Are tubes more musical?

[majingotan]

If valves are detrimental to the sound why are they so widely used aand respected?

Not all distortions are subjectively bad sounding. Distortions that are inaccurate but not off-putting to one's brain perception/preferences

 

[SIY]

f valves are detrimental to the sound why are they so widely used aand respected?

As Tevye once sang, "Tradition!"

Good tube design is just plain good design. Tubes do NOT have to be detrimental to the sound- even if the measurements are worse, they can still be good enough to fall below the thresholds of hearing. And also below the limitation of the mechanics of microphones.

 

[Balle Clorin]

I think tube can sound wonderful ever if they measure poorly by present DAC standards.
I converted an old unused tube amp to a headphone amp -and are very happy- I do not hear any hint of noise nor distortion even if it is obvious looking at the measurements. But audibly it is dead silent and transparent sounding

It look very cool with it’s 1944 6F8G …

Measurements coming, we are at ASR …
The result with a good tube..

A poor tube...

All measurements at listening level

 

[Chr1]

Splendid!

So my speculation was just that...I like the sound of valves. But I realise that they enhance in a way that seems counter intuitive. Adding harmonics/distortion.

However I doubt that companies like Neumann would be using them if they either, did nothing, or were somehow detrimental to the sound.
Id suggest that these are the more interesting things in audio, as they seem illogical and hard to explain.
Unlike DACs. And, dare I say it : other/non valve amplification.

The sheer amount of postings and vitreol/disagreement re the "valve sound", ("musical" or otherwise) is testament. Or, no?
My 2c.

 

[atmasphere]

but it was that the ability to perceive and create harmonies is part of human musicality. Sorry if I repeat myself.

You didn't.

My understanding is that Neumann are the makers of highly respected valve microphones, as are Manley and various other companies.
If valves are so detrimental to the sound why are these so widely used and respected in recording?
They are transducers, so ultimately extremely relevant to the sound/music obviously.

I get that they alter the sound and it's music production rather than playback/reproduction. Are there not a ton of high end "voiced" speakers that do this in playback too, so...

The U67 used an EL86 in triode mode. I think they could have done better with a different tube myself, but Neumanns command respect in any environment (rock, folk, jazz, classical) in any studio and are true workhorses. Despite a bunch of newer large element 'condenser' microphones available, some of which are direct copies, U67s still command an impressive resale value. Yet audiophiles don't tend to own them. The price is driven by studios.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

That said, DNA is just a bunch of complex math too, but hardly explains every human condition

Audio is p*** easy. There are approximately 3 billion pairs in a DNA strand which can be combined in a very much larger number of viable combinations. DNA does describe every human condition (other than environmental impacts).

 

[mhardy6647]

I think tube can sound wonderful ever if they measure poorly by present DAC standards.
I converted an old unused tube amp to a headphone amp -and are very happy- I do not hear any hint of noise nor distortion even if it is obvious looking at the measurements. But audibly it is dead silent and transparent sounding

It look very cool with it’s 1944 6FG8s …
View attachment 413179
Measurements coming, we are at ASR …

I am drawing a blank on the 6FG8...
Help me understand!

EDIT: Aha! 6F8G dual triode (each 6J5-esque) with a grid cap for triode 2

source: http://www.tubebooks.org/tubedata/hb-3/receiving_tubes_part_2/6F8-G.PDF

 

[mhardy6647]

Audio is p*** easy. There are approximately 3 billion pairs in a DNA strand which can be combined in a very much larger number of viable combinations. DNA does describe every human condition (other than environmental impacts).

Not to sound like PS Audio's Uncle Paul, but:

Well...
There's all sorts of epigenetic stuff that goes on -- posttranslational modifications of proteins, e.g., of which my personal favorite* is glycosylation.
While a bevy of enzymes (not to mention transport and structural proteins) are needed, the whole process occurs within the ER and Golgi. N-glycosylation in particular is an impressively coordinated activity. Availability (spatial, temporal, and concentration) of cofactors and precursors that are not at all under genetic control influence glycosylation in real time.
It is, as I like to say, a dynamic and information-rich milieu.

