• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

There is nothing holy about the signal

Is the signal holy?

  • Yes it is

    Votes: 27 17.1%
  • No it isn't

    Votes: 122 77.2%
  • Undecided / No opinion

    Votes: 9 5.7%

  • Total voters
    158
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.
I love tubes, funny things that made evolve the electronic history… is curious that nowadays are more expensive than solid state ones.
 
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.
Naw, your trying to distort the big picture as always.
It goes back to the earliest days the idea of High Fidelity gear and it's debates.
There's not a thing wrong with having tone controls on your preamp, as long as you can turn them to Flat or switch them out
of the signal path when not desired. All that's fine.
OTOH if the opposite is true and anything in the gear modifies the source in a way that's not removable, it's no longer a High Fidelity system in modern terms, simple 2+2=4 math here.
This is not an across the board condemnation of tubes, audibly transparent tube gear and circuits have been around for decades. But once you start talking bout any gear that isn't capable of being transparent to the source, it's no longer Hi Fi.
Just the facts sir. ;)
 
Naw, your trying to distort the big picture as always.
It goes back to the earliest days the idea of High Fidelity gear and it's debates.
There's not a thing wrong with having tone controls on your preamp, as long as you can turn them to Flat or switch them out
of the signal path when not desired. All that's fine.
OTOH if the opposite is true and anything in the gear modifies the source in a way that's not removable, it's no longer a High Fidelity system in modern terms, simple 2+2=4 math here.
This is not an across the board condemnation of tubes, audibly transparent tube gear and circuits have been around for decades. But once you start talking bout any gear that isn't capable of being transparent to the source, it's no longer Hi Fi.
Just the facts sir. ;)
Agree, is the basic definition. On the other side I still find vacuum tubes to have some charm as a concept: never listened to them.

Recently I red that gamma particles in space can change a single bit on a transistor, making dramatic consequences depending of where the bit is placed. Actually computers in space vessels have 3 or 4 redundant paths to avoid that.

Perhaps should return to vacuum tube computers, I can see Elon Musk presenting the Tube Link :)
 
Naw, your trying to distort the big picture as always.
It goes back to the earliest days the idea of High Fidelity gear and it's debates.
There's not a thing wrong with having tone controls on your preamp, as long as you can turn them to Flat or switch them out
of the signal path when not desired. All that's fine.
OTOH if the opposite is true and anything in the gear modifies the source in a way that's not removable, it's no longer a High Fidelity system in modern terms, simple 2+2=4 math here.
This is not an across the board condemnation of tubes, audibly transparent tube gear and circuits have been around for decades. But once you start talking bout any gear that isn't capable of being transparent to the source, it's no longer Hi Fi.
Just the facts sir. ;)
So part time low fi is acceptable but full time is not. Nothing arbitrary or self serving about that.
 
I don't believe on room curves whatever and who created it. Using tone controls (the analog ones on the preamp) to somewhat enhance the sound to my pleasure. Of course there is no way to reproduce the sound what was in the recording studio room hearable. If someone thinks it is possible, that is dreaming.
yes , we don't have those same rooms same b-chain with the processors amps cables speakers even if have same speakers there not in the same positions as they are in those rooms
 
Naw, you’re trying to distort the big picture as always.
Ironically, what you were characterizing as “distortions“ in my post are actually clarifications of the subject.

Remember: the issue isn’t that you relentlessly point out systems that are not “high Fidelity.” Everyone here knows that some tube amplifiers under the right conditions can be less accurate.

The point is that you were continually implying a type of audiophile-shaming of those who do not toe the line of the highest fidelity in their system choice. That’s why we point out that “you do it too.” Your replies is essentially: “but it’s OK when I do it because I can turn it on and off.” Which doesn’t exactly address this issue. If you were all about “high Fidelity” you wouldn’t be up mixing two channel music to surround. Sure, that’s your choice. But is other peoples choice to also enjoy somewhat less Fidelity when they like it. Your version is no more virtuous.


There's not a thing wrong with having tone controls on your preamp, as long as you can turn them to Flat or switch them out
of the signal path when not desired. All that's fine.

Which leads to questions:

1. What use our tone controls if you don’t use them?

But if you are going to use them as you suggest is fine:

2. Why is it OK to color the sound with tone controls as you desire? Every time you do, you are departing from the goal of high Fidelity. The system is only high Fidelity if you choose to use it as such.

3. How often is one allowed to use the tone controls to depart from high Fidelity and nudge the sound towards one’s taste? Once a week? Twice a week? Every other album? I hope you will agree that any attempt to answer this will show arbitrariness.

So

4. What if it turns out that someone actually prefers a certain tone control setting across-the-board. He just likes the sound of the system with that setting, even though it departs somewhat from high Fidelity. What does it matter that the system was high Fidelity since the default setting of the system is not to the users taste? Let me remind you, that if you say “ well, that person just isn’t into high Fidelity” then you go back to the arbitrary problem as to how many times and for how long the tone controls can be used without that claim being made against somebody else.

