Why people still use tube amps when there are plenty of tubes already used in the making of music

[Robin L]

Not entirely true, because studio engineering is about selecting microphones and microphone placement. For example close micing electric guitar amps: what is recorded is not what you hear in the room!

Similarly: recording pianos is (supposedly) a real PITA and a lot of recorded pianos that sound nice on a recording don't souns like when you're in that same room because they put multiple mics inside the case pretty close to the strings where your ears will never be and often exaggerating the stereo image by panning multiple mics pretty hard left & right.

Recording keyboards, including harpsichords, clavichords and pipe organs, will not produce a sound like the sound in the room. Getting a good sound out of any of these keyboards (including pianos) requires some experience. ORTF or crossed XY microphones with pianos usually isn't enough, harpsichords often lose focus in the process of recording, clavichords almost invariably become oversized compared to the real thing, and so on. And choosing to close mike the strings of a piano is an artistic decision, one that would provide a sound closer to what the pianist would hear than what anyone in the audience would hear.

 

[er|κzvio1in]

Recording keyboards, including harpsichords, clavichords and pipe organs, will not produce a sound like the sound in the room. Getting a good sound out of any of these keyboards (including pianos) requires some experience. ORTF or crossed XY microphones with pianos usually isn't enough, harpsichords often lose focus in the process of recording, clavichords almost invariably become oversized compared to the real thing, and so on. And choosing to close mike the strings of a piano is an artistic decision, one that would provide a sound closer to what the pianist would hear than what anyone in the audience would hear.

I'm far from an expert but I could imagine that when recording organs you could use ORTF in a cathedral and get a sound like it sounds in the audience.

 

[Robin L]

I'm far from an expert but I could imagine that when recording organs you could use ORTF in a cathedral and get a sound like it sounds in the audience.

I only have a little experience, but suspect that spaced omnis + ORTF would work better. The spaced omnis would provide more bass and more sense of space, the ORTF would be more specific about the location of specific pipes. Of course, most seats in a cathedral would have vague imaging, so spaced omnis probably would be enough.

 

[dasdoing]

HiFi is an abstract art. heck even classical music doesn't try to recreate real spaces anymore. I am sure you could stereo mic a piano pretty easily in a good room, but that's not the sound audiophiles expect.
the main "problem" with recreating real spaces in stereo is that it requires the playback room to be taken out of the equation as much as possible. but when you hear classical audiophiles talk, they want as much of their own room as possible.

 

[Robin L]

HiFi is an abstract art. heck even classical music doesn't try to recreate real spaces anymore. I am sure you could stereo mic a piano pretty easily in a good room, but that's not the sound audiophiles expect.
the main "problem" with recreating real spaces in stereo is that it requires the playback room to be taken out of the equation as much as possible. but when you hear classical audiophiles talk, they want as much of their own room as possible.

One would think that miking a piano in stereo in a good room would involve some sort of ORTF or XY pattern with cardioids, but the cardioids greatly reduce the bass output and the pattern results in unnatural imaging. Having a pair of omnis spaced by about 20", 3' to 6' back and aimed into the harp gives a more realistic perspective and also has a more natural tonal balance. My understanding is that this is the microphone technique used by Decca. Of course, the sonic perspective of a piano in a concert hall is rarely as good as can be obtained in a living room - there's usually too much distance from the instrument to give a full, satisfying sound.

 

[Justdafactsmaam]

the main "problem" with recreating real spaces in stereo is that it requires the playback room to be taken out of the equation as much as possible. but when you hear classical audiophiles talk, they want as much of their own room as possible.

Not when you hear me talk. IMO no room is the best room. I want to come as close as possible to aural teleportation to a great concert hall

 

[Henry53]

There is no such thing. You can take an analogue signal from your most "magical" analogue source, digitise it, convert it back to analogue - and if you are using competent ADC and DAC, the output from the DAC will be audibly indistinguishable to the un-digitised source - for everyone, even the most golden eared amongst us.

If you used the most sensitive measuring gear then you'll be able to detect tiny differences - but they will be way smaller than any human ear can detect, and way WAY smaller than the flaws from the original analogue source.

Sure - if you want to distort it with a tube amp - if that's what floats your boat : have at it. But that's not magic - it's just distortion.

I have SS, Tube and Hybrid amplifiers. No question which one everybody who listens prefers.

 

[levimax]

I have SS, Tube and Hybrid amplifiers. No question which one everybody who listens prefers.

Prefers before or after seeing the amp? My experience is once people see a tube amp they will prefer it. Blind... not so much.

 

[Henry53]

Prefers before or after seeing the amp? My experience is once people see a tube amp they will prefer it. Blind... not so much.

That includes people who had no idea which of my amps was playing.

 

[SIY]

That includes people who had no idea which of my amps was playing.

I'm sure your controls were immaculate.

 

[Henry53]

I'm sure your controls were immaculate.

People don't need controls to understand what they like.

 

[SIY]

People don't need controls to understand what they like.

Uh huh.

 

[Henry53]

Uh huh.

Unfortunately measurement is very unreliable at predicting what people actually like. I cook Paella some people love it because of the 'burnt' bottom, others hate it for the same reason. It's not better or worse its what you like.

 

[Jim Taylor]

Unfortunately measurement is very unreliable at predicting what people actually like.

You've got it backwards. What people actually like is fortunately very reliable at predicting measurements.

Sound Reproduction : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Toole, Floyd E.: New (2017) | GreatBookPrices

ISBN: 9781138921368 - 3rd Edition - Soft cover - Routledge - 2017 - Condition: New - Sound Reproduction : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

www.abebooks.com

Jim

 

[SIY]

Unfortunately measurement is very unreliable at predicting what people actually like.

If you clap hard enough, Tinkerbell will live!

 

[Henry53]

You've got it backwards. What people actually like is fortunately very reliable at predicting measurements.

Sound Reproduction : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms by Toole, Floyd E.: New (2017) | GreatBookPrices

ISBN: 9781138921368 - 3rd Edition - Soft cover - Routledge - 2017 - Condition: New - Sound Reproduction : The Acoustics and Psychoacoustics of Loudspeakers and Rooms

www.abebooks.com

Jim

But does it work in reverse?

 

[Doodski]

I cook Paella some people love it because of the 'burnt' bottom, others hate it for the same reason.

It's a very large stretch to compare food to amplifiers. Totally unrealistic.

 

[Henry53]

It's a very large stretch to compare food to amplifiers. Totally unrealistic.

Why it's about taste?

 

[Henry53]

If you clap hard enough, Tinkerbell will live!

Why pay millions for an impressionists painting when a photograph is far more accurate?

 

[Doodski]

Why it's about taste?

Amplifiers can be metered down to parts per million and a bunch of other factors that indicate the integrity of the linearity of the input to the output. I don't see food tested scientifically to any degree like that. You are using a very simplistic analogy that does not fit in any way shape or form objectively.