^^^ (to the tune of Jingle Bells)

________________
* gave me something to do, paid the rent, put the kids through school, etc., etc.

 

[MAB]

I was thinking of the odd application of the word musical here.

The use of descriptive language in place of measurement comes up in population studies all the time. Often due to error it can introduce into a study.

Here is a paper on concert hall acoustics posted by a member on another topic, and illustrates how words easily mislead

https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/67/1/27/414511/Tasting-music-like-wine-Sensory-evaluation-of

In our first major study, we asked 20 listeners to evaluate three recording positions in each of three Finnish concert halls.15 Some recorded seats were in the balcony, and others were close to the orchestra. The assessors elicited and identified a total of 102 attributes. But our analysis revealed that just one cluster of attributes, related to overall volume and perceived distance, explained more than 50% of the variance in the collected data. The result is unsurprising because the physical distance of recording positions varied a lot. Less obvious was our finding that different listeners using the same word sometimes mean entirely different things. For example, attributes described by different listeners as “reverberance” fell into two distinct groups. Some were clustered with attributes described by other listeners as having to do with the perceived size of the space. Others were clustered with attributes related to envelopment—sound arriving from all directions, not just from the front. Such a finding would not have been possible in a listening test with the attributes defined by the researchers. If we’d asked all the listeners to evaluate the halls according to their reverberance, we would not have had the tools to find out what they thought the word meant. The sensory evaluation and individual vocabularies showed their power in providing rich perceptual data.

This type of error applies directly to this thread, and is why I avoid debates over the meaning of words.

Add to this, nobody has posted in this thread reasonable evidence they can even hear a difference between, let alone identify a more musical amp.

 

[MattHooper]

Agree the tactic is to deflect and dismiss without actually having to address anything of substance.

Sure. It’s just a “tactic” not, you know coming from an honest attempt to interact with an idea.

Getting out the dictionary to win the debate at all costs was particularly ridiculous.

Wait. In a disagreement about the meaning of a term, pointing to the dictionary to support one’s position is “ ridiculous?”

Hooboy….

 

[MAB]

Sure. It’s just a “tactic” not, you know coming from an honest attempt to interact with an idea.



Wait. In a disagreement about the meaning of a term, pointing to the dictionary to support one’s position is “ ridiculous?”

Hooboy….

Except, it's widely considered a poor debate tactic.
Compared to some of the other logical fallacies, it's particularly unsubtle.

The Appeal to Definition Fallacy: When People Misuse the Dictionary – Effectiviology

effectiviology.com

Also, observing that someone is engaged in an argument of semantics is plainly different than engaging in an argument of semantics.

It would help if after 600+ posts someone had a shred of evidence that good tube amps actually have a sound that is identifiable. Then we could actually talk about something tangible and relevant to audio reproduction, rather than wordplay and circular arguments.

Amps in general could be better. Reliability of many products and brands is not good. Fault protection is poor on many as well. Noise can be a problem in many, hum and noise with high efficiency drivers is audible. The lack of integrated amps with good connectivity to match modern use conditions is galling. Cost could be lower if the market could focus on a few critical things instead of the inaudible stuff.

 

[MattHooper]

Hey Smaestro, thanks for the considerate reply! Much appreciated!

Unlike what some people keep implying, I don’t care to waste my time on earth just
“ debating to debate” about audio gear.
I defend positions that I truly care about.

Then you have the tendency to agree with someone, even argue in favour, yet then reject that point without any supporting argument.

I disagree, and I do not find your example supports that claim.

In the “loop back” example above, you first agree with me that a dull sound is “obviously not” audio nirvana, but then you turn it around on me that “thus my example wasn’t well founded”. If you have no argument to why it isn’t well founded, then the conclusion you should have drawn is that “thus musical isn’t a meaningful term”.

But I did explain why it was not well-founded found. Your reasoning was clearly fallacious in that instance.

Once again:

In making the case for what “ musical” could mean I described it as:

1. Somewhat boosted in the warmth region of the lower mid range/bass, while having a smooth or slightly tilted down highs. But not to the point of recorded detail sounding obscured.

