• 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!

If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?

orangejello

Active Member
Joined
Apr 18, 2019
Messages
232
Likes
354
By the way, I'm in the midst of building a collection of 10 different pairs of 6DJ8 to be used in phono stage tube rolling shoot-out. My thought was to make rips and post on ASR, let people vote via polling.

Since 10 is too many to compare at once, I'd probably have to run it as a bracketed competition, a la World Cup.
I collected a bunch of those years ago and still have a pretty sizable stash. Mainly focused on Amperex, Mullard and JAN 6922 from the 50s and 60s. As I recall there are some that are very fetishized. Seems there were some Amperex “pinch waisted” variants that peopled payed a lot for. I don’t remember if they sounded in any way special. But I do recall winding up using the Amperex 6DJ8 tubes from that period in preference to anything else.

I have a crap-load of small signal tubes and it was fun to tube-roll, especially in phono preamps. My current phono pre uses 1x12ax7, 3x12au7, 5687, OA2 and EZ80. Oddly enough though, one of my favorite 12au7 tubes turned out to be the garden variety Chinese tubes. They are very low noise and clear, and so do very well in a low voltage gain stage. The buffered output of my phono preamp is implemented with 2x12au7. Here I use the RCA clear tops which are quite tasty. RCA seems to have made a lot of those. You often find them in electronic organs.

Anyway, have fun!
 

Wombat

Master Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
6,722
Likes
6,459
Location
Australia
Here is a tube rolling effort using a 2-stage tube pre-amp with EQ in-between the tubes.

https://www.amplifiedparts.com/tech-articles/12ax7-comparison-current-made-tubes

The main difference is in the overall gains with small differences in frequency response variations across the spectrum. The gains could be more closely matched with bias adjustment.

As for the subjective opinions on 'tone', electric guitarists can be just as fickle as audiophiles. Note that the levels are not stated to be matched for these opinions. The listening test was sighted.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Of course not. But, we can choose to have a playback system that faithfully reproduces the recording, presumably matching the final mix the mastering engineer decided upon, or we can throw it all out and say nothing matters except to shape the sound the way we prefer it irregardless of the recording (or the original performance). Both are a preference.
There will be many recordings played back on any given audio system. The only kinds of recordings that have any chance of "faithful reproduction" are those recorded in real time [everybody playing at once] in a venue with its own acoustic, like Carnegie Hall. But most recordings are a mosaic of different sources with different sonic treatments assembled into a mix where the only real determiner of balances are the ears of a given engineer/producer and the playback gear they used. Every recording will be different, there are no "standards" for this sort of thing. "The Absolute Sound" can only be heard without a recording. If you spend any time with microphones you will note that they are all colored, all leave their footprint on the sound. Like speakers, like phono cartridges, microphones are transducers, unavoidably leaving their own "sound" on the recording. And plenty of music is generated from electronic sources directly fed into the mix. Seriously, all that really counts is what the auditor wants to hear. There is no way one can know if the sound faithfully reproduces the producer/engineer/artist's intent unless one is sitting beside those people when the final mix is being played back.

The performance of record/playback gear, the sorts of measurements Amir makes, can be scientifically calibrated. But the artistic decisions of producers/engineers/artists cannot. And recording is primarily an art.
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
There will be many recordings played back on any given audio system. The only kinds of recordings that have any chance of "faithful reproduction" are those recorded in real time [everybody playing at once] in a venue with its own acoustic, like Carnegie Hall. But most recordings are a mosaic of different sources with different sonic treatments assembled into a mix where the only real determiner of balances are the ears of a given engineer/producer and the playback gear they used. Every recording will be different, there are no "standards" for this sort of thing. "The Absolute Sound" can only be heard without a recording. If you spend any time with microphones you will note that they are all colored, all leave their footprint on the sound. Like speakers, like phono cartridges, microphones are transducers, unavoidably leaving their own "sound" on the recording. And plenty of music is generated from electronic sources directly fed into the mix. Seriously, all that really counts is what the auditor wants to hear. There is no way one can know if the sound faithfully reproduces the producer/engineer/artist's intent unless one is sitting beside those people when the final mix is being played back.

The performance of record/playback gear, the sorts of measurements Amir makes, can be scientifically calibrated. But the artistic decisions of producers/engineers/artists cannot. And recording is primarily an art.

All true, but then again if that is your position then just choose components based upon what you like to hear, no reason to introduce science into the equation, or waste time on ASR. I'm struggling to see where you are going with this. I think I missed the point you wanted to make, did not read back in the thread. Could you restate it for latecomers to the thread?

