Are tubes more musical?

[MattHooper]

Musicality is about pitch (melody), rhythm and harmony. Your reasoning is not about the flexibility of the language.

Sure it is. The flexibility of language is what allows us to communicate - put together words in novel ways to describe what we want, to clarify what we mean by certain terms, etc.

As I keep pointing out: communication is a two-way street. You can always say “ I refuse to understand what you mean by that term”… but then the problem may be on your side, not on the side of the person using the term.

You seem to want to restrict the word
“ musical” to mean only one thing. But to look at any dictionary shows that to be folly. words often have a variety of meanings and implications.

Googling the definition of musical, take a look at both the definitions and synonyms that come up here from the Oxford languages:

See: “ having a pleasant sound”
Look at the set of synonyms associated with “ musical” which clearly indicate “ pleasant to ear” qualities. The antonyms suggested:
“ discordant, harsh, grating..”

All of which could pertain to the characteristics of a sound system as well.
As long as somebody indicates in what sense they are using the word, then it can be a valid way of communicating.

Policing language only goes so far. Sometimes it can maintain clarity, but other times it can lead to inflexibility and unnecessary confusion.

 

[MattHooper]

So you think desire for tubes or tube-rolling have nothing to do with marketing, or the preferences for tubes has nothing to do with expectation-bias, or that the renessanse of vinyl has nothing to do with for example marketing and vinyl gurus like Michael Fremer or any other praising of the analog sound of vinyl?

No, that’s not what I think.

I wrote about the possible (with appropriate caveats) pleasures people can derive from tube amplifiers.

Please reread what I actually wrote, and note that everything there is consistent with acknowledging the influences of marketing, expectation bias, etc.

 

[MattHooper]

Exactly. What brings joy is not always logical.

Doing something that brings you joy is actually logical.

 

[Chr1]

Indeed.
Nice one!

I reckon we quite often forget that hobbies are mostly about enjoyment and what people enjoy varies hugely.

I am not a watch guy. My other hobby is motorcycles, of which I have several. They are all quite different and I would hate to have to choose as they all put a smile on my face for different reasons.

 

[Ropeburn]

Just my two cents: my old hybrid amplifier (tube preamp, 3x 12AX7) sounded very neutral, clear, and transparent. Low distortion and noise. Simply because it was a straightforward, properly made preamp design that happened to use tubes instead of opamps.

Result: excellent at amplifying musical signals. Very "musical" indeed. Because it did its one job of not adding anything audible to the signal well enough.

 

[Smaestro]

I was referring to the car drivers stuck in traffic jams relative to the cyclists who are not.
The car is objectively better but quite often not so much subjectively.

I see. As a Dutchman I see the bicycle as objectively superior, so that’s why I missed the point.

 

[MattHooper]

So bothering to post about whether tubes are more musical by dragging out not everyone wants, needs or is rational sort of gets the discussion nowhere beyond navel gazing.

It seems, as usual with these discussions, things boil down to the type of engineering mindset many members bring to this forum, where they demand a certain level of precision - which subjective language tends not to fulfil for their purposes.

I have no problem with that. The only issue for me is when it is suggested “ therefore these words are meaningless, or useless for conveying information.”

“Not precise enough for me” Shouldn’t be mistaken for “ therefore the word is ultimately useless.” By it’s very nature subjective description has some imprecision, but that’s no reason to disavow words - even words like musical - as essentially useless.

Otherwise, as I’ve said numerous times, we wouldn’t be able to even communicate with clients in my work. (and I won’t go down that road again.)

I personally don’t like and would never use the term “ musical.”

But if an audiophile is using that term, it’s not a bad guess they mean a system that has a warmer balance (Maybe some emphasis in the upper bass to lower mid range, highs either tilted down or at least not sounding peaky).

The term “ musical” is often seen to be the opposite direction from other descriptions like “ bright, cold or analytical” - which can indicate a frequency balance that robs the sound of warmth, and has some frequency deviations (upper mid or high frequency emphasis) that tends to over-emphasize artificial qualities in the recordings, such as sibilance, microphone colorations, unnatural emphasis of transient leading edges, and “ details” that seem to emphasize the mechanical recorded aspects over the smoother, pleasant or musical performance aspects.

And if I’m not sure, I would look for context to see how the audiophile is using the term or ask the audiophile to clarify what he/she means by the term. And then I’ll know next time what they mean.
Communication

Of course no one can define what a more musical amp means.

I disagree. In principle it could mean an amplifier that, due to idiosyncrasies in the design, in some systems produces a “warmer” frequency balance than a neutral amplifier, in the direction described above.
And which, for some listeners has the subjective effects on their listening focus, described above.

