Do we crave distortion?

[antcollinet]

(*warning, subjective impressions incoming, please don your sunglasses or visor shields....*)

I was thinking of this thread after my experience today. I've been thinking for years it would be fun to have a solid state amp around to throw in to my 2 channel system sometimes (replacing my CJ tube amps/preamp). Then it occurred to me..duh!...I have a solid state amp, my Denon AV Receiver. (130 W into 8ohms/180W into 4ohms). It's just so complexly wired up for my HT stuff I'd never have thought to use it. But I just bought some speaker extension cables:

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B08Q2YRPPL?ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details&th=1

These made it really easy to just unplug the cables going to my L/R home theater system and extend those cables out to my 2 channel Joseph Audio speakers.

I could only use a digital source, so I streamed some albums I know well to my AV receiver.

Boy that was fun! I had the exact same experience every time I do this: Wow...*that* sure sounds different!

Gone was the slightly golden glow of the tube sound, replaced with a super clean, precision. Recordings sounded even more "precise" in terms of the teeniest bits of
character, reverbs, different drum cymbals being struck, etc. Bass was both in tighter grip, strong, yet perfectly balanced at all times. My recent set up had given me really tight bass from my system...for a tube amp...but this reminded me, yeah, it can get even better with a solid state amp.

I listened for some hours, quite fascinated, to lots of stuff I knew well, including some Level 42 tracks I've been playing on vinyl lately (80's fusion/funky stuff). It sounded so powerful, yet controlled, with deeper bass than I remember from the LP. Though...some aspects seemed a bit lacking from what I usually crave. The sound was a bit "see through," drum snares etc had precise timbre, but less air-moving snap than I'm used to. Also, voices tended to sound more electronic than I'm used to, sibilance with many female pop vocals harder and more steely, a bit more distracting and edgy.

Time to add some more distortion back.......

I swapped the cables back so I was now playing the same sources, but through my CJ tube preamp and monoblock tube amps!

Well....*that* sure sounds different! There was that glow again, that solidity, with that relaxed quality. The sound "lit up" in a way that sounded more live, yet also more relaxed and not "bright." Vocals sounded more soft and fleshy, sibilance "relaxed" in to the vocals sounding more plausibly human, horns in orchestral parts lit up with that golden brassy glow I'm familiar with. With my AV receiver recordings sounded like great recordings; with the tube stuff it had a bit more "it's live" presentation.

Time for more distortion! I changed to LP, throwing on that Level 42 vinyl I'd been listening to (excellent recording). First impression: yup, the bass wasn't as powerfully deep. BUT...there was that solid snappy "crack" of the snare drum I'd been missing. And the punchier "bap" of the kick drum impact. And everything just solidified more, even if a teeny bit of precision in timbre/detail was given up.

I can see someone preferring either one, but I absolutely preferred the tube presentation (and LP as well). It just reminds me of how I got to where I am with my system.

Still, until perhaps I pick up a spare solid state amp, I'll be using my AV reciever sometimes, because it's a nice change and I certainly do appreciate aspects of the sound. I just wouldn't want to live there, I think.

(*ladies and gentlemen, the *subjectivist* has left the building, you are free to take off your visors and get back to technical talk....*)

How much of this preference do you think could be familiarity?

If you listened to the solid state exclusively for a few weeks or months, do you think it possible you would then find the tube amplification lacking, and less "preferred"?

IE - could it be just that your hearing is "used to", or adapted to the tube sound.

 

[MattHooper]

How much of this preference do you think could be familiarity?

If you listened to the solid state exclusively for a few weeks or months, do you think it possible you would then find the tube amplification lacking, and less "preferred"?

IE - could it be just that your hearing is "used to", or adapted to the tube sound.

I think that could obviously be a factor. Though it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem: I may like something because I am used to hearing it in my system; but I also have it in my system because it's the case I prefer that sound (which is why I chose it for my system).

Anecdotally, these experiences perhaps speaks to that question:

1. Would I adjust over time to a sound I originally didn't care for as much? Well, I've owned some speakers that I had bought second hand to try (before having heard them). For instance an Audio Physic speaker as I was a fan of the other models I'd had. Right off the bat it displayed the "disappearing act" I loved from that brand, but also sounded tonally a bit different, not quite as warm and 'right' to my ears. I LOVED how the speakers looked and desperately hoped I would acclimate. I kept them for I think about 6 or 8 months. And my problem with them never got better. Tonally...they just weren't sounding to me the 'right timbre' which I'd gotten from the other Audio Physic speakers. So I sold them. That happened with at least one other speaker too.

