Blind taste test, different transfer equipment (jazz)

[RayDunzl]

Could you post a piece of the original?

 

[NorthSky]

Ha! I much prefer the second file myself; it's much more intimate, I feel closer to the musicians...warmer invitation.
But that's me and my own preference between the two files that were presented; I just can't escape that beautiful reality.

I was certain that file number two was the tube one. I was 100% wrong on my choice. There must be something right that can be also measured on why I prefer the second file, but I just don't know.
Still, tube people are better love makers. And the rest must be living a dream.
Fabio, was he also a tube lover?

* That was a cool test Monsieur hvbias, I truly enjoyed it.
By the way, I don't have to sell my gear; it sounds wonderful, and warm.

 

[TBone]

interesting to note; measured (foobar) DR values ...
file 1 (tube) l=11.2 r=11.3 (w/v.slight clipping in right ch.)
file 2 (ss) l=10.3 r=10.7

 

[PaulyT]

I much preferred the second file as well. I thought the first was missing something in the HF range.

 

[PaulyT]

Going to reveal this slightly early since I'll be gone for the weekend. Option two is the correct choice.

The tube tape pre is based around a DHT final stage with Lundahl amorphous output transformers (other two stages are high gm tubes, cap coupled with solid state CCS loading in both stages). The solid state version is based around the Pass Pearl 2 DIY phono stage that has EQ modified. ADC is from Ayre.

My personal preference is for the tube pre, it sounds like it has more presence and a sounds a bit more "live" compared to the SS. It also sounds more like what I hear from the HDTracks hi-res transfer.

Just so I understand, by "correct choice" you mean file 2 was tube, file 1 was ss?

 

[NorthSky]

I don't know if it matters TBone, regarding the Dynamic Range measurements of the two files; because the second file still has the upper-hand to my sweet ears.

 

[NorthSky]

I much preferred the second file as well. I thought the first was missing something in the HF range.

You and I Paul, are 100% in agreement.

 

[NorthSky]

Just so I understand, by "correct choice" you mean file 2 was tube, file 1 was ss?

No Paul; just the opposite way around. The file we both much much prefer is the SS one (Solid State).

 

[PaulyT]

Huh. Can someone with more knowledge/software than me do some sort of frequency analysis of the two tracks? Kinda like what Waldrep shows in a lot of his blog posts. I'm curious whether there's a measurable difference in the HF region that would account for what I heard.

 

[NorthSky]

Ray posted this two weeks ago: ttp://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/blind-taste-test-different-transfer-equipment-jazz.464/#post-11219

...And the OP's reply: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...erent-transfer-equipment-jazz.464/#post-11222

...And Frank's reply: http://www.audiosciencereview.com/f...erent-transfer-equipment-jazz.464/#post-11229

 

[RayDunzl]

Can someone

File 1, 2

 

[fas42]

Yes, the SS version is presenting more information, the tube variation has "doctored" the sound to sound "nicer", to some ears. My preference is for more 'data' - the trade off is that if the playback is not good enough then an unpleasant edge will be heard, because the "complexity" of the sound is not being handled competently; the tube tarting up of the sound actually is moving the quality closer to baby food consistency - goes down easier, far less chance of being overtly offensive - but ultimately bland, unsatisfying.

 

[NorthSky]

The second file is so much more pleasant...superior all around...there is no contest.
And I don't have a single clue of which one is the louder one. > And which one measures better.
But usually we prefer the loudest one, and the one with the smoothest frequency response, the better dynamic range, the lesser distortion, the higher resolution, the better mids, lows and highs, the better imaging, the warmest, ...all that Jazz.

So, who else also prefer the second file? ...And who knew that she was the SS one? That's what I'd like to know.
...Who are my true friends, and who are my best friends.

 

[PaulyT]

Thanks Ray. Again I say ... huh. Not sure what to make of this.

 

[TBone]

I don't know if it matters TBone, regarding the Dynamic Range measurements of the two files; because the second file still has the upper-hand to my sweet ears.

Well, I'm assuming each signal (file1,2) would be near-identically reproduced by the turntable itself, therefore from phono-stage(s) to recording stage, something changed the values. Personally, if it was my system(s), I'd like to know which version was more faithful to the original, regardless of which sounded "sweeter".

Also, since I've recently been considering using Lundahl transformers myself, the 1st thing that came to mind was the potential sonic effects of vastly different cartridge loading requirements?

 

[amirm]

Going to reveal this slightly early since I'll be gone for the weekend. Option two is the correct choice.

Excellent . All I heard was the tube version being more distorted. I don't hear the euphonic effect of tube. And that has been a theme for me for a while including LP versus CD. I just want clean reproduction.

 

[TBone]

in addition to Ray's plots ...
file 1 (tube)

file 2 (ss)

 

[hvbias]

You guys are fast to clarify the correct option is FILE 1 IS TUBE, FILE 2 IS SOLID STATE

I hope I address all your points, if not they'll have to be after the weekend... want to get up to the lake house at 6 am tomorrow.

@RayDunzl the original is a master tape dub, these are flat transfers from that tape

@NorthSky to my ears I am hearing quite a bit more high frequency and air in the tube file. Which I should have clarified in my post about it sounding more "live". The tube transfer also sounds more dynamic. I attend quite a few live jazz shows (by far my favorite genre of music) and to me that is how the cymbals, snare and sax sound in the upper registers. It doesn't sound as pleasant and glossed over EQ wise like it did on the SS transfer. Regarding your second post

@PaulyT I am hoping to learn about how to plot detailed frequency graphs. IMHO the ones that Audacity generates are not that great, even messing around with the various window settings.

Here are some files that a friend was able to do in ProTools, but that software is too expensive for me! These screenshots are not of the samples in this thread.

@TBone there is no vinyl involved, so there is no cartridge loading. Also a point of clarification these are output transformers (think OPTs like on a tube power amp or line stage) and are not input step up transformers.

@amirm thanks for giving your subjective opinion, yours was one I was looking forward to hearing. To hear the distortion was this on headphones or speakers? I will need to have a closer listen to the tube file to see if I can detect it. To me the major differences were the EQ and dynamics.

 

[hvbias]

Oh yes and regarding the phase difference I'll have my friend look into that. Tubes are funny things and gain stages sometimes invert polarity.

 

[TBone]

there is no vinyl involved, so there is no cartridge loading. Also a point of clarification these are output transformers (think OPTs like on a tube power amp or line stage) and are not input step up transformers.

Got it, I been around too much vinyl lately and it's embedded in my mind, so when I saw "Lundahl", I incorrectly assumed ...