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

[killdozzer]

Sure, see my post in #107.

There's a difference between the fixed kit in a studio setup comprising the recording space and cubicle versus what is brought in by the musicians on a per session basis.

Imagine a two day booking for a small rock combo followed by a four day session by an acoustic folk band. What is temporarily in the recording space is completely different, but the console, monitors, DAW, tie-lines, line amplifiers, EQ are the same every day until a studio rebuild. That stuff that's the same is well over 95% solid state for reliability and heat extraction reasons.

Oh, OK. I get what you're saying.

 

[killdozzer]

It’s not a misconception unless you think all rooms and all speakers sound alike. The mix and mastering engineers were adjusting to what sounded right to them, on their speakers, in their room. You‘re ability to recreate that sound exactly is more dependent on knowing what they were using and how they were using it in that room than it is on how big your Sinad number is, by far. This is the well known “circle of confusion” and is what makes all audiophile discussions of “transparent to the source“ a red herring.

It is absolutely a misconception, otherwise I wouldn't say it was. I generally steer clear from people who "discuss with me by proxy". I hope you don't get offended by that, but I see it as a waste of time. You either respond to what I write or I, literally, can't have a discussion with you, since I'd be put in a position to explain/justify your own misreading. Which is an impossibility, wouldn't you say?

On a side note; I've noticed a lot of you "just do whatever makes you happy" actually mean "but don't do that". There's a bit of Meatloaf in there; anything for love, but not that.

It goes without saying I'm still not surprised who is likening your comments in spite of obvious mistakes.

 

[killdozzer]

Tube swapping (with all kinds of different magic) is quite common practice. In some cases the difference is quite measurable in other cases it is not.
Generally tube amp owners know tubes have a finite lifetime.

Yes, that's why I said that. Because, it seems to me, they would be buying a piece of equipment that differs from other by a negative trait - the need to swap tubes (this is in case they're buying tube amps that are without the sound signature).

Unless you're trying to say that they feel some magic in the very tube swaping? I could see that.

 

[killdozzer]

It varies and depends on the musicians. But in general, a microphone is placed in front of the guitar cabinet. DI is also sometimes used. If you watch videos of recording sessions, the guitar and bass players usually take amplifiers and cabinets into the studio. It's how they often get their "sound"

Yes, this is it. This is what I aimed at. If in home audio you go for a tube amp to get a specific sound (and I would label this one improperly designed), you could get a compound effect and arguably "too much" tube.

What I would find strange is if they for some reason didn't miss the tube sound if all musicians' equipment and studio equipment used no tubes or artificial tube effects (and I am aware these are hard to make to faithfully replicate tube (Ha!!!! This opens a hole other rabbit hole; do tube aficionados mind artificial tube effect and if they do, how so? I hope it's not because it's not faithful to the true tube ))

I'm trying to say that if they like a couple of tubes in the chain AND they like them for the coloring of the sound, surely they would miss them if there was only the ones in their amp, no?

But I guess it's just another iteration of my question; how come the "vinyl is the best source to me so that's a fact and it's an equal fact to all other facts because it's me" crowd don't miss "pop n' crackle" in live concert?

 

[levimax]

At the end of the day whether it is tubes or LP's or SET or cables it is all about chasing "magic". I believe most recorded music enthusiasts have experienced powerful "magic" moments when listening to recorded music and they want to re experience it or seek ever more powerful "magic moments". Since these "magic moments" are are mostly about the music and the "mood" of the person they are often fleeting and since they don't seem to reliably correspond to "measurements" this leads to all kinds of magical thinking. The opportunistic audiophile industry is more than happy to indulge this thinking with crazy pseudoscience marketing and over priced products (high prices, LPs, tubes, and fat cables are all very powerful psychoacoustic triggers). Hopefully ASR give some science and context to think about what is important and what isn't when looking for high quality music reproduction which will hopefully lead to some magic experiences without wasting money and time. While still learning it seems to me that decent quality electronics are fine, the recordings are what they are, and the speakers / room is where the biggest area for improvement lies. That doesn't mean I don't have fun playing with LP's and tube amps (I do avoid high prices and fat cables) and they can and do contribute to some magic musical moments.

