Are tubes more musical?

[Smaestro]

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

Yes, I can confirm that My living room setup is 64-bit Windows 11 EQAPO, with up to four instances op Slick EQ M in series. Zero crashes or other issues.

My EQAPO chain is as follows, and it works very well and easy for me:

- Corrective EQ to remove room modes and add speaker compensation. (not Slick EQ M)
- Slick EQ M with -8dB loudness compensation.* Toggled on at my preferred listening level of 70-75 dBa.
- Another Slick EQ M with the same setting. Toggled both on when listening quieter, at 60-65dBa
- Slick EQ M: -1dB/oct tilt filter
- Slick EQ M: high shelf, -1,5dB/oct starting at 2kHz

The latter two are for EQing to taste, they don’t have to be Slick EQ M of course. I don’t change settings, I just toggle them on/off if desired and these options give enough variety.

*The dial goes from -4dB to +4dB, but the manual says every dB on the dial compensates 2dB of loudness level. I assume their baseline is at 80dB, so one instance compensates to 72dB, the second brings it to 64dB.
When stacking the 2 loudness compensators this way, the high end would be a little too boosted, so combining it with the high shelf filter makes it more accurate. But it’s broad strokes and up to taste, I usually don’t.

Some final usage tips:
If you don’t use the stereo widening options (fun to play with), turn off mixed phase to reduce CPU use.
If you don’t use the exciter/saturation, use LIVE mode for zero latency and less CPU use. (Now it is a regular linear phase EQ).

 

[Smaestro]

Cool.



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.



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.



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.

The effects of saturation that you describe don’t surprise me, that’s of course why it’s used in every step of the way. I am surprised that you find the benefits outweigh the negatives across the board. Aside from room treatment and EQing out room modes, there’s no change (EQ, saturation, reverb) that I like across the board. But I accept that it does for you.

I’m there for it!

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.”



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.



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).

I reluctantly agree. After all the caveats of blind listening etc - IF you like a certain effect always on your sound to be applied permanently (like you described above) THEN using the word musical as an adjective makes linguistic sense.

Edit: That said, I’m not sure how you thought a video like that would gather support for your point!

Just to touch on tinnitus and hyperacusis a little, I’m sorry you have it badly. I have tinnitus too, and I can trigger and subdue it by playing certain frequencies. Playing the tone at which I have tinnitus, subdues is, as I think it proves to my brain that I can actually still hear it, and thus it doesn’t have to amplify that region so much.

Having a setup that reduces is worth it. I’m wondering if overly saturating that tinnitus area makes it easier for the brain to figure out what’s there and thus rest easier. Like you described, but more targeted to only affected frequency range(s). Something to figure out. But not in this thread

 

[Sal1950]

I reluctantly agree. After all the caveats of blind listening etc - IF you like a certain effect always on your sound to be applied permanently (like you described above) THEN using the word musical as an adjective makes linguistic sense.

The use of "musical" to describe the sound of distortion in reproduction is a mis-direction and BS.
The most "musical" reproduction of a recorded event is the most accurate one, it can't in any way get better or improve on that. :

 

[Smaestro]

The most "musical" reproduction of a recorded event is the most accurate one, it can't in any way get better or improve on that. :

Welp, time to fire all mix engineers.

 

[MattHooper]

Aside from room treatment and EQing out room modes, there’s no change (EQ, saturation, reverb) that I like across the board. But I accept that it does for you.

I had a fully digital parametric in my system since around 1998 and I finally sold it after 20 years, because with the tube amps I never felt I needed it. Fiddling with EQ to make different recordings sound better just didn’t feel necessary because I really enjoyed pretty much anything I played on the system. Which was my ultimate goal.

Edit: That said, I’m not sure how you thought a video like that would gather support for your point!

It was a joke, which I hoped I’d made obvious as possible. I happen to stumble across that video while I was looking on that guys YouTube page for footage of a different tube amplifier, so I couldn’t resist given the title of the video. A video comparison by a classic blustering golden ear audiophile is literally the last thing that would ever convince somebody on ASR of anything. And rightly so.

