Are tubes more musical?

[Smaestro]

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

 

[MAB]

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

Ha!
I already exceeded my word-count limit.
I should know better than to try to counter these Gish Gallop arguments.

 

[robh36062]

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.

And get absolutely nowhere over semantics and opinions which again are not facts over a general nonspecific term.

Rob

 

[Robin L]

I'm thinking back on all the tube gear I've owned. Most of it was vintage and I can't account for how well these amps, preamps and other gear measured. I had four power amps in the form of one receiver (Fisher 500), one integrated amp (Scott 299B) and two power amps (Dynaco 70 and Marantz 8B). The Dyna 70 was hooked up to a Pas 3. All four were bought used. The weakest of the lot, sonically speaking, was the Dynaco 70, then the Fisher and Marantz. The Scott had a nice phono section and greater clarity than the other three. But all four lacked the clarity and focus of good solid-state amps, not to mention the bass response. This is all subjective, of course, I'm not pretending to be coming from a scientific angle on this. I've also owned tube microphone preamps, the Ampex MX-10 (vintage, very noisy, no phantom power) and a "Starved Tube" microphone preamp that might have been from Aphex (hybrid solid-state and tube), two channels and more than nice enough for my purposes. I had been loaned an "Audible Illusions" preamp, was told that its phono section was particularly good - I did not find it exceptional. The best bit of tube gear I owned was the Stax SRM T1 tube energizer/amp. That was very clean and compared to Stax' solid state amp/energizer seemed to round off the upper partials a bit making the sound easier to take for long listening sessions. It's also a hybrid design, J-Fets and Triodes. Also had a pair of old Schoeps microphones, very noisy, very unreliable, overloaded too easily, broke down twice on me before I gave up on them.

My take-away from all of this is that tube gear softens the sound of everything that goes into it and does it across the board. It's all very much like the situation with LP playback vs Digital playback - the best stuff meets at the center. The best tube gear approaches the accuracy of the best solid-state gear. I wouldn't want tube gear now; solid state gear is more reliable and tends to perform better. I still have that Stax headphone amp by the way, the headphones are delicate - I wore two pair out and that was that.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Ha!
I already exceeded my word-count limit.
I should know better than to try to counter these Gish Gallop arguments.

Gish Gallops always get you due to Brandolini's law.

 

[Jon L]

IME, neutral solid state is bees' knees...UNTIL one runs into suboptimal recordings.

 

[solderdude]

Then you just hear the recordings are poor... now there's fidelity for you.
You can season them with the appropriate 'seasoning'... more bass, less sharpness, more 'air' or whatever you want.
A fixed tiny bit of added harmonic and IM distortion is not going to 'cure' all those recordings.
More drastic measures like DSP surely are needed (EQ/tone control etc), not some device that lowers signal fidelity even more. - x - = + idea ?

 

[MattHooper]

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.

Have I ever suggested tube amplifiers are anything but old tech? Or that they supersede solid state in any technical way at all, including audible transparency and accuracy?

No. Of course not. I’ve literally included the fact that it is dated tech as one of the reasons I enjoy owning a tube amp.

I’ve given my reasons for choosing tube amplification: aesthetics, concept, I like the historical-throwback vibe, and I also seem to like the sound. I haven’t proselytized for anybody else to buy a tube amplifier.

I’m surprised because I thought you were more open-minded than this. Are you now against people enjoying owning old tech?
Does one have to own the very latest gear, or own a system of absolute neutrality in order to be a member in good standing? Is it simply not OK to enjoy the sound of a tube amplifier (if it is producing an audible difference)?

Are you similarly dismissive about people enjoying owning turntables and playing records?

 

[Smaestro]

For anyone who is into tube amps for the saturation and is capable of running VST's, I suggest trying the plugin TDR Slick EQ M.
It's €50, but the free version can be used unlimited, it just doesn't allow saving settings.

It's a workhorse in our studio, but it can be interesting in a Hifi setting. It's an EQ, but it can also saturate LF and HF. The unique thing is that it significantly damps IMD. Something analog gear physically can't, but this DSP can. This should give you the benefits of saturation (LF psychoacoustic bass extension, HF clarity) without the downside of veiled sound due to IMD.

It comes with a loudness compensation curve to boot, so I use this as my loudness tool in my HIFI, running in EQAPO. (though not the saturation).

 

[MattHooper]

Likewise. I'm summarizing your post into points, to avoid ever-growing quote-replies.

Cool.

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).

Sure. Especially for a tube amps, its likely system/set-up dependent.

