Are tubes more musical?

[Buckchester]

Well duh, it's because of the plankton. PLANKTON!

 

[solderdude]

 

[Blumlein 88]

You are sidestepping my question. We all know that I claimed and claim most of what you're saying in this quote. That has nothing to do with the question I asked.

So I'll try again: I've noticed that on this site in particular low distortion is held in high regard. But at the same time it seemed to be acknowledged that it generally isn't audible anyway. So what I'm asking is why is there an obvious emphasis on distortion? It seems a bit contradictory to me.

I don't think there is such an emphasis. There is gear measured and the distortion is noted. This is a round about way of saying the site only cares about SINAD. It isn't true. All of which appears to be drawing attention away from you doing this simple listening test. Which is simple, and simply done. Yet you are having difficulty making it happen. No CD players, no streamers, no laptops and DACs, no friends with such devices?

 

[Killingbeans]

One thing that has occurred to me though... If the distortion really turns out to be inaudible (as brightness), why be concerned about it to the degree we often see on this forum?

We are hardly ever concerned about it being an audible nuisance. We just point to its existence as a sign of needlessly lazy engineering.

 

[DanielT]

One thing that has occurred to me though... If the distortion really turns out to be inaudible (as brightness), why be concerned about it to the degree we often see on this forum?

Nothing to be concerned about if you have a fat wallet.

IF you can't hear a difference between a good engineered tube amp and ditto solid state, is the higher price tag (I assume it will be higher) for the tube amp really worth it? What do you get for those probably quite a lot more $ a tube amp costs? To see some vacuum tubes light up? Are the extra $ worth the tube light?

 

[MAB]

You are sidestepping my question. We all know that I claimed and claim most of what you're saying in this quote. That has nothing to do with the question I asked.

So I'll try again: I've noticed that on this site in particular low distortion is held in high regard. But at the same time it seemed to be acknowledged that it generally isn't audible anyway. So what I'm asking is why is there an obvious emphasis on distortion? It seems a bit contradictory to me.

No, this site is concerned with the misrepresentation of distortion and it's audibility. With the understanding that in most circumstances it's inaudible.

Please, don't misrepresent what the actual stance is by some illogical wordplay. Observations that something is below a threshold isn't the same as being obsessed about something, or whatever aspersion you are casting.

Yes, there are SINAD chasers here, I tend to ignore... Although most gear I consider good, useful, and reliable happens to also have excellent noise and distortion. So it's no surprise that I if I don't believe the hype about "certain levels of HD have xyz sonic signature that justifies a purchase", it's not the same as having "an obvious emphasis on distortion". It's actually totally the opposite.

 

[OldHvyMec]

Atmasphere, I've spoken to you on a few occasions over the last 20+ years. I want to say I've always admired the craftsmanship that goes into the
products you manufacture and the results from that attention to detail.

You don't need to prove a single thing, the reputation of transparency, integrity and honesty precedes the Atmasphere name. Solid State amps have
and will always be considered "BRIGHT" BUT usually fixable with a room adjustment or two.

I've taped off portions of tweeters many times that boiled my ears before I got things under control in a speaker build. I've also had to do it far less
when doing listening tests and using my preferred valve amps. I always use more than one type of amplifier. Class D, Class A/B (Pass design) and I used to
use Zero feedback like Frank Bs Ampzilla. Valves that I used were Mcintosh MC240 that were exactly to Mcintosh spec, Atmasphere M-60s, VTLs
and usually a Cary with good aftermarket parts and a PS upgrade. I always used my favorite preamp too. Mcintosh C20 or C11 both worked for extremely,
low distortion.

Class Ds and Macs have a more pleasant way of handling HF 2500 > and 300-3000hz mids.

The combination of both mids and highs being exaggerated on a graph in an uphill climb of 2-3db vs a slight downhill 2-3 db decline and adding 2nd/3rd
harmonic distortion is what most people identify with, as pleasant to listen to over LONG periods. The exact opposite of most 10-15 year old or older
SS designs. "Bright"? call it what you like. That's why I insist on tone control, especially in a friggin' car/pickup. Who doesn't mess with the stereo in a car
or pickup? I don't know of anyone that doesn't.

The test is simple, how long will 90% of the people listening, continue to listen beyond that 20-30-minute mark without getting up and turning OFF the
music or going to get popcorn?

I'd be willing to say that most people who listen to music over long periods of time have that 2-3db roll-off or their hearing does it for them, to a much
greater degree.

Valve are NOT more musical, but they are easier to listen to over protracted periods, as long as you/me/them aren't concentrating on how much distortion you
can notice.

As I said the TEST is simple, does the audience get up and leave or do YOU have to tell them to go home only to, hear them say "Oh shoot, I was enjoying myself"

Regards

 

[Everett T]

Glad I stayed from all this, carry on.

