Pugsly
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2021
- Messages
- 98
- Likes
- 122
Hi All,
I would like to propose a challenge:
Using freely available VST plugins, make a cheap but well designed ‘objectivist’ headphone amplifier (say JDS Atom, etc.) running a pair of HD 650/6XX sound identical the same headphones running on a Bottlehead Crack (no speedball edition), and prove this by making available both the VST settings and a null test demonstrating your results.
This challenge is posed on the following assumptions:
(1) We know that tube amplifiers (especially cheaper DIY one’s like Crack) often produce measurable distortion that some people find pleasing (at least on some material)
(2) We know that tube amplifiers react to different loads differently, so that they can act as a tone control with different effects on different headphones due to their non-linear resistance
(3) We know that people get ‘sucked down the rabbit hole’ of subjectivism by a lack of technical know-how, as well as by people who are supposedly objectivists but are far too incautious either due to their own lack of technical know-how or lack of patience. For example, just saying that you can make a transparent amp sound like a Bottlehead by adding a bump at such-and-such a frequency is far too simplistic.
(4) The pandemic has resulted in a whole series of people who have spent far too long on the internet falling down the subjectivist rabbit hole, and especially buying headphones, and wanting to try out, but being unable to try out, gear as well as getting stuck in subjectivist echo chambers where group think, claims of golden ears, etc., have resulted in the strengthening of conspiracy theories and unscientific nonsense.
(5) We know that Bob Carver was able to use null testing to show that in an A/B test, golden ears members of stereophile were unable, over DAYS, to tell the difference between his modified $700 amplifier and an at the time top of the line tube amplifier using hardware.
(6) We know that there are now a large variety of VST plugins that can be used to shape the sound not just by equalizing, but introducing harmonic distortion, crossfeed, etc.
(7) We know that the Sennheiser 650/6XX is highly regarded, often used as a reference point for headphone, and often the gateway to tube amplifiers due to their mythical ‘synergy’ with the Bottlehead Crack.
(8) We know that today there are huge suites of FREE vst plugins that, when used with a system-wide eq (e.g., for Mac, SoundSource) can easily be used to shape the sound including by adding specific amounts of second order, and even choose which order of distortion to add, at what levels, etc. See the MeldaProduction suite and their free Msaturator for this.)
(9) We CLAIM that sufficient measurements tell the whole story, and that the measurements contained in this site are enough to explain all relevant parameters
(10) Until this is proved in a way that is easily accessible, and especially in the case of things like tubes when there is a measurable difference, admission that there can be euphonic differences, etc., people will continue to fall down the rabbit hole of subjectivism if only because they are curious to ‘see for themselves’, but then will hear a difference, snowball, reinforce prejudices, convert friends to subjectivism and magical thinking, etc., etc.
My challenge (to those who have the equipment and technical abilities) is thus: Recreate and show via null testing (thus getting rid of any claims that it is just you who can’t tell the difference) using something like audio diffmaker and free VSTs that anyone can get, that you can make the Bottlehead Crack and something like JDS Element II or Atom sound identical on the Sennheiser HD6XX. Then upload the VST settings and diffmaker file for all to see and download for free.
Bonus points if you can do this:
(a) purely using the measurements (or the same suite of measurements, since Amir used Crack with speedball) on this site without listening/nulling and reworking the settings as you go
(b) make it so that someone who downloads the VST plugins with the settings you have chosen would be able to level match dB levels between the Crack and a transparent SS amp, apply the VST settings to the SS, and A/B at multiple volumes (ideally linearly such that the sound would remain identical and not require different VST settings, and if not, then explicitly state the settings required. )
(c) extra points again if you can add settings that will null a SS and the Bottlehead Crack with Speedball - I say extra, as this should be done afterwards as (i) Bottlehead themselves recommends beginning with the plain Crack and living with it for a bit and THEN upgrading, so the vanilla Crack would be a better reference point, (ii) the Speedball reduces some of that mysterious ‘tube sound’ and makes it appear much more linear/like a SS anyway. Given this, the demonstration will be far more impactful on Vanilla, but being able to do both would be great for those who have already transitioned.
Fact: The claim found in this forum that someone could not hear a difference when they tested a SS against Bottlehead Crack with Speedball is itself anecdotal, and will rightly be dismissed, as even the most hard core objectivism (e.g., Peter Atkinson) would argue that there ARE not just measurable, but audible, differences between SS and tubes.