So that suggests that mere acclimatization won't always work to allow me to enjoy something I didn't originally enjoy. (For me).

2. A couple times in the past I'd switched to solid state amplification (Bryston one time, Harman Kardon another) due to various circumstances, including when one of my tube monoblocks went down and I wasn't getting around to having it fixed. With the SS amplification I still thought the sound was good but...found myself less compelled to stay seated listening to the music. Both times, over time, e.g. 6 months to a year, I found myself listening less and less, to the point where I started to consider I had simply grown out of love with the whole audio thing. But then I got the tube amps back in the system (one time it was after I had them fixed, and was only checking that they worked before selling them because I was 'over' the audio thing)...and as soon as I fired it up...WHAM...THAT sound was back. Rich, open, textured, sparkly, relaxed, organic, human....I was just mesmerized again and couldn't stop listening. Couldn't stop listening the next night. Or the next...week after week...and then I realized, nope, this is still something I loved.

And every time I've ever tried SS in the system it's been the same result: An immediate fascination with what SS clearly does "better," but more of an intellectual "that's neat" that I start to tire of, but when the tubes go back in, it's more relaxing and I just can't stop listening.

Of course I know how that lands with plenty of ASR members, so I'm just addressing this to you, since your question seemed to somewhat invite any anecdotal experience of "trying solid state over time" that might seem relevant to your question.

 

[MattHooper]

^^^ Just to add to the above a it, in terms of "craving distortion."

I also think it depends on one's reference. Most people concentrating on "just reproducing the signal accurately" are doing just that. Measures neutral...done. Then the recordings sound as the sound, and "stereo can't compare to real life so why bother compare? I just want to hear the exact character of each recording."

Which is cool.

I'm constantly comparing sound systems to "real sound." I can't help it. I've had a life long fascination with real vs reproduced sound. Whenever I hear live, unamplified instruments I can't help notice how much I love the sound - the cheapest acoustic guitar will often sound more beautiful to me played in real life, than a great recording of a "high quality guitar." There are just aspects of real sound I generally don't hear from recordings: a special combo of warmth, clarity, unforced detail and harmonic richness, vivid yet relaxed. And I look for sound reproduction that comes closer to those qualities.

Along that line I often use my "live sound comparison" mini-test, which is when a system is playing, especially if there is percussion, bongos, or clapping etc, I snap my fingers, clap, drum on my knees etc and just compare the nature of the real sound with that from the sound system. There is often a distinct tonal difference (no matter what recording is played), and artificiality in the...artificial sound. But when I've got my system dialed right, when I do this test that difference becomes very tiny. The timbre of the reproduced sound is very consistent with the timbre of the sounds I'm producing in my room. And more like my sounds are indistinguishable from, and could be part of, the recording. I love when that happens.

When I had the solid state amplification hooked up I digitally streamed some of Madonna's Ray Of Light album, e.g. the first track Drowned, an album I used to play all the time in the 90s. It was super clean and clear, but also artificial sounding. I heard Madonna's sibilance right in front of me, but tried to find the human voice behind it. It didn't seem there, didn't cohere, it was spectral, more like an electronic alien than a person. I later played the vinyl LP I just got of that song, with the tube amplification and, hot dam, Madonna was THERE now. The sibilance sat back in to and joined the body of her voice, there was a solid person "in the room." In the big scheme it would be a subtle difference, but for what I seek it was a night and day difference in favor of the tubes/vinyl over the digital/SS amp combo.

Finally: I just did a similar test today - live vs reproduced. I was at my pal's house listening to big Estalon speakers, hooked up to giant Hegel solid state amps etc, and he played a very vividly recorded vocal track. It was holographically "there" in terms of the clarity and focus. But then I asked him, while the vocal was playing, to stand in between the speaker and speak so I could compare a real human voice to the reproduced voice, with my eyes closed. Result: My friend's real voice sounded vivid, yet more relaxed, sibilance less exaggerated and his consonants sat more subtlety in to his vocal tone. And he sounded warmer, less "hard," yet more solid, "rounder," sound coming from flesh and blood, not electronics. That's very much the type of differences I hear from vocals when I put the tube amps in. Which is one big reason why I Can't Seem To Quit Tubes.

