Master Thread: Are measurements Everything or Nothing?

[lashto]

...
But in a nutshell, theoretically, @SIY is correct.

correct about what ?

He may very well be "correct" about the (many) tube amps that he built and tested. But how exactly does one expand from that to something like "most tube amps"? Or even to a much smaller (but still fuzzy) category like "well built tube amps"...
The broad tube-amps category includes OTL, SET, push-pull, ClassA/B/x, NFB/nonNFB and 1000 other variations that are measurably different. A few amps were also tested to be audibly different.
Talking generally about "most tube amps" looks like giant jump into conclusions to me.

Why not just stay with the only thing we can say for sure: some tube-amps can sound (audibly) different. And that difference might be called "tube sound" if one wishes

 

[Ken Tajalli]

correct about what ?

That Tube sound is a myth!

He may very well be correct about the (many) tube amps that he built and tested. But how exactly does one expand from that to something like "most tube amps"? Or even to a much smaller (but still fuzzy) category like "well built tube amps"...
The broad tube-amps category includes OTL, SET, push-pull, ClassA/B/x, NFB/nonNFB and 1000 other variations that are measurably different. A few were also tested to be audibly different.
Talking generally about "most tube amps" looks like giant jump into conclusions to me.

The class of amp is irrelevant. If designed and made well, there would be no Tube-sound. Of course a SET amp, being Tube or SS, may have some characteristics such as higher even order harmonic distortions, but that is not due to the tubes.
Bottom line, the same amp, using Tubes or SS would sound the same.

Why not just stay with the only thing we can say for sure: some tube-amps can sound (audibly) different. And that difference might be called "tube sound" if one wishes

Well ofcourse some Tube amps may do, as some class D amps may do something else, but the question was, is the difference due to the Tubes?!

 

[lashto]

That Tube sound is a myth!
...
Well ofcourse some Tube amps may do, as some class D amps may do something else, but the question was, is the difference due to the Tubes?!

I cannot see any proof in either direction, just lots of if-s and but-s and maybe-s. I guess many ASR fans would be more 'pleased' to think like "tube sound is a myth" and many others will just 'hate' it. To me that sounds like just another source of never-ending discussions. We have enough of those, I'd stick with those few/some tube-things that we do know for sure.

But if you think otherwise, just start a thread/poll titled "Tube Sound is a Myth" and we'll see how many pages of 'arguments' will come up.

 

[danadam]

But if you think otherwise, just start a thread/poll titled "Tube Sound is a Myth" and we'll see how many pages of 'arguments' will come up.

Not a poll, but 75 so far

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

Disclosure: my university education was in applied physics and signal processing, and I currently work in the software industry, so my knowledge of electrical engineering is not zero, but I'm no EE. So apologies in advance for any technical errors. This thread is inspired in part by comments...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[MattHooper]

I've not found tube preamps to have a sound. Those are wide band enough, and clean enough unless a broken design they don't color the result.

I can see the logic there. Frankly, the idea that tube preamps would have a "tube" sound has always seemed less plausible to me than tube amps (for reasons you've given).

Nonetheless I have had strong impressions that the various tube preamps I owned had different "tubey" sounds. So for instance with my CJ Premier 16LS2 tube preamp: it's common among reviewers and tube amp fans to hold that CJ's amplification has become more neutral sounding over the years, but in their classic hey-day CJ was known for a "golden glow" or "bronze glow" or "caramel tone" to the sound, a sort of upper midrange/lower treble bloom or glow, along with a richness to the sound.

My Premier 16 preamp comes from that purported CJ era and that is precisely what I feel I've always heard from the pre-amp: along with a slight thickening of the sound and addition of "body" often associated with "tubes" it seemed to have this upper mid "glow" or texture that "lightened up" the sound and made the sound more texturally, tonally 'present' a bit less 'stuck in the recording.' Every time I ever took the CJ preamp out of the system either to drive my amps directly from a DAC or to compared it to an SS preamp, exactly those features would seem to come and go with the CJ preamp.

When I got the Benchmark preamp I was able to match levels and spend weeks going back and forth between the signal going through the CJ preamp or going straight through the benchmark preamp, with the click of my remote button. The sonic impressions above where solid and reliable. But of course knowing about bias effects I got around to blind testing between the two (much easier for the preamp vs my tube amps):

Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp

Hey folks, I thought I'd post about a little blind test I did between my two current preamplifiers: Benchmark LA4 vs. Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 tube preamplifier. People are familiar with the Benchmark LA4 I'm sure: https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-la4-line-amplifier A...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Even when I didn't know which preamp I was listening to, it was exactly the characteristics described above - the classic "CJ tube sound" -that seemed to allow me to easily identify the CJ vs the Benchmark preamp. Not that it will convince skeptics - this was mostly for my own interest, but I found it pretty compelling.

That Tube sound is a myth!

See above

 

[pau]

Who ever claimed that? We all now there's personal preference involved.


When Amir makes a Klippel measurement of a speaker, with the results used to depict frequency response, directivity, predicted room response, distortion and resonances, you would call that a simple single measurement? Do you understand the science behind that technology and the interpretation of the results?

