mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,403
- Likes
- 24,730
DSC_0121 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...[massive pic]
Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...
Epic. Great in wintertime!!!DSC_0121 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr
That's a big 10-4.Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...
But for me, my tube amps seem to be a pretty vital part of my system in getting me to put my butt down to listen. If I don't hear that certain characteristic I'm like "Well, this sounds neat, but I've got other things to do so I'll crank this for background music."
So purely subjective, sighted, and serial listening? Nice to hear, but doesn't actually tell us anything, and has nothing to do with the "science" part of the forum name...
In the same spirit, insofar as it seems a majority here recognize that tube amps CAN sound different from solid state amps and color the sound, it seems my hearing sonic differences are entirely plausible.
I still don't know why people grossly misuse the word "subjective" to mean "peeking." Or put more nicely, "uncontrolled."
Yes, using the correct terminology doesn't make the ensuing logorrhea any more useful, but at least one small moment of accuracy would be nice.
Interesting. Right now I'm listening to music through the Topping 30 pair, and it has a different sound compared to what I'm used to. It sounds hyper-clean but not etched. It's got less of that squeezed and tightened solid state sound you're taking about. I'm gonna guess that the C-J tube amp is transformer coupled? I remember that kind of sound from the vintage tube gear I used to own. Found it great for vocals, but tended to reduce detail elsewhere. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. My sense is the sound of the Topping L30 is more like the Stax SRM T1 amp for the Signature earspeakers. The triode out amp was direct coupled, so no 'transformer sound'. Grainless but detailed. I can understand being fond of tube sound, with or without transformers. But as I am seeking more detail, not less, I don't feel the urge to go back to tubes.Absolutely. I mentioned the caveats, and have been explicit about them earlier in the thread. You are right this doesn't at all fulfill the "science" part of the forum. However, as has come up before, if we were limited to only producing scientifically-vetted information, that would be a fairly untenable bar to pass for many posts, and this place may as well merge with Hydrogen Audio and it's draconian views on not allowing subjective descriptions/reports.
Thus, at least some of us, if not most, have allowed that adding subjective experience, e.g. with speakers, is to some extent justifiable, insofar as it's a report of something quite "objectively" plausible. That is: speakers sound different, so someone reporting hearing differences between two different speaker designs is making a plausible claim that, in a practical sense, can be acceptable.
In the same spirit, insofar as it seems a majority here recognize that tube amps CAN sound different from solid state amps and color the sound, it seems my hearing sonic differences are entirely plausible.
Just as in any of us commenting on the sound of a speaker isn't producing a scientific treatise anyone has to take as gospel truth because all the variables weren't controlled, so my description above isn't doing so either. But if you grant tube amps can sound different, and then ask "why do some people prefer tube amps?" then this was my account for why I prefer my tube amps. Not trying to make a scientifically tight case whatsoever, and clearly you are a member who may as well have averted your eyes. Which is perfectly understandable. ;-)
But I am betting that some possible minority here could have a bit of interest in what I wrote, and take it with the obvious caveats. I may be proven wrong.
As I say: it's hard to find a half-way-house that welcomes both objective facts and measurements but also isn't totally allergic to putting our sonic experiences in subjective terms and descriptions. This forum is as close as I've found, so far.
Where was I inaccurately using the term "subjective?" (I was not using it as a synonym for "peeking").
"For anyone allergic to purely subjective reports, you may as well avert your eyes. I've already pointed out all the obvious caveats earlier in this and other threads on this subject."
Interesting. Right now I'm listening to music through the Topping 30 pair, and it has a different sound compared to what I'm used to. It sounds hyper-clean but not etched. It's got less of that squeezed and tightened solid state sound you're taking about. I'm gonna guess that the C-J tube amp is transformer coupled? I remember that kind of sound from the vintage tube gear I used to own. Found it great for vocals, but tended to reduce detail elsewhere. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. My sense is the sound of the Topping L30 is more like the Stax SRM T1 amp for the Signature earspeakers. The triode out amp was direct coupled, so no 'transformer sound'. Grainless but detailed. I can understand being fond of tube sound, with or without transformers. But as I am seeking more detail, not less, I don't feel the urge to go back to tubes.
So, where you going to actually point out where I used the term "subjective" as a synonym for "peeking?"
From what you have said about working constantly with digital audio, my sense is that you want to back off from too much information, much as Jack Vad knowingly uses gear with less detail and a generally smoother sound when doing production work. Have to say, when I was using the Stax Earspeakers for audio production I frequently suffered from migraines, no doubt related to that overload of audio info. The presentation of the Drop 6XX 'phones and the Topping gear is not as incisive in its detail as the Stax gear. At the same time, I am hearing low level detail---subtle reverb cues, or distant instruments---I haven't heard before. While differences in frequency response can make some details pop that didn't before, this is happening at lower dynamic levels and seems to be emerging in between the notes, so to speak, in what otherwise would be musical rests.Yes the CJs have big ol' transformers.
I understand wanting to hear more detail. I guess it also depends on what one means particularly about "more detail." So for instance, I didn't hear any "more detail" from the Bryston amp, for instance there weren't subtle reverb cues, or distant instruments, or anything, that weren't just as audible on the CJ amps. Rather, it seemed like the same audible details "presented in a slightly different way." But you of course may have a different take. Cheers.
Everything that followed the abuse of that poor innocent adjective.
From what you have said about working constantly with digital audio, my sense is that you want to back off from too much information, much as Jack Vad knowingly uses gear with less detail and a generally smoother sound when doing production work. Have to say, when I was using the Stax Earspeakers for audio production I frequently suffered from migraines, no doubt related to that overload of audio info.
@MattHooper - genuinely discussing here, not piling on. Your (no doubt inadvertent) misuse of the word "taught" (you meant "taut") drew attention to the fact that your listening report was basically word-for-word what anyone would have learned by reading the audiophool press for years and years.
The likelihood is you personally could not distinguish between the Bryston and the CJs without visual confirmation of which was playing. Is that not true? Or is it true of most, but not you? If so, is that a safe assumption? Should it be tested once in a while? I know you mix film sound for a living - is that enough to make you special? If so, is it merely a coincidence you agree word-for-word with received audiophool opinion? If not, are we undervaluing the audiophool press? Seems like they're dead right, according to you.