and the graphs above are utter nonsense because they should reflect Fletcher-Munson in the 21-30 age group and don't.
They don't even have the peak showing at the ear cavity resonance, which is a banal well known phenomenon!

I invite you to a test.
Let's see you pass it. BLIND.

You claimed no male over 45-50 is capable of hearing much over 8k. Not "what someone can hear with any particular stereo recording" or whatever. You made a distinct claim about hearing frequency thresholds...just dangling in the air.

THAT is the claim I was contesting. I can hear well over 8k. Others have said so as well. I provided a study demonstrating people over 45 can indeed hear well over 8k.

Instead of just admitting you overreached with that statement, you've doubled down and are now accusing me of "fake tests. "

This conversation is over. So long.

 

[fpitas]

I'm making no sonic claims- noting that the worry about "nonlinearity" of LEDs used as biasing is entirely misplaced and unsupported by data.

But the slippery slope of semiconductors infiltrating honest tube circuitry.

/

 

[valve_integrator]

You claimed no male over 45-50 is capable of hearing much over 8k. Not "what someone can hear with any particular stereo recording" or whatever. You made a distinct claim about hearing frequency thresholds...just dangling in the air.

THAT is the claim I was contesting. I can hear well over 8k. Others have said so as well. I provided a study demonstrating people over 45 can indeed hear well over 8k.

Funny isn't it ASR is about audio science?
Whatever the comment was you came out with was not scientific, no calibration standards nothing, not even a test to check the relationship between pinna transfer and frequency v hearing curves over the entire range.
Did I state in what context you can't hear over 8k?
Nope.
All I see written in return is agressive hearsay.

Do you spend your life listening to tone test at 500hz intervals from 8khz up to 15khz.
Well of course you do, to prove a weird obsession with such stuff, and apparently to keep on with the unscientific nonsense. hah!

Personally I don't.
I listen to music and also happen to play an instrument professionally, quite apart from all the live high quality recordings done over the years for music festivals.
What you don't seem to get, is the fact you can't hear over 8k, because in a live music environment they are below the level of what you can hear, especially when much louder sounds are blasting away at 30-35dB above those levels (eg. inside an orchestra with the brass during a Bruckner symphony).

I can only imagine why this is, but I don't want to continue to upset someone's ego.
The ability to correlate sound in any environment depends strongly on directional information and level.
Tomatis proved pretty well, sound correlation and learning ability are strongly linked.

The ability to blind test a valve amp compared with a solid state amp as well as to be able to tell if you are listening to a high bit rate mp3 compared with an uncompressed PCM recording of the same thing are rather more acid tests of hearing.
In my experience the "high end brigade" invariably fail such tests, just as a large number of professional orchestral players are unable to hear the difference between 440 to 442hz..(which of course is why they now rely on the shameful practice of using a phone app to tune!)
The reason of course aremostly because they are totally unable to hear the harmonics, because of course by the age they can afford such systems, or have done 20yrs in a live music environment, they lost that 20dB at the top end which younger listeners can actually hear, and which enable those able to hear it to differentiate them.

 

[fordiebianco]

If you don't have the right speakers for it, there's no point anyway.

a) could you please signpost to the German forum? Would be interested to read your thoughts on these
b) 'Right Speakers' = high sensitivity?

 

[computer-audiophile]

a) could you please signpost to the German forum? Would be interested to read your thoughts on these

Ist über SE Verstärker mit der Röhre 300B nicht schon alles gesagt? Eigentlich ja, aber... - Analogue Audio Association

... ich wage nochmal ein Tänzchen. :) Für mich ist es einfach die schönste Endröhre! Beim Tube Amp Doctor findet sich ein Bild von besonders hübschen Exemplaren, in die ich mich verguckt habe: Bildquelle:…

www.analog-forum.de

(important pics and illustrations of me are there missing now, because I have quit this forum)

I have already linked this major thread with it's nearly 3000 posts several times in ASR - keeps me busy.

Speakers? High sensitivity, benign impedance curve. These are minimum requirements. How well it actually harmonises sonically - I have played through many things over decades.

 

[ba1473]

While I agree with a lot of the comments about tube amps here and I also love good solid state stuff, I still love my tube amp and it's clear that the human ear loves distortion. So, for me, I still spend a lot of time listening through tubes. I use a VTA ST120 from tubes4hifi.com. I highly recommend them. I know that they measure with a lot of 2nd harmonic distortion but I really enjoy listening to music on them, especially when streaming high quality files through a Topping DS90i love