It doesn’t mean you or somebody else would have the same subjective response, just as somebody else may find a speaker “ too dull sounding” where are you do not. But in principle, we could still understand what somebody means by referring to an amplifier as producing more “ musical” sound in a system.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It seems, as usual with these discussions, things boil down to the type of engineering mindset many members bring to this forum, where they demand a certain level of precision - which subjective language tends not to fulfil for their purposes.

I have no problem with that. The only issue for me is when it is suggested “ therefore these words are meaningless, or useless for conveying information.”

“Not precise enough for me” Shouldn’t be mistaken for “ therefore the word is ultimately useless.” By it’s very nature subjective description has some imprecision, but that’s no reason to disavow words - even words like musical - as essentially useless.

Otherwise, as I’ve said numerous times, we wouldn’t be able to even communicate with clients in my work. (and I won’t go down that road again.)

I personally don’t like and would never use the term “ musical.”

But if an audiophile is using that term, it’s not a bad guess they mean a system that has a warmer balance (Maybe some emphasis in the upper bass to lower mid range, highs either tilted down or at least not sounding peaky).

The term “ musical” is often seen to be the opposite direction from other descriptions like “ bright, cold or analytical” - which can indicate a frequency balance that robs the sound of warmth, and has some frequency deviations (upper mid or high frequency emphasis) that tends to over-emphasize artificial qualities in the recordings, such as sibilance, microphone colorations, unnatural emphasis of transient leading edges, and “ details” that seem to emphasize the mechanical recorded aspects over the smoother, pleasant or musical performance aspects.

And if I’m not sure, I would look for context to see how the audiophile is using the term or ask the audiophile to clarify what he/she means by the term. And then I’ll know next time what they mean.
Communication



I disagree. In principle it could mean an amplifier that, due to idiosyncrasies in the design, in some systems produces a “warmer” frequency balance than a neutral amplifier, in the direction described above.
And which, for some listeners has the subjective effects on their listening focus, described above.

It doesn’t mean you or somebody else would have the same subjective response, just as somebody else may find a speaker “ too dull sounding” where are you do not. But in principle, we could still understand what somebody means by referring to an amplifier as producing more “ musical” sound in a system.

So musical is a warm balance? OK, so a good clean amp with a bit of EQ tilt and no need for tubes. Yes, I know this is not going to give the user the same vibe as seeing the glowing tubes and feeling as well as "hearing" the warmth. In the end musical as an amp description is very likely to be a belief as much as or more than an accurate descriptor of frequency balance. All well and good except it makes finding out what makes a musical amp nothing related to the amp unless you can narrow it down to a bit of EQ tilt. In which case it still isn't a property of the amp, but a personal preference.

 

[MattHooper]

So musical is a warm balance? OK, so a good clean amp with a bit of EQ tilt and no need for tubes. Yes, I know this is not going to give the user the same vibe as seeing the glowing tubes and feeling as well as "hearing" the warmth. In the end musical as an amp description is very likely to be a belief as much as or more than an accurate descriptor of frequency balance. All well and good except it makes finding out what makes a musical amp nothing related to the amp unless you can narrow it down to a bit of EQ tilt. In which case it still isn't a property of the amp, but a personal preference.

Yeah. I’m talking about “ in principle,” which puts aside bias effect illusions.

I agree with you that, even as I have described it, there’s a subjective reaction component that reduces the precision of the word (your or my reaction may not be that such a tilted balance focusses us more on the music).

Though I still think if the word is used to refer to a certain type of frequency balance, it can contain some information about what the user means. (and like any descriptive word - whether it is “ bright sounding” “ “boomy sounding in the bass” or whatever, reports are best ratified with measurements).

That’s about as far as I would go to defend the term though. “ musical” for me is almost almost as bad as “ sounds like music” in terms of the reviewer/audiophile tropes.

 

[Waxx]

I restrained for the discussion for a while because we keep turning circles around what musical is. It's a subjective term to describe a feeling that the music you hear brings, so it can't be defined in objective terms. That is the whole problem with those discussions. Musicality has nothing to do with the gear, it has all to do how we feel about the music that is playing, and the gear is only a tool to get there. And sometimes tubes are positive factor in that, but it's always subjective.

This site is about objective factors and testing and discussion those and those can be defined in an objective way. Musicality can not be described objectlivly as it's subjective and what is musical for me is maybe not for you and reverse and we're both right. And we can discuss this to the end of times, but we will never fully agree, because it's personal and subjective.

