Chinese Tube buffer or Pre-amp

[ZolaIII]

I thought this forum is about audio science and transparent reproduction. For that, I recommend an RME ADI-2 DAC/preamp. Any change to the original signal can only be a degradation. Fine if you like that, but calling it an improvement is problematic in my book.

I hope you understand how their is no such thing as not altered "original" signal that's ever been recorded. Not altered signal is still just a dream. When ever you take something out of it it loses its original form even if that's what you consider as a "distortion", either that whose introduced by human "mastering" or equipment used in the process. DAC's also use digital signal processing (depending of their design; a self filters [usually high self filler], roll of filters, resampling...) then there's additional filtering placed by engineers as capacitors self lo gain filter or whatever is placed in FPGA this day's (basically programmable DSP). What ever signal lost in the process it neads the same thing that gave it to it in the first place to re gain it. You can't completely undone what's altered in various stages but it does help. Those are the facts. "Science" and engineering only try to do it better but it will never be "the original signal".

 

[solderdude]

What Willem means is that the digitally described (or analog) waveform is present unaltered at the speaker terminal outputs.
This is something that is not impossible. At least the changes are minimal, far below any audible levels.

Tube buffers that intentionally 'modify' the waveform is seen as 'seasoning' rather than increasing fidelity. This eventhough the owner of such devices feels it is an improvement.

The fact that some people also intentionally change the waveform (some try to do this in the opposite direction the transducers/room alters it) is another matter entirely.
Adding flavour is not increasing fidelity. It is done to suit someones taste/preference.
Adding compensation for transducers is intended to increase fidelity.

 

[FrantzM]

Yes, as I said "to my liking"



Not necessarily true. There are good tube designs and bad opamp designs. You cannot assume tube is always inferior.



I would never add a DSP to an analogue signal chain.

The best tube design shall be objectively inferior to the best SS design.
As for never adding DSP to analog chain, don't worry they have already done it for you at the mastering and recording levels.

Could not help , had to take a tease at you.

 

[ZolaIII]

What Willem means is that the digitally described (or analog) waveform is present unaltered at the speaker terminal outputs.
This is something that is not impossible. At least the changes are minimal, far below any audible levels.

Tube buffers that intentionally 'modify' the waveform is seen as 'seasoning' rather than increasing fidelity. This eventhough the owner of such devices feels it is an improvement.

The fact that some people also intentionally change the waveform (some try to do this in the opposite direction the transducers/room alters it) is another matter entirely.
Adding flavour is not increasing fidelity. It is done to suit someones taste/preference.
Adding compensation for transducers is intended to increase fidelity.

The basic assumption of today's audio engineering how only what's in the auditable range of human hearing is all that matters is wrong and that's luckily changing thanks to science. The sound wave ripples in high ranges that we can't hear actually interact with those that we can hear & alter them (the mostly feel able at close to epicentre the lows). Meby best example is pulse dense modulation or better say how engineers tried to address it's shortcoming of increasing distortion as the frequency increases. Basically putting a hard pin to 20 KHz tightening it up but this also gave it bias to transcend back what goes on beyond that...

If something whose recorded using tubes (old recordings & mentioned electric guitars) & then mastered by that time studio operators (to subjectivity sound better on equipment they used) but afterwards remastered by modern ones (operators & equipment), "cleaned" & cetera and over again with modern DAC then it certainly needs to get again the "touch" of the tube to regain what it lost in the process which will resemble more to original.

 

[solderdude]

What does all of your ramblings have to do with signal integrity/fidelity ?

A DAC nor an amplifier are supposed to alter the described waveform. If any of the devices change it (audibly for the better or worse) then signal fidelity has become less accurate. It may sound 'better' to some though, let's call this personal preference.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened at the recording side at all. The output of the recording side (a digital file describing a waveform) just needs to be (re)produced.
One can argue about artistic aspects, what gear was used, what monitors/room/ears were used for producing the final result, what effects/changes were made but that is more or less irrelevant to reproduction.

One can (re)produce as accurate as possible (what ASR is about) or season it whatever way they like.
Seasoning to taste is not a problem. Just don't say it is better. It may be preferred by someone, that's all. A personal opinion not science.

 

[Dimitri]

The basic assumption of today's audio engineering how only what's in the auditable range of human hearing is all that matters is wrong and that's luckily changing thanks to science.

Not quite "today" . Amps claiming -3db @ 200KHz have been around since the eighties.

 

[SIY]

If you believe it will "sound better," and you always evaluate without basic controls, then it will "sound better." This isn't a matter of actual sound. There is no such thing as "tube sound."

The Chinese tube "buffers" (which are actually no such thing) are almost universally incompetent in design, construction, and parts quality.

 

[SIY]

The basic assumption of today's audio engineering how only what's in the auditable range of human hearing is all that matters is wrong and that's luckily changing thanks to science. The sound wave ripples in high ranges that we can't hear actually interact with those that we can hear & alter them (the mostly feel able at close to epicentre the lows). Meby best example is pulse dense modulation or better say how engineers tried to address it's shortcoming of increasing distortion as the frequency increases. Basically putting a hard pin to 20 KHz tightening it up but this also gave it bias to transcend back what goes on beyond that...

If something whose recorded using tubes (old recordings & mentioned electric guitars) & then mastered by that time studio operators (to subjectivity sound better on equipment they used) but afterwards remastered by modern ones (operators & equipment), "cleaned" & cetera and over again with modern DAC then it certainly needs to get again the "touch" of the tube to regain what it lost in the process which will resemble more to original.