With a secondary component of:

2. Some audio audiophiles like such a presentation because they find it can ameliorate certain artificial or over-emphasized aspects of recordings, such as excessive vocal sibilants, microphone or other colorations, and possible irritation from the exaggeration of leading edge transients , etc.. wish some may find distracting from enjoying the musical content.

That a less warm/brighter frequency balance can have such subjective consequences shouldn’t be some foreign idea. HERE is Amir describing the experience of listening to a speaker with a midrange dip and exaggerated highs:

“ My first "5 second" reaction was: "this speaker is screechy bright." It was so bad it set off my tinnitus. Female vocals didn't sound terrible but became lispy and after a bit, annoying.”

Which are just the type of characteristics the “ musical” frequency balance I have described would ameliorate.

And when Amir EQ’d the speaker, for instance, filling back in the mid range dip, and turning down the highs, he got a balance that he described his more natural, less harsh, while still producing good detail.

So, let’s go back to what you wrote:

“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.”

With respect to what I’d actually written, your claim makes no sense. I’d described a specific frequency profile. If your comment actually pertained to what I wrote, your logic suggests: “ If we accept that a mild boost in the lower midrange and a mild tilting down of the high frequency response results in preferable sound, then that commits us to the idea no amount of boosting of the mids and lowering of the highs would be seen as anything but sounding better.”

Which is just obviously fallacious. It’s like saying that if you used EQ to add a broad Q, mild 2db boost to the lower mids of a neutral speaker, and a gentle tilt EQ on the highs, to achieve a warmer sound profile without losing detail, then this logically means pushing the sliders ALL THE WAY in both directions is only going to sound even better. Of course it won’t. At some point you’re going to have very grossly distorted, unnatural sound. Do you think Amir would think that he would’ve maintained natural sound if he pushed his EQ sliders to their limits when filling in the mids and cutting down the highs? No. We aren’t talking about such extremes. And they are not implied in what I wrote.

So yes, I’m afraid I still see your logic as a fallacious slippery slope, argument “ if you justify X that commits you to following it to an extreme.” The proposition that a mild boost to the lower mid range and mild slope to the highs does not commit me to “ therefore more boosting and more cutting will endlessly sound better and better.”

It’s just not the case.

If a sonic profile sounds good (ie. “is musical”) on certain material - such as a downward tilt on overbright vocals - then it follows that it inversely works on the opposite material: it sounds terrible on dull vocals. The sonic signature itself can never always be musical.

Only if you were assuming the fallacious
“ slippery slope” reasoning. It’s unlikely that a wildly boosted bass or lower midrange, and essentially no high frequencies, is going to sound good to many people or natural or preferable. This is why I had described a frequency profile that was subtle enough to give a “ warmer” sound balance, but without obviously obscuring recorded detail.
It seems unlikely that you’re going to encounter many recordings that sound
“ terribly dull” - especially if you have a overall preference for this sound profile in the first place!

And we know that people can have variations in the profile they want in their sound system.
Some people like the bass and highs goosed a little, some prefer flat, and some prefer the warmer balance I’ve been describing (in fact, at the moment there’s a thread on audiogon of someone seeking speakers with such a sonic profile). Many audiophiles find satisfaction listening to most of their music through their chosen Sonic profile.

And the principal that some added Sonic distortion or flavour “ can never always be musical” (in the sense of pleasing to the listener) just isn’t true either. As I’ve stated before, I like the sonic character added by my tube preamplifier or tube amplifier, across virtually all the music I listen to. That’s the same for many other audiophiles.

So I think I have to disagree with your claims.

Not to mention, I disagree with characterizations like “ hand waving” etc, as I endeavour to do precisely the opposite - provide good reasons, which is unfortunately why too many of my responses are so long.

But let me end on a point of agreement:

If you really believe that musical is, or can be, a useful word, then the onus is on you on doing more research (interview audiophiles, measure what it is they like, etc). You need to have a case to be able to convince others. You are setting the cart before the horse, by trying to convince others you’re right, while your argument boils down to “audiophiles use this word”.

I think you are right that if I’m going to propose that the term has a practical meaning among audiophiles, as if most of them agreed what the term means, I haven’t supplied any good evidence for that.
As I’ve said it’s my own inference that there seems to be something of a trend and how it is used. But I could be wrong about that, and without the further type of evidence you suggest, nobody need take it seriously.

