[Poll] Is no-distortion really better than any distortion?

[lashto]

Strong statements like "no distortion is always better" are posted very often and I wanted to know what most people think about that.
Is that really a clear, 100% slamdunk statement or there is some gray-area in there and we should be a bit more careful/reserved with the no-distortion 'stick'.
(got the idea from this post by @solderdude, thanks for formulating the question)

The poll is open-ended, the plan is to get >100 votes before closing. Hopefully it'll gather enough interest.

Feel free to add more details about your answer in a post but please use a "spoiler" so the voting is not influenced by the comments.

Spoiler: will come later

some 'blind' people might add their opinions here later

P.S.
this is an opinion poll, there are no right or wrong opinions and each one is same as valid as the others. The purpose is to gather people's opinions not to influence them or decide which one is better. Some complained about the question not being clear enough, particularly the meaning of the word "better". Feel free to define your own "better", it's part of the exercise.
If you really can't make up your mind, user @Mashcky posted a helpful equivalent question below.

>>>edited on Fri 11.
there are already a lot more responses than I expected.
MANY THANKS EVERYONE!
Later today I will reconfigure the poll from "open-ended" to "closes on Wed 16". And you will not be able to switch your vote anymore. If you were thinking about that, do it fast.
>>>edit Sat12
The options "somewht right" / "somewht wrong" are a bit confusing. Read as "mostly right" / "mostly wrong". Vote-change re-enabled just in case
>>>edit Tue15
Added "poll" to the title. Is there any way to search in/for all polls?
Also, most polls I found seem to be open ended. Thinking about letting this one live forever too.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I quote from solderdude's post:

Tubes do not contain magic properties that somehow can create or return 'musicality' that was supposed to be lost in the countless solidstate components it went through.

That is often how it is considered by fans of tubes. That musicality is lost in SS gear. I think the more correct idea is that tubes can distort in a way that is more pleasing than complete fidelity in some cases to some people. Some sound characteristics that seem like higher fidelity upon playback are in fact tasteful colorations. Good SS gear doesn't do any harm, but it won't give a saccharine-like sound either. Tube musicality isn't fidelity it is an add on, a flavoring or seasoning of the plain dish.

 

[solderdude]

Technically no distortion is without any doubt 'better' in fidelity to the original waveform. This cannot even be questioned.
However, using room/speaker/headphone correction basically IS distorting the signal in order to come to a better final result (at least it should be the goal). Distortion or improvement ?
Some like more bass and or treble. This can be done with tone controls which change the waveform.
Distortion or seasoning ?

Distortion (what type ? there are many) CAN be perceived as 'better sounding' and thus preferred by some and depends on factors like:
Taste (preference), speakers/headphones tonality/quality, every aspect related to rooms & speakers, recordings, mindset/ideology/belief.

This question is so 'open' you will get combined answers from people with different mindsets and not be any closer to a definitive answers.

A question would be: Do you want your playback system to add 'seasoning' ?

 

[lashto]

@solderdude
I think the question is clear enough about the meaning of 'better': "better for music playback".

More generally, it's an opinion poll and all opinions are welcome. Feel free to interpret the word 'better' as you wish. Same for any other words in that question. As with any other poll, this is not meant to show "the truth", it'll only show what people think/want.

 

[Mashcky]

A simpler way to write this might be:
“Holding all else equal, is inaudible distortion always more desirable than audible distortion?”

 

[Jimbob54]

Got to give it a big "dont know". Never blind tested or had all my amps measured.

I like the idea of no distortion, but I can't say that my ears prefer.

 

[solderdude]

I think the question is clear enough about the meaning of 'better': "better for music playback".

I never wrote 'better for music playback' I wrote 'is always better for playback' (without the music, it is a technical thing)
It is fine to quote/mention me but you should do this correctly.

As has been discussed ... the term 'better' is vague.
Better sounding = preferred sounding (human factor)
Better fidelity = technically more accurate/true to the intended waveform. (technical factor)

The latter is what I meant.

 

[Jimbob54]

As has been discussed ... the term 'better' is incorrect.
Better sounding = preferred sounding (human factor)
Better fidelity = technically more accurate/true to the intended waveform. (tecnical factor)

Yes, think my response reflects this actually.

 

[lashto]

A simpler way to write this might be:
“Holding all else equal, is inaudible distortion always more desirable than audible distortion?”

That is basically the meaning of the poll's question. I'll add it to the OP as a 'hint' for interpreting the question in case there are doubts

 

[majingotan]

However, using room/speaker/headphone correction basically IS distorting the signal in order to come to a better final result (at least it should be the goal). Distortion or improvement ?
Some like more bass and or treble. This can be done with tone controls which change the waveform.
Distortion or seasoning ?

