“ Like most audiophiles who enjoy tube amps, I find that the sound is simply different,”
Thats a direct quote.
Thats a direct quote.
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Double Blind tests *did* show amplifiers to sound different
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
It’s a statement of fact.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
Yep. That's what I have seen in this long debate over decades as well. Some of those long hydrogen audio threads...whew! (Not to mention countless other discussions). Even the most hard nosed "objectivists" and electrical engineers on the old audio boards acknowledge tube amps possibly sounding different, not being fully neutral, which is one reason why they thought it was ridiculous anyone would use one.
The audioholics guys seem to have no problem with the proposition a tube amp can sound different, either.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,332
- Likes
- 12,294
It is a statement of fact that isn't rebutting anything that was claimed.
No one should be saying all tube amps must be/are audibly colored.
No one says you can't make an SS amp sound just like an audibly colored tube amp. In fact there's one amp designer who did that rather famously back in the day.
Such an SS amp will of course *ALSO* sound different in an ABX against a neutral SS amp.
Last edited:
Clipping is one reason a non feedback SET will sound different, we don't typically want to be running into clipping all the time however. The reason different amps sound different is the harmonic spray (which includes power and phase, distortion patterns and other things too) they produce into a particular speaker.
However, a full suite of measurements, not the typical industry standard stuff, will identify how close to being identical amps can be when you listen on the same load (speakers). It's all about semantics as always IMO. I am sure I can find a tube amp and a solid state amp that measure very close to each other and no one would be able to distinguish them apart if I had control of the entire process and load used by the amp. And of course, the opposite is true as well, I could find two amps that taking just the simple industry standard tests they measure the same but when I put on a real world load then you could hear some differences.
Harmonic spray is not an industry standard measurement, nor all kinds of other tests that stress an amp in all the ways it can mess up or be different. But there are no secrets out there as far as the ability to measure everything that an amp does to a signal on any given load (speaker or resistor).
However, a full suite of measurements, not the typical industry standard stuff, will identify how close to being identical amps can be when you listen on the same load (speakers). It's all about semantics as always IMO. I am sure I can find a tube amp and a solid state amp that measure very close to each other and no one would be able to distinguish them apart if I had control of the entire process and load used by the amp. And of course, the opposite is true as well, I could find two amps that taking just the simple industry standard tests they measure the same but when I put on a real world load then you could hear some differences.
Harmonic spray is not an industry standard measurement, nor all kinds of other tests that stress an amp in all the ways it can mess up or be different. But there are no secrets out there as far as the ability to measure everything that an amp does to a signal on any given load (speaker or resistor).
It’s usually frequency response, but blocking is definitely obnoxiously audible. As in “grossly distorted,” so not the key point in the phony “tube sound” claims.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,771
- Likes
- 37,636
I'd say most of it is going to be output impedance caused FR differences. Also with some loads the xfmr can react. Like with my ESL's most of the xfmr's have a low Q peak around 20 khz which can raise the lower treble enough to be heard as different ( or it did when I was younger with more lower treble hearing ability).
If we confine the discussion to engineered tube amps (e.g., Mullard, Williamson, Dynaco, Quad, Marantz, Leak...), I haven't seen evidence of or experienced anything beyond frequency response.
If we then speak of monstrosities like the infamous Wavac, there's no need for tubes to achieve that "sound," one can make a distortion and EQ box at line level a lot cheaper, more convenient, less wasteful and more reliable.
But for a particular mindset, less fun.
Nonetheless, that's not "tube sound," that's "effects box," which can be implemented with a lot of different devices. The tubes are just there for style points.
I think I have not used the words “tube sound” in my post 
.
However, I will use it now. If we agree on opinion that there is nothing we could call a special tube sound and that the tubes bring only and only technical imperfections into audio, why some designers, smart people otherwise, still use these unreliable hungry monsters by now?
.However, I will use it now. If we agree on opinion that there is nothing we could call a special tube sound and that the tubes bring only and only technical imperfections into audio, why some designers, smart people otherwise, still use these unreliable hungry monsters by now?
I think I have not used the words “tube sound” in my post
However, I will use it now. If we agree on opinion that there is nothing we could call a special tube sound and that the tubes bring only and only technical imperfections into audio, why some designers, smart people otherwise, still use these unreliable hungry monsters by now?
Like I said, style points.
I hope you have understood I meant you specifically. Can you explain why you, the man who tries to be as rigorous as possible in his posts, you design and use the tube circuits, and the fact is that the only achievement would be worse, much worse technical parameters, no improvement of signal transfer fidelity. This is a puzzle to me. Fashion?
Has anyone mentioned this? If those who like that tube sound had worked as recording artists or audio engineers, they might have used accurate genelecs to create recordings with that tube sound, which will then have to be played by genelecs or other accurate equipment in their home instead of tube equipment
I hope you have understood I meant you specifically. Can you explain why you, the man who tries to be as rigorous as possible in his posts, you design and use the tube circuits, and the fact is that the only achievement would be worse, much worse technical parameters, no improvement of signal transfer fidelity. This is a puzzle to me. Fashion?
Exactly that. The "fun" and "coolness" factor. I make no claims of sonic superiority, but engineer the circuits to be good enough that they don't audibly degrade the sound.
Confession: since moving to Arizona, I hardly ever turn on my tube equipment. The heat load is just too great. If I can realize my life goal of returning to Montana, the tube amps will come back out.
I won't go into tube sound and all that invokes but some of the most beautiful sounding recordings I own were done by David Manley's ViTaL Records. His Chino Ca studio used nothing by tube electronics, designed by David, from the mics to the ADC used for the production of the CD's
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue65/manley_recordings.htm
I only own a few, wish I could find more, they've become very rare.
https://positive-feedback.com/Issue65/manley_recordings.htm
I only own a few, wish I could find more, they've become very rare.
Yeah we surely have instrumentation to measure every relevant characteristic. Now WHICH are relevant, and how audible and to who (since as often seems forgotten everyone has different hearing)-THAT is a big question.
When we get past all this coronavirus stuff, it would be nice to set up some blind tests...long term as anyone likes, maybe like this
https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/denon-vs-parts-express-round-1.984507/
hidden behind a curtain.
I think folks skilled in the acoustic arts can tell you quite a bit about what is audible, given masking etc, but since everyone "hears" differently and has different "bents" on what they can hear or think they can hear and all that jazz, and since one can introduce tone controls of whatever sort to make things sound any way you want basically, the whole point of identifying what causes ones particular boat to float seems rather irrelevant to me.
The goal of pushing for ever better and better transparency throughout the entire chain seems to be the way to go to me given we are staying with plain old stereo and a system that maybe captures say 10% max of the information that actually happens at a real life event. Folks need to understand how limited this medium is and quit expecting such an old, tired, low resolution system to do anything but provide a low resolution snapshot of the real thing. IMO and all that. Have fun, learn, and enjoy the hobby just like watch collectors and other hobbyists do seems to be the way to go to me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2020
- Messages
- 4,336
- Likes
- 6,705
My mind was blown by this recently. I've been using that word completely wrong(at least by the primary definition) my whole life. Honestly, I'm not sure I've ever heard someone use it for it's "primary" definition.
Perhaps that definition is debatable?
Here is the definition from the Cambridge English Dictionary: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/moot
The relevant part seem so be:
I found it most interesting that the Oxford English Dictionary has a very extensive and historical legal definition (https://www.oed.com/search?searchType=dictionary&q=moot&_searchBtn=Search) - but this one above covers the use here.
Attachments
Similar threads
