Are tubes more musical?

[mhardy6647]

As long as musicality is not defined, then YES, tubes are the most musical.

Flawless logic! Reminds me of Keith Moon's self-assessment (ostensibly after some not-so-good drumming, perhaps in a recording session:

But -- I'm the best Keith Moon-style drummer that I know of!

 

[pkane]

0.004 but look at what happens at higher frequencies when bridged- up by a factor of 5 at 10KHz.

Where can I see this?

 

[pablolie]

I'd assume they are still around, because some people (like with Nixie clocks), like the way they look. I assume some people think they like or like the way they sound.

There's the tinkering with different tubes... "oh I finally scored this 1959 Western Electric" and what not. Kinda like vinyl with cartridges and such. I am in no way condemning it, to each their own, but it's a bit of a clash of audio cultures rather than a technical discussion at this point.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where can I see this?

His bridged link in an earlier post goes to the 565 owner manual. Post #192.

The info is on specs near the end of the manual.

 

[pkane]

His bridged link in an earlier post goes to the 565 owner manual. Post #192.

The info is on specs near the end of the manual.

So this is what we want to simulate?

 

[popej]

The Carver Challenge already forgotten?

The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com

Thanks for posting this 1985 article to your website. I bought a Carver m1.0t amp in 1986 (without ever having seen a copy of Stereophile) and it has served me well ever since, with one repair and adjustment to factory specs (total repair cost was $200 in 2006) needed in all of that time. It's...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Multicore]

As long as musicality is not defined, then YES, tubes are the most musical.

It is defined. What music is has been adequately understood for a long time. It's the difference between a song and white noise. The difference between a melody and a heavy diesel truck changing gears.

The problem can therefore be posed theoretically but I don't know who wants to take up the challenge to answer it. I don't think it's my job.

Most of us here at ASR can more-or-less understand a theoretically transparent amplifier. So let's take that as a baseline. Relative to that, How does a non-transparent amplifier add music to the input signal? Purely in theory, no anecdotes, no data.

Ok. I have an idea, the extra-musical amp could inject Bach cantatas when it detects silence on the input so you can get more music out than you put in.

 

[MattHooper]

It is defined. What music is has been adequately understood for a long time. It's the difference between a song and white noise. The difference between a melody and a heavy diesel truck changing gears.

The problem can therefore be posed theoretically but I don't know who wants to take up the challenge to answer it. I don't think it's my job.

Most of us here at ASR can more-or-less understand a theoretically transparent amplifier. So let's take that as a baseline. Relative to that, How does a non-transparent amplifier add music to the input signal? Purely in theory, no anecdotes, no data.

Ok. I have an idea, the extra-musical amp could inject Bach cantatas when it detects silence on the input so you can get more music out than you put in.

Not that much of the mocking can’t be justified about the term musical.

But again, it can also be approached in terms of communication, where one is trying to understand what people mean by the term.

I did my best to give an idea in this response

 

[Overseas]

Music is art. Art is made, therefore defined by people. Even trucks & changing gears are somewhere in the music world, for sure. White noise? Check Basinski.
So no, technical defintion of music does not work.

 

[MattHooper]

From my perspective, as someone who enjoys sound quality also as a thing to itself, and who enjoys playing with sound reproduction:

We’ve had, in effect, perfectly neutral, accurate transparent amplification for many decades now in the form of decent solid state amps. Once you’ve heard one “ neutral” you’ve heard them all.

That’s where I get intrigued by sort of
“ moving on” from solid state application (which of course folks here might see is moving backwards), in the sense of “ OK, I’ve heard neutral… what can some colouration bring to the party? What possible discoveries are there in that direction?”

Turns out there’s a whole lot of stuff to play with in that direction. Fun stuff.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Seems to me the most likely explanation of the musicality of tubes is in the art of our mind's eye.

 

[Overseas]

The old Hi Fi vs. Fun Fi. Nothing new.

 

[Multicore]

Music is art. Art is made, therefore defined by people. Even trucks & changing gears are somewhere in the music world, for sure. White noise? Check Basinski.
So no, technical defintion of music does not work.

I know Basinski very well. For several years I counted my own music in the noise genre. It's perfectly clear that it was music because music is an intentional social practice. Talking about the fuzzy corner cases doesn't change the basics, kinda like the concept of spices in biology.