Though ironically enough, his discussion of the term “ musical” - as against the “analytical” - coincides almost exactly with how I’ve been describing the term. He describes the “ analytical” amplifier as more forward in the highs putting forth detail in a tiring way, that it exaggerates the leading edges of the sound, he says vocal sibilants becomes exaggerated and spitty, and borderline aggressive sounding.
Against that, he puts the “ musical” amp as being the opposite - Liquid, organic, a more natural balance. A more relaxed sound, which allows him to relax into the music more than having the exaggerated artificial recorded details thrust in his face.

So very much as I said I find many audiophiles or reviewers tend to use the term.

As I’ve agreed, with little context, some random audiophile using the term “ musical” could just mean “ I like it” and nothing more.

But for me, when an audiophile like this guy starts talking about one piece of gear sounding “ too analytical and sharply detailed” …if he then refers to a different piece of gear as “ more musical” - even before he elaborates on the term, I think I’ve got a decent idea as to what he’s going to mean by “ more musical” (which is what he described - and I’m talking about what he means by the term strictly - whether he is hearing an actual difference in this case is a different subject).

Further, to my surprise, strictly referencing the sound of that YouTube recording itself, even on my iPhone there seems to be a sonic difference between the two amplifier recordings. The first one having a more “tube like” softer more laid-back sound, versus the second more forward and aggressive presentation. Obviously that could be a bias effect and if I had access to my better computer system, I might bother trying to do the comparison blind. But I only have my phone at the moment. I wonder if anybody else bothered to compare the two, and noticed any difference? (and again, this relates strictly to the recording itself, not to whether it accurately captured the sound in the room).

Just to touch on tinnitus and hyperacusis a little, I’m sorry you have it badly. I have tinnitus too, and I can trigger and subdue it by playing certain frequencies. Playing the tone at which I have tinnitus, subdues is, as I think it proves to my brain that I can actually still hear it, and thus it doesn’t have to amplify that region so much.

Having a setup that reduces is worth it. I’m wondering if overly saturating that tinnitus area makes it easier for the brain to figure out what’s there and thus rest easier. Like you described, but more targeted to only affected frequency range(s). Something to figure out. But not in this thread

Sorry to hear that you have tinnitus too. A lot of us around here have some level of tinnitus it seems. I’m going through an absolutely wicked flair of my tinnitus that has been very disturbing.

Like you, I can play a targeted tone (violet White Noise) that completely covers my frequency range of tinnitus. Though that hardly removes the problem.

As for the hyperacusis, it flares up sometimes, and when it does certain high frequency content takes on an irritating abrasiveness, or a painful “ ear stabbing” quality. I sometimes drive my two channel speakers with my Denon AV receiver
or a borrowed Bryston amp. There have been times during a hyperacusis flair where I’ve been unable to comfortably listen to a bunch of tracks Using the solid state amplification, and switching back to the tube amplification seems to slightly thicken and soften and relax, the leading edge of the sound, without it sounding “ dark or rolled off” and then it’s more relaxing on my ears, and I can listen significantly louder.
It can literally go from hurting my ears to not hurting my ears.

As I mentioned, I had the digital EQ in my system for many years, and sometimes when this happened with a solid-state amp, I would use the EQ to try and make the sound easier on my ears. I’m fairly good with EQ since I use it a lot in my work, but it was very difficult to adjust the sound to not bother my ears in a way that didn’t change the sound character in a way I didn’t like, for instance, too rolled off sounding. Somehow, whatever the tube amplifiers are doing, it seems to nail this quality of being more relaxing to listen to while also retaining the tone and vividness and detail I want.

If that is ultimately a placebo effect - and I always consider that a possibility! - then I heartily welcome that placebo effect !
It’s been a reliable placebo effect for over two decades.

Cheers.

 

[Sal1950]

Welp, time to fire all mix engineers.

How'd you figure that out?
They're the ones creating the mix your "supposed to reproduce", not distort.

 

[MattHooper]

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.

Excellent post!

I hoped it was obvious my post was a joke as I would consider that video the last thing anybody here would find convincing. Myself included, given all the variables.