Note I said "faithfully reproduces the recording", not the original performance. If every recording is different, does that mean we should use a different system or adjust EQ for each, or play back on a neutral system that hopefully reproduces the artist's intent? The artist does influence the recording venue and such; not all artists want to (or can afford to) record in a concert hall and multichannel recordings may provide the best way to achieve the artist's goal, add whatever effects are desired, and so forth. Then the sound engineers take it from there, with input from the artist, to determine the final master. All of that is outside my control. I prefer to set up a system that is as neutral as possible, getting a as close as I can to what the sound engineers created (assuming they used neutral playback equipment, usually but not always IME), then I have a basis for tweaking if I do not like the mix as played backed that reaches my ears.

Back when I had tubes and a TT for a while I started tweaking VTA for every recording. It changed the sound, yes, but was really madness compared to being able to just sit back and listen to the record. we have an amazing ability to listen to the music through the gear if we just focus on it and not the gear.

FWIW I have some experience with mics, live sound, recording studio work and mastering from both sides of the mic, and playing on stage as well as listening in the audience. And have "always" had a decent home stereo system. Listening live, in the studio, and at home have always been different to me, so I strive to find the best sound I can no matter the situation (or technology).

IMO - Don
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
All true, but then again if that is your position then just choose components based upon what you like to hear, no reason to introduce science into the equation, or waste time on ASR. I'm struggling to see where you are going with this. I think I missed the point you wanted to make, did not read back in the thread. Could you restate it for latecomers to the thread?

Note I said "faithfully reproduces the recording", not the original performance. If every recording is different, does that mean we should use a different system or adjust EQ for each, or play back on a neutral system that hopefully reproduces the artist's intent? The artist does influence the recording venue and such; not all artists want to (or can afford to) record in a concert hall and multichannel recordings may provide the best way to achieve the artist's goal, add whatever effects are desired, and so forth. Then the sound engineers take it from there, with input from the artist, to determine the final master. All of that is outside my control. I prefer to set up a system that is as neutral as possible, getting a as close as I can to what the sound engineers created (assuming they used neutral playback equipment, usually but not always IME), then I have a basis for tweaking if I do not like the mix as played backed that reaches my ears.

Back when I had tubes and a TT for a while I started tweaking VTA for every recording. It changed the sound, yes, but was really madness compared to being able to just sit back and listen to the record. we have an amazing ability to listen to the music through the gear if we just focus on it and not the gear.

FWIW I have some experience with mics, live sound, recording studio work and mastering from both sides of the mic, and playing on stage as well as listening in the audience. And have "always" had a decent home stereo system. Listening live, in the studio, and at home have always been different to me, so I strive to find the best sound I can no matter the situation (or technology).

IMO - Don
It started with this:

"It is perfectly fine to do to accommodate your personal preference, but as to individual differences in human ears, there is no such compensation when you hear a live concert, a human voice or a dog barking - wouldn't you want the reproduction of the recorded version to sound the same as the original one?"

As theoretically "perfect" recordings do not exist, the recorded version of the event will not sound the same as actually being at the event.

Ever.

Yes, I don't want to add additional distortion in the mix. However, there are genres of recorded music that are intentionally pre-distorted, like Hip-Hop. Lots of musical thrills there, but little relation to "reality". I am interested in finding gear that doesn't additional distortion, but some music does sound better with certain distortions added. The kind of bass found in techno is surreal, but that's the point.

Some forms of distortion, like disc eccentricity or de-essing or bass summing or groove cramming on LPs cry out to be noted as they do not enhance the listening experience in any way. And to be honest, I really don't like the kind of distortions found in vintage tube gear, lots of self-noise, lots of musical information being removed.

I've usually had a decent home stereo, have one right now, limited by the space it's in. I listen to a lot of music on headphones, a mode of listening quite distant from the original event. At the same time, I want those headphones to represent all frequencies in an even-handed way. However, I never expect that I'm going to be hearing what the artists involved in the original process of making the recording heard, it's simply not a reasonable expectation.
 
Last edited:

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
It started with this:

"It is perfectly fine to do to accommodate your personal preference, but as to individual differences in human ears, there is no such compensation when you hear a live concert, a human voice or a dog barking - wouldn't you want the reproduction of the recorded version to sound the same as the original one?"

As theoretically "perfect" recordings do not exist, the recorded version of the event will not sound the same as actually being at the event.

Ever.

Yes, I don't want additional distortion in the mix. However, there are genres of recorded music that are intentionally pre-distorted, like Hip-Hop. Lots of musical thrills there, but little relation to "reality". I am interested in finding gear that doesn't additional distortion, but some music does sound better with certain distortions added. The kind of bass found in techno is surreal, but that's the point.

Some forms of distortion, like disc eccentricity or de-essing or bass summing or groove cramming on LPs cry out to be noted as they do not enhance the listening experience in any way. And to be honest, I really don't like the kind of distortions found in vintage tube gear, lots of self-noise, lots of musical information being removed.

