Are tubes more musical?

[Mikig]

I own various mid engine cars. At a point in time owned 2 very similar ones (same V10 engine, same transmission, same chassis with different body and suspension settings; one made in Italy and one in Germany; seeing your location you will know). I prefer the german version and kept it (3 actually).

As you say, in matters of taste there can be no disputes

Sant’Agata vs Ingolstadt….

 

[EERecordist]

What is it that I’m hearing in my tube preamp and tubed headphone amp that is so romantic, warm, soft around the edges, and smooth, even syrupy sometimes? I’m not talking about hybrid amps or tube buffers. (My headphone amp is an OTL design, my preamp has no transistors in the audio circuit.) Do tubes enhance dynamics? They seem to create a feeling of space and holographic imaging. These qualities make it great for home audio applications. Of course they add distortion but it’s pleasing to the ear. The warm sound of tubes seems perfect for laid back and acoustic music styles like jazz. In my experience, most typical solid state gear can’t perform as well for getting the presentation and emotional impact of music right. Are tubes more musical?

Audio measurements moved forward about 1984 with the founding of test equipment company Audio Precision and competitors. We have good inexpensive analog to digital converters which allow FFT analysis of harmonic distortion and noise. We also have more accurate speakers and headphones today.

Many historic recordings were all tubes and transformers in the signal path, and even today people use tube microphones, preamps, equalizers and compressors in the recording studio and in mastering, and/or tube-emulation plugins.

A tube is simply a gain device, like a bipolar transistor, or a field effect transistor. In fact the transfer function of a tube is more similar to a FET than a bipolar transistor. You find a lot of transformers and coupling capacitors in tube equipment too. Then you often have negative feedback around the gain to improve linearity. It is up to the circuit designer to design the linearity and nonlinearity to produce a creative end result.

ASR and others have measured tube amplifiers, and probably your headphones. I posted a long video on the software tuning of a tube compressor model showing how harmonics vary with the settings and the loudness of the signal. It is https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...in-emulation-of-vacuum-tube-compressor.57418/ and discussion of the harmonic distorion signature begins at about the 18 minute mark. You could buy an AtoD and DtoA audio interface and use the REW software to see what your tube signal chain is doing to the signal. It is not expensive.

Many people prefer compression and distortion in their playback chain. That has been studied at Stanford. https://shc.stanford.edu/stanford-h...-generation-prefers-mp3-fidelity-study-says-0

"More musical" is your subjective observation. If you like the sound of your playback chain combination of music, preamp, headphone amp and headphones, go with it!

An alternative view, common on ASR, is the musician, recording engineer, and mastering engineer produced an artistic recording, and then we have the most accurate, low noise, and undistorted path to our ears subject to cost constraints.

Personally, I suggest, where possible, listeners train their ears on acoustic live performances.

 

[win]

What is it that I’m hearing in my tube preamp and tubed headphone amp that is so romantic, warm, soft around the edges, and smooth, even syrupy sometimes? I’m not talking about hybrid amps or tube buffers. (My headphone amp is an OTL design, my preamp has no transistors in the audio circuit.) Do tubes enhance dynamics? They seem to create a feeling of space and holographic imaging. These qualities make it great for home audio applications. Of course they add distortion but it’s pleasing to the ear. The warm sound of tubes seems perfect for laid back and acoustic music styles like jazz. In my experience, most typical solid state gear can’t perform as well for getting the presentation and emotional impact of music right. Are tubes more musical?

Of course tubes sound warmer, they literally glow. Solid state amps with blue leds also tend to sound brighter than ones with amber led.

That's why audiophiles love tubes and expensive dacs, they make the music more musically

 

[MAB]

I get you but I cant see how you can measure what my ears (or anyone else's) feel. For example I have some very good measuring DACs which tire my ears and also some not liked by the global ASR group that don't. I might be going nuts but that's what I have found. You might not agree but its not a smokescreen, to me its real. *and it happens when using my SS or my tube amps with my main, secondary speakers or tertiary speakers.

Blind, level-matched, you and I and a host of experts from all walks fail to hear differences in tube vs. solid state. David Clark's famous study on page 78:

https://americanradiohistory.com/Archive-HiFI-Stereo/80s/HiFi-Stereo-Review-1987-01.pdf

I worked at a store selling the same Levinson, this result doesn't surprise me. Call me tin-ear. If so, me and everybody else I know.
Clark did it many times, with all sorts of people under all sorts of conditions and published the results. The only results I have ever seen contrary are where the systems are not level matched, or one amp is outstanding for FR or distortion in an abnormal and way.

 

[SIY]

No- I'm still waiting. Perhaps you can be a bit less myopic about this??