5. What if instead of tone controls, somebody has a tube amplifier that happens to slightly modify the sound of his system and the way he likes across-the-board? That would be essentially the same as having a high Fidelity system with a nudge of EQ on all the time. “ why have controls if you’re not going to use them? And since the decision to use controls means, you are simply modulating the sound of your system as you like it, why criticize somebody else’s method of doing so?

“ but in a high Fidelity system, you can turn the colouration off!”

Well, so what? Why would that matter if somebody doesn’t want to turn the colouration off and likes it on?

Further, a solid system with tone controls may not offer the other things somebody gets out of owning a tube amp. For one thing you might not be able to dial in precisely the type of distortion the tube app is creating, and therefore not precisely re-create what the user likes in the sound.

Secondly, the tube app may offer the owner, aesthetic and conceptual pleasures that he simply doesn’t get from the solid state system with tone controls. He gets the colouration he wants, along with the aesthetic pleasure of the look of the tube and the glowing tubes, as well as the conceptual pleasure of how to work and their connection to audio history. You can’t just “ dial those features in “ using tone controls.

So while it may be true, the starting off with a totally neutral solid-state system, and employing tone control sometimes might satisfy one persons taste and goals, it may not be the best solution to satisfying somebody else’s taste and goals. That’s why across-the-board recommendations like “you should always start with a neutral solid state system and then dial an EQ” doesn’t work for everyone. That certainly may be decent advice for a newbie, but audio files who’ve been in the game for a long time and tried to all sorts of different things, and discovered how to satisfy their own taste can justify other approaches.

Finally: as I’ve argued many times before, I find hand ringing over how much a tube amp departs from “high Fidelity” to often be making a mountain out of a mole hill.




OTOH if the opposite is true and anything in the gear modifies the source in a way that's not removable, it's no longer a High Fidelity system

It’s also not a high Fidelity system when you are using tone controls.

Or changing two channel sources to surround.
 
It’s also not a high Fidelity system when you are using tone controls.

Or changing two channel sources to surround.
BS BS BS.
It's still a High Fidelity Capable system.
Don't play word games
The point is that you were continually implying a type of audiophile-shaming of those who do not toe the line of the highest fidelity in their system choice. That’s why we point out that “you do it too.” Your replies is essentially: “but it’s OK when I do it because I can turn it on and off.” Which doesn’t exactly address this issue. If you were all about “high Fidelity” you wouldn’t be up mixing two channel music to surround. Sure, that’s your choice. But is other peoples choice to also enjoy somewhat less Fidelity when they like it. Your version is no more virtuous.
It's not about shaming but, Sorry, but your system is broken.
You can't pass a transparent signal, and it doesn't matter what I may or may not do with mine at times.
If you love the sound of a Edison cylinder machine would you call that High Fidelity too?
They thought so in 1910, and it was THEN, but time marches on.
There have to be reliable, repeatable standards for Hi Fi and in 2024 it ain't that.
You can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse. :p

Sounds good to me isn't Hi Fi.
 
BS BS BS.
It's still a High Fidelity Capable system.
Don't play word games
Moving goal posts
It's not about shaming but, Sorry, but your system is broken.
It’s not about shaming. You should be ashamed of your system
You can't pass a transparent signal, and it doesn't matter what I may or may not do with mine at times.
If you love the sound of a Edison cylinder machine would you call that High Fidelity too?
Because it’s the title we give it that matters not the enjoyment we get.
They thought so in 1910, and it was THEN, but time marches on.
There have to be reliable, repeatable standards for Hi Fi and in 2024 it ain't that.
It ain’t Dolby Atmos either. That’s for sure
You can't turn a sows ear into a silk purse. :p

Sounds good to me isn't Hi Fi.
But that is what you are living with. Maybe you should get two accounts and start shaming yourself
 
BS BS BS.
It's still a High Fidelity Capable system.
Don't play word games

It’s not word games to point out that your high Fidelity Soundsystem is not capable of high Fidelity while you are using the tone controls (or altering stereo to surround sound) .

What’s the point of having a “high Fidelity system” if you aren’t going to use it in high Fidelity mode? Oh, you go back-and-forth between actual high Fidelity and colouring the sound as you please? Fine, but you’re in no position then to arbitrarily shame others for colouring their system in another way. You have no stance on which to say “I’m the one who cares about high Fidelity” (just the exact portion that you personally want to)



It's not about shaming but, Sorry, but your system is broken.

:rolleyes:


Sounds good to me isn't Hi Fi.

And yet you are using a “sounds good to you” approach. If it sounds good to you, you will leave the stereo signal unmolested. And when it sounds good to you, you’ll use tone controls or up mix to surround.

You’re using a “sounds good to you” approach Sal, you can’t get around this fact.
 
Last edited:
many, many words, even though the apt two word phrase has long existed:

euphonic distortion

That phrase only amounts to “pleasing distortion.” It doesn’t tell you about the specific character of the distortion, that makes it “euphonic.” That’s why description of the various ways a distortion changes the subjective impression of a recording can be useful.
 