I've usually had a decent home stereo, have one right now, limited by the space it's in. I listen to a lot of music on headphones, a mode of listening quite distant from the original event. At the same time, I want those headphones to represent all frequencies in an even-handed way. However, I never expect that I'm going to be hearing what the artists involved in the original process of making the recording heard, it's simply not a reasonable expectation.

Thank you. I seem to have jumped in the middle of something and did not see the relation to tubes. It reads like we are saying the same thing; I'll jump back out and let y'all have it.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Tubes are microphonic. There is an actual, physical, objective reason why they might sound different from solid state: because they respond to acoustic feedback in the room, notably resonances. This would be a little like a real, live performance where acoustic feedback into mics, drum skins, open strings etc. really does change the sound, making it respond to the room.
Note the highly regarded Neumann u 47. "Reverb" is selling one of these vintage tube microphones for $13,000. Microphonic tubes? You bet. Extraordinarily colored in sound, very much in demand as the "supreme" vocal microphone. More evidence that recording is more art than science.
 

Julf

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,004
Likes
3,998
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Note the highly regarded Neumann u 47. "Reverb" is selling one of these vintage tube microphones for $13,000. Microphonic tubes? You bet. Extraordinarily colored in sound, very much in demand as the "supreme" vocal microphone. More evidence that recording is more art than science.

Creating a recording is definitely art. Reproducing it accurately (as in what comes out is the same as what went in) is pure science.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Creating a recording is definitely art. Reproducing it accurately (as in what comes out is the same as what went in) is pure science.
It's a "guesstimate".

Consider the production work of convicted murderer Phil Spector. But, first, let's flash-forward to the mid-90's.

I'm recording something like 20 concerts a year, some cd work 2 times a year, lots of digital editing of sound files. My monitor is primarily the Stax Signatures coupled to the SRM 007t tube energizer/OTL amp. I replaced parts in the amp with higher spec parts, trying to get down to the dirt in recording, knowing what noises might need to be eq-ed, how much reverb to apply, where to crossfade a couple of harpsichord notes. Whatever flaws those earspeakers had, when came to getting right down to the bottom of the mix nothing I've used since was/is as capable. Making it a great tool for recording. But I also had some decent speakers and some indecent speakers to check out how the recording sounded on gear we expected people to use, car stereos and boom boxes, 2-way bookshelf NHTs and 3-way Vandersteens.

The early Phil Spector productions were some of the worst sounding recordings via the earspeakers. But exposing all the distortion, tape wobble, self noise, that wasn't part of the engineer's/producer's plans. The idea was to make a recording that would sound like the voice of God over the dashboard speaker in your Impala while rolling down the highway. It was designed to sound great on jukeboxes and cheap radios. The "Audiophile" market of 1963 wouldn't touch that stuff anyway.

Producers who want a hit want it to sound good on the kind of gear the intended audience uses. That's not pure science. Sometimes it's just dumb luck.

The current state of the Beatles official recordings underscores this point. Did Abbey Road need a remix? Steve Hoffman sez no, but Mikey likes it. The original issues in their original state worked just fine, with or without "Dexterization". The first set of CDs were mainly flat transfers, plenty of people bought those. I guess between a cash-in and the fact that a lot of people were listening to gear that reproduces at least an octave more bass than the original audience, the second run of CDs got a bass boost and a compression tweak. The remix is revisionism, those that remember the original are going to be disturbed. But a new audience of obsessive collectors have another trophy on their shelf.

I hope you don't think I'm anti-science. I'm always open to the possibility I'm wrong. It's just that sometimes the "Perfect" really is the enemy of the "Good". Sometimes "good enough" is better than "perfect".
 

Julf

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,004
Likes
3,998
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Producers who want a hit want it to sound good on the kind of gear the intended audience uses. That's not pure science. Sometimes it's just dumb luck.

You are again talking about producing the record, not reproducing it.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
You are again talking about producing the record, not reproducing it.
Fine.

Tell me all about the pure science of reproducing "Love Me Do".
 

DonH56

Master Contributor
Technical Expert
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
7,835
Likes
16,497
Location
Monument, CO
IMO:
  • Making the music is art.
  • Recording the music and producing something for others to hear is a mix of art and science.
  • Reproducing the sound (consumer playback) is science with preference thrown in. Sometimes a lot of preference...
I have played into all sorts of mics, and used them to record musicians and such (not professionally, or not enough that it matters), but the only mics I use for reproduction are to measure things. I don't think anyone is arguing that reproduction can completely match the original event (sometimes not even close) or that production and reproduction are the same thing.
 

raif71

Major Contributor
Joined
Sep 7, 2019
Messages
2,333
Likes
2,535
I've listened to tube amps at a hifi shop and I liked the sound but I have no budget for it. All I can say is that it was totally awesome tubular man :facepalm:
 

