I just posted in another thread on my own first and only double blind test experience: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aphic-dac-available.17062/page-17#post-556223
how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?Guys, it's all human bias. Tubes only distort, and humans hopelessly romanticize their hobbies.
Double-blind tests surely confirm these hypotheses.
how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?
Too many. Bad Tube designs? Plenty different. Good tube designs? Not so much. The better the implementation of each design type, the closer their sound qualities. But only tubes have that warm [usually orange] glow.how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?
Too bad I still can't to a blind test to disentangle possible bias effects. But frankly the effect, whether objective or purely subjective, is so strong and distinct and so significant in my listening experience, I don't mind that much if I'd paid for the effect, because I sure can't seem to shake it![]()
After all the push-back you've given me over your love of vinyl and your worried about this? LOL It's not only possible but probable the CJ sounds quite different. All types of changes in the input signal occur during it's amplification in a tube amp, they are normally far from transparent. Distortion levels are higher but also frequency response changes occur do to interactions between the amps output transformer and your speakers input impedance.Too bad I still can't to a blind test to disentangle possible bias effects. But frankly the effect, whether objective or purely subjective, is so strong and distinct and so significant in my listening experience, I don't mind that much if I'd paid for the effect, because I sure can't seem to shake it
After all the push-back you've given me over your love of vinyl and your worried about this? LOL It's not only possible but probable the CJ sounds quite different. All types of changes in the input signal occur during it's amplification in a tube amp, they are normally far from transparent. Distortion levels are higher but also frequency response changes occur do to interactions between the amps output transformer and your speakers input impedance.
The bottom line is if you enjoy its sound, roll with it. No one is here to tell folks they HAVE to listen to a accurate, flat, transparent system. Amir's goal is to show folks which gear does the best job of introducing the least amount of change to the input signal. What you listen to is up to you. I ran VTL tube monoblocks for 20 years, loved the way they sounded with my La Scala's. I run most stereo recordings upsampled to 5.2.4 for my enjoyment.
Listen to what pleases you.![]()
I'm aware of all that.
My running hypothesis has been that the CJs do sound different than the typical SS amp, and it continues to be my presumption. But appropos of the very subject of this thread, I'm always aware of the possibility of sighted bias, and several members have given reasons to maintain those doubts (including levimax's blind test results with his Dynaco ST-70).
So I tried to balance my post in tune with the OP: both the question of "why tubes" (here's why I stick with my tube amps) and the question of the audibility of tube amp behavior.
If I did a blind shoot out of the CJ with the Bryston and couldn't tell the difference, on one hand I'd be shocked because the difference I hear seems so distinct (not "huge" but distinct). On the other hand I wouldn't be shocked because I'm acutely aware of the power of expectation effects etc.
So I think this thread stands a nice "open argument" questioning the assumptions regarding the audible qualities of tube amps.
On the other hand, for the rest of the discussions, I think it's reasonable to continue along discussing preferences for things like vinyl, tube amps and whatever speakers we choose, on the assumption of audible differences, which are plausible in such cases. If every time we wanted to mention a speaker we liked someone said "but that's out of bounds unless you have been to the Harman Kardon facilities to truly properly blind test speakers" then discussion would get impractical. I think, for general purposes, perhaps tube amps can go in to that category, with the caveat that while the audible differences can be plausible, we all know that it's always possible some bias is playing a part.
At least that's my take in trying to wend through these issues.
Hi Matt. I'm not sure you noticed this but when I was doing the blind testing of SS vs Tubes I also checked the FR and the FR with a 1 ohm resistor added to the SS amp. As you can see from the attached the Tube amp had a slight increase in LF and slight roll off in HF compared to the SS amp. When I added the 1 ohm into the speaker cables of the SS amp it has almost identical FR to the tube amp. The scale is large on this attachment and I could hear no difference but I imagine with some speakers with some amps it may be audible.... maybe.
I have written about this before, but years ago I had the fortune to attend a private demonstration by Quad's Peter Walker with a blind listening test of his three famous designs: the Quad II valve amplifier, and his later 303 and 405 solid state amplifiers. At the time the press was arguing that his designs had become progressively less musical, which he thought was absolute bollocks, so he commissioned James Moir to organize a proper independent scientific double blind test. Needless to say, nobody could reliably distinguish between the amplifiers when used within their specifications. Peter Walker later also put together a demonstration rig, and I had the privilege of a private demo with it. I thought I could discern slight differences, but Peter Walker had a develish pleasure in showing me that I had not been better than random. Lesson learned. So even some (well designed) valve amplifiers can sound indistinguishable. The only reason, Peter said, to abandon the valve design was that it did not have much power and was expensive to produce. As for measurements, the 303 was much better and more powerful than the Quad II valve model, and the 405 current dumper was a lot better and more powerful again than the 303. Right now I am listening to a refurbished 405-2.
I get what your trying to say Matt but let's cut to the chase. A large number of us here who believe in the science of audio design have spent many years on other "audiophile" sites where the magic dust believers have run us off with stakes and pitchforks whenever we tried to explain the facts to them about the snake-oil, pure BS things they gush over every day like digital cables, power cords, magic dots and all the rest. We've been banned, herded into special corners where we're only allowed to discuss the rational side of things, and gang raped by the members for daring to question their religion. The Spanish Inquisition version of audio. That won't happen here.On the other hand, for the rest of the discussions, I think it's reasonable to continue along discussing preferences for things like vinyl, tube amps and whatever speakers we choose, on the assumption of audible differences, which are plausible in such cases. If every time we wanted to mention a speaker we liked someone said "but that's out of bounds unless you have been to the Harman Kardon facilities to truly properly blind test speakers" then discussion would get impractical. I think, for general purposes, perhaps tube amps can go in to that category, with the caveat that while the audible differences can be plausible, we all know that it's always possible some bias is playing a part.
At ASR, this also happens, only in reverse.We've been banned, herded into special corners where we're only allowed to discuss the rational side of things, and gang raped by the members for daring to question their religion. The Spanish Inquisition version of audio. That won't happen here.
![]()
At ASR, this also happens, only in reverse.
Yeah, but and still, things can get downright hostile 'round these parts.The difference is that there are a gazillion other places for discussing subjective preferences and beliefs.