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….
You can to better than this.

This thread is about what happens between loading the music product into your system, and experiencing what hits your ears. It's not about what's done before that, i.e., the creation of the music product.

The signal you feed into your home audio system, is it audibly distorted by the DAC, preamp, amp, or cable components? (We know it is when speaking of transducers). That is deviation from 'high fidelity'. Is that distortion desired/purposeful, or not? If yes, the listener is OK with the deviation, it's euphonic to them. If no, listeners tend not to want it.

So no, the signal is not holy to everyone. And yet this thread persists.
 
That phrase only amounts to “pleasing distortion.”

Indeed.

It doesn’t tell you about the specific character of the distortion, that makes it “euphonic.”

In 99/100 cases, I couldn't care less about being told that.

That’s why description of the various ways a distortion changes the subjective impression of a recording can be useful.

Only if someone else's subjective impressions matter to you.
 
Indeed.



In 99/100 cases, I couldn't care less about being told that.



Only if someone else's subjective impressions matter to you.

Ok. It wasn’t clear that you were only speaking for yourself. It seemed like you were making a wider prescription that tube sound need only be described with that phrase. But other audiophiles are more curious than you are about the nature of tube sound, and its effects on recordings. So more descriptive language is required.

It sort of like saying a certain Beatles song is simply “euphonic”. A Beatles fan points out “well it is that but it certainly more than just euphonic; there’s all sorts of characteristics to describe in that song” and you reply “ well I’m not really a Beatles fan anyway so I don’t care about more words to describe their music.”

Uh ok. :)
 
You can to better than this.

This thread is about what happens between loading the music product into your system,
That may be your interpretation. I think the “signal” stops at the speaker terminals or speaker crossover for active crossovers.

I also think it is quite analogous to changes made in the source signal before it gets to the consumer.

Shakespeare said best, a rose by any other name is still a rose. The idea that changes to a recording in post are sacrosanct but made in the home are blasphemy is arbitrary to a large degree.
and experiencing what hits your ears. It's not about what's done before that, i.e., the creation of the music product.
You draw your lines I draw mine. If it’s about what hits our ears no one is getting a “pure signal”
The signal you feed into your home audio system, is it audibly distorted by the DAC, preamp, amp, or cable components? (We know it is when speaking of transducers). That is deviation from 'high fidelity'. Is that distortion desired/purposeful, or not? If yes, the listener is OK with the deviation, it's euphonic to them. If no, listeners tend not to want it.
Yeah, I’m on board with all of that. But the question was whether or not the “signal” is sacred. I think Sal’s position looks a lot like “it’s sacred when it fits my audio philosophy but it isn’t sacred when I like the results of changing the signal.” IMO he presents a very myopic argument.
So no, the signal is not holy to everyone. And yet this thread persists.
Indeed. We agree that it isn’t holy. But alas there are others participating in the thread
 
That phrase only amounts to “pleasing distortion.” It doesn’t tell you about the specific character of the distortion, that makes it “euphonic.” That’s why description of the various ways a distortion changes the subjective impression of a recording can be useful.
Does it matter, it's still distorted and not capable of transparent signal handling.
By modern standards it's broken.
That fact that someone may like the sound of broken is totally irrelevant.
 
Does it matter,

Of course it does. Though not perhaps to someone incurious about the matter.

But why not care about the nature of sound reproduction beyond strictly “is it accurate?” Why not try understanding the nature of sound, reproduced or otherwise, and why people like it?

In fact, you already do care: you extol the virtues of introducing colouration via tone controls or up mixing to surround.

So of course changes to the signal that someone finds euphonic matters.

You just, arbitrarily, go back-and-forth between the choice of colouration that you prefer and “ but we care about high Fidelity!” to diss to somebody else’s choices. It’s rather tired.

Anyway, enough of this…
 
Last edited:
But why not care about the nature of sound reproduction beyond strictly “is it accurate?” Why not try understanding the nature of sound, reproduced or otherwise, and why people like it?
Because this is Audio Science Review, that's what we do here.
"sounds good to me" is the fantasy crap that goes on elsewhere.
Amir measures gear to separate the good, bad, and fugly.
 
You just, arbitrarily, go back-and-forth between the choice of colouration that you prefer and “ but we care about high Fidelity!” to diss to somebody else’s choices.
You simply attempt a distraction from the facts of the measurements and their results.
 
Because this is Audio Science Review, that's what we do here.
"sounds good to me" is the fantasy crap that goes on elsewhere.
Amir measures gear to separate the good, bad, and fugly.

No, this site is about understanding how audio gear works, whether it’s accurate or not. You seem to keep forgetting there’s an actual part of the forum devoted to vinyl playback. And Amir evaluates phono equipment.

Further, and we’ve been through this before, the much heralded research from Floyd Toole and Harman Kardon produced “sounds good to me” ratings, derived from subjective impressions as to what people rated as “sounds good to me”

So you are wrong from just about every angle.
 
Back
Top Bottom