So yeah, I totally get the view that the word has not found enough agreement to know what an audiophile means without more context. As you point out, if you always have to ask what an audiophile means by the term, it’s not very useful as part of a lexicon.

But again that’s different from the claim that the term “ musical” could never be reasonably applied to the sound of audio gear and could never really communicate information about that gear. Which seems to be the position of a number of folks on this thread. I think that is worth raising disagreement about, for the same reasons I tend to defend the creative use of language to describe any experience.
In principle, it could be used to describe certain sonic profiles vs others and the subjective consequences for some listeners.
(And indeed I have seen it used in such a fashion).

Cheers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Hey Smaestro, thanks for the considerate reply! Much appreciated!

Unlike what some people keep implying, I don’t care to waste my time on earth just
“ debating to debate” about audio gear.
I defend positions that I truly care about.



I disagree, and I do not find your example supports that claim.



But I did explain why it was not well-founded found. Your reasoning was clearly fallacious in that instance.

Once again:

In making the case for what “ musical” could mean I described it as:

1. Somewhat boosted in the warmth region of the lower mid range/bass, while having a smooth or slightly tilted down highs. But not to the point of recorded detail sounding obscured.

With a secondary component of:

2. Some audio audiophiles like such a presentation because they find it can ameliorate certain artificial or over-emphasized aspects of recordings, such as excessive vocal sibilants, microphone or other colorations, and possible irritation from the exaggeration of leading edge transients , etc.. wish some may find distracting from enjoying the musical content.

That a less warm/brighter frequency balance can have such subjective consequences shouldn’t be some foreign idea. HERE is Amir describing the experience of listening to a speaker with a midrange dip and exaggerated highs:

“ My first "5 second" reaction was: "this speaker is screechy bright." It was so bad it set off my tinnitus. Female vocals didn't sound terrible but became lispy and after a bit, annoying.”

Which are just the type of characteristics the “ musical” frequency balance I have described would ameliorate.

And when Amir EQ’d the speaker, for instance, filling back in the mid range dip, and turning down the highs, he got a balance that he described his more natural, less harsh, while still producing good detail.

So, let’s go back to what you wrote:

“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.”

With respect to what I’d actually written, your claim makes no sense. I’d described a specific frequency profile. If your comment actually pertained to what I wrote, your logic suggests: “ If we accept that a mild boost in the lower midrange and a mild tilting down of the high frequency response results in preferable sound, then that commits us to the idea no amount of boosting of the mids and lowering of the highs would be seen as anything but sounding better.”

Which is just obviously fallacious. It’s like saying that if you used EQ to add a broad Q, mild 2db boost to the lower mids of a neutral speaker, and a gentle tilt EQ on the highs, to achieve a warmer sound profile without losing detail, then this logically means pushing the sliders ALL THE WAY in both directions is only going to sound even better. Of course it won’t. At some point you’re going to have very grossly distorted, unnatural sound. Do you think Amir would think that he would’ve maintained natural sound if he pushed his EQ sliders to their limits when filling in the mids and cutting down the highs? No. We are talking about such extremes. And they are not implied in what I wrote.

So yes, I’m afraid I still see your logic as a fallacious slippery slope, argument “ if you justify X that commits you to following it to an extreme.” The proposition that a mild boost to the lower mid range and mild slope to the highs does not commit me to “ therefore more boosting and more cutting will endlessly sound better and better.”

It’s just not the case.



Only if you were assuming the fallacious
“ slippery slope” reasoning. It’s unlikely that a wildly boosted bass or lower midrange, and essentially no high frequencies, is going to sound good to many people or natural or preferable. This is why I had described a frequency profile that was subtle enough to give a “ warmer” sound balance, but without obviously obscuring recorded detail.
It seems unlikely that you’re going to encounter many recordings that sound
“ terribly dull” - especially if you have a overall preference for this sound profile in the first place!

And we know that people can have variations in the profile they want in their sound system.
Some people like the bass and highs goosed a little, some prefer flat, and some prefer the warmer balance I’ve been describing (in fact, at the moment there’s a thread on audiogon of someone seeking speakers with such a sonic profile). Many audiophiles find satisfaction listening to most of their music through their chosen Sonic profile.

