Take the blind challenge! 300B SET vs. Straight Wire with Gain

[MattHooper]

Thanks charleski, but I believe you missed the point...

Let me recommend an important element of scientific philosophy: the principle of mediocrity. This evolved from the work of Copernicus (that we are not privileged observers) and evolved to become a foundation stone - the laws of physics that apply here on Earth also apply to the furthest galaxy, all humans share the same physiology, any sample taken at random is probably going to be highly similar to another random sample.

I was talking with a relative yesterday who is part of running trials for a new drug. It is astonishing how many hoops they have to get through, in terms of the variety of trials, testing the drug within all sorts of variables, and the number of subjects required to give the samples sturdy confidence levels.


But imagine instead: A drug company has performed a single trial of a new Alzheimer's drug.

Only 20 subjects were involved.

The drug company puts out an announcement: "It works! We are ready to bring this drug to the market!"

When biologists raise alarms about the incredibly scant evidence on which the drug company is basing it's conclusions, the drug company representative replies:

"Let me introduce you to the principle of mediocrity..."

Do you think that would fly?

 

[MattHooper]

Somewhat apropos to this discussion, I think:

Stereophile measures another Class A operating tube amp:

Mastersound 845 Compact integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements I performed the measurements of the Mastersound Compact 845 amplifier with my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. The tubes were installed when I received the review sample, and I waited for an hour after powering up the amplifier before starting the testing. The Mastersound...

www.stereophile.com

And once again, poor measurements.

As I've said before, it's so valuable that Stereophile measures these products (and of course that goes for Amir/ASR as well), putting the manufacturer specs and claims to
the fire.

Every audiophile product comes with it's technical story - the claims by the manufacturer about how their particular product addresses various technical challenges that "stand between you and the music."

This review is full of the manufacturer's justifications for using "the best parts" in X, Y fashion. And it's never "because this will add pleasant distortion" but typically with the implication " this will avoid common distortions and maintain a purer signal."

And yet so often - and tube amps are generally the worst for this - the measurements don't seem to show any particular technical advantage at all. Distortion in all sorts of parameters seems high...so what were all those technical claims about again?

Personally I don't mind if, in the case a tube amp has audible distortion, that a reviewer describes what he believes he hears and prefers. But it does gall me when
a positive reaction from a reviewer explicitly or implicitly is taken as some validation of the technical claims by the manufacturer...where the measurements usually reveal otherwise.

 

[Axo1989]

Somewhat apropos to this discussion, I think:

Stereophile measures another Class A operating tube amp:

Mastersound 845 Compact integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements I performed the measurements of the Mastersound Compact 845 amplifier with my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. The tubes were installed when I received the review sample, and I waited for an hour after powering up the amplifier before starting the testing. The Mastersound...

www.stereophile.com

And once again, poor measurements.

As I've said before, it's so valuable that Stereophile measures these products (and of course that goes for Amir/ASR as well), putting the manufacturer specs and claims to
the fire.

Every audiophile product comes with it's technical story - the claims by the manufacturer about how their particular product addresses various technical challenges that "stand between you and the music."

This review is full of the manufacturer's justifications for using "the best parts" in X, Y fashion. And it's never "because this will add pleasant distortion" but typically with the implication " this will avoid common distortions and maintain a purer signal."

And yet so often - and tube amps are generally the worst for this - the measurements don't seem to show any particular technical advantage at all. Distortion in all sorts of parameters seems high...so what were all those technical claims about again?

Personally I don't mind if, in the case a tube amp has audible distortion, that a reviewer describes what he believes he hears and prefers. But it does gall me when
a positive reaction from a reviewer explicitly or implicitly is taken as some validation of the technical claims by the manufacturer...where the measurements usually reveal otherwise.

I'd just read that one. Probably because I'd done the thing in this thread. Measurements really are pretty wild.

But ... noise isn't bad, harmonic profile is orderly/reducing so probably not bad on certain musical material. And with certain speakers which likely bring their own thing along. Even if not my thing specifically. Whether those characteristics/sonics actually increase enjoyment (along with the 'because of/in spite of' question JA pondered but hasn't answered for himself) is doubtless a personal thing.