PaulD

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2018
Messages
453
Likes
1,340
Location
Other
Note the highly regarded Neumann u 47. "Reverb" is selling one of these vintage tube microphones for $13,000. Microphonic tubes? You bet. Extraordinarily colored in sound, very much in demand as the "supreme" vocal microphone. More evidence that recording is more art than science.
That example is just audio fashion, the subjectivist nonsense has also infected pro audio to some degree. I have played with numerous U47s, old ones and newer (and hundreds of other mics) - they are highly variable... This is just the subjectivist charlatans making money from something rare and unobtainable, there is nothing particularly special about the original tube version of the U47 that does not exist in the later FET U47.
 

ahofer

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
4,947
Likes
8,694
Location
New York City

Julf

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Mar 1, 2016
Messages
3,004
Likes
3,998
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tell me all about the pure science of reproducing "Love Me Do".

Funny enough, it is exactly the same science as the one for reproducing indonesian gamelan music and a recording of a steam locomotive.
 

Blumlein 88

Grand Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
20,522
Likes
37,050
It's a "guesstimate".

Consider the production work of convicted murderer Phil Spector. But, first, let's flash-forward to the mid-90's.

I'm recording something like 20 concerts a year, some cd work 2 times a year, lots of digital editing of sound files. My monitor is primarily the Stax Signatures coupled to the SRM 007t tube energizer/OTL amp. I replaced parts in the amp with higher spec parts, trying to get down to the dirt in recording, knowing what noises might need to be eq-ed, how much reverb to apply, where to crossfade a couple of harpsichord notes. Whatever flaws those earspeakers had, when came to getting right down to the bottom of the mix nothing I've used since was/is as capable. Making it a great tool for recording. But I also had some decent speakers and some indecent speakers to check out how the recording sounded on gear we expected people to use, car stereos and boom boxes, 2-way bookshelf NHTs and 3-way Vandersteens.

The early Phil Spector productions were some of the worst sounding recordings via the earspeakers. But exposing all the distortion, tape wobble, self noise, that wasn't part of the engineer's/producer's plans. The idea was to make a recording that would sound like the voice of God over the dashboard speaker in your Impala while rolling down the highway. It was designed to sound great on jukeboxes and cheap radios. The "Audiophile" market of 1963 wouldn't touch that stuff anyway.

Producers who want a hit want it to sound good on the kind of gear the intended audience uses. That's not pure science. Sometimes it's just dumb luck.

The current state of the Beatles official recordings underscores this point. Did Abbey Road need a remix? Steve Hoffman sez no, but Mikey likes it. The original issues in their original state worked just fine, with or without "Dexterization". The first set of CDs were mainly flat transfers, plenty of people bought those. I guess between a cash-in and the fact that a lot of people were listening to gear that reproduces at least an octave more bass than the original audience, the second run of CDs got a bass boost and a compression tweak. The remix is revisionism, those that remember the original are going to be disturbed. But a new audience of obsessive collectors have another trophy on their shelf.

I hope you don't think I'm anti-science. I'm always open to the possibility I'm wrong. It's just that sometimes the "Perfect" really is the enemy of the "Good". Sometimes "good enough" is better than "perfect".

I don't know. I hate Phil Spector. Awful regardless of how you listen to it. The songs are sometimes great music, in spite of Phil not because of him. I happen to have access to a 64 Impala all original, and even there Phil Spector doesn't cut it. I own a 1969 automobile with all the old radio and speakers (which I've had since 1976) and Phil Spector doesn't cut it. Yuck on Phil and his wall of putrid sound. Damn, mechanical reverb in the 1964 Impala did more for non Spector music than Phil did.

Sometimes good enough is better than perfect. And sometimes dog shit is always dog shit. Spector is the latter. Can't mince words on this. He murdered lots of music long before he murdered someone.
 

Robin L

Master Contributor
Joined
Sep 2, 2019
Messages
5,208
Likes
7,587
Location
1 mile east of Sleater Kinney Rd
Gee, that was exciting. Almost as exciting as the letters columns here:

https://www.analogplanet.com/conten...r-revival-live-woodstock-50-years-later-2-lps

[my stuff starts at 8]

And here:

https://www.stereophile.com/content/techdas-air-force-v-turntable

[12]

Just so you know, I've had a lot of experience with vintage tube gear. I've owned a Marantz 8b, Fisher 500c, the Dynaco Pas-3/Dyna 70 pair and a Scott 229b. My experience with tube gear is mostly bad. My first "real" microphones were a pair of Schoeps 221b, I was using an Ampex MX-10 as a microphone preamp. They both were fragile and unreliable, would break down "in the field", had audible limits at the upper side of dynamics, too much self-noise and high susceptibility to various A/C issues, like dimmer switches.

What I described earlier is SOP for recording. Sorry you don't like it, but seriously folks, you're getting crazy over nothing.
 
Top Bottom