Fact: Merely claiming that one could achieve the same thing using a VST suggests (inaccurately) that this could be achieved using any number of saturators, many of which are used for adding tape sound, instrument distortion, etc. and so are not appropriate.
Fact: Merely claiming that doing this is useless because all one needs to do is add a few dB in the mid bass via an equalizer will rightly be dismissed
Fact: If you want to claim that all that matters is the measurements used here, then you should be able to reverse engineer any amplifier/DAC ‘signature sound’ using these measurements and a transparent amp//DAC alone - within product tolerances/channel mismatch/and the inherent but supposedly inaudible threshold of transparency.
In short: The pairing of the 650/6XX and Bottlehead Crack (without Speedball especially) is a gateway drug for subjectivism, is widely available, and uses a high quality and readily available headphone that is considered a point of reference in both objectivist and subjectivist camps. If you are going to claim that tube sound is a myth, that the same thing could be created using equalizer and DSP, and that the measurements contained in this site contain everything that is relevant/important, but just shout down anyone who comes along and say ‘ABX’ when they claim to hear differences, then you are ignoring the fact that:
(a) Such tests are not just extremely difficult to set up but are utterly irrelevant when we are talking about coloured gear such as tube amplifiers (and nowadays, much of the highest boutique gear out there) so this advice is worse than useless, it actually serves to drive people to subjectivism
(b) When you claim that you would be ‘better off’ just applying an equalizer, and that you are measuring all of the relevant factors, you are also making a positive, and exceptional claim, and this claim also requires exceptional evidence (such as being able to reproduce a sound signature from that data alone and null the results.)
(c) Of course, you might well say that the science is settled even if the subjectivists don’t know it and are incorrigible anyway, but the point of a site like this should be to communicate the science in a way that will be of interest to and resonate with a broad, non-specialist group of people. Measuring one more piece of gear that you claim is equally transparent, but ranks 42nd vs 43rd is only useful within limits, especially when there is equipment that is dismissed as garbage because it does not measure as transparently but will sound better on less transparent equipment due to inherent flaws in the original recordings, mastering, etc. The thing is, if ‘perfect’ gear makes the music we love sound perfectly awful (assuming, that is, that this whole audio hobby is not just about chasing technical perfection but at least involves listening to such music) then why wouldn’t someone want imperfect gear unless the same characteristics could be reproduced on cheaper, technically perfect equipment?
I would like to propose a challenge:
Using freely available VST plugins, make a cheap but well designed ‘objectivist’ headphone amplifier (say JDS Atom, etc.) running a pair of HD 650/6XX sound identical the same headphones running on a Bottlehead Crack (no speedball edition), and prove this by making available both the VST settings and a null test demonstrating your results.
This challenge is posed on the following assumptions:
(1) We know that tube amplifiers (especially cheaper DIY one’s like Crack) often produce measurable distortion that some people find pleasing (at least on some material)
(2) We know that tube amplifiers react to different loads differently, so that they can act as a tone control with different effects on different headphones due to their non-linear resistance
(3) We know that people get ‘sucked down the rabbit hole’ of subjectivism by a lack of technical know-how, as well as by people who are supposedly objectivists but are far too incautious either due to their own lack of technical know-how or lack of patience. For example, just saying that you can make a transparent amp sound like a Bottlehead by adding a bump at such-and-such a frequency is far too simplistic.
(4) The pandemic has resulted in a whole series of people who have spent far too long on the internet falling down the subjectivist rabbit hole, and especially buying headphones, and wanting to try out, but being unable to try out, gear as well as getting stuck in subjectivist echo chambers where group think, claims of golden ears, etc., have resulted in the strengthening of conspiracy theories and unscientific nonsense.
(5) We know that Bob Carver was able to use null testing to show that in an A/B test, golden ears members of stereophile were unable, over DAYS, to tell the difference between his modified $700 amplifier and an at the time top of the line tube amplifier using hardware.
(6) We know that there are now a large variety of VST plugins that can be used to shape the sound not just by equalizing, but introducing harmonic distortion, crossfeed, etc.
(7) We know that the Sennheiser 650/6XX is highly regarded, often used as a reference point for headphone, and often the gateway to tube amplifiers due to their mythical ‘synergy’ with the Bottlehead Crack.
(8) We know that today there are huge suites of FREE vst plugins that, when used with a system-wide eq (e.g., for Mac, SoundSource) can easily be used to shape the sound including by adding specific amounts of second order, and even choose which order of distortion to add, at what levels, etc. See the MeldaProduction suite and their free Msaturator for this.)