To be clear in case I have left the wrong impression: I’m not suggesting that one sonic profile would necessarily sound best for every possible recording. What I’m trying to say is that a particular chosen sonic profile - whether for instance somebody has chosen speakers with a bit of a bass and treble boost, or whether they’ve chosen a neutral speaker, or “ warm tilted” speaker… an individual can find it satisfactory across many if not most of the recordings they listen to.
I think many audiophiles who have all sorts of different systems are able to enjoy a great variety of recordings without feeling they have to leap to an EQ per song.

Individuals are going to have different takes on that. So if you speculate that a duller recording would sound bad on a warm tilted speaker, that may not necessarily be the case for the person who prefers that speaker.

You counter that it - an AMPs deviation from transparency, when found pleasing or musical - is always pleasing

I certainly wasn’t extrapolating to some general claim “ if an amplifier is found to produce pleasing distortion, listeners will prefer that on all recordings.” I’m trying to reference mostly my own experience.

1. What actually is the sonic character of your tube preamp or tube amp?

Well, unfortunately, this invites some possibly cringe worthy subjective description. Lurking also is whether it’s merely a bias effect. I’ve only blind tested my tube preamp not my power amps. So it’s up to you whether you want to accept these descriptions as “ for the sake of argument .”

But since you’ve asked…

What I seem to hear with the tube gear versus the various solid amplifiers I’ve compared them to over the years, is that the tube gear seems to thicken and flesh out the sound a little bit, in terms of Sonic images feeling a little bit more rounded and dimensional. The overall sound is a little bit softer in most aspects: hard transients - guitar picking , Drum cymbals, female vocal siblilance - seems slightly thickened, and slightly softer. The effect to my ears on for instance many vocals, is that the sibilance sounds less sharp and artificial, and combined with the softening and rounding out of the voice, the sibilance seems to sit back into the voice in a more natural and balanced manner, allowing the vocalist to sound a bit more natural and human to me.

Totally there seems to be this very slight upper mid range/lower treble emphasis that adds a soft “glow” to the sound, sort of lightning things up a bit - the audible equivalent of turning up the lights slightly brighter in a concert hall - which sounds to me a bit more “ real” tonally, along with a slightly added sense of texture in the same region.
It’s like some form of distortion is adding a very slight “ burr” of grain or distortion, it has the effect of making much of the sound a bit more textural and present (like the way some string recordings would be a bit more vivid than others). But for me, one of the most pleasing aspects is how the CJ tube amplification seems to sound simultaneously more vivid, yet more relaxed and easy to listen to. (which is very helpful for me since I have pretty bad tinnitus and can have hyperacusis as well.)

The Bass: if I’m playing a funk or new wave track with a really tight bass guitar or bass synth, on solid state, it will sound really tight and constricted and focussed. On the tube amps, that bass instrument will bloom slightly, sounding a bit wider and rounder and warmer, less hard edged and less precise.

In total, although all the effects are subtle, for me they add up to a warmer, richer, less mechanical and more organic sonic presentation, which keeps me mesmerized.

So what do I mean when I said that I like virtually all music with this subtle distortion?
I mean: all things considered, which means that there are trade-offs, I prefer this Sonic presentation on virtually all my music.
Whenever I compare the same tracks using a solid-state amplifier, I always hear with the solid state amplifier does “ better” : it’s slightly more clean, clear, nuanced (the tube amps have a slight homogenizing effect), more focussed, tighter bass, etc. But all things considered I almost always still prefer the tube amp version, compromises and all.

This doesn’t mean you would feel the same of course.

Ok let's get into some linguistical pedantry

I’m there for it!

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.

Yes, but I’m sure you are also aware that the terms “ musical” and “unmusical”
are also applied to music itself.

That’s why dictionaries show different definitions, and connotations.
Musical does not strictly mean “ related to music.” It’s also used with connotations;

“Having pleasing sound qualities: Something melodious or harmonious.”

Plenty of music over the years has been attacked as unmusical or just noise.

Think of many listeners reactions to the early 20th century serialists, or to Stravinsky (fellow composer Alexander Glazunov opined that Stravinsky’s music was "unmusical").

I am a soundtrack fan and - in fits of masochism I like to listen to the exorcist soundtrack, which used existing borrowed music. Check out these pieces:

String Quartet (1960) Krzysztof Penderecki

Polymorphia. Krzysztof Penderecki

(Tutti) Threnody I: Night of the Electric Insects
Written by George Crumb

They are “ music” but if I put those on for dinner guests and the repulsed guests found those tracks “ unmusical” … I would certainly understand what they are getting at! The sound made by the instruments is often screechy, abrasive, and unpleasant to the ear.
Not exactly pleasant and melodious to the ear!