 

[antcollinet]

because we keep turning circles around what musical

Agreed - Music is musical. Gear is not.

When people say "my gear is musical" they are basically saying "I like the sound"

 

[Snarfie]

Keith

Activate memories/pheromones for thoughts immediately an so a correlation with Blondie. Now i know why
Still stunning LOOKS.

 

[Chr1]

Fond memories of seeing Blondie play at the Odeon, Edinburgh in 1980. Tiny striped mini skirt. I was 15 and in the front row looking up.
Love at first sight.

PS Nick Lowe is a star. One of the stalwarts of the Stiff Records roster back in the day. Used to have one of their wee badges that said: "If it ain't Stiff, it ain't worth a fuc*".
Got me in trouble at school unfortunately.

 

[Mulder]

I restrained for the discussion for a while because we keep turning circles around what musical is. It's a subjective term to describe a feeling that the music you hear brings, so it can't be defined in objective terms. That is the whole problem with those discussions. Musicality has nothing to do with the gear, it has all to do how we feel about the music that is playing, and the gear is only a tool to get there. And sometimes tubes are positive factor in that, but it's always subjective.

This site is about objective factors and testing and discussion those and those can be defined in an objective way. Musicality can not be described objectlivly as it's subjective and what is musical for me is maybe not for you and reverse and we're both right. And we can discuss this to the end of times, but we will never fully agree, because it's personal and subjective.

No, I don't agree. It is not difficult and something subjective to define musicality. And it is not a concept that describes a feeling. Musicality is about pitch, rhythm and harmony and consists of individuals' ability to understand and assimilate music in those terms, respectively to play music by singing, playing an instrument or composing music. Of course, musicality has a connection with feelings or emotions, but it cannot be defined in terms of one or more emotions.

 

[Mulder]

Agreed - Music is musical. Gear is not.

When people say "my gear is musical" they are basically saying "I like the sound"

I think I understand what you mean and I agree. Gear is not musical. But music is not musical. Only humans are musical. There is no such a thing as music without humans.

 

[Chr1]

"West Side Story" is musical.

Ahem. Sorry.

 

[Snarfie]

Fond memories of seeing Blondie play at the Odeon, Edinburgh in 1980. Tiny striped mini skirt. I was 15 and in the front row looking up.
Love at first sight.

PS Nick Lowe is a star. One of the stalwarts of the Stiff Records roster back in the day. Used to have one of their wee badges that said: "If it ain't Stiff, it ain't worth a fuc*".
Got me in trouble at school unfortunately.

Thats the Spirit

 

[atmasphere]

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.

Well, we've shown that FR isn't why people keep tubes in business. It has to be something else. Its not the glow or the expense.

My question instead moved onto “ for those who have already understood that message for quite a while… why the ongoing interest in the measurements? Aren’t you going to just be getting the same message over and over that you already understand?”

That was my question too but you put it better here.

Musicality is about pitch (melody), rhythm and harmony. Your reasoning is not about the flexibility of the language. Expressions such as "the flexibility of language" are directly misleading, I believe, when in fact it is about a metaphor in order make a point. As I play musical instruments myself and know many musicians, I can say that most musicians are completely uninterested in the kind of qualities that HiFi enthusiasts think are important. Even in cases where they are unusually musically gifted. People who make music themselves usually listen to music in a completely different way than regular music consumers.

FWIW Dept.: There's a community of people in 'high end audio' that use SETs (Single-Ended Triode amplifiers) for the 'sound' they make. SETs make a lot of a 2nd harmonic (quadratic non-linearity) which is musically pleasant when related to the fundamental tone. This is music theory and not electronics. By the same theory, the 7th harmonic is not pleasant and was known to add a 'metallic' quality in audio circuits if too pronounced and this was known way back in the 1930s (but actually for much longer, before electronics existed). So of the three qualities you point out, the one that 'musical' electronics has is 'harmony' due to how they distort.

Exactly. What brings joy is not always logical.

Joy is likely the opposite of logical.

 

[SIY]

Its not the glow or the expense.

In a deep sense, it is. Anachrophilia is common across a lot of technologies.

I hate car analogies, but... for me, it's the equivalent of having a perfectly restored Datsun 2000 rather than a Nissan Z.

 

[atmasphere]

In a deep sense, it is. Anachrophilia is common across a lot of technologies.

I hate car analogies, but... for me, it's the equivalent of having a perfectly restored Datsun 2000 rather than a Nissan Z.

I found that if the system delivers the goods, it doesn't matter the glow of an LED or a tube. But I get the allure of course