Tube sound - what the artist/engineer intended?

[Deleted member 87496]

Empathy = feeling other people's feelings, experiencing their feelings as your own because you care about them and/or have functioning mirror neurons

Your friend is cosplaying the feelings of people based on nothing except his own fantasies and projections since he has no access to their feeling at all

You're correct...I chose the wrong word, "empathy," so my description is inaccurate. Thank you.

However, "Your friend is cosplaying..." is negative and derogatory...what impels you to offer such a post among people who share who share a passion and love of music? I'm genuinely curious, no judgment on my part. It happens quite a bit in audiophile threads, btw, hardly ever in my book club ones, so I'm especially curious. The contrast is so striking.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

You're correct...I chose the wrong word, "empathy," so my description is inaccurate. Thank you.

However, "Your friend is cosplaying..." is negative and derogatory...what impels you to offer such a post among people who share who share a passion and love of music? I'm genuinely curious, no judgment on my part. It happens quite a bit in audiophile threads, btw, hardly ever in my book club ones, so I'm especially curious. The contrast is so striking.

Why do you think cosplay is derogatory? It's a very popular hobby worldwide.

 

[wadude]

I don't believe nasty was the result he intended by trying to fold in large orchestral musical support to what was considered simple 3 chord styling?
Too bad he's not around to ask.

I don’t consider that sound nasty. I think he achieved his sonic goals.

Ask him? As long as he was in jail or a lockdown psych ward! He killed another human being, the crazy jerk. I love a lot of the music but he died where he belonged. As for respecting his work, he certainly gets credit for it so his artistic legacy is secure.

Maybe we should change the producer seat out and start conversing about Shel Talmy, another knob twiddler who created controversial sounds in pop music!

 

[Robin L]

I don’t consider that sound nasty. I think he achieved his sonic goals.

Ask him? As long as he was in jail or a lockdown psych ward! He killed another human being, the crazy jerk. I love a lot of the music but he died where he belonged. As for respecting his work, he certainly gets credit for it so his artistic legacy is secure.

Maybe we should change the producer seat out and start conversing about Shel Talmy, another knob twiddler who created controversial sounds in pop music!

Not to mention the highly influential and notably crazy Joe Meek!

But in any case, the OP was concerned with the value of using vintage (or at least Thermionic) gear for authentic reproduction of vintage recordings. Here's an example of a vintage (1961) track of high quality, recorded on tube gear that sounds great on solid state gear:

Another fine early production from 1958:

 

[Sal1950]

But in any case, the OP was concerned with the value of using vintage (or at least Thermionic) gear for authentic reproduction of vintage recordings. Here's an example of a vintage (1961) track of high quality, recorded on tube gear that sounds great on solid state gear:

IMHO, two wrongs can never make a right on this issue.
From day one of music recording, there have been great sounding releases and some not so great ones.
I don't see how using distorted playback gear (tubes) can in any way be a good choice to counter a bad recording.
Specially since the distortion of said gear can't be turned off so your stuck with hearing it on even the best sounding sources.
Now if adding some sort of tonal correction or other DSP makes things sound better in your subjective opinion, have at it.

 

[Deleted member 87496]

Why do you think cosplay is derogatory? It's a very popular hobby worldwide.

Understood.

 

[wadude]

Understood.

Sorry to see you go, you set up some fun conversations.

 

[AA63]

I would love to know the opinion of a knowledgeable/qualified sound engineer/producer on this.

I have come across differing opinions online about his skills. Some say that it could have been done better.
Clearly he was a real inovator, in terms of new and creative ways of producing and mixing. But how technically competent was he?
And how much was any dificiency in sound quality just down to limitations of the technology of the time etc?

My 2.3 centavos...

There are few things in life that do not fall into the "could have been done better" category - hindsight et al.

Recording engineers, more or less, were at the mercy of the room they are in + mics/console/outboard avail. Their influence was limited to placement, and unless they were over eq'ing/compressing while printing, were simply capturing.

Mix engineering however, is a different beast. They are also creating "a performance" (albeit not a live one-off one). They have concepts and ideas based upon what they are given to mix, the instructions given to them etc., and then they interpret that - countless choices and very much part of "the art" of it all.

Speaking from personal experience, things changed a lot in the 70s - gear got significantly more accurate/flexible, and bands/musicians became far more involved in the mixing process - due in no small part to not being satisfied with how mix engineers (for a multitude of reasons) were interpreting their songs.

More to your question though - limits of technology have and will continue to exist - so it ALWAYS comes down to choices being made within those boundaries - so after that long-winded setup - my answer would be no, it is not a limit of technology, it is all him choosing what to do with what he had that made that horrid racket - LOL.