 

[solderdude]

Unless you're trying to say that they feel some magic in the very tube swaping? I could see that.

Most feel that all tubes contain different magic and for that reason love tube rolling.

Of course this does not come out of the blue as there are many tubes with the same pinning but with quite different characteristics.
This makes some tubes more suited in certain situations than others and especially with tube amps for instruments different tubes can have a very different gain, noise, overload character, output power and frequency response so there is definitely merit to 'tube swapping'.

These things are not really possible with discrete SS amps.
Enter op-amp rolling which became the new fad.
Funnily enough the same 'subjective' differences are perceived with this new found happiness for audiophools.
They hear the most amazing differences where it isn't even possible as the performance of an op-amp is determined by the components around it where with tube the whole circuit is affected, not so with op-amps.
Of course in high gain situations some are noisier or limited in frequency range in this particular case (high gain).
In some circuits the used op-amp actually matters. Mostly the differences are below any audible thresholds but that won't stop the better hearing crowd.

 

[rwortman]

So what we've done here is handwave a problem into existence, then handwave an "explanation" for the problem. Then ask other people to go chase it. No thanks.

Of course, some of us have actually checked distortion into speaker loads and, as expected by anyone who actually understands how amps work, nothing remarkable is seen unless the load takes the amp outside of its intended area of operation (e.g., impedance dips to near-short circuit).

Show the data. And not into a passive simulated speaker load, an actual speaker. I would much like to see 100db Sinad from an amp connected to a speaker.

 

[rwortman]

It is absolutely a misconception, otherwise I wouldn't say it was. I generally steer clear from people who "discuss with me by proxy". I hope you don't get offended by that, but I see it as a waste of time. You either respond to what I write or I, literally, can't have a discussion with you, since I'd be put in a position to explain/justify your own misreading. Which is an impossibility, wouldn't you say?

On a side note; I've noticed a lot of you "just do whatever makes you happy" actually mean "but don't do that". There's a bit of Meatloaf in there; anything for love, but not that.

It goes without saying I'm still not surprised who is likening your comments in spite of obvious mistakes.

Word salad. Explain how you can reproduce the sound in a mastering studio without knowing anything about the conditions in said studio.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I'm trying to say that if they like a couple of tubes in the chain AND they like them for the coloring of the sound, surely they would miss them if there was only the ones in their amp, no?

Tricky question! My only observation is that the band members often end up in the cubicle listening to the various final mix options.

These days, the mix will be from the DAW (computer), via the solid state console, through the solid state amplifiers in the monitors.

Now, this is the important bit! Because they aren't silly and neither is the producer, they understand that if they need something richer or more distorted, it needs to be on the recording. Swapping the console for a tube console or power amplifiers for tube amplifiers won't help, it will just change the sound in the cubicle, not what the music buyers will hear! The band's choices are to re-record with a grungier guitar amp or add some more grunge by looping the already recorded guitar channel through some extra tube box whilst mixing, so that what is on the recording is grungier, not the sound in the cubicle which just has to recreate the sound.

Perhaps some musicians then can only listen to the released album at home via tubes. I know less about that!

 

[MaxwellsEq]

Show the data. And not into a passive simulated speaker load, an actual speaker. I would much like to see 100db Sinad from an amp connected to a speaker.

There are people that use a load simulator when testing amplifiers. Amir often shows reactive load tests. Stereophile have a complex load simulator. Meanwhile Archimago uses a Sony SS-H1600 bookshelf speaker, e.g. http://archimago.blogspot.com/2019/11/measurement-yeeco-ti-tpa3116-class-d.html

 

[rwortman]

And they do frequency response plots. Distortion tests are done into resistors.

