Tube sound - what the artist/engineer intended?

[mhardy6647]

Since I am carrying on (and on) about, essentially, nothing , I will also mention that the 7591, one of the last of the "classic" hifi output tubes to be commercialized, was also - arguably - one of the best. There are an embarrassingly large number of pp7591 amplifiers here*.

The other really, really nice storebought amp of my ken was/is the McIntosh MC225. I would not mind having an MC-225.


______________________
* just to take this comment to its bizarre extreme, I actually owned a single-ended 7591 amplifier for a while. Pulled from a low-end Westinghouse hifi console that I bought at a charity 'barn sale' a long time ago for $3, I rehabbed it and used it as my basement amp for quite a while. I used to loan it out to folks -- it used to come back, eventually... but one time it just didn't. It is still floating around somewhere in Massachusetts, last I knew.

In fact, this adorable little stereo amp was my first rehab project. My father was still around in those days, and he provided me with invaluable troubleshooting support and encouragement (not that he was generally an encouraging sort of guy -- but he did know how to repair consumer electronics!) - by telephone - as I nursed it back to life.

 

[mhardy6647]

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.

The phono preamp of the 299B may have been the special sauce in that case(?).
I have been generally unimpressed with the onboard phono preamps of the 1960s classic consumer stereo receivers and integrated amplifiers. I haven't ever really paid much attention to them, truth be told. Some are probably much better than others.

 

[Robin L]

Since I am carrying on (and on) about, essentially, nothing

But you aren't carrying on about nothing—this is a subject you clearly know, with technical background and practical experience to back it up. Considering how many other people who know nothing about the subject manage to go on and on and on about it, you are to be congratulated.

 

[Robin L]

The phono preamp of the 299B may have been the special sauce in that case(?).
I have been generally unimpressed with the onboard phono preamps of the 1960s classic consumer stereo receivers and integrated amplifiers. I haven't ever really paid much attention to them, truth be told. Some are probably much better than others.

Seemed to have a much better overload margin than anything else I've used—Clicks? Pops? Fuhgeddaboudit. Now that I've ended my addiction to vinyl, the point is now moot.

 

[Philbo King]

As an artist and engineer I have to dispute the theory of "what the artist/engineer intended".

My intention in any recording project is to collect royalties on the released product. If the music also sounds great, that is just gravy on the biscuit...

 

[Cwopete5]

I chased the “tube sound” for years. I rolled hundreds of tubes, owned Class A and A/B tube amps. Seeing as most of the music I listen to is from the 60’s and 70’s, which was played in the studio likely with tube amps and recorded on magnetic tape, my logic was that tube amplification should be the logical approach for my hifi. After much experimenting, including a short journey into Class D amplification (solid state, of course), I made what some would consider a radical departure from the norms of audiophiles and got into vintage gear. This is where I found the “sweet spot” for the sound I’d been search for all these years. Kenwood KR-10000ii from 1975 into Klipsch KG-4’s from 1984.

 

[CuteStudio]

got into vintage gear. This is where I found the “sweet spot”

I must say I largely agree.

The speakers I'm currently listening to are about 50 year old KEFs with B139 bass units, B110 mid, some tweeter that I'm not sure of, with Isobarik crossovers mounted externally on the plinth.. The only fixes I've had to do is to turn the B110s upside down a few years back.

Driven by a Single Ended Pentode amplifier with the OPTs out of the feedback loop, which shakes the room.

Awaiting a good service by me, upstairs is a Sansui 220 - this looks like a vintage transistor amp, but in in fact an EL84 pushpull.
I also have a Leak 3900A which sounds glorious too, a Sansui 8080dB, various Pioneers.

My favourite is Sansui, then Pioneer for sound.
I have an SR222 MKII turntable too, slightly modded by me.

My opinion of HiFi is that it hasn't really progressed since the 1970s.
But there again, one could say the same about the music.

The other day I listened to some Magico S3s (I think - they were big with twin 10" drivers), hooked up to some giant box with hosepipe sized cables.

Personally I use car audio speaker cables, but anyway - in general there's a sweet spot for musicality. I didn't like the Magico's midrange much, TBH my Muse M980-BT boombox has better midrange ( €149 ). I do use parametric EQ for digital music for the speaker and room, but in general I prefer the vintage stuff. Solid aluminium knobs too.

I'm sure there is good modern stuff, but I don't find it often in the HiFi world.
The best midrange (voice) I ever heard was on a stereo tube tabletop radio - which is logical if you think about it: Single ended tube, paper cones, alnico magnets - perfection

There's also another thing I find - the 'bit perfect' brigade. These people have clearly never looked at the waveforms in Audacity etc - oh the horror!!

 

[paulraphael]

Fortunately we have no such moral duty, nor could we in any way beyond headcanon or fantasy

As described by the intentional fallacy, a pillar of modern criticism.

 

[paulraphael]

I'd think there'd be more talk of vintage speakers, if you were interested in the engineers' intended (or predicted) sound.

I read that the Beatles' studio team mastered records based on the most common playback systems of the time: monophonic, with one of those boxy 2-way speakers from the era, sitting on the floor. These had a fairly big, wooly low end and not much treble extension.

