In more depth:
http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/12_amps_8.html
http://education.lenardaudio.com/en/12_amps_8.html
Unless I have been mis-informed, the 35mm film used by Mercury was simply magnetic tape in the format of 35mm film [oxide deposited on film]. So Mercury wasn't using the "optical" track. Plenty of 'vintage' distortion on these recordings.If you want to experience the sound, at good quality, I'd suggest streaming (if they are available I don't know) or purchasing some of the CD reissues of the Mercury Living Prescence recordings done on 35 mm film. Those used tube U47 microphones, tubed gear for everything, and went to the optical tracks of 35 mm film instead of reel to reel tape. The 35 mm film for recording sound was quite a step up in transparency vs RTR. And the ways it wasn't of great fidelity are not different than tubed gear. I don't know if the 35 mm based Everest recordings are available anywhere, but that is another source. Though I felt the Everests for reasons unknown to me were a little light weight below 100 hz.
The Mercurys are in the same league as the "Living Stereo" series, usually brighter in tonal balance. Both series have plenty of soft and sometimes not-so soft clipping. The 35mm Mercurys don't seem much different than the sessions recorded to [1/2 inch?] tape. I've owned one of the Everest recordings transferred to SACD, ok but not what I would call state of the art.I had an Everest 35mm recording of Berlioz Symphony Fantastique. It was nothing special sonically. Not bad, but some of the RCA Victors were far superior. It left me with the impression that the whole 35mm thing was more of a gimmick than a real technical improvement.
I would like to know what is the scientific reason behind the "attractiveness" of tubey sound.
My impression is as below:
FREQUENCY RESPONSE
1. Tubes boosts mid-low frequencies which makes vocal more forward-sounding;
2. Rolls off high frequency and reduces low bass, which makes low-mid-range even more forward-sounding;
3. The reduced high frequency usually compensates for bad room-acounstic, especially rooms with too much reflection, which is where 90% of "audiophiles" listen to their system;
4. The reduced low bass reduces the significance of room mode.
DISTORTION
1. Some tube amps introduce more even harmonic Distortion compared to solid states;
2. This makes bass and mid-low frequencies sound "thicker" and more immersive;
3. More even harmonics adds that "metallic" colour to instruments and female voice which some people prefer.
Decay
1. Some tube amps got longer decay, which compensates for weak bass some times;
2. Which also makes studio-recorded vocal sound less "dry" sometimes.
CLIPPING
1. Old tube amps tend to have higher distortion than modern tube amps;
2. Back in the time it was rare to see amps with more than 20Wpc of output therefore most of amps would go into clipping when playing music;
3. Tubes sounds much more tolerable when going into clipping compared to early solid states;
4. People then believed tubes sound better;
5. Also the same reason that why some people claim "high powered/expensive SS sound more like tube". Is it simply due to the fact that they clip less frequently?
I concluded the above on myself after years of observation and discussion with my friends, some of them got technical background but most of them don't.
Please let me know what I've concluded wrong or what else would you like to add on!
May I ask what feature film is enticing you to return to the theater?
I go about 2 or 3 times a year. One a few years back was a 3D showing of Prometheus. Not a bad movie in my opinion. I wanted to see it, was working lots of hours, but had a Tuesday evening clear to watch it. No one else was there for the late Tuesday showing. So this large up to date theater had a showing just for me. I'm sure they weren't happy as the theater doesn't have to pay the fee for showing if no tickets are sold. And mine was the only one that late evening. The last week they were showing it. I would have preferred other people there. On the other hand, shoot, better than watching it at home if no one else is there to bother you.
I do now have a good sized projector setup and my visits to the theater are lower than in year's past. I wished people making these movies would catch on and offer quality streaming in the opening weeks. I don't want to go to the theater. I've a big screen, excellent surround sound, and the convenience of watching at home with my friends. I'll pay a few bucks for that and the move companies are missing out on my revenue.
Hmm, if you're the only one or if the crowd is so small, wouldn't it be cheaper if the theater refund the money back plus give discount for future purchases instead of still putting up a show?
Thanks, that’s the best explanation of tubes I can recall seeing, ever.With tubes it matters how you use them. (i.e. topology and parts around it) that can, or do not, 'colour' the sound in a way that is either appreciated by some or simply works admirably and cannot be distinguished in a blind test.
In the US, the license for the film to the theater is a fixed cost for a certain period of time (e.g. 4 weeks).
The theater might as well show it and hope you buy lots of high margin soda and pop corn.
I'm thinking of going to see Joker this week.May I ask what feature film is enticing you to return to the theater?
There's also a lot of Three-card Monte.
2nd harmonic is ‘easier’ for the brain to process ...
also they didn't know about slewing distortion until Otala. some years later.
windoz only