 

[DVDdoug]

Phil Spector -

I read Geoff Emerick's book. He was the engineer on most of The Beatles recordings. He was not the engineer when Phil Spector was producing but he was called in. He never spoke to Spector but I guess he gave him a dirty look. Somebody said he was making Spector uncomfortable and was asked to leave. In those days, the producer wasn't allowed to touch the equipment but he kept cranking-up the monitor volume to earsplitting levels and the engineer kept turning it down. Spector also erased a couple of Beatles tracks to make room for something else (I think they were using 8-track tape at that time). Geoff Emerick was shocked by that!

I have a Phil Spector quote:

I must have more echo! I must have more reverb!

I wonder it that's what inspired the "More Cowbell: SNL skit.

 

[Sal1950]

I have a Phil Spector quote:

Evidence please.
There's a million haters claiming he's the Devil incarnate.

To quote Warren Zevon,
"After ten long years they let him out of the home
Excitable boy, they all said
And he dug up her grave and built a cage with her bones
Excitable boy, they all said
Well, he's just an excitable boy"

 

[donjoe0]

My philosophy is there are dividing lines - |.
Musicians/instruments | microphones | preamps/tracking console/track recording | mixing/processing/master | mastering | release format | playback/room.

I'm an electrical engineer and former recording engineer, so I could describe each of those transfer functions.

Could you comment on this contention I found recently that the oft-encountered tube specific overemphasis on even-order harmonics compensates for odd-harmonics overemphasis that may have been added during the earlier stages of production by transistor amplification stages with differential design? This person in YouTube comments said such a topology specifically attenuates even-order harmonics and leaves the odd-orders standing out and making the sound "harsh", then if you listen through a tube amp with just the right amount of H2 overemphasis at the final/reproduction stage, all is well again and you're actually closer to the original pre-microphone sound.

Could this be the case for at least some percentange of albums out there? (Could we reliably diagnose albums in our collections to find which ones have this particularity, if any?)

 

[AA63]

Could you comment on this contention I found recently that the oft-encountered tube specific overemphasis on even-order harmonics compensates for odd-harmonics overemphasis that may have been added during the earlier stages of production by transistor amplification stages with differential design? This person in YouTube comments said such a topology specifically attenuates even-order harmonics and leaves the odd-orders standing out and making the sound "harsh", then if you listen through a tube amp with just the right amount of H2 overemphasis at the final/reproduction stage, all is well again and you're actually closer to the original pre-microphone sound.

Could this be the case for at least some percentange of albums out there? (Could we reliably diagnose albums in our collections to find which ones have this particularity, if any?)

I'm speaking out of turn but the answer to your two questions would be...

1 - "Could this be the case" - sure it could be - as any of the many other things involved could be.

2 - "reliably diagnose which ones" - no, see #1 above. There is no way to reliably know an individual "why" reason simply due to the a) the amount of steps that EERecordist mentioned and b) that most recordings are not of simple isolated instruments - meaning we don't know what (harmonic) could be cancelling (or adding) what when everything is combined.

I suppose it would be possible to experiment with recordings of a solo instrument or operatic aria for example - but again, there are many variable in the chain from performing - to print - to reproduction. Scientifically speaking, without a detailed list and measurements of the room, mic, gear, mastering gear etc. finding the culprit's "signature" would end up being low on the probability scale of reproducible experiments.

In my humble opinion.

 

[Robin L]

Could you comment on this contention I found recently that the oft-encountered tube specific overemphasis on even-order harmonics compensates for odd-harmonics overemphasis that may have been added during the earlier stages of production by transistor amplification stages with differential design? This person in YouTube comments said such a topology specifically attenuates even-order harmonics and leaves the odd-orders standing out and making the sound "harsh", then if you listen through a tube amp with just the right amount of H2 overemphasis at the final/reproduction stage, all is well again and you're actually closer to the original pre-microphone sound.

Could this be the case for at least some percentange of albums out there? (Could we reliably diagnose albums in our collections to find which ones have this particularity, if any?)

I would only note that there's no guarantee that a given tube amp, be it recent or vintage, will have even order harmonics predominate.

A vintage Dynaco st 70:

Review and Measurements of Dynaco ST 70

This is a review and detailed measurements of the vintage Dynakit Dynaco Stereo 70. It is on kind loan from a member who bought it used online and repaired it. Previous owner hand upgraded it but could not get it working. Given that it is 60 years old, one can forgive the rust and dust...

www.audiosciencereview.com

. . . while having even order harmonics predominate, has a spray of other orders of harmonic distortion.

The Dynaco st 30 series 3 power amp:

Dynaco ST-70 Series 3 Tube Amplifier Review

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Dynaco ST-70 Series 3 tube stereo amplifier. It is on kind loan and cost $3000 (seems to be discontinued now). The amplifier is gorgeous looking and better than just about any tube amplifier I have seen. You can see the style and modernization...

www.audiosciencereview.com

. . . has nearly equal amounts of second and third order harmonic distortion, with the third order distortion slightly higher.