 

[antcollinet]

I think that could obviously be a factor. Though it's a bit of a chicken and egg problem: I may like something because I am used to hearing it in my system; but I also have it in my system because it's the case I prefer that sound (which is why I chose it for my system).

Anecdotally, these experiences perhaps speaks to that question:

1. Would I adjust over time to a sound I originally didn't care for as much? Well, I've owned some speakers that I had bought second hand to try (before having heard them). For instance an Audio Physic speaker as I was a fan of the other models I'd had. Right off the bat it displayed the "disappearing act" I loved from that brand, but also sounded tonally a bit different, not quite as warm and 'right' to my ears. I LOVED how the speakers looked and desperately hoped I would acclimate. I kept them for I think about 6 or 8 months. And my problem with them never got better. Tonally...they just weren't sounding to me the 'right timbre' which I'd gotten from the other Audio Physic speakers. So I sold them. That happened with at least one other speaker too.

So that suggests that mere acclimatization won't always work to allow me to enjoy something I didn't originally enjoy. (For me).

2. A couple times in the past I'd switched to solid state amplification (Bryston one time, Harman Kardon another) due to various circumstances, including when one of my tube monoblocks went down and I wasn't getting around to having it fixed. With the SS amplification I still thought the sound was good but...found myself less compelled to stay seated listening to the music. Both times, over time, e.g. 6 months to a year, I found myself listening less and less, to the point where I started to consider I had simply grown out of love with the whole audio thing. But then I got the tube amps back in the system (one time it was after I had them fixed, and was only checking that they worked before selling them because I was 'over' the audio thing)...and as soon as I fired it up...WHAM...THAT sound was back. Rich, open, textured, sparkly, relaxed, organic, human....I was just mesmerized again and couldn't stop listening. Couldn't stop listening the next night. Or the next...week after week...and then I realized, nope, this is still something I loved.

And every time I've ever tried SS in the system it's been the same result: An immediate fascination with what SS clearly does "better," but more of an intellectual "that's neat" that I start to tire of, but when the tubes go back in, it's more relaxing and I just can't stop listening.

Of course I know how that lands with plenty of ASR members, so I'm just addressing this to you, since your question seemed to somewhat invite any anecdotal experience of "trying solid state over time" that might seem relevant to your question.

Thanks - that pretty well answers my question.

 

[Galliardist]

The classical recordings from 40+ years ago sounded more or less the same.

Having spent a large part of yesterday listening to different recordings from the 1960s of Mozart orchestral recordings yesterday, I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Supraphon, Decca and Mercury recordings do show differences, at least.

Also, choosing different tracks leaves open the possibility that your test would be dominated by a subject's preference in music, rather than sound.

It's also the case that very many classical music fans prefer the older performances to newer (I'm not usually one of those): they may automatically also prefer the sound of those recordings.

It may be a bit like 1970s rock, where so many prefer the original master to later versions: that's clearly about sound quality.

 

[Sokel]

The classical recordings from 40+ years ago sounded more or less the same. I can only tolerate such sameness if they crop up in my queue only occasionally.

Coincidentally that's my absolute favorite plays,specially the RCA-Victor ones (mostly because of the performances,it's a galaxy of geniuses there performing and conducting) .
I have listened to them through any possible combination,in many houses.

I love them so much I once tried to replicate the way they produced them in the studio,I mean the gear,tube amps and monkey coffins.
Nah.
Adding the sins of the era with the sins of the extra gear don't cut it,I like them way better through a fairly neutral rig as long as it's adequate for me (big speakers in big rooms,my mind cannot contain them in a small room) .

 

[Galliardist]

Coincidentally that's my absolute favorite plays,specially the RCA-Victor ones (mostly because of the performances,it's a galaxy of geniuses there performing and conducting) .
I have listened to them through any possible combination,in many houses.

I love them so much I once tried to replicate the way they produced them in the studio,I mean the gear,tube amps and monkey coffins.
Nah.
Adding the sins of the era with the sins of the extra gear don't cut it,I like them way better through a fairly neutral rig as long as it's adequate for me (big speakers in big rooms,my mind cannot contain them in a small room) .