 

[Muddywaters]

Waiting for the “dog ate my homework”…

 

[atmasphere]

No, this site is concerned with the misrepresentation of distortion and it's audibility. With the understanding that in most circumstances it's inaudible.

Please, don't misrepresent what the actual stance is by some illogical wordplay. Observations that something is below a threshold isn't the same as being obsessed about something, or whatever aspersion you are casting.

Yes, there are SINAD chasers here, I tend to ignore... Although most gear I consider good, useful, and reliable happens to also have excellent noise and distortion. So it's no surprise that I if I don't believe the hype about "certain levels of HD have xyz sonic signature that justifies a purchase", it's not the same as having "an obvious emphasis on distortion". It's actually totally the opposite.

Emphasis added.
Thanks for that.
I am interested- what is the illogical wordplay? I'm not trolling here- this was really something I didn't understand.

 

[atmasphere]

I don't think there is such an emphasis. There is gear measured and the distortion is noted. This is a round about way of saying the site only cares about SINAD. It isn't true. All of which appears to be drawing attention away from you doing this simple listening test. Which is simple, and simply done. Yet you are having difficulty making it happen. No CD players, no streamers, no laptops and DACs, no friends with such devices?

I don't generally hang out with other audiophiles. My free time is more likely spent on old bicycles. I have CD players of course but in order to do this a program has to be loaded on the computer that is also playing the files in comparison, so a CD player isn't helpful unless there's something I'm not understanding... That program keeps track of how many times you made a correct or incorrect choice while the files are being played.
The shop machine that we use for playing music is pretty poky. Its slow enough I don't trust it for stuff like this. We don't use streamers, just a DAC; if we're playing stuff off the web its usually bandcamp or YT.

 

[MattHooper]

I agree with members here that the claim ASR is obsessed with SINAD is overblown - wherever that criticism happens to come from.

On the other hand, I could see formulating atmosphere’s puzzlement this way:

Why is there such an emphasis on measuring things like amplifiers and other “ essentially solved” types of audio gear, if the measurements routinely tell us the distortion is inaudible?

Personally, I’ve only dipped into the occasional solid state amplifiers reviews, but is Amir finding amplifiers that produce audible distortion? Or enough of them to really worry about? Is this more about an audio geek mindset of “ I just feel better when I see comforting numbers?”

I’m certainly not saying there aren’t good answers to this. (in fact, I have my own answer as to why I bought some benchmark gear). Just throwing that out there to see how people answer.

 

[Killingbeans]

I just like the reassurance it gives me.

It all seems to paint a picture of amps having reached a point several decades ago where the fabled "wire-with-gain" became relatively easy to achieve in any practical sense.

It tells me that the only thing I really have to focus on as a consumer, besides reliability and user friendliness, is peak power and residual noise.

It also tells me that if I ever manage to design and manufacture amplifiers myself, the "transparency" part of the equation won't be remotely as big of a hurdle to overcome as the audiophile mythos would like us to believe. I can instead spend my resources on designing amps that are smaller, more reliable, and easier to integrate and service/repair. Of course that'll put my products at a high risk of being labeled as "sterile" by the established hi-fi press, unless I sell out and jump aboard the raging BS train. I'd might have to turn to pro audio or even mainstream stuff like bluetooth speakers and soundbars in order to make a profit, but that'll be way less of a blow to my dignity than having to claim that my products have magical abilities.

 

[Waxx]

There are a lot of subjective factors in the appreciation of audio, and they are hard to define with the actual science as the vary from person to person. But this site is not really about that, it's about testing the objective side of things and seperate the good engineering from the bad. Sinad is one factor of the many in that. If you see the tests of Amir, you see that he tests a lot more than noise and THD.

But it's not because it's tested and found technical good that you will like it. Many like a bit of a certain distortion in their sound (for various reasons) and other deviations of perfectly flat neutral low distortion. And the Adcom amps, altough technically quiet good have their fans and haters. I don't like that amp also not, probally on subjective reasons just like i don't like Genelec. But i will recognise that they are technically very high quality, the dislike is subjective. And i will recognise that my tube amp is a noisebox compared to modern clean amps (but I love the noise it makes).

There are studies about that subjective appreciation, and those show that most like it clean neutral low distortion. And the tests here show that that does not have to cost a fortune and that many expensive who claim superior quality are not. That is the role of this site, not telling you what you should like. Liking is by definition subjective, altough objective tendencies can and have been proven by people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive (both working for Harman). But those are generalised tendencies (good for marketing and so), not the rule what you should like. But if you don't know what you like their standard (the harman curve and so) are a good start to find that out and this site helps you to find the gear that really follows that, or deviate from it in one or another form. Nothing more than that.

 

[SIY]

There are a lot of subjective factors in the appreciation of audio, and they are hard to define with the actual science as the vary from person to person. But this site is not really about that, it's about testing the objective side of things and seperate the good engineering from the bad. Sinad is one factor of the many in that. If you see the tests of Amir, you see that he tests a lot more than noise and THD.