If done correctly (i.e. no clipping induced) there should be no increase in distortion+noise figures (SINAD). We're talking about distorting the main signal and not distortion products/artifacts in this case so I'd say that DSP is not considered as distortion at all. In fact, 99.9% of DACs out there use DSP to oversample the PCM and reduce the bits to 5-6 bits before filtering but since the distortion products is far-far below audibility, we can say that the original waveform is reproduced accurately

 

[Mashcky]

As has been discussed ... the term 'better' is incorrect.
Better sounding = preferred sounding (human factor)
Better fidelity = technically more accurate/true to the intended waveform. (tecnical factor)

I’m glad you brought this up. I was under the impression that the poll was trying to get at the question; do you desire audible distortion even if distortion is less true to the original signal?

I believe the answer to the question of whether low distortion is more true to the signal is easily proven to be “yes”?

 

[VintageFlanker]

Strong statements like "no distortion is always better" are posted very often and I wanted to know what most people think about that.

Sorry, but I don't understand this poll like... at all. There's no need to listen democratic opinions on this. I only see facts in an overly objective way:

- Music production may need distortion for artistic purposes. Then:
- Music playback is basically music reproduction (≠ music production)
- Music reproduction need transparency to be reproduced flawless (assuming we forget about speakers/headphones/room colorations). There's no alternative way to do it so.
- There's no way distortion would be any good for better transparency, meaning: music playback at the end.

 

[lashto]

I never wrote 'better for music playback' I wrote 'is always better for playback' (without the music, it is a technical thing)
It is fine to quote/mention me but you should do this correctly.

As has been discussed ... the term 'better' is vague.
Better sounding = preferred sounding (human factor)
Better fidelity = technically more accurate/true to the intended waveform. (technical factor)

The latter is what I meant.

I know. I can write "better/preferred" in the question but I am not sure if clarifying that will improve the poll. A bit of 'gray' might be good sometimes.
Anyway, added @Mashcky 's reformulation to the OP, that should help.

 

[solderdude]

Basically the poll gives an answer to the question:
Do you prefer technically close to perfect equiment over 'special sounding' audio equipment ?

 

[RayDunzl]

All musical instruments blatantly harmonically distort a fundamental sine frequency. Many add a little noise - clunk of a piano action, breath of a vocalist, scratch of a violin bow.

Exceptions: An electronic instrument producing a pure sine, and blowing on a glass bottle, which is the closest to a pure sine I've found around the house, neither of which I would likely listen to without a specific reason.

---

I have speakers that harmonically distort to a higher (audible) degree than another pair.. The ones that don't are preferred here for critical listening. Casually, it's a wash, at lower playback levels the harmonic distortion isn't audible.

Nevertheless, put me in the "as little additional distortion in the playback chain as possible is preferred" camp.

 

[FeddyLost]

There is no universal "better" solution.
It depends on purposes, conditions, listener and signal itself.
And if someone is used to heavy "tubey" sound for 25 years, I'm not sure he will be happy to lose all this character.

 

[Veri]

From my own tests, increasing H2/H3 distortion in software gets more fatiguing. If someone really likes some low performing / low-SINAD gear, it could be because of details literally buried in noise which "cut off" a part of the sound which can be less fatiguing, I guess (?). But only increasing harmonic distortion as I did, results in an unpleasant experience. So when amps are lauded for some "distortion profile", I reckon most of the time this isn't at all prominent enough to be pleasant or even audible, no way.

Also, I believe with big ass tube gear there could be some kind of saturation effect going on, if not a bass boost due to output impedances. While these things could be perceived as pleasant, I'd much rather the mastering engineer uses some tape saturation DSP together with professional EQ, rather than relying on my gear to add this "on top".

Just my thoughts on the matter of tube distortion...

 

[lashto]

Yes, think my response reflects this actually.

You are allowed to change the response. Hopefully that 'feature' will not be over abused

 

[Mashcky]

Basically the poll gives an answer to the question:
Do you prefer technically close to perfect equiment over 'special sounding' audio equipment ?

That’s my understanding.

If we took the formulation of @VintageFlanker , for example, there wouldn’t be a question to ask, because his logic assumes that fidelity to source is desirable (I agree with this personally). The only person who can prefer distortion is someone who believes adding distortions can somehow improve upon sound preference in spite of being less faithful to the signal.

 

[mhardy6647]

Well, even in audio reproduction there is such a thing as euphonic distortion (even if it violates the Prime Directive of "high fidelity").

And, of course, euphonic distortion is part and parcel of the creation of music -- from "prepared piano", to Link Wray's shredding speaker cones for his guitar sound, right up to and including the happy accident of the "invention" of the "fuzz guitar" (well, OK, technically, bass) sound -- as crystallized in Marty Robbins' Don't Worry (1961)

Put yourself back into 1961 and hear the future with the little bass solo starting @ 1'26"

Here's a pretty nontechnical description of it, too