 

[solderdude]

Somewhat apropos to this discussion, I think:

Stereophile measures another Class A operating tube amp:

Mastersound 845 Compact integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements I performed the measurements of the Mastersound Compact 845 amplifier with my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. The tubes were installed when I received the review sample, and I waited for an hour after powering up the amplifier before starting the testing. The Mastersound...

www.stereophile.com

And once again, poor measurements.

Poor measurements indeed.

conclusion was:

Conclusion
The Mastersound Compact 845 hits all my sonic sweet spots: gorgeous, burnished tube tone, palpable instrumental texture, unerring naturalism, lush, rich, transparent midrange, solid bass, open treble, black background, precise layering of instruments and vocals—and the deepest, punchiest soundstage I've heard. It was also eerily quiet. Like the Audio Note Meishu Tonmeister integrated amplifier, I would be happy to live with this amplifier for the rest of my days. With the Compact 845, Mastersound moves to the front row in the hallowed hall of master tube-amplifier manufacturers, alongside Shindo, Audio Note, Air Tight, Line Magnetic, Luxman, and PrimaLuna

The real conclusion could be... measurements can show technical performance (signal fidelity) and ears are very poor at detecting that or...
The changes made to the original waveform may well be 'technically bad' but may be vastly preferred by people who love the looks and alterations it does.

It is not a matter of who is right (the numbers or the ears) but rather that there are preferences and enjoyment to be had everywhere but may not be the same for everyone.

 

[charleski]

Several posters—including the OP—demonstrated that the comparison files gave us part, but not all of the sonics of the tube amp used. You might be happy to over-stretch the conclusions, but apart from reinforcing a personal narrative (or "suspicions" if you prefer) there's no sound justification for doing so.

Invoking statistics that way is pretty dodgy (the OP does something similar, but draws conclusions non-egregiously). Out of the small sample, a number of participants differentiated consistently, via blind A/B or ABX. Others differentiate at all. That's a distribution of ability within a population (without knowing all the variables that led to same, don't launch into an anti-exceptionalist diatribe) not an empirical conclusion about sonic characteristics.

The major finding here was that there was no statistical difference between signal chains.

I read papers all the time where the authors found no overall effect but desperately try to sift through the numbers to unearth a minor interaction. It's tiresome there (though the intense pressure to publish does at least provide some justification) and it's just as tiresome here. If you want to convince anyone that an effect exists then you need to demonstrate it first. If you want to speculate that the effect may be dependent on certain conditions, then you need to demonstrate it under those conditions.

Science is not founded on wishful thinking.

 

[charleski]

Thanks charleski, but I believe you missed the point...



I was talking with a relative yesterday who is part of running trials for a new drug. It is astonishing how many hoops they have to get through, in terms of the variety of trials, testing the drug within all sorts of variables, and the number of subjects required to give the samples sturdy confidence levels.


But imagine instead: A drug company has performed a single trial of a new Alzheimer's drug.

Only 20 subjects were involved.

The drug company puts out an announcement: "It works! We are ready to bring this drug to the market!"

When biologists raise alarms about the incredibly scant evidence on which the drug company is basing it's conclusions, the drug company representative replies:

"Let me introduce you to the principle of mediocrity..."

Do you think that would fly?

No, of course not, because it would be utter nonsense. You seem to have flown off on a complete tangent that's highly bizarre.

I don't see any point in restating the basics yet again. What I said earlier stands.

 

[computer-audiophile]

...moves to the front row in the hallowed hall of master tube-amplifier manufacturers, alongside Shindo, Audio Note, Air Tight, Line Magnetic, Luxman, and PrimaLuna

In this series I find interesting to see the Line Magnetic brand. This is then a newcomer in the gallery of honour. (I have nothing against it)

 

[Blumlein 88]

Somewhat apropos to this discussion, I think:

Stereophile measures another Class A operating tube amp:

Mastersound 845 Compact integrated amplifier Measurements

Sidebar 4: Measurements I performed the measurements of the Mastersound Compact 845 amplifier with my Audio Precision SYS2722 system. The tubes were installed when I received the review sample, and I waited for an hour after powering up the amplifier before starting the testing. The Mastersound...

www.stereophile.com

And once again, poor measurements.

As I've said before, it's so valuable that Stereophile measures these products (and of course that goes for Amir/ASR as well), putting the manufacturer specs and claims to
the fire.