The two designs are both based on fundamentally the same circuit, with the series 3 design being an update.

 

[mhardy6647]

I would only note that there's no guarantee that a given tube amp, be it recent or vintage, will have even order harmonics predominate.

All things being equal, it depends mostly on amplifier topology: single-ended vs. push-pull!
Active devices can be transistors or vacuum tubes -- push-pull amplifiers cancel out even-order harmonics; single-ended amplifiers don't (i.e., they can't).

 

[Robin L]

All things being equal, it depends mostly on amplifier topology: single-ended vs. push-pull!
Active devices can be transistors or vacuum tubes -- push-pull amplifiers cancel out even-order harmonics; single-ended amplifiers don't (i.e., they can't).

That certainly helps to explain the SET "sound".

Did something happen to the circuit topology of the Dynaco ST-70 from the original version to the series 3?

 

[mhardy6647]

That certainly helps to explain the SET "sound".

Did something happen to the circuit topology of the Dynaco ST-70 from the original version to the series 3?

bias point, maybe?
Oh, the "Series 3" is a different beast entirely! Way, way post-Hafler. I wouldn't be surprised if everything about it is different, including the driver topology. operating points for the outputs, and the feedback tap on the OPTs -- and the OPTs themselves may or may not be equivalent.

A push-pull amp exhibiting any significant second-order harmonics, I would think, does not have the two halves of the output stage(s) properly balanced. There should be essentially zero levels of even-order distortion.

EDIT Yes, the 'magic' of SET is often attributed to relatively high levels of "euphonic" 2nd order HD (i.e., exactly one octave above the fundamental).

 

[Robin L]

bias point, maybe?
Oh, the "Series 3" is a different beast entirely! Way, way post-Hafler. I wouldn't be surprised if everything about it is different, including the driver topology. operating points for the outputs, and the feedback tap on the OPTs -- and the OPTs themselves may or may not be equivalent.

A push-pull amp exhibiting any significant second-order harmonics, I would think, does not have the two halves of the output stage(s) properly balanced. There should be essentially zero levels of even-order distortion.

EDIT Yes, the 'magic' of SET is often attributed to relatively high levels of "euphonic" 2nd order HD (i.e., exactly one octave above the fundamental).

What do you know about the Scott 299B integrated amp? I owned one, liked it best of all the tube amps I've owned—including my Marantz 8B.

 

[mhardy6647]

299B was push-pull 7189 (the 7189 is an uprated EL84/6BQ5). On the average I certainly have preferred the sound of most EL84 amplifiers to most EL34 amplifiers that I've encountered. That said, the one and only marantz 8B I ever rehabbed was (is) the best sounding store-bought vacuum tube amplifier I've ever encountered. I've heard better DIYs, and the RCA "Fantasia" amplifiers weren't exactly "storebought"/consumer goods -- but the 8B was mighty fine.

Yes, I ripped out all of those vaunted bumblebees and replaced them with dirt cheap Illinois "lemon drops".

EDIT: I don't know much else about the 299B, unfortunately. I have an LK-72, kit version of a later 299 morph with push-pull 7591 outputs (with low output on one channel that I've never managed to suss out, other than being upstream of the phase splitter), and a nice 222C (pp EL84) that I started to rehab but have yet to finish.

 

[mhardy6647]

"before" of the 8B, showing the Sprague bumblebee caps in situ.

 

[Robin L]

299B was push-pull 7189 (the 7189 is an uprated EL84/6BQ5). On the average I certainly have preferred the sound of most EL84 amplifiers to most EL34 amplifiers that I've encountered. That said, the one and only marantz 8B I ever rehabbed was (is) the best sounding store-bought vacuum tube amplifier I've ever encountered. I've heard better DIYs, and the RCA "Fantasia" amplifiers weren't exactly "storebought"/consumer goods -- but the 8B was mighty fine.

View attachment 489767
Yes, I ripped out all of those vaunted bumblebees and replaced them with dirt cheap Illinois "lemon drops".

EDIT: I don't know much else about the 299B, unfortunately. I have an LK-72, kit version of a later 299 morph with push-pull 7591 outputs (with low output on one channel that I've never managed to suss out, other than being upstream of the phase splitter), and a nice 222C (pp EL84) that I started to rehab but have yet to finish.

It might have been what I had to drive the 8b. I think it was a Hafler solid-state pre or something from Audible Illusions. Not sure. I did replace the resistors and capacitors of my old 8b with pricey components like MIT Multicaps. I was deep into the High-End BS-Sphere back then. Perfectly happy with my Yamaha RX-V461 AVR right now.

What I liked, more than anything else, about the 299B, was the way LPs would sound through it, in particular Capitol's 1950s productions like the Sinatra albums or Nat "King" Cole's. But it was useless for CDs, and the tape outs weren't buffered (I guess) so there was a big loss of bass if I attempted to make a tape recording.