That said, two questions for you on this:

1. While there are clearly more precise ways to record the purported difference in sound,
Still… even if you placed a microphone at the listening position - without moving it - and so long as you did tightly match the volume, measuring at the speaker terminals, then IF there is an audible difference between the two different recordings it would suggest something changed in the sound. An audible difference. And if the only thing that was changed was the amplifiers, it would suggest the amplifiers as being the variable causing the sound change.

Would you agree or is there another variable? I’m missing?

2. Speaking strictly to the sound of the YouTube recording itself - did you try comparing the two different recordings?
I only did so casually on my iPhone, so I wouldn’t put much stock in it, but when I managed to find a way to jump, back-and-forth more quickly between individual songs there did seem to be a difference. Did you notice anything? Just curious if I’m the only one.

 

[Smaestro]

How'd you figure that out?
They're the ones creating the mix you’re "supposed to reproduce", not distort.

Well your post said recorded event, mixing engineers edit the recorded event. But I get your meaning.

 

[Smaestro]

I had a fully digital parametric in my system since around 1998 and I finally sold it after 20 years, because with the tube amps I never felt I needed it. Fiddling with EQ to make different recordings sound better just didn’t feel necessary because I really enjoyed pretty much anything I played on the system. Which was my ultimate goal.




It was a joke, which I hoped I’d made obvious as possible. I happen to stumble across that video while I was looking on that guys YouTube page for footage of a different tube amplifier, so I couldn’t resist given the title of the video. A video comparison by a classic blustering golden ear audiophile is literally the last thing that would ever convince somebody on ASR of anything. And rightly so.

Though ironically enough, his discussion of the term “ musical” - as against the “analytical” - coincides almost exactly with how I’ve been describing the term. He describes the “ analytical” amplifier as more forward in the highs putting forth detail in a tiring way, that it exaggerates the leading edges of the sound, he says vocal sibilants becomes exaggerated and spitty, and borderline aggressive sounding.
Against that, he puts the “ musical” amp as being the opposite - Liquid, organic, a more natural balance. A more relaxed sound, which allows him to relax into the music more than having the exaggerated artificial recorded details thrust in his face.

So very much as I said I find many audiophiles or reviewers tend to use the term.

As I’ve agreed, with little context, some random audiophile using the term “ musical” could just mean “ I like it” and nothing more.

But for me, when an audiophile like this guy starts talking about one piece of gear sounding “ too analytical and sharply detailed” …if he then refers to a different piece of gear as “ more musical” - even before he elaborates on the term, I think I’ve got a decent idea as to what he’s going to mean by “ more musical” (which is what he described - and I’m talking about what he means by the term strictly - whether he is hearing an actual difference in this case is a different subject).

Further, to my surprise, strictly referencing the sound of that YouTube recording itself, even on my iPhone there seems to be a sonic difference between the two amplifier recordings. The first one having a more “tube like” softer more laid-back sound, versus the second more forward and aggressive presentation. Obviously that could be a bias effect and if I had access to my better computer system, I might bother trying to do the comparison blind. But I only have my phone at the moment. I wonder if anybody else bothered to compare the two, and noticed any difference? (and again, this relates strictly to the recording itself, not to whether it accurately captured the sound in the room).



Sorry to hear that you have tinnitus too. A lot of us around here have some level of tinnitus it seems. I’m going through an absolutely wicked flair of my tinnitus that has been very disturbing.

Like you, I can play a targeted tone (violet White Noise) that completely covers my frequency range of tinnitus. Though that hardly removes the problem.

As for the hyperacusis, it flares up sometimes, and when it does certain high frequency content takes on an irritating abrasiveness, or a painful “ ear stabbing” quality. I sometimes drive my two channel speakers with my Denon AV receiver
or a borrowed Bryston amp. There have been times during a hyperacusis flair where I’ve been unable to comfortably listen to a bunch of tracks Using the solid state amplification, and switching back to the tube amplification seems to slightly thicken and soften and relax, the leading edge of the sound, without it sounding “ dark or rolled off” and then it’s more relaxing on my ears, and I can listen significantly louder.
It can literally go from hurting my ears to not hurting my ears.

