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

[Blumlein 88]

That’s a great point. As I mention a few posts earlier, we stil get the benefit of “this a what 22 dB 5W 1 kHz SINAD sounds like” but even though we recognize the load dependency, the level dependent effects weren’t what I predicted.

What I think I need to do is
1) find longer source material so I can legally share 30 seconds instead of less
2) run through a speaker to see if I can capture that source dependent boost.

This of course adds another complication of not being sure what volume to set it at.

Mario Martinez has offered free songs recorded in a very high quality manner. Purist 2 microphone recordings with zero post processing. I bet he would let you use at least some of his tracks.

PlayClassics TRT sound (calibration 2.4) album premiere

We have come up with some developments that I would like to share with you all. We have two new albums that we are about to release that feature a new version of our calibration (that would be calibration 2.4) It would be really helpful for us if you could have a listen and give us some...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here is one of his threads. Maybe you could ask him permission. His recordings are superb.

He has various types, but piano, and chamber music are good for such an exercise I think.

 

[Mnyb]

Another idea even if you average at 1W would not this kind of amp "clip" constantly or rather slowly saturate when driving a speaker ?

 

[Sokel]

Another idea even if you average at 1W would not this kind of amp "clip" constantly or rather slowly saturate when driving a speaker ?

Depends on the speaker,I use to listen similar things (2 x 7 watts full spec) that go to 97-98db (maybe even more) with one watt.
And these speakers are 2 metes tall.

 

[dasdoing]

Mario Martinez has offered free songs recorded in a very high quality manner. Purist 2 microphone recordings with zero post processing. I bet he would let you use at least some of his tracks.

PlayClassics TRT sound (calibration 2.4) album premiere

We have come up with some developments that I would like to share with you all. We have two new albums that we are about to release that feature a new version of our calibration (that would be calibration 2.4) It would be really helpful for us if you could have a listen and give us some...

www.audiosciencereview.com

Here is one of his threads. Maybe you could ask him permission. His recordings are superb.

He has various types, but piano, and chamber music are good for such an exercise I think.

there is also a lot of royalty free music available https://www.google.com/search?q=roy...rome..69i57.4067j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and thousands of royalty free samples are available here https://freesound.org/

 

[restorer-john]

there is also a lot of royalty free music available https://www.google.com/search?q=roy...rome..69i57.4067j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

and thousands of royalty free samples are available here https://freesound.org/

So what are the rules for small samples of otherwise copyrighted music being used for the purposes of demonstrating differences in equipment? Surely if the sample is attributed and short, it can only benefit the artist through potential sales.

 

[dasdoing]

So what are the rules for small samples of otherwise copyrighted music being used for the purposes of demonstrating differences in equipment?

ChatGPT says

The rules for using small samples of copyrighted music for the purpose of demonstrating differences in equipment can vary depending on the specific jurisdiction and the circumstances of the use.

In general, if the use of the copyrighted music is considered a "fair use," then it may be allowed without obtaining permission from the copyright holder. Fair use is a legal doctrine that allows limited use of copyrighted material without the need for permission from the copyright owner. The fair use doctrine generally takes into account the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the whole work, and the effect of the use on the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Whether or not the use of copyrighted music for demonstrating differences in equipment constitutes fair use will depend on the specific circumstances of the use. Factors that may be considered include the amount and significance of the copyrighted material used, the extent to which the use may compete with the market for the original work, and the nature of the equipment being demonstrated.

It is always recommended to seek legal advice from a qualified attorney familiar with copyright law before using any copyrighted material, even in small samples, to avoid potential legal issues.

I know that creators on Youtube for example have a hard time using short samples it even in for educational porpouses. it seams a few seconds are allready enough to get demonetized

 

[restorer-john]

ChatGPT says


I know that creators on Youtube for example have a hard time using short samples it even in for educational porpouses. it seams a few seconds are allready enough to get demonetized

Well they can't do me for 'Tommy and the Tonebursts' or 'Sammy Sinewave and the Impulse Sisters'.

 

[GXAlan]

So what are the rules for small samples of otherwise copyrighted music being used for the purposes of demonstrating differences in equipment? Surely if the sample is attributed and short, it can only benefit the artist through potential sales.