And the principal that some added Sonic distortion or flavour “ can never always be musical” (in the sense of pleasing to the listener) just isn’t true either. As I’ve stated before, I like the sonic character added by my tube preamplifier or tube amplifier, across virtually all the music I listen to. That’s the same for many other audiophiles.

So I think I have to disagree with your claims.

Not to mention, I disagree with characterizations like “ hand waving” etc, as I endeavour to do precisely the opposite - provide good reasons, which is unfortunately why too many of my responses are so long.

But let me end on a point of agreement:



I think you are right that if I’m going to propose that the term has a practical meaning among audiophiles, as if most of them agreed what the term means, I haven’t supplied any good evidence for that.
As I’ve said it’s my own inference that there seems to be something of a trend and how it is used. But I could be wrong about that, and without the further type of evidence you suggest, nobody need take it seriously.

So yeah, I totally get the view that the word has not found enough agreement to know what an audiophile means without more context. As you point out, if you always have to ask what an audio means by the term, it’s not very useful as part of a lexicon.

But again that’s different from the claim that the term “ musical” could never be reasonably applied to the sound of audio gear and could never really communicate information about that gear. Which seems to be the position of a number of folks on this thread. I think that is worth raising disagreement about, for the same reasons I tend to defend the creative use of language to describe any experience.
In principle, it could be used to describe certain sonic profiles vs others and the subjective consequences for some listeners.

Cheers.

Yes just remember somehow the tube deficiency is a plus that Matt will defend. We need to interject subjective thinking to cover the objective shortcomings. Otherwise someone might get the idea tubes are obsolete tech that times have passed by.

 

[MattHooper]

Except, it's widely considered a poor debate tactic.
Compared to some of the other logical fallacies, it's particularly unsubtle.

The Appeal to Definition Fallacy: When People Misuse the Dictionary – Effectiviology

effectiviology.com

Except I was not engaged in a logical fallacy.
I did not adduce the dictionary and a simple
“ tada, this makes my argument sound!”
It was only part of an argument, and it was addressing the fact that Mulder was declaring that “ musical” only had the strict meanings. he claimed it to have.

He was writing things like:

“My point was that musicality is a human trait and that only humans can be musical. This should be self-evident”

“ self evident ?”

Has Mulder never heard of, for instance, songbirds? Of bird calls being described as “ musical?” Are we to disavow all such usage because what?..Mulder restricts what words mean?

The meaning of well known words like “musical” comes from how a great many people use the words. Not just one guy or a few people on a forum.

If somebody is declaring some singular restrictive definition for a word that actually has other well-known definitions/connotations, cited in dictionaries, how in the world is it not relevant to cite those different meanings in regard to an alternate use? Dictionaries just have no relevance against Mulder’s Fiat?

That’s not how things work.

Words can have different connotations, which is what makes them flexible, which is also what makes them useful.

For instance, the Oxford language dictionary has as part of its definition of musical:

“having a pleasant sound; melodious or tuneful.
"they burst out into rich, musical laughter"

Now are you or Mulder going to rule out the application of the term to people’s laughter shown in the dictionary? I presume not. That would indicate a sort of naïve approach to the real world flexibility of language. But if so, “says who”? Exactly why would you be the arbiter of language?

Waving to some purported fallacy does not address this: if my argument is actually unsound, you should be able to address the points I was making.

It would help if after 600+ posts someone had a shred of evidence that good tube amps actually have a sound that is identifiable.

There seems to be a danger of circular reasoning in there, or possibly a no true Scotsman.

What would you mean by a “ good tube amp?” Going by the general tenor of this forum, a “ good” tube amp would be one that does not audibly distort the signal. But if that’s what you would mean by “ good” then by definition a “ good tube amp” won’t have an identifiable sound! Making the request circular and impossible to satisfy.

So what exactly do you mean by a “ good tube amp?”

Then we could actually talk about something tangible and relevant to audio reproduction, rather than wordplay and circular arguments.