As I mentioned, I had the digital EQ in my system for many years, and sometimes when this happened with a solid-state amp, I would use the EQ to try and make the sound easier on my ears. I’m fairly good with EQ since I use it a lot in my work, but it was very difficult to adjust the sound to not bother my ears in a way that didn’t change the sound character in a way I didn’t like, for instance, too rolled off sounding. Somehow, whatever the tube amplifiers are doing, it seems to nail this quality of being more relaxing to listen to while also retaining the tone and vividness and detail I want.

If that is ultimately a placebo effect - and I always consider that a possibility! - then I heartily welcome that placebo effect !
It’s been a reliable placebo effect for over two decades.

Cheers.

Mastering engineer Jan Ohlhorst famously hears a kind of digital distortion specifically because he has some sort of hearing damage.

There’s a famous thread on gearspace about this, though I can’t find it now, where he was certain he could hear some artefacts, and it took plug-in devs a while to figure out he was right, and it should’ve been way below anything anyone could hear.

He went on to make the OD DeEdger plug-in, that takes nasty transients out of audio. Reading your text, I would recommend to you to try this plug-in out and see if it does what tubes do you for you. Even if only out of curiosity.

Also interesting to test should be Oeksound Soothe (and possibly TDR Arbiter but it’s less transient oriented).

 

[Blumlein 88]

Excellent post!

I hoped it was obvious my post was a joke as I would consider that video the last thing anybody here would find convincing. Myself included, given all the variables.

That said, two questions for you on this:

1. While there are clearly more precise ways to record the purported difference in sound,
Still… even if you placed a microphone at the listening position - without moving it - and so long as you did tightly match the volume, measuring at the speaker terminals, then IF there is an audible difference between the two different recordings it would suggest something changed in the sound. An audible difference. And if the only thing that was changed was the amplifiers, it would suggest the amplifiers as being the variable causing the sound change.

Would you agree or is there another variable? I’m missing?

2. Speaking strictly to the sound of the YouTube recording itself - did you try comparing the two different recordings?
I only did so casually on my iPhone, so I wouldn’t put much stock in it, but when I managed to find a way to jump, back-and-forth more quickly between individual songs there did seem to be a difference. Did you notice anything? Just curious if I’m the only one.

I'm not sure if it was different. Once I saw and heard what was done I didn't give it much of a try. I've wasted way too many hours on these highly unlikely effects. I'm getting very jaded with all the time spent pointing at something which has always so far turned into nothing. At a very minimum, he didn't match levels well enough to take it seriously. I could grab the audio and compare more, but again I've become very tired of the bother. Not up to me to work thru someone else's piss poor techniques when it is widely distributed knowledge which such people insist on ignoring.

Do I agree that IF, big, big IF, since we know it isn't an IF but a known that he didn't match levels correctly, that if it sounds different and nothing else was changed then some difference was there. Probably, likely, maybe. Or maybe some low frequency garbage we don't much notice effected the recording. If he'd put more effort into it I would too. Maybe he got lucky and did match levels well with bad technique. Maybe I win the lottery if I buy a ticket.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Mastering engineer Jan Ohlhorst famously hears a kind of digital distortion specifically because he has some sort of hearing damage.

There’s a famous thread on gearspace about this, though I can’t find it now, where he was certain he could hear some artefacts, and it took plug-in devs a while to figure out he was right, and it should’ve been way below anything anyone could hear.

He went on to make the OD DeEdger plug-in, that takes nasty transients out of audio. Reading your text, I would recommend to you to try this plug-in out and see if it does what tubes do you for you. Even if only out of curiosity.

Also interesting to test should be Oeksound Soothe (and possibly TDR Arbiter but it’s less transient oriented).

These are interesting plug ins. Wish there was more info about what it is they actually do. It has been known for some time people with damaged hearing sometimes hear compression codecs others don't. It seems basically that your ear has 30 or so bands with filtering outside those bands and if your hearing is damaged the filtering of those bands because less sharp, less effective. So a sound can activate more bands of your hearing when it should not. Hopefully J_J doesn't read my butchering of the idea.

 

[MattHooper]

Mastering engineer Jan Ohlhorst famously hears a kind of digital distortion specifically because he has some sort of hearing damage.