LibGuides: Faculty: Counseling: Use of Copyrighted Material in the Classroom

This guide highlights library resources for faculty working in the area of Counseling.

marymount.libguides.com

Music: Up to 10% of an individual copyrighted musical composition, or up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition embodied on a sound recording. However, no more than 30 seconds may be used without gaining permission from the copyright owner or licensing collective.

 

[Mnyb]

If you watch techmoan he is is using very short snippets when demoing obscure formats and the like , he got away with one tune on a 78 rpm shellac that the algorithms did not recognise

 

[danadam]

Only me that took an ABX-test so far? Or?

Spoiler: ABX results for A, 11/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 22:19:58

File A: A1.flac
SHA1: a1054c79432d6c5a0b3be49f709e4797009735c2
File B: A2.flac
SHA1: 22c7736f5661b97669d6742800b7272f275ca9b9

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

22:19:58 : Test started.
22:20:24 : 01/01
22:20:47 : 02/02
22:21:11 : 03/03
22:21:48 : 04/04
22:22:12 : 05/05
22:22:34 : 06/06
22:23:23 : 07/07
22:24:00 : 08/08
22:24:49 : 08/09
22:25:07 : 09/10
22:25:54 : 10/11
22:27:01 : 11/12
22:27:01 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12
p-value: 0.0032 (0.32%)

-- signature --
b7405bcbac52f2dc0d80e9ff4d8db9d48ed42e70

Spoiler: ABX results for B, 12/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 22:31:21

File A: B1.flac
SHA1: 50162a7896f8d61ca07e6752d90bea595afb36ee
File B: B2.flac
SHA1: ebb3810d855b97c504dbeff03774533b5ee0c9ff

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

22:31:21 : Test started.
22:31:28 : 01/01
22:31:33 : 02/02
22:31:37 : 03/03
22:31:42 : 04/04
22:31:47 : 05/05
22:31:49 : 06/06
22:31:52 : 07/07
22:31:58 : 08/08
22:32:01 : 09/09
22:32:05 : 10/10
22:32:13 : 11/11
22:32:18 : 12/12
22:32:18 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12
p-value: 0.0002 (0.02%)

-- signature --
ffa7364cc9ed1e637678736c8a98e8634bdc413e

Spoiler: ABX results for C, 12/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 23:19:13

File A: C1.flac
SHA1: 15646fd2b9c19dc09b1d80e7440c2e5747f00e1f
File B: C2.flac
SHA1: 32355539929916b436b1c308845c28aaf4d19daf

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

23:19:13 : Test started.
23:20:48 : 01/01
23:21:11 : 02/02
23:21:39 : 03/03
23:21:59 : 04/04
23:22:22 : 05/05
23:22:38 : 06/06
23:22:49 : 07/07
23:23:17 : 08/08
23:23:43 : 09/09
23:24:15 : 10/10
23:26:15 : 11/11
23:26:30 : 12/12
23:26:30 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12
p-value: 0.0002 (0.02%)

-- signature --
d18cc3d1098e2925e1174079cacf1ab5f6d86a1a

Objectivists love to demand blind tests. So it seems, only if other people are performing it.

I'd say only when a difference is claimed.

When it comes to doing it yourself, you are too lazy to participate.

If nothing stands out during a quick test with switching tracks in Audacity, then I don't claim there is a difference and I don't feel the need to do tests. Maybe it's lazy, I don't know. I'm calling it "having better things to do"

But ok, just for you

Spoiler

Even though I could ABX all 3 of them, the difference in sets A and C is so small to me that I'll vote no difference.

In B in quiet parts (e.g. during 0.5 second starting from 0:06.5) the distortion in track 2 is quite noticeable, kind of a hum. If you look in the ABX log you'll see I could finish it in less than 1 minute. That I think would make it very annoying for me to listen to classical music on such gear.

I have no way to know how many times the files have been downloaded

If you hover over the attachments it shows number of downloads. Currently it's around 70.

 

[restorer-john]

Music: Up to 10% of an individual copyrighted musical composition, or up to 10% of a copyrighted musical composition embodied on a sound recording. However, no more than 30 seconds may be used without gaining permission from the copyright owner or licensing collective.

The issue being does the publication of even small pieces of copyrighted works on a site like ASR for the purposes of testing, constitute education or entertainment? ASR is primarily a publication site for reviews and a large discussion forum.