They mastered the originals fairly bright to make them sound lively on a speaker like that. And put almost all their effort into the mono mixes. The whole team labored over those; afterwards George Martin would go off on his own to throw the stereo mix together quickly. They thought stereo was a dumb fad being pushed on them by the suits upstairs.

I don't think I'd prefer listening to the music this way (original masters on an early '60s monophonic setup). But it would be fun to try.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

As described by the intentional fallacy, a pillar of modern criticism.

also...

 

[MattHooper]

I chased the “tube sound” for years. I rolled hundreds of tubes, owned Class A and A/B tube amps. Seeing as most of the music I listen to is from the 60’s and 70’s, which was played in the studio likely with tube amps and recorded on magnetic tape, my logic was that tube amplification should be the logical approach for my hifi. After much experimenting, including a short journey into Class D amplification (solid state, of course), I made what some would consider a radical departure from the norms of audiophiles and got into vintage gear. This is where I found the “sweet spot” for the sound I’d been search for all these years. Kenwood KR-10000ii from 1975 into Klipsch KG-4’s from 1984.
View attachment 491503

If you’re looking for vintage sound, that makes much more sense to me than just using tube amplifiers.

We all have different things that turn our crank when it comes to audio gear.

For me, ever since I was introduced to tube amplifiers in the 90s, “ chasing the tube sound” as you put. it has been a huge source of fun and pleasure. And it has never worn off. My tube amplifiers still play a central role in my audio life, and I still wouldn’t have it any other way

 

[aagstn]

I'd think there'd be more talk of vintage speakers, if you were interested in the engineers' intended (or predicted) sound.

I read that the Beatles' studio team mastered records based on the most common playback systems of the time: monophonic, with one of those boxy 2-way speakers from the era, sitting on the floor. These had a fairly big, wooly low end and not much treble extension.

They mastered the originals fairly bright to make them sound lively on a speaker like that. And put almost all their effort into the mono mixes. The whole team labored over those; afterwards George Martin would go off on his own to throw the stereo mix together quickly. They thought stereo was a dumb fad being pushed on them by the suits upstairs.

I don't think I'd prefer listening to the music this way (original masters on an early '60s monophonic setup). But it would be fun to try.

Buck Owens mastered his songs to sound good on the car speaker over AM radio. His music is mastered to have very low bass to take the best advantage of AM because he knew that is how most people would hear it. I love the tricks artists used to get the best sound possible for their music. Now I just need to find a 1951 Mercury so I can listen to my Buck Owens albums.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

Buck Owens mastered his songs

He mastered his own songs? I have never heard this before. Do you have a source for him being credited as a mastering engineer? I am drawing blanks on that.

 

[aagstn]

He mastered his own songs? I have never heard this before. Do you have a source for him being credited as a mastering engineer? I am drawing blanks on that.

I'm sure he wasn't the engineer. I just read he would listen to the recordings on his car radio and wouldn't be happy until they sounded good there. It has been years since I read about the Bakersfield sound and I don't remember who he was working with in the studio at Capitol Records. That was a top notch studio so I'm sure they knew how to tune it the way he wanted it to sound.

 

[RexrothPigeon]

I just read he would listen to the recordings on his car radio and wouldn't be happy until they sounded good there.

Ah, ok, this is very common practice in music production. I heard it traces back (at least!) to Motown engineers in the 60s.

Anyway, Buck Owens was a genius, however he made his music

 

[Sal1950]

Clicks? Pops? Fuhgeddaboudit.

Come on Robin, don't start with the children's fairy tales.

 

[Sal1950]

Buck Owens mastered his songs to sound good on the car speaker over AM radio. His music is mastered to have very low bass to take the best advantage of AM because he knew that is how most people would hear it. I love the tricks artists used to get the best sound possible for their music.

AM radio was the media of the day, car or home. As was the extremely limited capabilities of 78s and early LP's.
Most of the worst of it all went on right at the radio station where early compressors attempted to make "their" station the loudest on the air.

 

[Robin L]

Come on Robin, don't start with the children's fairy tales.

Or adults' hallucinations.
But seriously, I've owned far too many turntables, cartridges, phono preamps found inside different bits of amplification. Also had the KLH version of the Burwen Research-type of impulse noise remover. And, for some weird reason, that particular Integrated amp (Scott 299B) had the least audible surface noise, often having none even with old (albeit clean) pressings.

 

[Sal1950]

And, for some weird reason, that particular Integrated amp (Scott 299B) had the least audible surface noise, often having none even with old (albeit clean) pressings.

Maybe a badly rolled off top end or bad RIAA EQ filter circuit?
I remember my days with my Marantz 2270 receiver and others that included both switchable Low Cut and High Cut filters to help
deal with vinyls noise, wow & rumble and all the rest. They worked but a lot of music disappeared too. Crap like that was what started the "audiophile" hate of using any type EQ. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Best tool I used back then was a Phase Linear 1000 Autocorrelator Noise Reduction & Dynamic Range Recovery System, of course they have much better tools today.
Thank God for Digital.