 

[rwortman]

I think this forum should be renamed. Science is a method of inquiry for seeking new knowledge. The prevailing attitude seems to be that everything that can be known about audio reproduction and psychoacoustics is already known. That isn’t science. It’s dogma. Maybe we should call it Audio Dogma Restated. It’s pretty clear that amplifier measurements don’t correlate well to perceived sound quality. I’ve always had better and better perceived sound quality as a goal. If better and better Sinad doesn’t produce better and better actual sound, what’s the point? Pointing a boney finger and saying,” you low life lover of distortion”, doesn’t accomplish anything. An attitude of” maybe it sounds better but I’m not gonna listen to it because I don’t like a measurement number“ seems backwards. This concludes my quarterly visit.

 

[antcollinet]

The prevailing attitude seems to be that everything that can be known about audio reproduction and psychoacoustics is already known.

Everything about audio reproduciton (that matters) is. We (humanity) have been doing it for 150 years. It was the first real application of electronics, and it is an absolutley trivial application at that. Literally a simple time varying signal at low frequencies - that we are able to measure to levels well below audibility. Even with kit costing a few hundred dollars.

Psychoacoustics still has some way to go, probably. But we know enough about it to know that sighted, uncontrolled listening is unreliable. As any human perception in a scientific investigation is. It is why blind testing has been developed and standardised as the best (or only) way to get reliable data when human perceptions are involved.

Tell you what though - if you think we have it all wrong, prove it. You only have to carry out a replicable blind and properly controlled test that demonstrates you can reliably hear something that the measurements say you shouldn't. Not a trivial task, but well within the capability of most here if they are sufficiently motivated.

 

[SIY]

Show the data. And not into a passive simulated speaker load, an actual speaker.

My measurements are all published.

 

[SIY]

I think this forum should be renamed. Science is a method of inquiry for seeking new knowledge. The prevailing attitude seems to be that everything that can be known about audio reproduction and psychoacoustics is already known. That isn’t science. It’s dogma. Maybe we should call it Audio Dogma Restated. It’s pretty clear that amplifier measurements don’t correlate well to perceived sound quality. I’ve always had better and better perceived sound quality as a goal. If better and better Sinad doesn’t produce better and better actual sound, what’s the point? Pointing a boney finger and saying,” you low life lover of distortion”, doesn’t accomplish anything. An attitude of” maybe it sounds better but I’m not gonna listen to it because I don’t like a measurement number“ seems backwards. This concludes my quarterly visit.

That pile of strawmen is a fire hazard.

If you think stuff is missing, get off your lazy butt and demonstrate it.

 

[MaxwellsEq]

I would much like to see 100db Sinad from an amp connected to a speaker

OK, you may be right. So, please can you explain the mechanism which would cause a real world amplifier to have worse Signal to Noise Ratio or worse Harmonic or Intermodulation Distortion when driving a real loudspeaker load (assuming the amplifier is not outside its designed operating window)?

 

[killdozzer]

Word salad. Explain how you can reproduce the sound in a mastering studio without knowing anything about the conditions in said studio.

You mean INSTEAD of you simply extending a min of respect and read what I actually wrote?

OK, I'll give in. I wrote 'what they made', not what they heard. Having my listening space and equipment as little coloring as possible will allow me to get as close as possible to what is recorded. If it comes out different in their listening conditions, I couldn't care less.

The misconception is conflating 'what they heard in a studio' and 'what they recorded in a studio'.

I stated in these forums many times, recording is a blueprint for me. Since it is impossible to recreate other people's listening conditions or live sessions, I don't fret about it. I just don't want to skew the recording, so as neutral as possible on all levels.

 

[killdozzer]

I think this forum should be renamed. Science is a method of inquiry for seeking new knowledge. The prevailing attitude seems to be that everything that can be known about audio reproduction and psychoacoustics is already known. That isn’t science. It’s dogma. Maybe we should call it Audio Dogma Restated. It’s pretty clear that amplifier measurements don’t correlate well to perceived sound quality. I’ve always had better and better perceived sound quality as a goal. If better and better Sinad doesn’t produce better and better actual sound, what’s the point? Pointing a boney finger and saying,” you low life lover of distortion”, doesn’t accomplish anything. An attitude of” maybe it sounds better but I’m not gonna listen to it because I don’t like a measurement number“ seems backwards. This concludes my quarterly visit.