Ball is in your court. Name an engineered ss amp that you claim is bright and where measurements are available, since you’ve backed off your claims about Adcom. This should be easy since you claim that it’s a characteristic signature. Then we can proceed to prepare files for you.

 

[MattHooper]

I'm writing a book on magic, I explain, and I'm asked, "Real magic?" By real magic people mean miracles, thaumaturgical acts, and supernatural powers. "No", I answer: "Conjuring tricks, not real magic." Real magic, in other words, refers to the magic that is not real, while the magic that is real, that can actually be done, is not real magic.

I’m a Dennett fan so anytime he shows up is a good day :/)

The magical 'musicality' (whatever that is) of valves/tubes exists in a similar contradictory realm. If the tubes are working properly then they are adding nothing audible (or measurable) to the sound.

A statement like “ if the tubes are working properly” it’s going to depend on what you want the tubes to do.

I have found it to be largely the view of audiophiles interested in tubes these days, that the whole point of using a tube amp is to enjoy the type of distortion they produce.
We’ve had accurate transparent amplifiers in the form of solid state for a long time, so if you want that type of performance, you can just buy solid state. The point of going for tubes IS to colour the sound. (That’s my own viewpoint as well).

On this view, a two that doesn’t sound any different from my solace amp isn’t “ working properly” in terms of this typical goal.

If they are adding anything audible to the sound then it is obviously distortion which can never be considered musical (at least not for reproduction) or magical and can easily be measured ...

“ musical” is a subjective description and often a form of value statement, so you can’t really say “ distortion can never be considered musical” (for reproduction or otherwise). If someone likes a type of distortion and their term for this is “ sounds musical” then they can certainly consider it “ musical.”

What does musical even mean?

That’s obviously a pertinent question for the thread!

The question is whether one is going to approach trying to understand the term resistantly - Already set on the view that such terms are nonsense and are not of any use - or whether one approaches this in terms of communication and you actually want to understand what someone means.

There certainly a problem that the term “ musical” is thrown around in reviews and by subjective audiophiles In a way that is often loose, ill defined or inconsistent.

That doesn’t mean it’s a nonsense term; it means if someone hasn’t been clear what they mean by the term, if you have a chance, you should ask them.

Having seen this term used through the years, here is my own attempt to distill what is often meant.

In the most broad sense, musical tends to mean “ Gets me involved the music itself, emotionally attached to the music rather than thinking of Sound of the gear.”

That’s not an insignificant idea, since one commonly held pitfall of the hobby is Being so absorbed with listening to the gear and tweaking and equipment changes, that one loses touch somewhat with the experience of just enjoying the music itself.

OK, so what qualities might audiophiles be referencing that cause them to conclude
“ this system is more musical than another?”

Once again, it tends to be a quality of presentation that allows one to forget the artifice and mechanical nature of reproduce sound. This is often associated with more “ natural” qualities.

Recordings, most often have all sorts of artificial qualities - exaggerated sibilance in vocals, added brightness or hardness to the sound, or certain frequencies, and all sorts of things that can sound more artificial and mechanical. The more “ musical” system can smooth away some of these qualities, so you are aware more of the voices and instruments having something of a more natural balance, rather than the artificiality being shoved in your face. I mean, it could be essentially the same as taking it bit of a nasty recording, and EQing it to sound easier on the ears and more natural.

If one system is making a harsh recording harder to listen to and the other one is making it easier to listen to, that second system is likely to be deemed “ more musical.”

Tubes coming to play here because they are often perceived (whether it’s always accurately the case or not) to move the sound and just this type of direction: the sound may thicken slightly soften slightly, sound a bit fuller, taking the edge off, And for some people, the result is more natural sound: vocalist sound more soft, palpable, and organic, sibilance sounding more naturally part of a real voice rather than artificial, acoustic guitar may sound like it has more natural body, and a more subtle balance of pic transients to string vibration (the picking may have sounded artificially sharper and enhanced otherwise)… and so to some can more like “ real music” in terms of unamplified sources, or simply (even in the case of artificial sounds) “ more musical” in the sense, they find themselves more relaxed, listening, less focussed on the recording artefacts or the playback gear, and the more easily sink into just listening to the music.

I personally don’t care for the term, and I would prefer to get across a similar type of perception with the word “ organic.”

When I compare my system using my Conrad Johnson tube amps, vs solid state, I perceive the sound as slightly less mechanical and artificial, and especially for acoustic sounds, more “ organic” (a person sounds a bit more fleshy like a human being rather than a sibilant phantom) or “natural.”

I hope once again it is obvious that none of the above is meant to be trying to establish any of the claims for tubes as fact. It’s only an attempt to explain what audio files tend to be trying to get across with a term like
“ musical.”

 

[SIY]

You accused me of no 'evidence' yet you are well aware of tubes still being around, some 65 years after being declared obsolete. That fact alone should tell you that the evidence is all around you.

