• 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!

Are tubes more musical?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've seen some pretty crazy things used on stage as instruments FWIW. While my characterization isn't perfect, it does put an SET in the same light as my Blue Sky effects pedal. Or is the same reason recording studios keep older tube stuff on hand, or tape machines, because they add something to the sound they can't get any other way.

And of course tube amps are mostly used as instrument amplifiers rather than home audio. 90% of all tubes are sold for musical instrument amps rather than hifi. Some of those amps, like the Ampeg V4 or Marshall Major, are built to hifi standards of the day. Sunn famously used a Dynaco MkIII as their power amp section. But a lot of that in the old days was how those things were overdriven, which doesn't apply to hifi.
I was about to post the video about guitar amp sounds but @Blumlein 88 beat me to it. (2 posts above this one).

Sure... A guitar amp it can be used as an effect 'pedal' for a single instrument that is connected to it.
It is the often used 'excuse' to believe tube amps are 'musical' because tubes are used in certain cases in the creative process of making music.

Such devices (not just the amp part in that device) is indeed over-driven and distorts heavily even when not over-driven (much more so than any hifi amp) and one should not forget the role the speaker cabinet + speaker have in creating the sound signature these speaker amp cabinets have and are basically parts of electrical instruments. Purpose made ... just like hifi amps are purpose made.

You don't see them used to amplify the whole band or singers as that would sound like total crap. Maybe someone may have abused these kind of devices now and then by lack of PA when performing on the street or so but that does not count. :)


The added harmonics, modified frequency band, the (soft) clipping, the IM products are used to create an effect for the connected instrument(s) that the artist is looking for.
I have never seen a musician play their instrument through a hifi amp and hifi speaker not using any effect pedals to get a certain sound...
Of course in some cases an instrument is plugged directly into a console but the effect pedals are used or added later on.

(bass) guitar tube amps ≠ hifi tube amps.
The only thing they have in common is that both use tubes as amplifying parts but that is the only thing they have in common. The way those tubes are used is not entirely the same nor the speaker (+ cabinet) is used in home situations for music reproduction.

And .. guitar amps are totally simulate-able and plenty of those exist that can successfully emulate a bunch of different 'classic' amps.
 
Last edited:
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.
It's clear you don't understand what "harmony" means when it comes to music. You mix up harmony and timbre. Harmony is related to pitch. Timbre itself has nothing to do with musicality. With your strange argumentation, one could claim that a piano is more musical than a clarinet, because they have different timbres.
 
Last edited:
It's clear you don't understand what "harmony" means when it comes to music. You mix up harmony and timbre. Harmony is related to pitch. Timbre itself has nothing to do with musicality. With your strange argumentation, one could claim that a piano is more musical than a clarinet, because they have different timbres.

He's correct. It's you who is using a too narrow definition.

You're saying harmony is the sound of simultaneous individual notes or pitches, that are consonant, which humans historically have found pleasing. This is correct.
(Before pedants come in with an even more textbook-accurate definition, keep in mind music theorists do not agree on a single definition for harmony.)

However, humans could have picked any notes they wanted to, for example: A could be defined as 440Hz and B as 441Hz. This is also somewhat consonant: every 440*441=194040 cycles the pitches land together again. It is not very consonant in a every day practical sense, but technically it is.

Yet, (Western European) humans have not decided on these notes, instead they opted for 12 specific tones. These 12 tones are straight derived from the harmonic series, ie the same overtones any instrument, or even a distorted amp produces.

These 12 tones include:
- Octaves - the 1st and 3rd overtone/harmonic in the series
- Fifths - the 2nd overtone
- Major Third - the 4th overtone

The theorised reason that major chords sound incredibly pleasing to humans, is that it's simply the first couple of overtones occuring in physics/nature.

Before you rebut with "yeah duh", it seems obvious now, but there's no reason why any musical system must have these notes, or even have octaves. Certain tonal systems, including western temperaments do not have octaves.

So if an amp distorts and generates a strong 2nd and 4th harmonic, on a single note, now it may be perceived in the brain as equally pleasant as the harmony of a major chord, rather than a specific timbre of that note.

You can not separately harmony and timbre as strongly as you like. You can also see distortion devices as "harmonisers", adding harmonic voices.
 