(9) We CLAIM that sufficient measurements tell the whole story, and that the measurements contained in this site are enough to explain all relevant parameters
(10) Until this is proved in a way that is easily accessible, and especially in the case of things like tubes when there is a measurable difference, admission that there can be euphonic differences, etc., people will continue to fall down the rabbit hole of subjectivism if only because they are curious to ‘see for themselves’, but then will hear a difference, snowball, reinforce prejudices, convert friends to subjectivism and magical thinking, etc., etc.
My challenge (to those who have the equipment and technical abilities) is thus: Recreate and show via null testing (thus getting rid of any claims that it is just you who can’t tell the difference) using something like audio diffmaker and free VSTs that anyone can get, that you can make the Bottlehead Crack and something like JDS Element II or Atom sound identical on the Sennheiser HD6XX. Then upload the VST settings and diffmaker file for all to see and download for free.
Bonus points if you can do this:
(a) purely using the measurements (or the same suite of measurements, since Amir used Crack with speedball) on this site without listening/nulling and reworking the settings as you go
(b) make it so that someone who downloads the VST plugins with the settings you have chosen would be able to level match dB levels between the Crack and a transparent SS amp, apply the VST settings to the SS, and A/B at multiple volumes (ideally linearly such that the sound would remain identical and not require different VST settings, and if not, then explicitly state the settings required. )
(c) extra points again if you can add settings that will null a SS and the Bottlehead Crack with Speedball - I say extra, as this should be done afterwards as (i) Bottlehead themselves recommends beginning with the plain Crack and living with it for a bit and THEN upgrading, so the vanilla Crack would be a better reference point, (ii) the Speedball reduces some of that mysterious ‘tube sound’ and makes it appear much more linear/like a SS anyway. Given this, the demonstration will be far more impactful on Vanilla, but being able to do both would be great for those who have already transitioned.
Fact: The claim found in this forum that someone could not hear a difference when they tested a SS against Bottlehead Crack with Speedball is itself anecdotal, and will rightly be dismissed, as even the most hard core objectivism (e.g., Peter Atkinson) would argue that there ARE not just measurable, but audible, differences between SS and tubes.
Fact: Merely claiming that one could achieve the same thing using a VST suggests (inaccurately) that this could be achieved using any number of saturators, many of which are used for adding tape sound, instrument distortion, etc. and so are not appropriate.
Fact: Merely claiming that doing this is useless because all one needs to do is add a few dB in the mid bass via an equalizer will rightly be dismissed
Fact: If you want to claim that all that matters is the measurements used here, then you should be able to reverse engineer any amplifier/DAC ‘signature sound’ using these measurements and a transparent amp//DAC alone - within product tolerances/channel mismatch/and the inherent but supposedly inaudible threshold of transparency.
In short: The pairing of the 650/6XX and Bottlehead Crack (without Speedball especially) is a gateway drug for subjectivism, is widely available, and uses a high quality and readily available headphone that is considered a point of reference in both objectivist and subjectivist camps. If you are going to claim that tube sound is a myth, that the same thing could be created using equalizer and DSP, and that the measurements contained in this site contain everything that is relevant/important, but just shout down anyone who comes along and say ‘ABX’ when they claim to hear differences, then you are ignoring the fact that:
(a) Such tests are not just extremely difficult to set up but are utterly irrelevant when we are talking about coloured gear such as tube amplifiers (and nowadays, much of the highest boutique gear out there) so this advice is worse than useless, it actually serves to drive people to subjectivism
(b) When you claim that you would be ‘better off’ just applying an equalizer, and that you are measuring all of the relevant factors, you are also making a positive, and exceptional claim, and this claim also requires exceptional evidence (such as being able to reproduce a sound signature from that data alone and null the results.)
(c) Of course, you might well say that the science is settled even if the subjectivists don’t know it and are incorrigible anyway, but the point of a site like this should be to communicate the science in a way that will be of interest to and resonate with a broad, non-specialist group of people. Measuring one more piece of gear that you claim is equally transparent, but ranks 42nd vs 43rd is only useful within limits, especially when there is equipment that is dismissed as garbage because it does not measure as transparently but will sound better on less transparent equipment due to inherent flaws in the original recordings, mastering, etc. The thing is, if ‘perfect’ gear makes the music we love sound perfectly awful (assuming, that is, that this whole audio hobby is not just about chasing technical perfection but at least involves listening to such music) then why wouldn’t someone want imperfect gear unless the same characteristics could be reproduced on cheaper, technically perfect equipment?