(and of course, plenty of popular music, rock, punk, pop, electronic music, has been declared unmusical noise by old folks or critics).

Now take a sound system through which otherwise melodic music is playing, but say it is producing lots of distortion, and it’s cranked up in the highs as well, all combining to produce a screechy, abrasive, unpleasant sound quality… I don’t see why it would be a surprise if somebody describes that sound as “ unmusical” - music that has been made unpleasant to the ear, unpleasant to listen to.

And on that same principal, sound systems could move further or closer towards “ more musical sounding.”

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?

Actually, if somebody told me that an installation was done artfully, I could gather what they mean about that.

In the dictionaries, you will find the connotations:

Arranged in a clever or attractive way, “in a manner that shows creative skill or taste.”

So I would take from their comment that the art itself was arranged in a creative clever or attractive way - the skill of the arrangement worthy of being commented on itself.
I’ve certainly seen art displayed in ways that I would not call “ artfully displayed” but rather displayed in a haphazard, in-aesthetic manner.

Until then, it stays, for me, a synonym for "me likey".

Yes, I still get it. There’s a good case for ignoring the term entirely. And you’ve made some of that good case.

Over and out.

(I originally started this reply saying I was going to try and keep things short.. but of course I failed again).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Have I ever suggested tube amplifiers are anything but old tech? Or that they supersede solid state in any technical way at all, including audible transparency and accuracy?

No. Of course not. I’ve literally included the fact that it is dated tech as one of the reasons I enjoy owning a tube amp.

I’ve given my reasons for choosing tube amplification: aesthetics, concept, I like the historical-throwback vibe, and I also seem to like the sound. I haven’t proselytized for anybody else to buy a tube amplifier.

I’m surprised because I thought you were more open-minded than this. Are you now against people enjoying owning old tech?
Does one have to own the very latest gear, or own a system of absolute neutrality in order to be a member in good standing? Is it simply not OK to enjoy the sound of a tube amplifier (if it is producing an audible difference)?

Are you similarly dismissive about people enjoying owning turntables and playing records?

I think you are beating a dead horse and obscuring simple facts. I'm not against people enjoying old tech. In simple answer to the thread title, no tubes are not more musical. Plain and simple. One can debate it if one wishes and you apparently do. The debate is all about denying the obvious which means it devolves into sophistry.

I've used tubes for many years with ESL's. Most tubes would via the higher output impedance lift the low end a small, but discernible amount. The same thing would gently roll off the treble a bit. They didn't mind the often very low impedances at the treble end. In those days a similar EQ wasn't easily done though as I learned more in time it actually was. I could have put a 1 ohm resistor in series with an SS amp. When I started using a Tact Room EQ device I left tubes behind. There certainly are speakers that don't match tubes well at all. So no they aren't generally, usually and certainly not always more musical.

I am in fact dismissive of people claiming turntables and LPs are some kind of reference. Who claim they are more musical and digital is not, and cannot be. I do note you've not claimed this for tube amps. So I am wondering at the amount of verbiage you've contributed not willing to let things die. I probably should just apologize for my curmudgeonly attitude and bow out of the thread.

 

[MattHooper]

I have nothing left to add.

Cool.

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.

That’s interesting stuff, thanks.

 

[MattHooper]

I think you are beating a dead horse and obscuring simple facts. I'm not against people enjoying old tech. In simple answer to the thread title, no tubes are not more musical. Plain and simple. One can debate it if one wishes and you apparently do. The debate is all about denying the obvious which means it devolves into sophistry.

I've used tubes for many years with ESL's. Most tubes would via the higher output impedance lift the low end a small, but discernible amount. The same thing would gently roll off the treble a bit. They didn't mind the often very low impedances at the treble end. In those days a similar EQ wasn't easily done though as I learned more in time it actually was. I could have put a 1 ohm resistor in series with an SS amp. When I started using a Tact Room EQ device I left tubes behind. There certainly are speakers that don't match tubes well at all. So no they aren't generally, usually and certainly not always more musical.

I am in fact dismissive of people claiming turntables and LPs are some kind of reference. Who claim they are more musical and digital is not, and cannot be. I do note you've not claimed this for tube amps. So I am wondering at the amount of verbiage you've contributed not willing to let things die. I probably should just apologize for my curmudgeonly attitude and bow out of the thread.

OK, I get it. Thank you. Yes I get that I can be beating a dead horse. I can accept that, so long as I’m not misunderstood as arguing things that I’m not actually arguing for.

