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

[danadam]

When recording music [...] have a valve preamplifier that distorts a bit [...] do distort in a pleasant way [...]

There's nothing wrong about it. We use our audio equipment to play music, not to reproduce laboratory measurements.

You are equating producing music with re-producing music. These are two different things.

 

[danadam]

and it brings us back to the "some people enjoy distortion" position, which we all know well. I'm surprised, though, at the blatantly ridiculous special pleading.

I think Jim Austin is missing the main point of his own argument:
[...]
Therefore; he likes the sound of distortion and/or other artifacts

"Distortion" is a "bad sounding" word, so obviously it cannot be what he likes and therefore invents the intangible thingy

 

[DonH56]

The emoji should have been a signal that I was not looking for a serious response.

No worries Kal, I got it, and my response was not meant to be serious (albeit true). I plead lack of sleep -- thunderstorms last night, snow today, red flag warnings for fire two days ago, Spring in the Rockies.

As a viable communications medium, the Internet often sucks...

 

[MattHooper]

You are equating producing music with re-producing music. These are two different things.

They are, but his point was that the principle he was espousing is relevant to each.

A tweaking of sound can be used in the music production process to “sound better” for the goal - the same type of tweaking can do the same for the home listener.

We could talk about using EQ. It’s often used in music production to alter the sound to taste (or ameliorate sonic issues). Likewise it can be used to flavour the sound at home.

That’s the (most of us) aren't reproducing music strictly as a science experiment aspect of his point.

 

[pma]

IMD is mathematically related to HD so you can predict multi-tone intermodulation distortion from a single-tone HD measurement

It can be predicted from a single-tone only and only in case you make ”single-tone” measurements spread over whole audio band, 20Hz-20kHz at several frequencies like 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k, 20kHz at various signal level. From a single point single level 1kHz HD you will read almost nothing. We do not deal with a simple polynomial nonlinearity in real world amplifiers.

 

[Frank2]

In Transistor mode it just operates like a standard transistor pre-amp. But you can dial up the "tube" mode knob to get a more "tube-like" sound. It was fascinating because it really did what it advertised.

Apparently the alterations are all done with resistors/capacitors, if I understood correctly.

If the 'tube effect' can be reproduced with a solid state circuit, wouldn't that mean that it can be measured as well?

 

[SIY]

If the 'tube effect' can be reproduced with a solid state circuit, wouldn't that mean that it can be measured as well?

Of course the effects of a tube amp can be measured. And measured trivially.

"Tube effect" as a category cannot because it's a made-up term.

 

[Freeway]

Some people just don't want to hear the truth.

 

[Cbdb2]

Ok, understood. I am very aware there are audiophiles who generally don't care how equipment looks (and to my eyes, the visuals of their set-ups tend to advertise this).

If by "prioritizing looks" you mean buying only on looks or looks well above all else - as in "who cares much how this sounds, I like the looks" - I don't think many audiophiles fall in to that category.

But if you mean prioritizing looks - taking aesthetics in to account along with the sonics - is a fool's errand, there is such a wide range of products available that settling on a combination of sonics and aesthetics one likes is not so difficult. Much like cars.

The two speakers I own a both among my favorite sounding and favorite-looking. (Perhaps that's not a coincidence )

You have to look at cars you don't have to look at power amps. My favorite aesthetic is invisible. I get the "look how special my stuff is" feeling instead of "hear how special my stuff is" from people who worry about aesthetics of there hi-fi.

 

[DonH56]

It can be predicted from a single-tone only and only in case you make ”single-tone” measurements spread over whole audio band, 20Hz-20kHz at several frequencies like 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1k, 2k, 5k, 10k, 20kHz at various signal level. From a single point single level 1kHz HD you will read almost nothing. We do not deal with a simple polynomial nonlinearity in real world amplifiers.