I'm trying to find something in there which isn't nonsense, but I will confess failure.

 

[BDWoody]

it certainly needs to get again the "touch" of the tube to regain what it lost in the process which will resemble more to original.

Uh huh...

 

[ZolaIII]

What does all of your ramblings have to do with signal integrity/fidelity ?

A DAC nor an amplifier are supposed to alter the described waveform. If any of the devices change it (audibly for the better or worse) then signal fidelity has become less accurate. It may sound 'better' to some though, let's call this personal preference.

It has absolutely nothing to do with anything that happened at the recording side at all. The output of the recording side (a digital file describing a waveform) just needs to be (re)produced.
One can argue about artistic aspects, what gear was used, what monitors/room/ears were used for producing the final result, what effects/changes were made but that is more or less irrelevant to reproduction.

One can (re)produce as accurate as possible (what ASR is about) or season it whatever way they like.
Seasoning to taste is not a problem. Just don't say it is better. It may be preferred by someone, that's all. A personal opinion not science.

That what's usually described as mumbling by people is what they can't understand. Unfortunately I can't help you with that but me by one day there's hope for you.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...igh-resolution-recordings-in-pcm-and-dsd.152/
Same DAC same wave different "auditable" result. It's not what's in the signal per se but what analogue signal above hearing range physically adds to it.
What happened at recording side has absolutely everything to do with it as it influenced original sound processing decisions and future ones (mastering).

So I won't say anything, it's already been said. It dose need more work but certainly can't be dismissed. To go a step further I will say how DSD layering as 32 bit future improves this & how DSD128 is then needed.

 

[ZolaIII]

I'm trying to find something in there which isn't nonsense, but I will confess failure.

That's because you don't have sense for it.

 

[SIY]

That's because you don't have sense for it.

Cool story, bro.

 

[solderdude]

That what's usually described as mumbling by people is what they can't understand. Unfortunately I can't help you with that but me by one day there's hope for you.
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...igh-resolution-recordings-in-pcm-and-dsd.152/
Same DAC same wave different "auditable" result. It's not what's in the signal per se but what analogue signal above hearing range physically adds to it.
What happened at recording side has absolutely everything to do with it as it influenced original sound processing decisions and future ones (mastering).

So I won't say anything, it's already been said. It dose need more work but certainly can't be dismissed. To go a step further I will say how DSD layering as 32 bit future improves this & how DSD128 is then needed.

Uh huh.


b.t.w. I think SIY has a sense ... for detecting ignorance, B.S. and possibly humor as well.

 

[ZolaIII]

So if & when someone represents you a scientific prof then he is ridiculed. So it's lack of hearing sense but more than all cognitive one. Why don't you try to "scientifically" discard finding of that scientific work? It's easier to spread doha, reduce to absurd or use terms that absolutely don't mean anything. That will fead your ego but I am afraid it won't do much for your intellect. By the way "p" is probability factorial.

 

[SIY]

So if & when someone represents you a scientific prof then he is ridiculed. So it's lack of hearing sense but more than all cognitive one. Why don't you try to "scientifically" discard finding of that scientific work? It's easier to spread doha, reduce to absurd or use thermal that absolutely don't mean anything. That will fead your ego but I am afraid it won't do much for your intellect. By the way "p" is probability factorial.

Huh.

 

[Martin]

Need expert's opinion about Chinese Tube buffer or Pre-amp Like FX audio tube 01, YAQIN SD-CD3 etc.. Which can be used with integrated amplifier or Power amplifier...
I am using Audiolab 6000a integrated amp with Tannoy revolution xt6f speaker. Will there be any improvement of sound? Want some tube flavor.

I bought a used YS-Audio Audio Experience balanced A2 preamplifier about 10 years ago to add tube flavor to my class D solid state system. I have thoroughly enjoyed it ever since. I’ve not used a tube buffer so cannot comment on that other than to say posters in another forum seem to like the effect of a well made tube buffer.

YAQIN seems to be a decent brand and has been around a while. I know nothing about FX but at $32 with free returns (Amazon) why not give it a shot.

Martin

 

[iLoveCats]

Yaqin has a pretty big following around the world. "Yaqin Tube Valve Amplifiers" facebook group has a lot of technical information and expertise.

 

[cjm2077]

So if & when someone represents you a scientific prof then he is ridiculed. So it's lack of hearing sense but more than all cognitive one. Why don't you try to "scientifically" discard finding of that scientific work? It's easier to spread doha, reduce to absurd or use terms that absolutely don't mean anything. That will fead your ego but I am afraid it won't do much for your intellect. By the way "p" is probability factorial.

You need to show some actual science. Then we can judge your argument based on that. So far you've just spouted things that don't make much sense and don't show a clear connection to each other.

 

[ZolaIII]

You need to show some actual science. Then we can judge your argument based on that. So far you've just spouted things that don't make much sense and don't show a clear connection to each other.

It's easier to obtain a copy from hire:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats
& it's a half of a h reading.

 

[SIY]

It's easier to obtain a copy from hire:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ution_recordings_in_PCM_and_DSD_audio_formats
& it's a half of a h reading.

I read it a while back. The correspondence to the random jargon generator was poor. The random jargon generator had even less correspondence to any rational scientific thought.

Amusingly, they gave the game away near the end. Kudos for their honesty.