 

[MattHooper]

View attachment 413416

That damn quote goes through my brain all the time. It’s perfect.

I only wish I was being paid by the word, could be retired by now.

 

[Jon L]

It comes with a loudness compensation curve to boot, so I use this as my loudness tool in my HIFI, running in EQAPO. (though not the saturation).

Are you able to confirm TDR Slick EQ M is stable with 64-bit Windows 11 EQAPO? TDR seems to be on sale in U.S. at the moment

 

[MattHooper]

If this doesn’t convince all you stubborn skeptics, nothing will !

Comparison of two amplifiers, one deemed
“ musical” the other deemed “ analytical.”

(amplifier switch happens at 5:34)

 

[solderdude]

crappy muffled recording with room modes. I really can't say anything about any difference.

I don't understand why they simply cannot record the speaker output (with speakers connected) and add some measurements of the sytems.

 

[Blumlein 88]

If this doesn’t convince all you stubborn skeptics, nothing will !

Comparison of two amplifiers, one deemed
“ musical” the other deemed “ analytical.”

(amplifier switch happens at 5:34)

Okay if you want to do this kind of comparison, use this video as an excellent example of what NOT to do. Yes you may need a sound meter to set your volume. Don't use it for matching levels. Measure the TONE AT THE DAMN LOUDSPEAKER TERMINALS!!!

If you are wanting me to compare sound, don't play me three tracks and then three again. At the very least cut the video so I can hear the same track back to back.

Don't record at the LP. The room effect is amplified. The best way I've found to record this way (and it isn't very good) is to record with a microphone in front of each speaker. With some this size you may need to put the mike 2 meters from each one. If your goal is to include room sound, you cannot really get there so it sounds like it sounds to a listener there. You definitely have to get closer than the LP as you hear reflections in recordings you simply do not hear live. Yes your ear erases them from the speaker in a room, but not when they are in the recorded signal. Yet if you just put a pair of mikes closer the angles are different and it still isn't the same.

Since any difference in sound you hear from a loudspeaker by logical necessity must mean the input is different, then you should do as Solderdude says and record the signal at the loudspeaker terminals. Of course then inaccuracy in the speaker and its room interaction is not part of it. That is muddying the water anyway. If one insists, recording in front of each speaker is the closest to recording the sound of a speaker in a room. I once posted files recordings speakers several different ways like this. Also using several different microphones. I could give you "analytical" or "musical" with nothing having changed in the playback system. I'd almost take this video and play it back and record the recording of the recording and post the result to show what happens. But there really is no point. The fellow is sure making some absolutist conclusions from a very flawed example in the video.

 

[Galliardist]

Okay if you want to do this kind of comparison, use this video as an excellent example of what NOT to do. Yes you may need a sound meter to set your volume. Don't use it for matching levels. Measure the TONE AT THE DAMN LOUDSPEAKER TERMINALS!!!

If you are wanting me to compare sound, don't play me three tracks and then three again. At the very least cut the video so I can hear the same track back to back.

Don't record at the LP. The room effect is amplified. The best way I've found to record this way (and it isn't very good) is to record with a microphone in front of each speaker. With some this size you may need to put the mike 2 meters from each one. If your goal is to include room sound, you cannot really get there so it sounds like it sounds to a listener there. You definitely have to get closer than the LP as you hear reflections in recordings you simply do not hear live. Yes your ear erases them from the speaker in a room, but not when they are in the recorded signal. Yet if you just put a pair of mikes closer the angles are different and it still isn't the same.

Since any difference in sound you hear from a loudspeaker by logical necessity must mean the input is different, then you should do as Solderdude says and record the signal at the loudspeaker terminals. Of course then inaccuracy in the speaker and its room interaction is not part of it. That is muddying the water anyway. If one insists, recording in front of each speaker is the closest to recording the sound of a speaker in a room. I once posted files recordings speakers several different ways like this. Also using several different microphones. I could give you "analytical" or "musical" with nothing having changed in the playback system. I'd almost take this video and play it back and record the recording of the recording and post the result to show what happens. But there really is no point. The fellow is sure making some absolutist conclusions from a very flawed example in the video.

If you can be bothered, the description on YouTube contains timestamps so you can compare the individual tracks straight off and still find there's not much difference to be heard there. The "symphonic" clip maybe shows the second amp to be "better" with proper string tone... maybe. But the video is "proof" of nothing.

 

[SSS]

The video is just waste of time. Distorted music and meaningless sound. Don't know why some create such and similar videos. Perhaps to expose themselves.