OK, I added the word "swept" before the single-tone measurement. The statement above was meant to be coupled to the statement after saying that measurements need to be performed over frequency and signal level (and varying loads, etc.) Given the argument the person proposed in the post I do not think it matters as he is clearly not a design engineer. There can be a lot of terms in the polynomial, and they can be modified by many other things like amplitude and frequency, but nit-picking details beyond most readers' knowledge base is probably not worthwhile. I do tend to simplify for the general readership, and understand your reasons for not liking that, but constantly correcting my posts to imply I do not understand is somewhat insulting. That said, your adding more technical detail to the thread is appreciated by a great many. Carry on! - Don

 

[MattHooper]

"Tube effect" as a category cannot because it's a made-up term.

Huh?

I know this is your hobby horse but it still doesn't make sense.

Of course "tube effect" can be used as a category, so long as one delimits the category.

It's why there are "tube effect" plug ins...because tubes really can produce certain types of distortion.

In home audio gear? Yes, tube amplification can be made to sound indistinguishable from solid state amplification, but it can also be made to have some level of audible distortion when interacting with certain speakers.

If someone is saying X has a tube-like effect on the sound, you can just ask them what specific sonic characteristics they mean. I don't know any audiophiles who think "all tube based amplifiers sound the same." So no one I know would say "sounds more tube like" in the sense of "all tube amps sound like that." But rather: there's a category of tube amps that many take to impart certain characteristics (like the ones I described earlier - thickening of sound, adding more body, easing off of the highs etc). Whereas it's much more rare that solid state amps would produce similar colorations. (As per the pre-amp I mentioned, it seemed like it needs to be deliberately engineered in).

(And whether any particular claim about an audible difference is true or not - "have you blind tested??!!!" - is a different discussion. People can talk about elements of Harry Potter or some New Age belief system or healing claims, but that doesn't mean their categories are "made up terms" that don't have a reference).

 

[MattHooper]

If the 'tube effect' can be reproduced with a solid state circuit, wouldn't that mean that it can be measured as well?

Yes.

 

[solderdude]

Tube effect can be measured anyway.
It just takes more than a basic FR measurement and SINAD measurement at 1 specific output level only.

 

[MattHooper]

The emoji should have been a signal that I was not looking for a serious response.

A "wink" emoji would normally have indicated that.

You replied to me with a face-palm emoji, which usually implies exasperation with what had been said.

So it was left ambiguous to me. The plain interpretation was that you'd inferred something face-palmingly obtuse in what I'd been writing.
I wondered what that was.

On the other hand, if your exasperation was aimed elsewhere - and I was supposed to be in on the joke - how to interpret the comment? That's why I asked if your comment was actually some ironic gesture to Jim Austin's claim of the special tube sound being unmeasurable - leaving us in a "how would we know?" situation. (A view I don't share...but I don't know if you know that...)

Cheers.

 

[Spocko]

So it must be clearly stated that Mr. Austin's subjective listener preference is a departure from "accuracy" in every sense of the term - and there's nothing wrong with that, as I often turn up the bass in some songs because it sounds better to me with a little more thump; however, I'm not so bold as to declare my specific preference for more whoomp as a retention of anything that has to do with accuracy.

Thus, for him to say "something less tangible is retained" clearly implies that there's some immeasurable signal in the source that's lost without tubes. UGH, this is just too dishonest! Just come out and say "I recognize tubes aren't accurate and introduces harmonic distortion, BUT I LIKE IT THAT WAY." Nobody would judge your subjective preferences any less, but to attempt to argue it's somehow MORE accurate is an insult to common sense.

Reviewers need to stop conflating personal preference with signal accuracy in order to validate their opinions.

 

[MattHooper]

To me the key distinction here is not what a listener - including an "accuracy-focused" listener - might prefer. The distinction is between colorations that you can select and turn on or off as in this case, versus permanent, hard-wired colorations that are said to universally improve the "realism," fidelity, or "musicality" of everything one plays on it.

So I don't actually think it's interesting that your accuracy-focused BIL preferred the tubey setting for some tracks. Had he preferred it for every track, that would in my view be interesting.

(And per comments above, this of course all assumes that the three settings do indeed produce reliably audible. measurable differences.)

Sure, I get that.

It was interesting to me because he came with what he said was an "analog bias" - or that is, a bias against analog, be it tape, vinyl or whatever is apt to add distortion to the signal (hence he is more interested in reading specs for solid state amps/DACs etc on ASR). He's not a tube amp guy. So when he preferred what clearly seemed to distort the sound somewhat...with a sort of tubey signature... that was a bit surprising and interesting to me.