No surprise there, if you try to play them adding what they already have, you get twice as much and it doesn't work: an example would be EMI playing back old recordings in the original halls and recording the playback mulitchannel, to try and make "surround versions".

On the other hand if you played modern recordings with the tube system, did they ever sound more like the old RCA Victor ones?

 

[Sokel]

On the other hand if you played modern recordings with the tube system, did they ever sound more like the old RCA Victor ones?

No,if it's one or two I can't even remember them.
The ones made there must have been made by heroes,it's a wonder that they made this things with the means of the era.
For the folks that don't know,a listen to the "Sinfonia Domestica " by R. Strauss conducted by Reiner with CSO and they will understand what I'm talking about.

Edit:Sample
Edit 2: For the folks that don't listen to classical,go the 00.07.00 to 00.08.30 min where a nice crescendo is built,I suppose someone has to know what he's doing to make that listenable with the constrains they had back then.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

I crave pleasant distortion that masks unpleasant distortion. (See the link to the Bob Katz article in Stereophile: https://www.stereophile.com/content/katzs-corner-episode-25-adventures-distortion )

Having everything sound "subjectively" clean by masking unwanted distortion components by whatever means necessary entertains me and gets the inevitable nasty stuff in the source signal out of the way of the music (or voice.) I patch in a tube buffer for that. Sue me. I am free to wrap crappy sources in a layer of "pleasant THD" if I feel like it.

 

[solderdude]

When adding tubes (or J-FETS or Nuvistors) to a clean signal will not mask anything as there is nothing to mask. It will just add 2nd (and 3rd) harmonics to every frequency.
It would have to be substantial to become audible.

As for masking this is highly unlikely. I mean if you have audible amounts of higher order harmonics then adding (less audible) 2nd harmonics won't mask the higher order ones. There will only be a higher amount of distortion. For that to change the sound (warm it up) you would need substantial amounts of it.
It certainly will not be in the 0.05% region.
Also this would have to be tested for 'blind'. It appears that this was not the case in the article. The settings were known.

 

[001]

A very enjoyable read, this thread. I wonder why given the choice, I would much rather listen to a big choir singing in a cathedral than in my loungeroom [if they were all to fit]. Same song, same notes, same performance but the cathedral adds my preferred 'distortion'. Again, were I to listen to throat singers from Tuva, it would be the 'distortion' of the human voice that makes it distinctive and unique. However my thoughts are given more to issues of performance rather than reproduction. I think I do prefer distortion as intended by the performer but none added by listening equipment.
ps. I wonder what Tuvan throat singers would make of 'yoiking'; is our 'craving' of distortion influenced by our culture? And maybe even further by our preferred (musical) sub cultures.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

When adding tubes (or J-FETS or Nuvistors) to a clean signal will not mask anything as there is nothing to mask. It will just add 2nd (and 3rd) harmonics to every frequency.
It would have to be substantial to become audible.

As for masking this is highly unlikely. I mean if you have audible amounts of higher order harmonics then adding (less audible) 2nd harmonics won't mask the higher order ones. There will only be a higher amount of distortion. For that to change the sound (warm it up) you would need substantial amounts of it.
It certainly will not be in the 0.05% region.
Also this would have to be tested for 'blind'. It appears that this was not the case in the article. The settings were known.

Well, I suppose the amount of 2nd/3rd harmonics added by my direct-heated tube buffer IS sufficient to mask higher order products, because it sounds subjectively significantly cleaner to me. I'd love to be subject to a double-blind test. I think I'd pass this one, unlike the various sampling frequency/bit rate digital codec tests that I routinely fail spectacularly. It's a distinctive sonic signature that I hear in video and music production all the time where it was probably applied.

 

[solderdude]

What amp these days has audible amounts of higher order distortion that it needs 'masking' by 2nd and 3rd harmonics. And why would it 'mask' higher order harmonics ?
Lower order harmonics are masked more by the actual music than higher harmonics will be. That's what makes higher order ones more audible so you cannot 'mask' higher order using high amounts of lower order harmonics anyway.

Thinking one will pass blind tests is something very different as actually passing such tests.

 

[Killingbeans]

because it sounds subjectively significantly cleaner to me. I'd love to be subject to a double-blind test.

Level matched?