Every audiophile product comes with it's technical story - the claims by the manufacturer about how their particular product addresses various technical challenges that "stand between you and the music."

This review is full of the manufacturer's justifications for using "the best parts" in X, Y fashion. And it's never "because this will add pleasant distortion" but typically with the implication " this will avoid common distortions and maintain a purer signal."

And yet so often - and tube amps are generally the worst for this - the measurements don't seem to show any particular technical advantage at all. Distortion in all sorts of parameters seems high...so what were all those technical claims about again?

Personally I don't mind if, in the case a tube amp has audible distortion, that a reviewer describes what he believes he hears and prefers. But it does gall me when
a positive reaction from a reviewer explicitly or implicitly is taken as some validation of the technical claims by the manufacturer...where the measurements usually reveal otherwise.

It is part of the sale and part of convincing themselves. Maybe they could use the most bog standard resistors and caps (bipolar electrolytics) and make the same sounding amp much less expensively. However, there is then no story to tell. No tale like wine has proclaiming its provenance.

 

[SIY]

I have a 91E on my dining room table (I set my lab up in here temporarily because the basement got too cold). The biggest surprise? How little the output tubes actually glowed.

 

[computer-audiophile]

It is part of the sale and part of convincing themselves. Maybe they could use the most bog standard resistors and caps (bipolar electrolytics) and make the same sounding amp much less expensively. However, there is then no story to tell. No tale like wine has proclaiming its provenance.

I also like to use exquisitely selected capacitors and resistors in my own constructions. It's like home cooking, you have the freedom to use the best ingredients as well.

 

[SIY]

That capacitor looks suspicious.

I also like to use exquisitely selected capacitors and resistors in my own constructions. It's like home cooking, you have the freedom to use the best ingredients as well.

View attachment 283999

 

[Blumlein 88]

That capacitor looks suspicious.

There is that phallic symbol masquerading as db.

 

[SIY]

There is that phallic symbol masquerading as db.

That's what makes it worth the money, but I'm afraid it rather does give up the game...

 

[computer-audiophile]

Sorry guys, I don't know any coupling capacitor that sounds better than my old and rare dB boosters.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I have a 91E on my dining room table (I set my lab up in here temporarily because the basement got too cold). The biggest surprise? How little the output tubes actually glowed.

What could be the reason for this? Is it not normal?

I have a Shuguang 300B tube that glows like this when used at twilight. One can see it best from above. I think that the new WE-91E Amp has a cover that obscures this view.

 

[Axo1989]

The major finding here was that there was no statistical difference between signal chains.

If only boldface made things sensible or true !! The group couldn't reliably differentiate, but individuals could. That tells us about a distribution of ability within the group.

In other words, it doesn't demonstrate there was no difference (especially as we also have measurements of difference). This isn't a drug trial where we care about efficacy for an entire population. It's an investigation into whether there is a measurable and/or audible difference in reproduction that may explain a range of preference with a population.

The answers included: some people can hear it and prefer it, some people can hear it, but don't prefer it, and some people can't hear it ('it' being a subset of the tube amp effect captured by the samples).

If you want to convince anyone that an effect exists then you need to demonstrate it first.

I don't need to demonstrate anything, I could reliably differentiate the two signal chains. What you are 'convinced' of is both out of my control and none of my business. But if there was no 'effect' then what's going on in posts #49 and #100, or for that matter, post #174? You seem to have flown off on a complete tangent that's highly bizarre.

 

[dasdoing]

so I got the 3 vs 1 "wrong", but it's kind of stupid because of the extra loud distorted guitar. I felt like the distorted version cleaned it up a little...that's why I thought is was the clean one.

 

[computer-audiophile]

I have a 91E on my dining room table (I set my lab up in here temporarily because the basement got too cold).

Did you buy this amp?

The biggest surprise? How little the output tubes actually glowed.

How you see the glow of a 300B tube depends on the viewing angle. In my photo it is evening, but from the front you see almost nothing glowing on this monobloc.

 

[SIY]

Did you buy this amp?

No, I design and build tube amps, not buy. This was a review sample for measurement and photography.

 

[computer-audiophile]

No, I design and build tube amps, not buy. This was a review sample for measurement and photography.

Thank you, now I got it! Own designs bring more fun and satisfaction anyway.