 

[CDMC]

In Stereophile's review of the Mastersound 845 Compact integrated amplifier, which is a tube amp, editor in chief Jim Austin is once again publicly disagreeing with a reviewer; this time it's John Atkinson.

Basically, the TL;DR is that in the measurements section of the review, Atkinson (JA1) qualifies his comments by saying -- I paraphrase -- that he's commenting on its performance as a tube amp, with the recognition that tube amps don't perform as well as solid state. He adds the following explanation in the article's comments section: "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."

To which Jim Austin (JA2) responds:

I just want to make it clear that the opinion expressed by JA1 here, though very well-supported, is not universally shared.

It's true--no one connected with reality can deny it--that certain features in old-school tube amps cause departures from neutrality, especially with loudspeakers with impedance curves that drop below, let us say, 4 ohms, which is most modern loudspeakers. No one can deny it because they are measurable at clearly audible levels. But there's another school of thought--embraced by certain other Stereophile writers--that believes that something less tangible is retained in some such amplifiers that is lost in demonstrably more accurate ones. Such opinions are based on subjective experience--self-perceived connection with the music. This makes them literally irrefutable-- they cannot be tested objectively, so they cannot be contradicted, which is annoying--yet (and this is my opinion, as the magazine's editor), in a magazine committed to subjective experience--to listening--above all else, such opinions must not be dismissed out of hand.

Edit: I thought I should add that the opinions/beliefs I'm referring to are held by many of the most experienced, devoted, passionate audiophiles. I do not take that lightly.

Jim Austin, Editor
Stereophile


Still sticking to the "some things can't be measured" trope.

Stereophile readers are virtually the opposite of ASR. They are buying stories, they are buying dreams, they are buying feeling warm and fuzzy. It is no different than Top Gear was as a car show, it wasn't about how good the cars were, it was about the story they told, the crazy trips, the guest stars, the cars were nearly irrelevant. Likewise, having flipped through most recent issue on my Ipad (comes with Apple News) after not looking for years, the advertisers are selling the same dream. If Stereophile were take the direction of "measurements are important and tell us all" it would in turn require admitting that there is no real audible difference between most of the products they review, which in turn would cost them their advertisers, their readers, and in turn their business in a matter of months.

 

[Frank2]

Thus, for him to say "something less tangible is retained" clearly implies that there's some immeasurable signal in the source that's lost without tubes. UGH, this is just too dishonest! Just come out and say "I recognize tubes aren't accurate and introduces harmonic distortion, BUT I LIKE IT THAT WAY." Nobody would judge your subjective preferences any less, but to attempt to argue it's somehow MORE accurate is an insult to common sense.

Reviewers need to stop conflating personal preference with signal accuracy in order to validate their opinions.

Fully agree.
I do wonder sometimes whether some of the complex and subtle harmonics of acoustic instruments are not picked up to their full extend during a recording, or are not fully reproduced by the listener's speakers. In such cases, adding similar harmonics artificially during playback may result in s sound that is more akin to hearing a live acoustic instrument. I use a sonic exciter in my signal path, and the harmonics it adds - if used in moderation - do seem to make voices and acoustic instruments more 'lively'.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

On the other hand, if your exasperation was aimed elsewhere - and I was supposed to be in on the joke - how to interpret the comment?

It was an off-target implication that, to the individual listener, those two alternatives are indistinguishable.

 

[Inner Space]

... for him to say "something less tangible is retained" clearly implies that there's some immeasurable signal in the source that's lost without tubes.

From my perspective on the production side, this is his argument's own goal. What is this less tangible thing that is retained? He would say soul, emotion, euphoria, engagement, whatever. I would confirm: so that's all in the file, but it's in danger of being stripped away, so it needs to be consciously retained? He would agree. I would ask him - how did it get in the file in the first place? Immediately after the microphone diaphragm everything goes through cold, hard, sterile solid state, and, even worse, digital. If we put it in that way, why can't we get it out the same way?