Astrology and dowsing are still around as well.

Name an amp and we can proceed.

 

[atmasphere]

Surely the point of enjoying the music is to enjoy the sound of music instead of the sound of your equipment?

There's no way you can say why someone gets into audio. Some do it for the love of the equipment, some for the love of music, some for the love of horsetrading LPs or equipment, some because they can build the stuff themselves...

What is listener fatigue? It gets rolled out as a symptom of bad sound all the time. Since it gets used as data, it should be defined and quantified. Otherwise it's a smokescreen.

I don't see people going to doctor presenting chronic listener fatigue symptoms. I believe it does not actually exist in the context of good or bad sound reproduction. But unless it is defined, I can't prove a thing about it.

Listener fatigue is a term that's been around since before or just after WW2. It simply means that after a while you prefer to not play the system because its not enjoyable; your 'ears need to clam down', stuff like that. In the old days, this meant there was a distortion problem. It does need to be quantified, but its not a smokescreen.

I found that if you got all your ducks in a row with the system, it never sounded 'loud'. When the system sounds loud that's usually a sign there's distortion. It might be vibration affecting a turntable (quite measureable). I noticed how this was so when SET users would mention that '7 Watts is all I need' when playing a speaker only 92dB in an average sized room. The ear uses higher ordered harmonics to sense sound pressure (easily proven with simple test equipment) and in an SET, which normally has a prodigious 2nd and 3rd harmonic, those higher orders don't really show up until you push the amp- and then they are showing up on transients where the power is. This causes the amp to sound 'dynamic' and you will see this is a commonly used word describing nearly any SET. I'm convinced at this point that when most audiophiles bandy the word 'dynamics' (plural), you can replace the word with 'distortion' without changing the meaning of the conversation.

 

[MattHooper]

Surely the point of enjoying the music is to enjoy the sound of music instead of the sound of your equipment?

You don’t seem familiar with audiophiles

Also: I don’t know why this always has to be repeated, but it’s possible to enjoy both. They are not mutually exclusive.

You may very well enjoy music playing in your car as you drive to work.

But if you play the same music back on an absolute top shelf full range system - pick whatever you want, the biggest and best Genelec, JBL, Revel or whatever, and you don’t notice along with the music that “ holy cow it SOUNDS way better!” as well, and I’m not sure what you would be doing on a site like this.

 

[atmasphere]

Ball is in your court. Name an engineered ss amp that you claim is bright and where measurements are available, since you’ve backed off your claims about Adcom. This should be easy since you claim that it’s a characteristic signature. Then we can proceed to prepare files for you.

OK. How about the Tiger?

I already did propose an alternative to prove my point.

 

[atmasphere]

Astrology and dowsing are still around as well.

Name an amp and we can proceed.

 

[SIY]

I already did propose an alternative to prove my point.

Where was that? I didn’t see it.

Where can measurements of the Tiger be found? Mine burned up decades ago.

Edit: here we go. Ready to proceed?

 

[Blumlein 88]

Where was that? I didn’t see it.

Where can measurements of the Tiger be found? Mine burned up decades ago.

In the other thread he proposed distortion rising 6 db per Octave with a 1 khz turn over point.

 

[atmasphere]

Where was that? I didn’t see it.

Where can measurements of the Tiger be found? Mine burned up decades ago.

I have no idea. Mine was still running last I saw it but it probably burned up too.

 

[MattHooper]

Blind, level-matched, you and I and a host of experts from all walks fail to hear differences in tube vs. solid state. David Clark's famous study on page 78:

FWIW (and it may be worth nothing for you) I did write about The results of my blind test between my Conrad Johnson tube preamp And my benchmark solid-state preamp here.

Randomized switching, level matched.

I tried to identify which was the CJ tube preamp versus the benchmark preamp.

RESULTS:

Trial 1: 15/15 correct.
Trial 2: 14/15 correct.

I detected in the blinded conditions, the same qualities in my tube preamp that I did under sighted conditions.

In the initial post, I mentioned a problem using the voltmeter that I originally had. Therefore level matched with both an iPhone app and with a RadioShack sound metre.
I repeated the level matching using White Noise as well.

I also took the results of this test to the AVS forum, I was helped further in finding a proper voltmeter. Once I got that I did not repeat the listening tests, but I did repeat the volume settings on both preamps with a test signal/White Noise, and they measured the same at the speaker terminals using the voltmeter.

Again, anyone can take the results as they wish. But I found it fun and interesting giving it a whirl.

 

[SIY]

In the other thread he proposed distortion rising 6 db per Octave with a 1 khz turn over point.