That’s interesting. It’s sort of matches my anecdotal experience. I don’t normally have any trouble with different codecs or digital distortion. After all, I am manipulating sound in all sorts of crazy ways, including making them distorted and abrasive, in my work. (when I first got diagnosed with hyperacusis decades ago, the audiologist said it’s incurable and I should find another line of work so as not to aggravate my ears. Fortunately it turned out to be only an occasional bother over the years, and never affected my ability to work),

But when I have a flareup of hyperacusis, then my relationship to sound changes.
Everything sounds too loud, and threatening.
In which case recordings that have any sort of distorted edge - or even just think of a record played with a worn down needle - seems to be seized upon as “ too loud.”

Years ago, I had the misfortune of having my hearing screwed up at an airshow, when a bunch of bomber jets flew right over our heads. And I had no earplugs.

It caused a flareup of hyperacusis that was absolutely surreal. Everything sounded distorted or too loud, and it didn’t matter how quiet the actual sound was. I have a Tone Generator app on my iPhone iPhone, and I dialled up the tone to an offending frequency.
It was wild how the hyperacusis worked because as the tone reached the problem frequency - can’t remember whether it was 2K or 6K - it got way louder. I placed my iPhone down still playing that tone fairly softly, and I started to back away from it, and the tone never seemed to get quieter. It was like the tone was right inside my ear, as if I had a tuning fork in my ear resonating with it.
I could still hear that tone just as loud in my ear, even as I backed out of the room and all the way down the hall. Totally freaky.
The audiologist who tested my LDLs (loudness discomfort levels ) at that point
had this awful look of concern on his face looking at the results, and he told me grimly they were just about the worst he’s ever seen in terms of sensitivity to sound, and he wondered how I was even surviving it.
Meanwhile, I was still sound editing all day things like gun shootouts, car crashes, and all that!

Lots of fun. I had my condition treated, took quite a while, but in the end my hearing was in better shape than it had been for decades.

(I wonder if other members here ever deal with hyperacusis?… maybe I’ll ask that question in the ongoing Tinnitus thread.)

 

[Balle Clorin]

Too many words and long quarrels here.
Tubes are cool and look good , and can sound good too, that’s it.

My amp sound like this with Tidal and Chormcast adio analog output as source..with some treble lift to make Chromacast flatter( it drops above 10k)....suits my old ears better.. Th edne of the tracck gas a section of tidal silence between to tone so you can try to hear the tube noise...

TUBAMP SOUND.wav

drive.google.com

Here is my remaining tube amp ,now in headphone service , I got enough tubes for the next 100 years to,,,

at rhe recording this was the response of the tube amp

and distortion

 

[mhardy6647]

Too many words and long quarrels here.
Tubes are cool and look good , and can sound good too, that’s it.

My amp sound like this with Tidal and Chormcast adio analog output as source..with some treble lift to make it flatter....suits my old ears better.. Th edne of the tracck gas a section of tidal silence between to tone so you can try to hear the tube noise...

TUBAMP SOUND.wav

drive.google.com

Here is my remaining tube amp ,now in headphone service , I got enough tubes for the next 100 years to,,,
View attachment 413728

You might want to give those electrolytics a little room to breathe vis-a-vis those power resistors.
Do NOT ask me why I offer this advice!

Spoiler

pop goes the bypass cap!

 

[Sal1950]

Do NOT ask me why I offer this advice!

BANG LOL

 

[Balle Clorin]

Thanks, at least I am running without the bottom plate and a table with openings and 1cm gap, stays much cooler that way..

Each cathode resistance dissipate 2.9W

 

[Smaestro]

These are interesting plug ins. Wish there was more info about what it is they actually do.

From what I've gleamed of Gearspace (memory hazy):

Arbiter: monitors the average loudness of the selected band compared to the wideband (all sound). If the bands short term loudness deviates too much from its historic level compared to the wideband, Arbiter adjusts the level of the band (up or down).
It's basically a dynamic EQ where the threshold of a band is auto adjusted to the songs current loudness. Good for keeping the balance consistent (but also terrific as a de-esser)

OD Deedger: monitors transients, and if the time duration of a peak exceeds a threshold in time, ie. the peak doesn't decay fast enough in level, then the plugin will lower the level of that peaks decay. As a result it shortens peaks, rather than lowers the peak level as a clipper would. It's pretty brilliant, as this keeps the initial attack untouched and crisp, but still reduces the impact of the total transient/peak without adding new harmonics like a clipper.