For electronics like DAC's and amp's we measure amplitude, frequency, phase shift, power, linear and non linear distortion and noise. If needed we can also throw in a null test. So what 'single measurement' are you talking about?



That's why we also do multi-tone tests.



Everything mentioned above is based on 'real science'. If you can prove you can hear something that measurements can't explain then engineers or scientist will look into it and improve their methods.

You claim that with trusting the current sound measurements telling whole truth,

Ranking devices according to the measurements worse-better-best, so you are ranking the sound producing devices according to what they measure with the limits of measurements used today.

They can be on the right track but still far from capturing the whole picture. Once you have device recording 3d mapping of complicated simphony with 1000x impulses every ms providing enough 'sound details' to data, then we can speak again. Thank you.

 

[Geert]

You claim that with trusting the current sound measurements telling whole truth,

I claimed nothing, I only asked you to clarify your claim about measurements being to simplistic. You bypassed that question and the provided info...

Once you have device recording 3d mapping of complicated simphony with 1000x impulses every ms

What is the 3th dimension in the output of DAC's and amplifiers?

What's is whatever the 3th dimensions might be, and the millions of data points going to tell you about sound quality?

Ranking devices according to the measurements worse-better-best, so you are ranking the sound producing devices according to what they measure with the limits of measurements used today.

Devices are ranked according to the measured parameters. No one claims the top device sounds better than lower ranked devices, and no one claims a certain device will sound better to everyone.

And again, what can you hear that current measurements can't explain? If the answer is nothing, than your critique on the quality of measurements is meaningless. If you can't answer then there's nothing to discuss.

 

[pau]

I claimed nothing, I only asked you to clarify your claim about measurements being to simplistic. You bypassed that question and the provided info...


What is the 3th dimension in the output of DAC's and amplifiers?

What's is whatever the 3th dimensions might be, and the millions of data points going to tell you about sound quality?



Devices are ranked according to the measured parameters. No one claims the top device sounds better than lower ranked devices, and no one claims a certain device will sound better to everyone.

And again, what can you hear that current measurements can't explain? If the answer is nothing, than your critique on the quality of measurements is meaningless. If you can't answer then there's nothing to discuss.

Im not arguing with youre flawed view. we move forward youu can stay in your bout. CYA

 

[DonR]

They can be on the right track but still far from capturing the whole picture. Once you have device recording 3d mapping of complicated simphony with 1000x impulses every ms providing enough 'sound details' to data, then we can speak again. Thank you.

Where did you get that "1000x impulses every ms"? 50 samples per ms are enough to capture all audible frequencies.

 

[Geert]

Im not arguing with youre flawed view. we move forward youu can stay in your bout. CYA

You have no meaningful respons to anything I told you about measurements, you didn't answer any question and you didn't show any knowledge of EE or audio. Now you revert to insults. We have 5 letter word for that, originating in Nordic Folklore.

 

[pau]

Where did you get that "1000x impulses every ms"? 50 samples per ms are enough to capture all audible frequencies.

is this 50 samples per ms another law that describes what audio is about? anything more than 50ms shoulld be descarded ? similar to what anything outside or measurable should be?

You are like a sheep, not questioning your shephard to take care of you. Wake up!

 

[ahofer]

You have no meaningful respons to anything I told you about measurements, you didn't answer any question and you didn't show any knowledge of EE or audio. Now you revert to insults. We have 5 letter word for that, originating in Nordic Folklore.

Don't know what he's saying, but many of us made that determination a while ago. Points for hanging in.

 

[pau]

You guys are not looking at the whole picture, i was questioning if what we can measure today , can explain fully what we hear through speakers.

 

[pau]

no evidence has been provided that supports othervice so i take you all as cult. *biased*. backing to claims from cult thrown before.


What strikes me is that i like the reviews, but there is laws, and tons to improve butt you all aree blind to agree.

On the truh to be told, i dont think human have measurement devices to trully do measurements im after.

 

[Ken1951]

Don't know what he's saying, but many of us made that determination a while ago. Points for hanging in.

Good use of the Ignore button

 

[Killingbeans]

is this 50 samples per ms another law that describes what audio is about?

It describes the bandwidth limitation of human hearing. You can't appreciate an increase in complexity if it's beyond the limits of human anatomy.

It's just a sad truth that "busy" music isn't as complex as our intuition tells us.

 

[pau]

itts funny how disacreee can make so much in truth. AMA

 

[Shadrach]

Well, that's what one gets with measurements. One can say they can't measure everything and I don't think anyone here would disagree with you.
A stereo system is a machine. It doesn't know anything about music. It's processing data essentially; not music, or even sound.
We know enough about how the machine works because we can build them and they work. We know how to measure them to a fairly high degree of accuracy. The very fact you're on this forum is testimony to that.
Accurate rendition of the media we are pretty good at now

Better or worse; that's a value judgement. Nothing to do with measuring.

 

[AdamG]

Back to the Moon with you! Your trolling is over…

 

[Ken Tajalli]

You know what the above proves?
It proves (at best) that you could tell the CJ from Benchmark! that's all.
The CJ may have some distinguishing attributes that you could pick out.
You believe that is Tube Sound!
I say it may be just CJ sound.
Can you pick out three different Tube amps from three SS ?
3 is just a number more than one.