Last edited:
(bass) guitar tube amps ≠ hifi tube amps.
The only thing they have in common is that both use tubes as amplifying parts but that is the only thing they have in common. The way those tubes are used is not entirely the same nor the speaker (+ cabinet) is used in home situations for music reproduction.
FWIW Dept.: I didn't suggest what you seem to imply I did here. I said that the Ampeg V4 and Marshall Major were built to hifi standards which is oddly specific :) I know the designer of the Ampeg V4 (Roger Cox) who was vice president of Fender before he retired. So I have that from the horse's mouth, and having serviced them out I can say he is correct. If you don't have exposure to the Marshall Major, it was used as a bass amp or a PA amp on account of its power. Most guitarists don't use it as its too 'clean'. Bass players these days like more power. So they are rather rare. I've serviced them out too- and they are built to hifi standards, although in both cases a tone stack is included.
It's clear you don't understand what "harmony" means when it comes to music. You mix up harmony and timbre. Harmony is related to pitch. Timbre itself has nothing to do with musicality. With your strange argumentation, one could claim that a piano is more musical than a clarinet, because they have different timbres.
Yeah- playing keyboards since I was three, playing in a band, having studied in the music program at the UofM, or having played in orchestras since I was in junior high probably does disqualify me :facepalm: You have misconstrued what I was talking about. I recommend you re-read it (if you care) since you missed my point entirely.
 
Well yes, the amp circuit itself is very similar (if not the same) as that of hifi amps, actually most (home) amplifier schematics of that era and even still today are very similar.

That still does not make them 'instruments' with all the typical aspects of instruments. They are amplifiers that just amplify (and tone control) and not considered to have the magic instrumentalists love from the typical 'guitar amps'.
Some are better at signal fidelity, others are more effect boxes specifically intended for instruments.
 
He's correct. It's you who is using a too narrow definition.

You're saying harmony is the sound of simultaneous individual notes or pitches, that are consonant, which humans historically have found pleasing. This is correct.
(Before pedants come in with an even more textbook-accurate definition, keep in mind music theorists do not agree on a single definition for harmony.)

However, humans could have picked any notes they wanted to, for example: A could be defined as 440Hz and B as 441Hz. This is also somewhat consonant: every 440*441=194040 cycles the pitches land together again. It is not very consonant in a every day practical sense, but technically it is.

Yet, (Western European) humans have not decided on these notes, instead they opted for 12 specific tones. These 12 tones are straight derived from the harmonic series, ie the same overtones any instrument, or even a distorted amp produces.

These 12 tones include:
- Octaves - the 1st and 3rd overtone/harmonic in the series
- Fifths - the 2nd overtone
- Major Third - the 4th overtone

The theorised reason that major chords sound incredibly pleasing to humans, is that it's simply the first couple of overtones occuring in physics/nature.

Before you rebut with "yeah duh", it seems obvious now, but there's no reason why any musical system must have these notes, or even have octaves. Certain tonal systems, including western temperaments do not have octaves.

So if an amp distorts and generates a strong 2nd and 4th harmonic, on a single note, now it may be perceived in the brain as equally pleasant as the harmony of a major chord, rather than a specific timbre of that note.

You can not separately harmony and timbre as strongly as you like. You can also see distortion devices as "harmonisers", adding harmonic voices.
You are taking my comment out of context. I guess it's the curse of a forum that it rarely works to have a conversation, where a later post builds on the immediate previous ones. Anyway, my post wasn't about amplifier harmonics per se. My post was part of an argument about what defines musicality. Without delving into the distinction between harmonies in the sense of overtones and harmonic theory according to conventional music theory, I want to return to my basic thesis in this discussion - namely that an amplifier cannot be described as musical based on the fact that an amplifier generates harmonics - i.e. distortion. My point was that musicality is a human trait and that only humans can be musical. This should be self-evident and I believe that the fact that it is not is the result of conceptual confusion.
 
My point was that musicality is a human trait and that only humans can be musical. This should be self-evident and I believe that the fact that it is not is the result of conceptual confusion.

The reason it’s not “self evident” is because words tend to have more than one meaning or connotation. Look at any dictionary.

It’s like saying that it is “ self evident” when one is using the term “theory” that this can only pertain to that word in its scientific sense.

Or that the term “ solid” self evidently means “ not hollow,” when in fact, there are all sorts of other meanings and connotations.

As pointed out earlier “ musical” also has different meanings and connotations, including “ pleasant to the ear.”

That’s language for you: A bit messy, but so long as one gives context, one doesn’t have to remain permanently confused by a word having somewhat different meetings. :)
 
The reason it’s not “self evident” is because words tend to have more than one meaning or connotation. Look at any dictionary.

It’s like saying that it is “ self evident” when one is using the term “theory” that this can only pertain to that word in its scientific sense.