I agree we should avoid circular arguments ;-)

Of course you’re right that a question like the OP’s is going to be mostly meaningless if his tube amplifier doesn’t actually sound any different from a solid side to amplifier.

As to providing any shreds of evidence about tube gear sounding different, I have Previously presented the results of my own blind test between my Conrad Johnson tube pre-amplifier and my benchmark solid-state pre-amplifier, in which I reliably identified the tube preamplifier. Whether it amounted to any evidence for you or not, or whether my tube pre-amplifier would be dismissed because it doesn’t fit the definition of a
“ good” tube preamplifier, I don’t know.

But I do quite like the sound of that tube amplifier. I might even say it sounds sort of….musical

(and yes, I do appreciate that you own tube gear yourself!!)

Cheers

 

[Smaestro]

Hey Smaestro, thanks for the considerate reply! Much appreciated!

Likewise. I'm summarizing your post into points, to avoid ever-growing quote-replies. The core of our disagreement lies in the difference that you argue that an amp can always be pleasing (musical), whereas my point is that it's situation-dependent.

My argument is that it - an AMPs deviation from transparency - is not always pleasing (musical) but rather situation dependent:
Liking what you hear is the result of the input (music), the gear, the room, the playback volume, etc (as well as the visual aspects, did you sleep well, are you in a good mood... ). You can say that an AMP with a distinct tilt happens to fit the complete chain for a certain song, certain hardware chain, certain room to your preference.

Basically you don't like what the mastering engineer did with for example hyping vocals and high air, or what your room does to a song, and you are adjusting that. But when you change your speakers, put on a different song or move the setup to a different room, it might not fit anymore. Thus you cannot say an AMPs sonic deviations itself are good (or musical).

You counter that it - an AMPs deviation from transparency, when found pleasing or musical - is always pleasing
1. Your arguments are that you always like your tube amps and pre's.
2. And that you aren't going to come accross many dull vocals compared to hyper vocals, so more relaxed high's are a good thing.
3. Audiophiles post about slopes and tube amps being musical.

To that I counter that:
1. What actually is the sonic character of your tube preamp or tube amp? Often I've seen you post that you like tubes for the looks, also because they glow. How can I assume that you took the time to research (ABX etc) to see if it's purely the sonic character that you like? And did you measure your amps? Edit: lol ok I see that you did. Extra edit down below.

I AB compared this yesterday. I used Fabfilter Saturn with a range of tube and tape settings on a lot of music, level matched of course. I set the saturation to a very subtle but audible level, and it definitely sounds nice on some songs. An improvement, in both clarity and subjective 'impact' on me. If I only listened to these songs, I'd like that effect baked into my chain (amp, speakers, whatever).

Yet it also sounded worse on other songs, especially denser songs were both veiled up top and muddier down below.
It did have a sort of 'live' character, in the sense that music felt less exact, more focus on feel than cognitive hearing, but it was not an improvement in audibility or enjoyment across the board. Setting it to an lower setting was just that, it became inaudible.

Now Saturn does also affect EQ, but since it's all modelled on real gear, and also considered an production industry standard (if not the standard) I'm going to assume it's an accurate representation of a tube amp (though likely not yours).

Edit: I see that you tested it on reasonably sparse music. How is it fuller spectrum music like on post-grunge (Foo Fighters) or modern DnB (Pendulum)?

2. While that may be true in pop music, it doesn't matter "how many" you will come across. As long as not every vocal you ever listen to is hyped, there will be situations where a specific fixed EQ curve, or added transient softening, works against your preferences.

3. As for audiophiles, I refer to my argument of it being situation-dependent.

---

So yeah, I totally get the view that the word has not found enough agreement to know what an audiophile means without more context. As you point out, if you always have to ask what an audiophile means by the term, it’s not very useful as part of a lexicon.

But again that’s different from the claim that the term “ musical” could never be reasonably applied to the sound of audio gear and could never really communicate information about that gear. Which seems to be the position of a number of folks on this thread. I think that is worth raising disagreement about, for the same reasons I tend to defend the creative use of language to describe any experience.
In principle, it could be used to describe certain sonic profiles vs others and the subjective consequences for some listeners.
(And indeed I have seen it used in such a fashion).