It has been known for some time people with damaged hearing sometimes hear compression codecs others don't. It seems basically that your ear has 30 or so bands with filtering outside those bands and if your hearing is damaged the filtering of those bands because less sharp, less effective. So a sound can activate more bands of your hearing when it should not. Hopefully J_J doesn't read my butchering of the idea.

That's very interesting. In effect, the sound then is perceived like pass-banded noise I guess?

 

[mhardy6647]

BANG LOL

yup.
Here's the (ultimate) fix*.




Full disclosure: for a temporary fix, I did buy a pair of 105 degree C rated electrolytics and move 'em off of the power resistors!
Last summer, my good friend & hifi fellow traveler Nate & I fixed 'em for keeps.

 

[Smaestro]

That’s interesting. It’s sort of matches my anecdotal experience. I don’t normally have any trouble with different codecs or digital distortion. After all, I am manipulating sound in all sorts of crazy ways, including making them distorted and abrasive, in my work. (when I first got diagnosed with hyperacusis decades ago, the audiologist said it’s incurable and I should find another line of work so as not to aggravate my ears. Fortunately it turned out to be only an occasional bother over the years, and never affected my ability to work),

But when I have a flareup of hyperacusis, then my relationship to sound changes.
Everything sounds too loud, and threatening.
In which case recordings that have any sort of distorted edge - or even just think of a record played with a worn down needle - seems to be seized upon as “ too loud.”

Years ago, I had the misfortune of having my hearing screwed up at an airshow, when a bunch of bomber jets flew right over our heads. And I had no earplugs.

It caused a flareup of hyperacusis that was absolutely surreal. Everything sounded distorted or too loud, and it didn’t matter how quiet the actual sound was. I have a Tone Generator app on my iPhone iPhone, and I dialled up the tone to an offending frequency.
It was wild how the hyperacusis worked because as the tone reached the problem frequency - can’t remember whether it was 2K or 6K - it got way louder. I placed my iPhone down still playing that tone fairly softly, and I started to back away from it, and the tone never seemed to get quieter. It was like the tone was right inside my ear, as if I had a tuning fork in my ear resonating with it.
I could still hear that tone just as loud in my ear, even as I backed out of the room and all the way down the hall. Totally freaky.
The audiologist who tested my LDLs (loudness discomfort levels ) at that point
had this awful look of concern on his face looking at the results, and he told me grimly they were just about the worst he’s ever seen in terms of sensitivity to sound, and he wondered how I was even surviving it.
Meanwhile, I was still sound editing all day things like gun shootouts, car crashes, and all that!

Lots of fun. I had my condition treated, took quite a while, but in the end my hearing was in better shape than it had been for decades.

(I wonder if other members here ever deal with hyperacusis?… maybe I’ll ask that question in the ongoing Tinnitus thread.)

What an intense experience. Glad you're were able to see improvements through treatment!
Should be a good idea to ask in that thread. Professionals and enthusiasts don't speak enough about this stuff, prevention and normal listening levels should be treated more seriously.

2 months ago I had a practice session with a rock band I occasionally play with. My head rattled as I entered the bunker, all amps on 10. It would do my head in even with earplugs, and 2 of the band didn't even wear those, and just shrugged it off. And three weeks ago I had a bout of sudden deafness in one ear. I had immediate treatment and it went away after 2 days. But these things are not fun.

 

[Balle Clorin]

My amp has 5A 6.3V heater winding . That is sufficient for 6550+6SN7 at 4.4A, but if I try a KT120 I get 5.1A just above the rating , is it possible to safely run at 2% overload?
EDIT: not taking the risk, my SED 6550 are good enough and I have plenty in stock

cant hear any tube noise or hum or rubbish here...but I can measure it

Red circle stuff is pollution not from Tubebamp