Or that the term “ solid” self evidently means “ not hollow,” when in fact, there are all sorts of other meanings and connotations.

As pointed out earlier “ musical” also has different meanings and connotations, including “ pleasant to the ear.”

That’s language for you: A bit messy, but so long as one gives context, one doesn’t have to remain permanently confused by a word having somewhat different meetings. :)
I still say it is a bad idea to use the term when discussing playback systems and components, because of the particular connotation that a system should contribute to the music that many read into it. It is in holes like that that snake oil gets to live.
 
Well yes, the amp circuit itself is very similar (if not the same) as that of hifi amps, actually most (home) amplifier schematics of that era and even still today are very similar.

That still does not make them 'instruments' with all the typical aspects of instruments. They are amplifiers that just amplify (and tone control) and not considered to have the magic instrumentalists love from the typical 'guitar amps'.
Some are better at signal fidelity, others are more effect boxes specifically intended for instruments.
Emphasis added. Or they are effect boxes intended for home use without instruments specifically in mind.
Wasn't talking about the V4 or the Major, when I said I regard 'them' (SETs) as musical instruments as opposed to musical reproducers.
You are taking my comment out of context. I guess it's the curse of a forum that it rarely works to have a conversation, where a later post builds on the immediate previous ones. Anyway, my post wasn't about amplifier harmonics per se. My post was part of an argument about what defines musicality. Without delving into the distinction between harmonies in the sense of overtones and harmonic theory according to conventional music theory, I want to return to my basic thesis in this discussion - namely that an amplifier cannot be described as musical based on the fact that an amplifier generates harmonics - i.e. distortion. My point was that musicality is a human trait and that only humans can be musical. This should be self-evident and I believe that the fact that it is not is the result of conceptual confusion.
Emphasis added.

Birds sound musical. Ever hear a wood or hermit thrush in the wild?

:facepalm: Who do you suppose passes judgement on what is 'musical'? Humans by any chance?? Amps can be described as 'musical' and humans do it all the time, whether they do it in accord with your erroneous definition is irrelevant. They will continue to do so regardless, right or wrong. A pragmatic individual might simply accept that and then look into what it is they perceive makes an amp 'musical' if they cared to do so...
 
What is it that I’m hearing in my tube preamp and tubed headphone amp that is so romantic, warm, soft around the edges, and smooth, even syrupy sometimes? I’m not talking about hybrid amps or tube buffers. (My headphone amp is an OTL design, my preamp has no transistors in the audio circuit.) Do tubes enhance dynamics? They seem to create a feeling of space and holographic imaging. These qualities make it great for home audio applications. Of course they add distortion but it’s pleasing to the ear. The warm sound of tubes seems perfect for laid back and acoustic music styles like jazz. In my experience, most typical solid state gear can’t perform as well for getting the presentation and emotional impact of music right. Are tubes more musical?

Not IMHO, different experience have no issues with solid state. Your happy great!

Rob :)
 
The reason it’s not “self evident” is because words tend to have more than one meaning or connotation. Look at any dictionary.

It’s like saying that it is “ self evident” when one is using the term “theory” that this can only pertain to that word in its scientific sense.

Or that the term “ solid” self evidently means “ not hollow,” when in fact, there are all sorts of other meanings and connotations.

As pointed out earlier “ musical” also has different meanings and connotations, including “ pleasant to the ear.”

That’s language for you: A bit messy, but so long as one gives context, one doesn’t have to remain permanently confused by a word having somewhat different meetings. :)
Sure. You can use words and concepts as you like. In the end, the formation of concepts also becomes completely subjective and arbitrary and all attempts at dialogue are meaningless. Everything can be met with the objection that for me personally it means this or that. In fact, this is defined as a variant of troll behavior. Wordy repetitions that lead to long drawn out fruitless discussions that lead nowhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAB
Sure. You can use words and concepts as you like. In the end, the formation of concepts also becomes completely subjective and arbitrary and all attempts at dialogue are meaningless. Everything can be met with the objection that for me personally it means this or that. In fact, this is defined as a variant of troll behavior. Wordy repetitions that lead to long drawn out fruitless discussions that lead nowhere.

I’m not suggesting that people take any word at all and make up completely new definitions or connotations.

But words evolve, and dictionaries reflect evolving language. And also words can be put together in novel ways to communicate.
And the whole point is that somebody clarifying the context of how they are using a term IS how communication works.

If you have a problem with words having different definitions and connotations, you might want to take that up with the dictionaries. (and writers….)
 