Ok let's get into some linguistical pedantry

The word musical itself - what meaning does it have in a music context?
IMO, the use of the word by Audiophiles, as well as the the dictionary examples of the word musical used in context of laughter and birdsong, misses the point that music is already musical.

Imagine I tell you about a restaurant I visited. You ask me how it was, and I respond with "the plates were done artfully".
That's useful, it gives you some information of what it was like. At the very least, it must've been a quality place. Not a fast-food, buffet, or a basic roadside restaurant.

Now imagine I go to an art gallery, you ask me again how it was, and then I tell you "the installations were done artfully".

What does that tell you? You'd expect me to be mocking you, right?

Language evolves, and freedom in use is inherent in human behavior. I agree. Perhaps in some ultrahypothetical situation where indeed 50%+ of Audiophiles on a specific forum reach measurable consensus over that it means "5%THD at 100Hz combined with a BBC dip and a -1dB/oct slope above 2kHz ", maybe then it becomes useful. Until then, it stays, for me, a synonym for "me likey".

 

[Multicore]

I have not found ANY of the things you attribute to "people." "People" spout all kinds of nonsense when they base their impressions on uncontrolled listening rather than ears-only.

You can say that again. Haha.

When I was looking for new speakers and amp 5 or 6 years ago I could make no sense of the review texts I was reading. I now see it more as a highly specific genre of esoteric sacred literature.

 

[Multicore]

Ultimately, the descriptor does not apply to playback gear unless said gear distorts to the point of warping pitch or rhythm. There's some audio gear capable of that sort of distortion. The more capable the gear is, the greater its ability to get out of the way of the musical event. Audio gear cannot make playback more "musical"; it can only make it less.

I agree. The idea that HiFi gear can add music to the recordings beyond being transparent is ... Deejaying.

 

[MAB]

It was only part of an argument, and it was addressing the fact that Mulder was declaring that “ musical” only had the strict meanings. he claimed it to have.

That wasn't what Mulder was saying. The application of the word musical to amps is wrong, you rolling out a series of dictionary definitions was excruciatingly obtuse, and continues to be. Mulder really nicely articulated this. All along the way you confuse action with reaction, analogous to your use of the dictionary to argue, which confuses descriptive and prescriptive meaning in similar fashion. I have nothing left to add.

As to providing any shreds of evidence about tube gear sounding different, I have Previously presented the results of my own blind test between my Conrad Johnson tube pre-amplifier and my benchmark solid-state pre-amplifier, in which I reliably identified the tube preamplifier. Whether it amounted to any evidence for you or not, or whether my tube pre-amplifier would be dismissed because it doesn’t fit the definition of a
“ good” tube preamplifier, I don’t know.

Yeah, I read you test some time ago, not going to re-litigate the thread. CJ preamps have some odd characteristics. The zero negative feedback ethos causes audible frequency response degradation, dependent on gain. The effect is dramatic. If you have bright speakers, this may help in certain circumstances, at certain volumes, but certainly not desirable. I see this seems to be a common issue with their preamps. One I borrowed from a reviewer I worked with at Sandia Labs, had dramatic high frequency rolloff. This would show up in a blind trial, no problem. Your preamp has less dramatic rolloff than the 17LS,. The other one was in the '80s, cannot recall the model, also zero feedback design. I had it on loan from the store I worked at. It was very noisy and susceptible to hum, I had very high efficiency speakers at the time and never got past the noise issue so no idea about the HF performance on that one. These would not be considered 'good', with their clearly audible artifacts. HF rolloff is not good, gain dependance is also not-good. Hiss and hum are disqualifying characteristics too. The fact that music has hiss, hum, harmonics, and variable frequency response doesn't make the presence of these in the reproduction system musical.

So no surprise you were able to identify blind your preamp. The descriptive characterizations of what you believe you were hearing were not useful, and even misleading if the differentiating characteristic was simply HF rolloff. Your room, your speakers, your opinion.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Are some of you getting paid by the word for your posts?

 

[Ken1951]

Are some of you getting paid by the word for your posts?

Does sort of seem that way, doesn't it? Must be a contest to see how many ways one can say the same things and make the same arguments.