 

[Thomas_A]

Spoiler: ABX results for A, 11/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 22:19:58

File A: A1.flac
SHA1: a1054c79432d6c5a0b3be49f709e4797009735c2
File B: A2.flac
SHA1: 22c7736f5661b97669d6742800b7272f275ca9b9

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

22:19:58 : Test started.
22:20:24 : 01/01
22:20:47 : 02/02
22:21:11 : 03/03
22:21:48 : 04/04
22:22:12 : 05/05
22:22:34 : 06/06
22:23:23 : 07/07
22:24:00 : 08/08
22:24:49 : 08/09
22:25:07 : 09/10
22:25:54 : 10/11
22:27:01 : 11/12
22:27:01 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 11/12
p-value: 0.0032 (0.32%)

-- signature --
b7405bcbac52f2dc0d80e9ff4d8db9d48ed42e70

Spoiler: ABX results for B, 12/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 22:31:21

File A: B1.flac
SHA1: 50162a7896f8d61ca07e6752d90bea595afb36ee
File B: B2.flac
SHA1: ebb3810d855b97c504dbeff03774533b5ee0c9ff

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

22:31:21 : Test started.
22:31:28 : 01/01
22:31:33 : 02/02
22:31:37 : 03/03
22:31:42 : 04/04
22:31:47 : 05/05
22:31:49 : 06/06
22:31:52 : 07/07
22:31:58 : 08/08
22:32:01 : 09/09
22:32:05 : 10/10
22:32:13 : 11/11
22:32:18 : 12/12
22:32:18 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12
p-value: 0.0002 (0.02%)

-- signature --
ffa7364cc9ed1e637678736c8a98e8634bdc413e

Spoiler: ABX results for C, 12/12

foo_abx 2.0.6d report
foobar2000 v1.6.12
2023-04-25 23:19:13

File A: C1.flac
SHA1: 15646fd2b9c19dc09b1d80e7440c2e5747f00e1f
File B: C2.flac
SHA1: 32355539929916b436b1c308845c28aaf4d19daf

Output:
Default : Primary Sound Driver
Crossfading: NO

23:19:13 : Test started.
23:20:48 : 01/01
23:21:11 : 02/02
23:21:39 : 03/03
23:21:59 : 04/04
23:22:22 : 05/05
23:22:38 : 06/06
23:22:49 : 07/07
23:23:17 : 08/08
23:23:43 : 09/09
23:24:15 : 10/10
23:26:15 : 11/11
23:26:30 : 12/12
23:26:30 : Test finished.

----------
Total: 12/12
p-value: 0.0002 (0.02%)

-- signature --
d18cc3d1098e2925e1174079cacf1ab5f6d86a1a

I'd say only when a difference is claimed.

If nothing stands out during a quick test with switching tracks in Audacity, then I don't claim there is a difference and I don't feel the need to do tests. Maybe it's lazy, I don't know. I'm calling it "having better things to do"

But ok, just for you

Spoiler

Even though I could ABX all 3 of them, the difference in sets A and C is so small to me that I'll vote no difference.

In B in quiet parts (e.g. during 0.5 second starting from 0:06.5) the distortion in track 2 is quite noticeable, kind of a hum. If you look in the ABX log you'll see I could finish it in less than 1 minute. That I think would make it very annoying for me to listen to classical music on such gear.

If you hover over the attachments it shows number of downloads. Currently it's around 70.

Ok thanks,

I nailed all on the high frequencies. I would suggest that any early drop in the high end should be avoided, particularly if you have several components in the chain including speakers, that adds to the drop. within 0.5 dB at 10 kHz is my limit.

 

[solderdude]

The 'problem' with the current ABX test is that one looks for differences.
As you looked for 'less treble' the SS will win. The funny part is that when the comparison would be done using the speakers as a load there would not have been a treble roll-off but there would be more treble in the tube amp file.
The next question would be whether or not that would be objectionable.
Then the next question would be how that tube amp would perform with yet another speaker which could be different yet again. In fact there could be speakers that would come out 'flat' on the output and there are ones that could be even more extreme.

So basically we weren't comparing tube sound of the amp vs. SS but merely 2 different tonal renditions of the same music.

 

[Sokel]

The 'problem' with the current ABX test is that one looks for differences.
As you looked for 'less treble' the SS will win. The funny part is that when the comparison would be done using the speakers as a load there would not have been a treble roll-off but there would be more treble in the tube amp file.
The next question would be whether or not that would be objectionable.
Then the next question would be how that tube amp would perform with yet another speaker which could be different yet again. In fact there could be speakers that would come out 'flat' on the output and there are ones that could be even more extreme.

