There is nothing holy about the signal

[Curvature]

Soo I was thinking the ultimate in sound can be reached in two ways: (1) Complete physical reproduction of some acoustic environment, all transfer functions matched. This is the sci-fi way. (2) Complete perceptual reproduction. This requires understanding the resolution (there are rigorous definitions of this term) of our hearing, but not physical reproduction.

I have a feeling that, when fidelity to the signal and distortion are discussed or thought about in the physical sense, you get various brands of purist. (2) is relatively more attainable than (1), but assessing and evaluating (2) is much harder than (1).

 

[MattHooper]

So... The female mids have a nice velvety smoothness to them when using your CJ tube gear. I like a coloration that makes horns/trumpets rip. They gain some sort of ripping brass sound. That also explains my appreciation of huge quantities of high frequency when applying PEQ and of horn speakers.

Yes, something like that.

Since I’m a huge funk and R&B fan, And I generally love the sound of trumpets including in orchestras, trumpets are one of those sounds that must sound “right or pleasing to my ears.” I found a slight tonal/timbral difference with trumpets via the CJ versus solid state. Via solid state, trumpet tend to strike me as having a more silvery timber, the CJ more of a brassy golden glow which I like a bit better.

 

[Sal1950]

Tubes do sound different in many cases. I've heard some of them.

Of course most do, the differences are easily revealed in the measurements.
Don't know why anyone would any claim different.
Now why you would prefer listening the that type of distortion over a clean, transparent signal still
evades my personal Hi Fi goals? I understand they might improve the sound of some poorly recorded
music. But what then when you want to hear the true inner detail of all the excellent sounding masters
at our fingertips?

 

[MattHooper]

Of course most do, the differences are easily revealed in the measurements.
Don't know why anyone would any claim different.
Now why you would prefer listening the that type of distortion over a clean, transparent signal still
evades my personal Hi Fi goals? I understand they might improve the sound of some poorly recorded
music. But what then when you want to hear the true inner detail of all the excellent sounding masters
at our fingertips?

The same tooby characteristics that I find “enhance” poor recordings, also for me enhances great recordings. In other words, I find there are trade-offs, mostly across-the-board and all type of recordings, and a pretty much every case, I prefer things with tubes in the signal. If that weren’t the case I doubt I would still keep my amps. Because of course, like any audiophile I love great sounding recordings. YMMV of course.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

Of course most do, the differences are easily revealed in the measurements.
Don't know why anyone would any claim different.
Now why you would prefer listening the that type of distortion over a clean, transparent signal still
evades my personal Hi Fi goals? I understand they might improve the sound of some poorly recorded
music. But what then when you want to hear the true inner detail of all the excellent sounding masters
at our fingertips?

Not all distortion masks actual content. When I use my tube simulation DSP I am not losing any discernible detail or anything else

 

[Miguelón]

Is there any advantage of vacuum tube amps versus transistor ones? Apart from the mentioned that seem to be easily reproduced by EQ…

 

[Purité Audio]

If you consider trying different makes of valve seeking an imagined improvement then yes.
Keith

 

[Miguelón]

If you consider trying different makes of valve seeking an imagined improvement then yes.
Keith

I find them fascinating as how they work and their historical role: I guess for some people may be like having a museum piece on their homes.

Perhaps next electronic revolution may relegate semiconductors to a “vintage” gear to future audiophiles

 

[Purité Audio]

People use them because they have been told ( and unthinkingly believe) they are somehow ‘better’ more ‘musical’, have an ‘inner life’ and other such crap.
Keith

 

[Mart68]

People use them because they have been told ( and unthinkingly believe) they are somehow ‘better’ more ‘musical’, have an ‘inner life’ and other such crap.
Keith

And are often suggested as the automatic solution to a 'harsh sounding' system. Which is odd since I've heard them sound as rough as a badger's arse on a fair few occasions.

The good ones sound like solid-state so what's the point unless you just like the looks or the retro thing? Which, if you do, is fair enough.

 

[MattHooper]

People use them because they have been told ( and unthinkingly believe) they are somehow ‘better’ more ‘musical’, have an ‘inner life’ and other such crap.
Keith

And sometimes there is something to it: a tube amp may alter the sound of the system in a way somebody likes, and they may reach for words to describe the type of subjective impression they get.