When Chris Watson makes a recording using a hydrophone and we listen to it on a Touch CD, Watson intentionally acts as the artist, we intentionally take the role as the audience, the social practice we undertake together is understood as musical. That's it.

So yes, if you want to try to drive a truck musically and find an audience, that counts too.

Now then, how does a non-transparent amp add music to the input signal?

 

[Multicore]

The old Hi Fi vs. Fun Fi. Nothing new.

There is nothing so enduringly fashionable as nostalgia.

 

[mhardy6647]

There's probably still a market for record albums (on some sort of media, maybe even streaming) of the kind that launched -- yes -- Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs a long, long time ago.

Yes, it's an LP of choo-choos and thunderboomers.

Mobile Fidelity even predated that hoary chestnut above (from 1977, if memory serves) with choo-choo records from the early days of stereo LPs (1958).

https://www.friktech.com/labels/EarlyMobileFidelity.pdf

 

[Blumlein 88]

Once we've divined the place of musicality in tubes I guess we can move on to R2R Dacs which of course were lambasted mercilessly for their cold analytical nature upon their introduction. Yes, Nostalgia is grand. Just a couple of generations later and those DACs are suddenly wonderfully musical. Some even call them analog-like.

 

[MattHooper]

Seems to me the most likely explanation of the musicality of tubes is in the art of our mind's eye.

There’s also perhaps the “ hip” or G-Wiz or newness factor.

Similar to how it’s working in the vinyl revival: Much of the vinyl revival is driven by Young people who would never experience vinyl playback and turntables. To those of us who grew up with vinyl it’s old news, a technology of the past. Two young people it’s a new technology, or at least an entirely new experience, the differentiates it from the status quo and what they are used to, and may have become mundane to some.

Similarly tube amps seem to still be going strong in the audio community. I can see it. I think in some of the reactions of younger audiophiles when tube apps are discussed on the Reddit forums are on YouTube.

I’m 60 and I did not grow up with tube amplification. Solid state was all I knew.

One day, in the 90s , a fellow, audiophile coworker came in and just started murmuring “toobs”. “Toooobs.”

I asked him what he was going on about, and he explained he’d been converted to tube amps in his system. I went to his place and got my first introduction to tube amplification (Conrad Johnson amp if I remember properly).

For me, it was a new thing, and really cool. Both retro and refreshingly different. And I think there’s still a bit of an element of that and why I enjoy owning the tube amps. I love the looks and the vibe and the attachment to the history of audio, and also it’s a bit different than yet another standard issue box solid-state amp. When I am lent solid amps by my pals, they do nothing for me in terms of looks or vibe, they are just another utilitarian metal box.

 

[SIY]

Its a bit pesky when something sounds bright but you put it on the bench and FR is flat. So something else is afoot.

Indeed. We just have a disagreement about what that is. And you're doing everything you can to avoid demonstrating that your hypothesis is valid.

So I'll ask again- since the Adcom 565 does NOT show the behavior you were talking about, are you good with using the SWTP Tiger as the model? You indicated it before, but then seem to have backed off it. If not that, name an engineered solid state amp which you will attest is "bright" so the model can be built. If, as you have been claiming, this is a fundamental characteristic of ss amps, this should be easy. Why are you avoiding it?

 

[SIY]

The Carver Challenge already forgotten?

The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com

Thanks for posting this 1985 article to your website. I bought a Carver m1.0t amp in 1986 (without ever having seen a copy of Stereophile) and it has served me well ever since, with one repair and adjustment to factory specs (total repair cost was $200 in 2006) needed in all of that time. It's...

www.stereophile.com

No, but it was a horribly flawed demonstration not to be taken seriously.

 

[Multicore]

Once we've divined the place of musicality in tubes I guess we can move on to R2R Dacs which of course were lambasted mercilessly for their cold analytical nature upon their introduction. Yes, Nostalgia is grand. Just a couple of generations later and those DACs are suddenly wonderfully musical. Some even call them analog-like.

Yes, it's an LP of choo-choos and thunderboomers.

Those idiotic old stereo demonstration records could lead this in a whole new direction in which I am the reactionary. And I think you all know what I'm talking about. Starts with an I and ends with aging. Thankfully that's another thread and we've done it often enough before.