Except, as you can see, we've now gone through several amps claimed to be "bright" where this was not the case. And the Tiger is one of them. And until just a few minutes ago, no more specific examples. But at least I found the distortion vs frequency at two power levels. Interesting that no more contemporary examples have been proposed.

I have no idea.

Note my edit above.

 

[ahofer]

I'm convinced at this point that when most audiophiles bandy the word 'dynamics' (plural), you can replace the word with 'distortion' without changing the meaning of the conversation.

I've asked before, but it would be interesting if @pkane's software could simulate this effect. My memory is that you felt it wasn't possible.

 

[SIY]

My memory is that you felt it wasn't possible.

I don't know if he said this, but it is possible with a beta version that we will use to prepare the test files.

Files will be publicly posted for anyone else to try, including checksum data to validate ABX logs.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Posted by me in the other thread as a proposal.

Well Atmasphere proposed at one time rising distortion at 6 db per octave starting above 1 khz. You'll need to say what it is at 1 khz for the starting point. May I suggest more than one level. I'd suggest something obvious like 2% at 1 khz, then .5 %, then .1%, and then .01% (which is still above the spec for the 565 Adcom). Will take more time for Atmasphere to do, but if he agrees then it might tell us more than just a single level. Start at 2% if he can knock out 10 of 10 move on. If at some lower level of distortion he scores less than 10 for 10, then he can do additional trials as he wishes. If there is no 10 for 10 at 2%, then it pretty much has no need to proceed further.

 

[Vacceo]

That’s obviously a pertinent question for the thread!

The question is whether one is going to approach trying to understand the term resistantly - Already set on the view that such terms are nonsense and are not of any use - or whether one approaches this in terms of communication and you actually want to understand what someone means.

There certainly a problem that the term “ musical” is thrown around in reviews and by subjective audiophiles In a way that is often loose, ill defined or inconsistent.

That doesn’t mean it’s a nonsense term; it means if someone hasn’t been clear what they mean by the term, if you have a chance, you should ask them.

Having seen this term used through the years, here is my own attempt to distill what is often meant.

In the most broad sense, musical tends to mean “ Gets me involved the music itself, emotionally attached to the music rather than thinking of Sound of the gear.”

That’s not an insignificant idea, since one commonly held pitfall of the hobby is Being so absorbed with listening to the gear and tweaking and equipment changes, that one loses touch somewhat with the experience of just enjoying the music itself.

OK, so what qualities might audiophiles be referencing that cause them to conclude
“ this system is more musical than another?”

Once again, it tends to be a quality of presentation that allows one to forget the artifice and mechanical nature of reproduce sound. This is often associated with more “ natural” qualities.

Recordings, most often have all sorts of artificial qualities - exaggerated sibilance in vocals, added brightness or hardness to the sound, or certain frequencies, and all sorts of things that can sound more artificial and mechanical. The more “ musical” system can smooth away some of these qualities, so you are aware more of the voices and instruments having something of a more natural balance, rather than the artificiality being shoved in your face. I mean, it could be essentially the same as taking it bit of a nasty recording, and EQing it to sound easier on the ears and more natural.

If one system is making a harsh recording harder to listen to and the other one is making it easier to listen to, that second system is likely to be deemed “ more musical.”

Tubes coming to play here because they are often perceived (whether it’s always accurately the case or not) to move the sound and just this type of direction: the sound may thicken slightly soften slightly, sound a bit fuller, taking the edge off, And for some people, the result is more natural sound: vocalist sound more soft, palpable, and organic, sibilance sounding more naturally part of a real voice rather than artificial, acoustic guitar may sound like it has more natural body, and a more subtle balance of pic transients to string vibration (the picking may have sounded artificially sharper and enhanced otherwise)… and so to some can more like “ real music” in terms of unamplified sources, or simply (even in the case of artificial sounds) “ more musical” in the sense, they find themselves more relaxed, listening, less focussed on the recording artefacts or the playback gear, and the more easily sink into just listening to the music.

I personally don’t care for the term, and I would prefer to get across a similar type of perception with the word “ organic.”

When I compare my system using my Conrad Johnson tube amps, vs solid state, I perceive the sound as slightly less mechanical and artificial, and especially for acoustic sounds, more “ organic” (a person sounds a bit more fleshy like a human being rather than a sibilant phantom) or “natural.”

I hope once again it is obvious that none of the above is meant to be trying to establish any of the claims for tubes as fact. It’s only an attempt to explain what audio files tend to be trying to get across with a term like
“ musical.”

The problem here is, what do we do with music that is by nature of its creation, incredibly artificial? Think of anything using syths, from Kraftwerk to Front Line Assemby. Wouldn´t that source be "unmusical" due to how it was even conceived?

In HT that could be even more interesting, as film dialogue on tubes may sound peculiar to say the least.