Blind taste test, different transfer equipment (jazz)

[hvbias]

A sample from a famous jazz album, one done with tube equipment and one done all solid state. See if you can pick which is which, which one you enjoyed the sound of more or anything else you feel like adding. The levels are not perfectly matched, so feel free to do that if you wish. No cheating by analyzing the files in software

File 1
File 2

 

[amirm]

I voted and am very curious where the chips fall. This is the first time I have taken a transistor versus tube test of this nature. I know which one I like but not which one is which.

Everyone, this is a much easier test than others presented. There is distinct difference between the two. So it is very quick to determine preference. Please vote.

 

[amirm]

hvbias, you need to vote too .

 

[hvbias]

hvbias, you need to vote too .

I know which are which, so my vote wouldn't mean much. I will say a bit about which file I prefer after I reveal the results. I guess leaving this going for about a week should be good?

 

[amirm]

I know which are which, so my vote wouldn't mean much. I will say a bit about which file I prefer after I reveal the results. I guess leaving this going for about a week should be good?

I would randomize the files and vote anyway.

And sure, a week should be enough.

Everyone, please listen and vote.

 

[RayDunzl]

One file is in opposite phase (corrected below)

One file is about 1.5dB louder.

There are (I think) obvious differences in the waveforms. See 7.888 to 7.892, for example.

I don't do listening tests, since I'm deaf, sorry.

 

[hvbias]

I would randomize the files and vote anyway.

Fair enough, I did that. Though still not entirely unbiased since I knew what to listen for when I was editing the files. Hopefully this gets some decent participation so I can share more of these. I've been doing them mostly comparing various digital versions to see which particular transfer/mastering I prefer and occasionally subjecting my friends to them

 

[hvbias]

@RayDunzl that is very interesting, I will look into that. Thank you for masking the file names in your editor.

Like Amir says subjectively the differences aren't that subtle, I'm not surprised to see the differences in high frequency. I'll have a look at the spectrogram in Izotope now.

 

[fas42]

The file with the clearer, better defined sound should be ss, too much information is being lost with the other version.

 

[NorthSky]

Hmmm...I voted for the one more solid, more there, better presence, more musical, more instrumental, better definition, better decay, sustain, the one with more essence, more glow, more cymbals, more crunch, more saxy, stronger bite, with a tuned piano, better drums realism, with resonance and unison. I voted for the one with more rhythm to it, more dance, more feet, more life, better dynamics, punch, better macro and micro colors, and more body.
I voted with my heart, my brain and my ears. ...For the one more pleasing and less phasing; let's face it I voted for the better one of the two.

Now, I know which one I voted for, but I just don't know if I voted for the solid state one or the other one...tube.
And the one I voted for is the warmest of the two. But I have no clue which is which, so it'll be interesting when I finally find out.

And, the one that I did not vote for is the one I'm afraid of.

 

[hvbias]

Great, keep them coming!

 

[PaulyT]

Like others, I have a preference for sure, but I don't really have any way to tell which is tube vs ss. You're talking about the original recording being done on tube vs ss gear? What was the date? I ask because I wonder whether it was in early(ier) days of ss equipment, or what.

 

[TBone]

Done. although I'm pretty certain which version sounds like it should; given the description, I've the same questions as Pauly described ...

 

[hvbias]

It's an album from 1956 (Sonny Rollins Saxophone Colossus) that would have been recorded on all tube equipment. The recording engineer was using modified Ampex tape recorders.

My comparison is for the electronics used to transfer tape to digital. I'll reveal the results on Saturday. I hope you guys don't mind adding why you voted the way you did if you haven't already.

 

[NorthSky]

I voted for the 2nd file...because → http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...erent-transfer-equipment-jazz.464/#post-11237

So, to me warm means tube. ...Hope I'm wright.
And if I'm wrong? Well, I'll go buy some more.

 

[PaulyT]

Hmmm... I admit I'm still a bit uncertain about this test. One of these tracks sounded "better" to me in that it sounded more like real instruments, more "natural" - whatever term you want to use; I think for my ear it was the HF stuff which was rather lacking in one vs the other. (I'm happy to say which if anyone cares, I'm just trying to avoid biasing anyone else who may not have listened yet...)

But I don't know how to correlate the difference in sound to the whole tube vs ss issue. Why would tubes be involved in an a/d conversion, anyway? Unless the tape signal needed amplification before being converted? And still, what was the relative quality of the two different transfer systems? I mean, I'm neither in the "tubes are always better" camp, nor the opposite; good tube gear can sound great in the right context, but it's not always better than ss. (E.g. I prefer tubes with high-impedance headphones but not with low, for example.) And similarly for ss.

Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick. I just have the sense that I don't have enough information to give a qualified opinion on the original question.

 

[amirm]

But I don't know how to correlate the difference in sound to the whole tube vs ss issue.

We are all in the dark the same way . Let's vote anyway and see where the chips fall.

 

[TBone]

to me, it's not so much tube vs SS; more telling will be my memory's ability to properly recall very early solid state gear. Provenance issues aside ...

 

[hvbias]

Hmmm... I admit I'm still a bit uncertain about this test. One of these tracks sounded "better" to me in that it sounded more like real instruments, more "natural" - whatever term you want to use; I think for my ear it was the HF stuff which was rather lacking in one vs the other. (I'm happy to say which if anyone cares, I'm just trying to avoid biasing anyone else who may not have listened yet...)

But I don't know how to correlate the difference in sound to the whole tube vs ss issue. Why would tubes be involved in an a/d conversion, anyway? Unless the tape signal needed amplification before being converted? And still, what was the relative quality of the two different transfer systems? I mean, I'm neither in the "tubes are always better" camp, nor the opposite; good tube gear can sound great in the right context, but it's not always better than ss. (E.g. I prefer tubes with high-impedance headphones but not with low, for example.) And similarly for ss.

Sorry, I don't mean to nitpick. I just have the sense that I don't have enough information to give a qualified opinion on the original question.

In the future I'll just leave the poll as which one do you prefer. I didn't even think about tube AD converters (didn't think they existed), so my original statement isn't completely accurate as the ADC was solid state. Tape heads need amplification to be brought up to line level signals, that is where the electronics differ in this test.

to me, it's not so much tube vs SS; more telling will be my memory's ability to properly recall very early solid state gear. Provenance issues aside ...

By provenance do you mean the original recording or the source/equipment I used?

 

[RayDunzl]

Provenance issues aside ...

Let's take a moment to more closely examine your avatar...