Oh maaaaaaan... You go back to tube, but are now concerned with science and new knowledge?! Didn't see that coming.

It's easy, if you're for science and NEW knowledge, it's not tubes. It's Hypex N-Core.

 

[killdozzer]

Tricky question! My only observation is that the band members often end up in the cubicle listening to the various final mix options.

These days, the mix will be from the DAW (computer), via the solid state console, through the solid state amplifiers in the monitors.

Now, this is the important bit! Because they aren't silly and neither is the producer, they understand that if they need something richer or more distorted, it needs to be on the recording. Swapping the console for a tube console or power amplifiers for tube amplifiers won't help, it will just change the sound in the cubicle, not what the music buyers will hear! The band's choices are to re-record with a grungier guitar amp or add some more grunge by looping the already recorded guitar channel through some extra tube box whilst mixing, so that what is on the recording is grungier, not the sound in the cubicle which just has to recreate the sound.

Perhaps some musicians then can only listen to the released album at home via tubes. I know less about that!

I don't want to bore with being too fastidious and you really did explain the process well and in simple terms so that even I can understand it, but it does seem to me that my opinion could still be valid. No matter what is it that they do to make it richer or more distorted, further distorting (! in case one buys tube amp for the coloring effect) could amount to too much. AND! stemming from that, if one enjoys this richer or more distorted sound + his tube further distorting it, he might find sound lacking if some of those distortions was to be removed. It would almost amount to one liking a specific recording studio and the sound of that studio and not so much the band or the music.

 

[rwortman]

From a Rod Elliot article. An objectivist for sure and an experienced designer;

”
The biggest problem is that no-one really knows what an amplifier will do when a reactive load reflects some of the power back into the amp's output. We can hope (without success) that the effects will be negligible, or we can try to make speakers appear as pure resistance (again, without success).

A test method already exists for this, and uses one channel of an amp to drive a signal back into the output of another. The passive amplifier is the one under test. It is also possible to use a different source amplifier altogether, since there is no need for it to be identical to the test amp. Use of a 'standard' amplifier whose characteristics are well known is useful, since the source will be a constant in all tests. Differences may then be seen clearly from one test to the next.

The method is shown in Figure 6, and is a useful test of the behaviour of an amp when a signal is driven into its output. This is exactly what speakers do - the reactive part of the loudspeaker impedance causes some of the power to be 'reflected' back into the amplifier. Since one amplifier in this test is the source, the device under test can be considered a 'sink'.

Figure 6 - Amplifier Power Sink Test

I have used this test, and although it does show some interesting results, the test is essentially not useful unless used as a comparative test method. The amplifier under test is also subjected to very high dissipation (well above that expected with any loudspeaker load), because the transistors are expected to 'dump' a possibly large current while they have the full rail voltage across them. There is a real risk of damaging the amplifier, and I suggest that you don't try this unless you are very sure of the driven amplifier's abilities.

We may now ask "Why is this not a standard test for amplifiers, then?" The answer is that no-one has really thought about it enough to decide that this will (or should) be part of the standard set of tests for objective testing of an amplifier. The results might be quite revealing, showing a signal that may be non-linear (i.e. distorted), or perhaps showing a wide variation in measured signal versus frequency. The result of this test with amps having extensive protection circuits will be a lottery - most will react (often very) badly at only moderate current.

If there is high distortion or a large frequency dependence, then we have some more information about the amplifier that was previously unknown. It might be possible to correlate this with subjective assessments of the amp, and gain further understanding of why some amps supposedly sound better than others. We might discover that amps with certain characteristics using this test are subjectively judged as sounding better than others ... or not.