So basically we weren't comparing tube sound of the amp vs. SS but merely 2 different tonal renditions of the same music.

I think that the most educating part of this test is sound itself,specially for our young friends here who never had any association with tubes but most importantly for friends that spend money upgrading an 100db SINAD amp to an 108db one expecting to be "cleaner".

No,no dragons coming out of tubes,even the ones that measure as bad as this one,it's still music that comes out.
Maybe not as faithful to recording (the "maybe" is because older stuff HAS been produced with tubes) but some people like it.

That percentage of the poll who has not detected differences (or didn't care too and just enjoyed the small samples) proves part of it.

 

[solderdude]

Alas... the comparison is not between tubes with speakers and SS with speakers.
It is between rolled off treble and not rolled-off treble and only in a resistive load.
With a speaker the tube amp reacts substantially different. Namely not rolled off but even hyped in the treble with the speaker used by the OP.

I think that when the typical roll-off was applied digitally to the original file and that was posted instead the outpcome would have been very similar.
Although at louder levels the distortion (especially IM, harmonic will not be as audible) could still give some difference in 'clean-ness' of the sound with some recordings.

 

[Thomas_A]

I think that you could nail ithe amp on other things such as hum/noise or distortion using more revealing music. A wire bypass test would compare the signal of amp with a bypass signal. If there is a detectable difference the amp is coloring the signal. if your goal is transparency throughout the chain the tube amp will thus be rejected.

 

[DanielT]

Today I will complete the test. It will be fun! Good initiative GXAlan!

I have deliberately not read any posts in this thread. I don't want to let them influence me. I will read the posts in the thread after I submitted my results.

You may have already brought this up in the thread but still, general tips:
As you know, it is possible to imagine both one and the other, which a blind test should sort out (in best case) BUT f you take part in a blind test and imagine, have preconceived notions that you will NOT hear any differences, it increases the risk, the possibility that you will not hear differences.

100% concentration. Make sure not to have disturbing sounds in the background plus have an open mind about what the impressions, the results can be.

 

[DanielT]

Tagging other tube fans and tube haters... let's try to get as broad of a sample as possible. After 14 days, I'll have to delete the copyrighted content out of fair use principles...

@Messing with Electronics
@DVDdoug
@Sal1950
@EL_PW
@DanielT
@MaxBuck
@fpitas
@Robin L

I neither love nor hate tube amps.

Pros and cons of them.
Cons:
Expensive, little power, high distortion, sometimes questionable FR. Is this mentioned audible? Imagine if someone could do a blind test where you can test this...he he.

Pros:
They shine nicely.
For an EE or knowledgeable in electronics fun to tinker with. DIY that is, and your own cooked soup (sound soup), as you know, tastes the best.

 

[Sokel]

Alas... the comparison is not between tubes with speakers and SS with speakers.
It is between rolled off treble and not rolled-off treble and only in a resistive load.
With a speaker the tube amp reacts substantially different. Namely not rolled off but even hyped in the treble with the speaker used by the OP.

I think that when the typical roll-off was applied digitally to the original file and that was posted instead the outpcome would have been very similar.
Although at louder levels the distortion (especially IM, harmonic will not be as audible) could still give some difference in 'clean-ness' of the sound with some recordings.

Of course it will be different with speakers,in fact it will be different for each speaker,as you wrote earlier.

But distortion is there nevertheless,even with the resistor.

What some friends here are describing as distortion factories doesn't come near this,is more like a nuclear distortion facility BUT still sneaks it's way into music.
Not my cap of tea (not like that any way), but I have heard many tubes that I couldn't discriminate in a blind test to be honest.

 

[solderdude]

Yes, the distortion is there but that what could be perceived as 'tube sound' (usually typical treble roll-off) might not be caused by the distortion components in the test files but the more obvious treble roll-off.
At least that's what seems to trigger most listeners, they mention the treble roll-off as indicator and not increased distortion.
So the increase in distortion effect might be 'masked' by the treble roll-off.

When there would be no roll-off and only the added harmonics and IM products (above all) there is a very big chance no one would be acing the (by danadam) level matched files, or at least not nearly as convincing and most people would state to hear no difference at all as the give-away (the treble roll-off) would not be there.