Stereophile's Jim Austin disagrees w Atkinson; says tubes have something that can't be measured

[mhardy6647]

But the fading trace glow from the early "storage" 'scopes was something to see...

Ever use one of the early Tektronix microcomputers like a 4051? They used the long-persistance displays. Tonnes of fun to do "real time" kinetics on them, or play ballistic target games.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

You can't blame him for dissing DBT. Talk about bad for business!

Oh I absolutely get why he's saying what he's saying, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged - here at least (since apparently he is paying attention )

 

[fpitas]

Oh I absolutely get why he's saying what he's saying, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be challenged - here at least (since apparently he is paying attention )

Not sure why he is. Everything we're saying is pretty predictable.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

Not sure why he is. Everything we're saying is pretty predictable.

It is interesting. I think it's more evidence that "the word" is spreading. I think there's a lot of people who are starting to realize "hey wait a minute! It does seem pretty unlikely that cables or burn-in could really make that much of a difference!"

 

[MattHooper]

I can't categorize made-up concepts. Tube amps have widely divergent distortion levels and profiles, widely divergent source impedances, widely divergent overload and recovery behavior.

Thanks SIY, but given my argument acknowledged everything in your second sentence, to simply keep re-stating tube sound is a "made-up" concept continues to just beg the question.

It's something like saying "Sports Cars" is a made up, hence empty, concept because there are many varieties of cars that people refer to as "sports cars." There is something relevantly different about sports cars as a category - as there is with tube amps vs solid state. And as there are sub-categories to discuss among different cars, so there can be sub-categories among tube amps in regard to their design or their sound. So there would be tube amps that sound indistinguishable from a good solid state amp on a given speaker system, those that will be audibly different from solid state (or from other tube amps), and we can talk about those audible characteristics.
If it's the case that one is *more likely* to encounter audible distortions in tube amp designs than solid state designs, then talking about "tube amp sound" is perfectly reasonable, even if not all audibly distorted tube amps sound alike.

At least, it seems to me unless I encounter better reasons to think otherwise than a flat refusal of categorization.

 

[SIY]

Thanks SIY, but given my argument acknowledged everything in your second sentence, to simply keep re-stating tube sound is a "made-up" concept continues to just beg the question.

It's something like saying "Sports Cars" is a made up, hence empty, concept because there are many varieties of cars that people refer to as "sports cars." There is something relevantly different about sports cars as a category - as there is with tube amps vs solid state. And as there are sub-categories to discuss among different cars, so there can be sub-categories among tube amps in regard to their design or their sound. So there would be tube amps that sound indistinguishable from a good solid state amp on a given speaker system, those that will be audibly different from solid state (or from other tube amps), and we can talk about those audible characteristics.
If it's the case that one is *more likely* to encounter audible distortions in tube amp designs than solid state designs, then talking about "tube amp sound" is perfectly reasonable, even if not all audibly distorted tube amps sound alike.

At least, it seems to me unless I encounter better reasons to think otherwise than a flat refusal of categorization.

Get back to me when you have data showing the existence of an audible factor peculiar to and universal in tube circuitry.

 

[Ron Texas]

The looney tube factor can't be measured.

 

[bodhi]

Also...There are many passionate audiophiles--again, not me--who have been on a lifelong journey seeking the best sound--the most musically expressive, humanly communicative sound. They are like artists, or, at a minimum, seriously engaged art lovers, people for whom music is daily sustenance. They relate to their music (and musicians), via their hi-fi systems, in a deeply human way. A lifetime of listening has made them astute observers, far beyond what most of us, who dabble in a hobby and limit our thinking to DBTs, will ever achieve...

This just doesn't make any sense other than that it is very clearly aimed to certain audience who like to think of themselves exactly like that.

I mean dabbling with custom power cables, Shakti stones and esoteric electronics for decades, without noticing that they really do not work like advertised or even without trying to objectively find out if you hear what you think you hear, does not make these people good authorities. I mean in the case you believe in "verifiable" facts and other banal concepts.

 

[MattHooper]

"There is nothing about having a "tube amp" category that means it can't be measured,"

??? Vast majority of claims about tube amp sound are unproven and fall in the category of imagination. Tube glows red and people think it sounds warm. If we eliminate this, there is hardly anything left of this so called "tube amp sound" to measure. For this reason, folks need to do a blind test first, prove what they say they are hearing (soundstage, sounding like live concert, etc.) and then we can talk about how to measure it.

None of that contradicts my statement.

Of course if the sound of a tube amp is imaginary it can't be measured. I was referring to the fact if a tube amp sounds different it would obviously be measurable, so just stating no such category can exist doesn't make sense. Unless of course one totally denies tube amps can sound different at all. I don't *think* you are going quite that far? I agree that anyone making the positive claim has the burden of proof (insofar as they are seeking to convince others). Someone who says "this tube amp sounds different than that solid state amp" ought to be able to demonstrate that somehow - particularly IF that claim is technically implausible.

Likewise someone who says "tube amps do not have a sound" ought to be able to demonstrate that as well (which is a pretty high bar, close to proving a negative). Saying something like "tube amp sound is a made up category" is quite a broad positive claim to support.

Taking the example of the Mastersound amp on which this thread was based, JA who measured it wrote in the comments:

When I write "The amp performs along the lines of what one would expect for a tube amp with zero negative feedback," the measured performance predicts departures from a neutral sonic character that will be audible.

For example, the interaction between the amplifier's high output impedance and the loudspeaker's impedance modifies the speaker's frequency response. The high level of second harmonic distortion will add "warmth" to the amplifier's sonic signature.

This behavior, of course, may well be perceived as positive by a listener, particularly if it compensates for something elsewhere in the system.

Would you find JA's comments to be implausible?

Also in this thread Blumlein88 commented that the technical consequence of this amp are likely audible:

Stereophile's Jim Austin disagrees w Atkinson; says tubes have something that can't be measured

Just looked at the measurements in this review at Stereophile. This amp is an obviously audible equalizer even into resistive loads. Wildly so with any real loudspeaker (other than Maggies). Dark gray is simulated loudspeaker load of Stereophile. The others are into resistors.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Would you disagree?

Also: you've seen my thread where I blind tested my CJ tube preamp vs my Benchmark LA4, correct? I correctly identified the CJ amp 29 out of 30 times, in two trials.
It was the same characteristics I heard blinded that I perceived in sighted tests which helped me identify the CJ preamp (bit more density, texture, vivid yet relaxed highs etc).

 

[pma]

It's something like saying "Sports Cars" is a made up, hence empty, concept because there are many varieties of cars that people refer to as "sports cars." There is something relevantly different about sports cars as a category - as there is with tube amps vs solid state.

Look, the comparison of tube amplifiers to sport cars makes no sense. The audio to cars comparisons are all wrong, but if you wanted to use a better one, you should use a comparison to a steam roller rather than to a sports car.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

This just doesn't make any sense other than that it is very clearly aimed to certain audience who like to think of themselves exactly like that.

I mean dabbling with custom power cables, Shakti stones and esoteric electronics for decades, without noticing that they really do not work like advertised or even without trying to objectively find out if you hear what you think you hear, does not make these people good authorities. I mean in the case you believe in "verifiable" facts and other banal concepts.

You sad fools with your measurements and your DBTs! We have oracles who have devoted their very lives to the pursuit of listening to recordings! They've elevated the act of hearing to an artform allowing them to access new vistas of sound! Trust them! Trust the oracles!

 

[fpitas]

You sad fools with your measurements and your DBTs! We have oracles who have devoted their very lives to the pursuit of listening to recordings! They've elevated the act of hearing to an artform allowing them to access new vistas of sound! Trust them! Trust the oracles!

Right? I mean, I never actually listen to my stereo

 

[computer-audiophile]

Oh my, this thread is getting out of hand. Well, it's already late in the evening here anyway. I'll check back tomorrow.

 

[fpitas]

Oh my, this Thread is getting out of hand. Well, it's already late in the evening here anyway. I'll check back tomorrow.

Good night. Hopefully this thread will still be open when you come back

 

[Mart68]

Right? I mean, I never actually listen to my stereo

I do but only for doing double-blind tests.

He's having a laugh really isn't he? It's just a deliberate wind-up.

 

[MAB]

"There is nothing about having a "tube amp" category that means it can't be measured,"



None of that contradicts my statement.

Of course if the sound of a tube amp is imaginary it can't be measured. I was referring to the fact if a tube amp sounds different it would obviously be measurable, so just stating no such category can exist doesn't make sense. Unless of course one totally denies tube amps can sound different at all. I don't *think* you are going quite that far? I agree that anyone making the positive claim has the burden of proof (insofar as they are seeking to convince others). Someone who says "this tube amp sounds different than that solid state amp" ought to be able to demonstrate that somehow - particularly IF that claim is technically implausible.

Likewise someone who says "tube amps do not have a sound" ought to be able to demonstrate that as well (which is a pretty high bar, close to proving a negative). Saying something like "tube amp sound is a made up category" is quite a broad positive claim to support.

Taking the example of the Mastersound amp on which this thread was based, JA who measured it wrote in the comments:

When I write "The amp performs along the lines of what one would expect for a tube amp with zero negative feedback," the measured performance predicts departures from a neutral sonic character that will be audible.

For example, the interaction between the amplifier's high output impedance and the loudspeaker's impedance modifies the speaker's frequency response. The high level of second harmonic distortion will add "warmth" to the amplifier's sonic signature.

This behavior, of course, may well be perceived as positive by a listener, particularly if it compensates for something elsewhere in the system.

Would you find JA's comments to be implausible?

Also in this thread Blumlein88 commented that the technical consequence of this amp are likely audible:

Stereophile's Jim Austin disagrees w Atkinson; says tubes have something that can't be measured

Just looked at the measurements in this review at Stereophile. This amp is an obviously audible equalizer even into resistive loads. Wildly so with any real loudspeaker (other than Maggies). Dark gray is simulated loudspeaker load of Stereophile. The others are into resistors.

www.audiosciencereview.com

Would you disagree?

Also: you've seen my thread where I blind tested my CJ tube preamp vs my Benchmark LA4, correct? I correctly identified the CJ amp 29 out of 30 times, in two trials.
It was the same characteristics I heard blinded that I perceived in sighted tests which helped me identify the CJ preamp (bit more density, texture, vivid yet relaxed highs etc).

Your mistake is thinking that a poorly measuring tube amp is a unique with properties that distinguish it from all of the other bad stuff.
Same logic leads you to think a good tube amp is unique and unmeasurable properties.
In fact, I don't think any of us can tell a bad measuring tube amp apart from solid state amp with the same bad electrical measurements (distortion, noise, whatever...)
Junk is junk, that poor measuring tube amp doesn't support your point.

 

[MattHooper]

Get back to me when you have data showing the existence of an audible factor peculiar to and universal in tube circuitry.

"Help, someone save that poor strawman, he's being beaten to death!"

Once again, the point I was making doesn't entail that there is "a single, universal tube sound..." and few audiophiles I've seen would believe that to be the case.

 

[MattHooper]

Your mistake is thinking that a poorly measuring tube amp is a unique with properties that distinguish it from all of the other bad stuff.

Nope.

Same logic leads you to think a good tube amp is unique and unmeasurable properties.

Nope. You must be thinking of someone else.

In fact, I don't think any of us can tell a bad measuring tube amp apart from solid state amp with the same bad electrical measurements (distortion, noise, whatever...)
Junk is junk, that poor measuring tube amp doesn't support your point.

The point isn't that a tube amp can't be made audibly indistinguishable from a solid state amp.
Nor is it that a solid state amp can't be made to mimic the characteristics of a poorly measuring tube amp.

But rather: Are tube amps significantly more likely to measure "poorly" vs solid state amps?

I've yet to see a case that would deny the above. And we have decades and decades of measurements from Stereophile with tube amps measuring on average worse than solid state amps.

The next question is are we more likely to encounter audible distortion from tube amp designs vs solid state? If so...then it makes sense to talk about the type of audible distortions more common among tube amps.

 

[MattHooper]

Look, the comparison of tube amplifiers to sport cars makes no sense. The audio to cars comparisons are all wrong, but if you wanted to use a better one, you should use a comparison to a steam roller rather than to a sports car.

Ok, but do you have an argument as to why my analogy was not relevant to my point? I mean, perhaps you are right and I was wrong (and I'm a knuckle-head with regard to cars), but mere assertion doesn't make the case either way. Thanks.

 

[GXAlan]

And let’s not forget, transistors were basically sh!t well into the ’70s. Low noise transistors at the time were an expensive luxury.

JBL SA600 had great measurements in 1960s as first silicon transistor product from JBL (as opposed to Germanium).

A restoration attempting NOT to enhance performance but capture the performance as is was measured here, with modernized capacitors.

That’s my unit and I know that the initial measurements of the original transistors weren’t bad before they blew.

JBL SA600 Vintage Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the JBL SA600 vintage (1966) stereo amplifier. It is on kind loan from a member. The classic look endures the test of time. It is more usable and stylish than many amps of today. Inputs though, are oddly placed underneath the unit: Prices for...

www.audiosciencereview.com