Even if it actually has a pleasing sound because of distortion, I'd suspect it's a result of more energy being added to the higher frequencies, and not anything to do with masking. Effectively the same as a simple treble boost. That would also coincide with the notion of "cleanliness".

Don't know if it's already been done, but an interesting experiment could be to take products that are proven to have "pleasing distortion" and do spectrograms on said distortions. Then do careful EQ'ing on a "clean" product to see if we can replicate the experience via something as simple as amplitude altercations.

My hypothesis is that "pleasing distortion", in cases where it's real, presents itself at a volume that's not loud enough to make it detectable as actual distortion, but just loud enough to reach the level of not being perceived as louder, but just "better". EQ'ing on the brink of audibility. Could very well be bunk though.

 

[Sal1950]

Don't know if it's already been done, but an interesting experiment could be to take products that are proven to have "pleasing distortion" and do spectrograms on said distortions. Then do careful EQ'ing on a "clean" product to see if we can replicate the experience via something as simple as amplitude altercations.

Isn't that along the lines of what Bob Carver did in the 1985 Stereophile "Carver Challenge".
There's a lot of holes in the way this challenge was conducted on both the listening and technical sides.
A very interesting read none the less.
Ole Bob is always good at shaking up the "status quo" LOL

The Carver Challenge

Is it possible to make a $700 "mainstream-audio" power amplifier sound exactly like a high-priced perfectionist amplifier? Bob Carver, of Carver Corporation, seemed to think he could, so we challenged him to prove it.

www.stereophile.com

Has it really been almost 40 years ago?

 

[pseudoid]

I had a feeling this would be a very interesting thread and thus far that has been the case for me.

I don't like the cordiality of this informative thread!
'Sup with all of the good vibes in this non-confrontational technical audio discussion?
We need to collectively stop the kindness, geekiness and start being rude and insulting to each other.

Gotcha!
Let's go back to the topic at hand, now that I gave you a needed breather!

 

[Killingbeans]

Isn't that along the lines of what Bob Carver did in the 1985 Stereophile "Carver Challenge".

Not quite the same. As far as I can tell, Bob replicated the actual distortion.

I'd be more interested in finding out whether the exact distortion is even necessary for the experience, or if it can be emulated via loudness alone.

 

[DavidMcRoy]

Don't know if it's already been done, but an interesting experiment could be to take products that are proven to have "pleasing distortion" and do spectrograms on said distortions. Then do careful EQ'ing on a "clean" product to see if we can replicate the experience via something as simple as amplitude altercations.

That's not it in this case. Boosting the highs on an otherwise unaltered signal just makes it easier to hear any distortion that may already be present.

 

[Killingbeans]

That's not it in this case.

How do you know?

Boosting the highs on an otherwise unaltered signal just makes it easier to hear any distortion that may already be present.

Are you absolutely sure that you are hearing any disortion at all?

Part of my hypothesis is that people (inluding myself) are appallingly bad at detecting distortion in music playback. It takes specific training to gain the ability to detect low level distortion in music, and once you have that ability the notion of it being pleasing disappears completely. It would make way more sense if it turned out that we aren't really finding distortion itself pleasing, but are instead enjoying some simple side effect of it.

 

[HappyPantherFan]

Having spent a large part of yesterday listening to different recordings from the 1960s of Mozart orchestral recordings yesterday, I'm not sure I can agree with this statement. Supraphon, Decca and Mercury recordings do show differences, at least.

Also, choosing different tracks leaves open the possibility that your test would be dominated by a subject's preference in music, rather than sound.

Eh, I think I may have been unclear. There’s a sort of sonic characteristic that’s unmistakably archaic in those recordings. Is it owing to mixing decisions or limitations in devices, I do not know. I do know that whenever a sense of familiarity crops up I’d bring up the player to find it’s a recording from distant past. Italian dishes have much diversity in their tastes, but Italians wouldn’t have dreamed of tacos and sushi, so there is a certain Italian-ness to those dishes after all.

It has always escaped me how the old recordings were preferred yet no new recordings replicated the sound of the past. Think of the arsenal the engineers had in shaping sound, you’d expect they can replicate whatever sound we customers prefer.

Maybe they knew old recordings sound good, but also knew that there are other unimaginable ways a recording may sound good? Same for distortions and other sound treatments.