But it's not because it's tested and found technical good that you will like it. Many like a bit of a certain distortion in their sound (for various reasons) and other deviations of perfectly flat neutral low distortion. And the Adcom amps, altough technically quiet good have their fans and haters. I don't like that amp also not, probally on subjective reasons just like i don't like Genelec. But i will recognise that they are technically very high quality, the dislike is subjective. And i will recognise that my tube amp is a noisebox compared to modern clean amps (but I love the noise it makes).

There are studies about that subjective appreciation, and those show that most like it clean neutral low distortion. And the tests here show that that does not have to cost a fortune and that many expensive who claim superior quality are not. That is the role of this site, not telling you what you should like. Liking is by definition subjective, altough objective tendencies can and have been proven by people like Floyd Toole and Sean Olive (both working for Harman). But those are generalised tendencies (good for marketing and so), not the rule what you should like. But if you don't know what you like their standard (the harman curve and so) are a good start to find that out and this site helps you to find the gear that really follows that, or deviate from it in one or another form. Nothing more than that.

The question being asked is, "Is the distortion audible?" It isn't to me, but Ralph has continually claimed that it is to him (and others), so here's a way to test that claim.

 

[Waxx]

Distortion may be audible or not, but the point i wanted to make is that it's hard to test as humans are by definition subjective. Untill you can measure the output of the ears and brain you'll never know for sure. But what is clear is that the sinad of our ears is at best about 96dB max (and most will be way lower), and that distortion below that is not hearable, just like other sounds below that are not hearable. So if a device go below that with noise, you can't hear that. And measuring like the AP that Amir uses are way higher in resolution than our ears. It also shows that with age those go down very fast, and that it's frequency depending.

ref (did not find all, but some studies):

https://www.nen.nl/nen-en-iso-7029-2017-en-229996 (behind paywall, but worht reading)

Characteristics of Real-World Signal-to-noise Ratios and Speech Listening Situations of Older Adults with Mild-to-Moderate Hearing Loss - PMC

The first objective was to determine the relationship between speech level, noise level, and signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), as well as the distribution of SNR, in real-world situations wherein older adults with hearing loss are listening to speech. ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[SIY]

it's hard to test

It's easy to test. Can people who claim the audibility of a class of distortion profiles actually hear the difference with and without distortion? Without peeking.

I'm failing to see why that could possibly be thought of as a hard thing to test- it seems pretty trivial. And if it were me making the claim and I failed to show a difference with basic controls in place, my assertion would be wrong and I'd abandon it. That's basic to honest science.

 

[solderdude]

Why is there such an emphasis on measuring things like amplifiers and other “ essentially solved” types of audio gear, if the measurements routinely tell us the distortion is inaudible?

Easily measurable and this is what Amir does... he measures the most obvious and easily verifiable aspects under certain loads in a comparable way.

There is no flowery talk like seen on other websites so it appears as if the 'perceived' sound is not as important.

The field of psycho-acoustics combined with real world application of gear in home situations involving sighted 'observations' is a deathtrap so ignored in the reviews but sometimes touched upon in responses and in some cases shortly by Amir in the review.

Not all aspects are measured and certainly not with varying combinations, loads, rooms, positioning etc.

That's why there is an emphasis on verifiable data (measurements) and some basic perception 'facts' in 'lab conditions'.
Something that is not fully comprehended by most casual readers visiting now and then but is known to regulars interested in the measurements.

 

[Mulder]

Why is there such an emphasis on measuring things like amplifiers and other “ essentially solved” types of audio gear, if the measurements routinely tell us the distortion is inaudible.

In general, ASR is an exception in the HiFi industry. The so-called HiFi press, countless web forums and YouTube videos spread complete nonsense. The information (disinformation) they spread is that there are significant differences between everything from amplifiers to network cables and network switches. This is mostly complete nonsense. It's about exploiting the subjective nature of our hearing and playing on expectation bias. Basically, it's about FUD with the aim of getting consumers to constantly look for and buy new gadgets. ASR's measurements can be seen as a ritual where a basic message is repeated. These are objective facts. There is no other objective.

 

[MattHooper]

(playing devils Advocate somewhat…)

Something that is not fully comprehended by most casual readers visiting now and then but is known to regulars interested in the measurements.

That seems to underline the question:
Why have an ongoing interest in seeing essentially the same result over and over?
One more amplifier with non-audible distortion after another? Especially once you’ve learned that lesson which is the case with the regulars here, but who nonetheless seem continually interested in the measurements anyway.

ASR's measurements can be seen as a ritual where a basic message is repeated. These are objective facts. There is no other objective.

Fair enough. Though again, this forum seems mostly comprised of people who have already learned that lesson… and yet continue to be fussing over measurements which just reiterate the same message over and over.

I can imagine why some folks might see that as a bit odd ?