Not everyone in the world who uses something other than solid state is an unthinking dupe.

And virtually nobody escapes the possibility of bias effect I want they hear. If you demo the solid-state amp and a tube amp that sound different in a system, you may well prefer the solid-state app because you know it measures better, which biases you towards that item. Or you may be biased towards one speaker over another because “I’ve seen the measurements.” so in subjective preference terms you don’t automatically escape fooling yourself by just avoiding things like tube amps.

 

[Sal1950]

The same tooby characteristics that I find “enhance” poor recordings, also for me enhances great recordings. In other words, I find there are trade-offs, mostly across-the-board and all type of recordings, and a pretty much every case, I prefer things with tubes in the signal.

And sometimes there is something to it: a tube amp may alter the sound of the system in a way somebody likes, and they may reach for words to describe the type of subjective impression they get.

I don't know what you choose too call that, but in 2023 and for a number of decades before that, it sure ain't High Fidelity.

Is there any advantage of vacuum tube amps versus transistor ones?

They heat the room on cold winter days.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

I don't know what you choose too call that, but in 2023 and for a number of decades before that, it sure ain't High Fidelity.

So put a label on it and criticize the label. I don’t know what you call Dolby Atmos up mixes but in terms of faithfulness to the original recording that sure ain’t “high fidelity” either. See how that works? Well, probably not….

 

[MattHooper]

So put a label on it and criticize the label. I don’t know what you call Dolby Atmos up mixes but in terms of faithfulness to the original recording that sure ain’t “high fidelity” either. See how that works? Well, probably not….

Caution: glass houses. ;-)

 

[mhardy6647]

Caution: glass houses. ;-)

source: https://intactaudio.com/for.html

fortunately...

Metal, baby!

 

[Sal1950]

And sometimes there is something to it: a tube amp may alter the sound of the system in a way somebody likes, and they may reach for words to describe the type of subjective impression they get.

The subjective impression they get is perfectly easy to describe, it's called a distortion of the source.

Caution: glass houses. ;-)

Any mod or enhancement I may chose to add to a source is instantly removed with a single click of the Pure Direct button on the remote.

 

[Miguelón]

So fun, apparently there’s no agreement on signal preservation as possible. It sounds to my ears like a radio receiver should not preserve the information to enhance better pleasure experience.

To me all devices that alter the signal are somehow a “lesser evil” by definition of high fidelity. Ideally it will be a pure flat function transfer in an anechoic room by totally coaxial speakers but unless we all can allow to have this, we still should equalize, phase alignment and stuff

 

[egellings]

Distortion of the source is an actual, measurable signal anomaly. Subjective impression is just an opinion on the effect the distortion has on the signal. That has actually nothing to do on the signal itself.

 

[MattHooper]

The subjective impression they get is perfectly easy to describe, it's called a distortion of the source.


Any mod or enhancement I may chose to add to a source is instantly removed with a single click of the Pure Direct button on the remote.

That’s like the church pastor who preaches monogamy being caught cheating, and saying to the flock “ well I’ve only cheated sometimes, some of you cheat more than me!”



The point is, despite your disparaging of other people’s choice to depart at all from the highest fidelity, you are making your choices based on your own preferences. That includes a preference sometimes to depart from this glorified “high Fidelity” whenever you like the sound better. So you realize it’s perfectly fine to depart from high fidelity if you like that.

There is no virtuous difference, therefore between when you decide to depart from Fidelity or when I or anybody else does.

For decades of owning my tube gear, I haven’t felt any need to switch between higher Fidelity amplification, because I’ve always liked how my system sounds with the tube amps. So why would I have needed to bother with trying to set up a system where I could switch between solar and tubes? I got what I wanted all the time with my amps. The fact of whether I could easily turn off the sound with a switch or not is simply a moot point in that regard.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

That’s like the church pastor who preaches monogamy being caught cheating, and saying to the flock “ well I’ve only cheated sometimes, some of you cheat more than me!”

Now that’s what I call infidelity!