Emphasis added. Or they are effect boxes intended for home use without instruments specifically in mind.
Wasn't talking about the V4 or the Major, when I said I regard 'them' (SETs) as musical instruments as opposed to musical reproducers.

Emphasis added.

Birds sound musical. Ever hear a wood or hermit thrush in the wild?

:facepalm: Who do you suppose passes judgement on what is 'musical'? Humans by any chance?? Amps can be described as 'musical' and humans do it all the time, whether they do it in accord with your erroneous definition is irrelevant. They will continue to do so regardless, right or wrong. A pragmatic individual might simply accept that and then look into what it is they perceive makes an amp 'musical' if they cared to do so...
Yes, I am well aware that this lingo is common in HiFi circles. Amplifiers are musical, have an airy sound, have presence in their soundstage, are this and that. This language carries out the very core of the subjectivism that constitutes the very business model in some parts of the industry. But this is ASR, and I don't buy the idea of arbitrary completely subjective conceptualizations or arbitrary and misleading analogies and metaphors.
 
Birds sound musical. Ever hear a wood or hermit thrush in the wild?
Daily, in the summertime. :)
Veerys, too, which are even cooler; they're polyphonic.

:cool:

Also American Bitterns at our neighbors' pond -- which aren't exactly musical in the Western classical sense of the word. ;)


 
I’m not suggesting that people take any word at all and make up completely new definitions or connotations.

But words evolve, and dictionaries reflect evolving language. And also words can be put together in novel ways to communicate.
And the whole point is that somebody clarifying the context of how they are using a term IS how communication works.

If you have a problem with words having different definitions and connotations, you might want to take that up with the dictionaries. (and writers….)
This is just trolling if you ask me.
 
Also American Bitterns in our neighbors' pond -- which aren't exactly musical in the Western classical sense of the word. ;)
Yeah - but they're really cool, and not that common. I'm envious of anyone who has the opportunity to see on regularly.

And, back to your regularly scheduled programming:

I just don't understand why anyone want a "sound" from their amp. If one like the way tube amps look, or they like building them and restoring them, then cool. I just know that the tube pre-amps and power amps I used back in the day didn't do much of anything but amplify.
 
I like understanding my amplifier.
I understand what every component and piece of wire in my SE 2A3 amp is there for and what it is doing in there.



To take a random example from the motley collection of other stuff around here -- for this unit, that is not the case. ;)


I mean, yeah, in a broad sense, I know what most of the stuff is there for, but there seems to me to be about 12 times as many components in there as there "needs" to be - notwithstanding the true component count of the myriad ICs in there! ;)
I guess that's why there are no Muntz AVRs! :cool: :facepalm:


1733871012885.png


OK, most of Earl Muntz's products used tubes... but not a single one more than absolutely necessary! :)

PS Yeah, Mrs. H and I love having the bitterns around! The various & sundry thrushes and warblers in the spring & summer, too - and everything else. I believe Mrs. H backyard species list is at about 120 over the 11-ish years we've been here. :)
 
Last edited:
This is just trolling if you ask me.

Please…

You’ve argued for your own view of how a word should be used and circumscribed.

Is it OK if everybody doesn’t just take your view as gospel?

Partially disagreeing with you - and explaining why, with counter examples and actual dictionary definitions - is not trolling.
 
You are taking my comment out of context. I guess it's the curse of a forum that it rarely works to have a conversation, where a later post builds on the immediate previous ones. Anyway, my post wasn't about amplifier harmonics per se. My post was part of an argument about what defines musicality. Without delving into the distinction between harmonies in the sense of overtones and harmonic theory according to conventional music theory, I want to return to my basic thesis in this discussion - namely that an amplifier cannot be described as musical based on the fact that an amplifier generates harmonics - i.e. distortion. My point was that musicality is a human trait and that only humans can be musical. This should be self-evident and I believe that the fact that it is not is the result of conceptual confusion.

I skimmed over most of the thread, so I probably did take your comment out of context, so excuse me for that.

I agree with you. Musicality or musical is such vague word, that it has no use in a science forum. If you need to define it on a person to person basis, then it isn’t really a definition.
And if you can define it in existing terms of FR tilt or distortion, might as well use those more precise terms.


And infact, even tilt or distortion cannot be a synonym for musical. If that was the case, then more tilt and more distortion would never cease to be an improvement. The same recording loopbacked through the same “musical” amp would turn more and more tilted and distortion, until there’s only one highly distorted bass note left. Is that audio nirvana?

I’m sorry Matt, but your linguistic pedantry makes no sense and helps nothing imo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom