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

[Rusty]

.... 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.

Well, this is easily enough done. I've taken A/B/X tests many time comparing things in audio systems. Some surprised me when I couldn't distinguish things I thought I would, but distinguishing differences in soundstage (with speakers, not headphones) between tube amplifiers and solid state is quite easy. Have you never critically tried listening for these differences?

 

[amirm]

Some surprised me when I couldn't distinguish things I thought I would, but distinguishing differences in soundstage (with speakers, not headphones) between tube amplifiers and solid state is quite easy. Have you never critically tried listening for these differences?

I have. Countless times. All I hear is either no difference for a good tube amp design (or lower than its peak distortion), or just added distortion/muddying up the details in lesser designs. If you are hearing soundstage differences is because you have not matched volumes.

 

[DMill]

Well, this is easily enough done. I've taken A/B/X tests many time comparing things in audio systems. Some surprised me when I couldn't distinguish things I thought I would, but distinguishing differences in soundstage (with speakers, not headphones) between tube amplifiers and solid state is quite easy. Have you never critically tried listening for these differences?

I have a Yamaha SS amp and a Cary tube integrated both running now. I’ve swapped them out and can hear a difference if I were put to a test I think. Both sound good to me though. I think the notion that tubes just absolutely sound like crap is way overstated. I also would not recommend tubes over more current designs to anyone looking for the highest fidelity. That said, I pass no judgement on anyone who enjoys tweaking with tubes. This is a hobby after all. Who’s to say tubes can’t be a very interesting area to explore? But I will reiterate the Beatles still sound very much like the Beatles regardless of which amp I choose, and I hear a far bigger difference in my different speakers than i do my amps.

 

[Newman]

I don't think anyone would ONLY have the MBL 101e or Bose 901 as their only music system.

That, for me, automatically disqualifies the MBL from the generality you used, "a genuinely good loudspeaker".

It's a special effects box, but it's not always horrible...

So does that.

 

[Rusty]

I have. Countless times. All I hear is either no difference for a good tube amp design (or lower than its peak distortion), or just added distortion/muddying up the details in lesser designs. If you are hearing soundstage differences is because you have not matched volumes.

Please, Amir. Don't be dismissive of my ability to carry out an A/B/X test. I'd be happy to host you or an associate to demonstrate.

 

[Jochen]

It's not even particularly nice compared to other tube amps.

Apart from that I don't understand the need to want to give a magical attribute, as if it has something incredible that no sterile measurement will be able to understand, instead of admitting that it is a fascinating but technically outdated technology.
It's as if someone keeps arguing that steam locomotives still have a smoothness and a pleasure to transport that no electric locomotive can match. It is an absurd and ridiculous speech and lends itself to being made fun of. But if you simply say that steam trains are beautiful and fascinating and you like to ride them, nobody will tell you anything.
Ditto with the tubes, just say that they are fascinating and that you like having an amplifier like this. This no one can take away from you because it's completely subjective, and that's fine.

This is exactly the point, very well said. But there seems to be a resistance, even a complex, in admitting that they not measure well, that it has to be compensated with made-up terms and stories.

 

[MattHooper]

@Floyd Toole probably wouldn't be as harsh. See his comments post-Harman:
https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/genelec-on-audio-science.3110/post-80274

Also, here are some of his slides on non-direct radiators from his official Harman era: https://www.harman.com/documents/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt1_0.pdf
View attachment 285569

It's a special effects box, but it's not always horrible because
"By spraying sound in more directions it was possible to create a greater sense of space, width and depth. Sometimes, with some recordings, it may be a bit too much. But that is stereo, always a bit of a gamble whether the recording technique and the playback technique match."

I don't think anyone would ONLY have the MBL 101e or Bose 901 as their only music system. But if you have stellar multi-channel setup with direct radiating speakers, having other setups to embellish stereo in a manner different to Dolby/DTS/Auro is a reasonable option.

Indeedy. Some people prefer some wider dispersion in a speaker vs high directivity, and even toeing out their speakers more than others, to benefit from some added sidewall reflection spaciousness (which IIRC Toole has said as well). In a sense, who is to say which is "better" and if it turns out someone prefers more spacious/reflected sound...well...that's fine. The blind testing research often cited here was about preferences after all...that's what we are seeking to satisfy.

I had my MBLs in a well damped room, and I listened fairly close, and they imaged very similarly to, for instance, my current Joseph speakers. Except the MBLs had the most "boxless" sound of any dynamic speaker I've heard. In the end the stereo effect is an illusion and that's what we are trying to create (and some tastes will differ).

 

[GXAlan]

If you are hearing soundstage differences is because you have not matched volumes.

Out of curiosity, should the frequency dependent crosstalk in a tube system follow the load curve? Or could microphonics add reverb?

I think the notion that tubes just absolutely sound like crap is way overstated. I also would not recommend tubes over more current designs to anyone looking for the highest fidelity.

Personally, I think the audiophile world would be better if the mindset of tubes mirrored that of modern-day mechanical watches. You buy tubes in recognition of the emotional connection or craftsmanship.

Knowing that psychology and mood affects sound, if a tube amp reliably enhances your listening experience, then great!

Or look at vinyl. The world’s most expensive turntable will never beat a mediocre CD player. We see that belt driven turntables have stood the test of the market while highly regulated direct drive turntables have fallen out of favor unless dealing with exotic designs like contemporary Technics turntables.

 

[MattHooper]

Personally, I think the audiophile world would be better if the mindset of tubes mirrored that of modern-day mechanical watches. You buy tubes in recognition of the emotional connection or craftsmanship.

Agreed. And one can have a preference for the sound too (where that is plausible).

Knowing that psychology and mood affects sound, if a tube amp reliably enhances your listening experience, then great!

Yup. I've tried putting SS amps in to my system a number of times over the years and every time I've gone back to my tube amps. I perceive a difference that allows me to
enjoy my system the most with the tubes. And as I've said, even if it was the case it's pure psychology/placebo, the effect is so reliable....lasted over 20 years so far!...I'm fine taking advantage of that psychological effect...while enjoying the cool look of the amps.

 

[Doodski]

Yup. I've tried putting SS amps in to my system a number of times over the years and every time I've gone back to my tube amps. I perceive a difference that allows me to
enjoy my system the most with the tubes. And as I've said, even if it was the case it's pure psychology/placebo, the effect is so reliable....lasted over 20 years so far!...I'm fine taking advantage of that psychological effect...while enjoying the cool look of the amps.

It helps that you have some of the nicest tube amps ever made.

 

[Sal1950]

@Floyd Toole probably wouldn't be as harsh. See his comments post-Harman:

Far be it that I would argue with such as Floyd Toole but I would point to his own comments for support of
my thoughts on the matter.
In the above paragraph on 2ch stereo playback he states that omnis reflections will "enhance space, air, etc" which
is definitely true. But rather than call it an "enhancement", I would refer to it as an unnatural distortion of the recordings intent. Perfectly exceptable if that's your thing, it just never was mine.
In his later paragraph where he goes on to multich playback he states, " with multich the impressions of direction, space, and envelopment are in the recording" meaning they are inappropriate for multich playback.
But if that's true for multich, why not for stereo?

I had my MBLs in a well damped room, and I listened fairly close, and they imaged very similarly to, for instance, my current Joseph speakers. Except the MBLs had the most "boxless" sound of any dynamic speaker I've heard. In the end the stereo effect is an illusion and that's what we are trying to create (and some tastes will differ).

Your MBL nearfield set-up makes them much less omni sounding than in their traditional large room/ open space setups.
But still, which do you prefer the most for their imaging. I've heard your Joseph's and thought that a tight well focused soundstage was one of their big strong points.

 

[theREALdotnet]

They are maybe using the diamond as a hard element to retain the most efficient and exact angle of the point of contact with the floor.

Just making sure that your floor will be scratched, no matter what.

 

[computer-audiophile]

It helps that you have some of the nicest tube amps ever made.

Which one is that? I'd like to know.

 

[Sam Spade]

The thing is, it's very hard to objectivly study subjective preference of a person, because it's personal and subjective.

Actually it's really simple. You conduct a double blind randomised controlled experiment. Science solved this problem in the 1950s in medical research and it is now used in many scientific fields. It overcomes the placebo effect and allows you to accurately quantify differences between control and treatment groups.

 

[solderdude]

The problem is that there are people that are convinced blind and controled testing isn't really suited for comparative testing.
Because of this conviction there will never be concensus simply because they do not believe the blind test can reveal what they hear (as they might fail miserably).
That's where the discussion stops and walls on both 'sides' go up.
And even when they take a proper controled blind test and fail they will claim the test is at fault as they can easily hear it.
When they take a not so well controled test and ace it (level differences or whatnot) they will say... you see there are clear differences even in your precious blind test.
And, then, when they fail a proper blind test they will disregard those results because under normal conditions (sighted) they can easily hear it.
These same folks will always keep saying they can hear it and simply 'forget' they failed that one test (those pesky scientists rigged it).

Tube amps can sound different. This is provable, measurable and scientific verifiable. Also some other (not tube) amps can be distinguished under circumstances even when basic measurements show differences would be 'below audible thresholds' when measuring with resistive loads.

So.. it isn't all cut and clear. Proper testing (the right parameters all measured under specific loads) should reveal that. When you don't measure everything or misinterpret results trouble starts.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Which one is that? I'd like to know.

Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks.

Conrad-Johnson Premier Twelve monoblock amplifier | Stereophile.com

Conrad-Johnson is one of audio's "marquee" companies, and charges accordingly. The Premier Twelve tube monoblock power amplifier, rated at 140W, sells for a rather steep $3495 each, meaning that unless you listen in mono, be prepared to lay out almost $7000 just for the amplification link in...

www.stereophile.com

 

[Blumlein 88]

One of the bigger issues in testing tube amps will be most of them alter the speaker frequency response audibly due to high output impedance. If you did the test using a Maggie, this wouldn't be an issue. But then obviously some difference is due to FR. So which way should it be done?

 

[Sam Spade]

The problem is that there are people that are convinced blind and controled testing isn't really suited for comparative testing.

They are wrong. IF their objective is to solely determine "audible differences" between equipment or any other parameter.

If their objective is to assess "listening pleasure" and things other than "audible differences" contribute to their listening pleasure they may be right.

 

[SIY]

Conrad Johnson Premier 12 monoblocks.

Conrad-Johnson Premier Twelve monoblock amplifier | Stereophile.com

Conrad-Johnson is one of audio's "marquee" companies, and charges accordingly. The Premier Twelve tube monoblock power amplifier, rated at 140W, sells for a rather steep $3495 each, meaning that unless you listen in mono, be prepared to lay out almost $7000 just for the amplification link in...

www.stereophile.com

Those are the best ever made? Huh.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Those are the best ever made? Huh.

Not in my opinion, but they are the ones MattHooper owns.

I've owned a couple of their smaller stereo amps. MV50 and MV75. Even in a "traditional" tube amp design I consider the VTLs to be better in some models.