Why some pple swear by tube and vinyl??

[escksu]

This is comment about what actually sounds good and what measures good. They are very different.

Tube sound is very distinct from solid state amps. Vinyl sounds very different from cds too. Thd for tube is higher than solid-state amps. But it makes the vocal so smooth and rich, warm.. makes some pple like it. So how do you explain this??

 

[PaulD]

Again?

Maybe check here:
https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/if-tube-sound-is-a-myth-why-tubes.8656/

Everything that can be heard can be measured. We can measure well beyond the limits of human hearing. Listening assessments are usually so uncontrolled they are useless. Check this post by Sean Olive https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

There are SO MANY examples of this, I have listed several on these forums, as have many others (SIY comes immediately to mind). Maybe do a search for them. You might want to check Michael Uwin's article "Analog Hearts, Digital Minds" in Linear Audio volume 10 here https://linearaudio.net/volumes/2235 It is excellent and absolutely worth the low price of admission.

So how do you explain this??

Distortion and frequency response differences are usually responsible for the sonic differences when they exist. For speakers it is also be the radiation polar pattern (and the room). Where the distortion and measurable differences are below human detection then the "differences" are because of confused listeners, as outlined in articles above. People are hopelessly affected by what they see and expect to hear - this is proved beyond argument. Some people may prefer "effects" over accuracy - that's ok for any individual, as long as no one says it's "better" or more "organic" or some other nonsense, but then it has no value to any other person either, so there's no point promoting it in public.

 

[zelig]

Luddites.

 

[solderdude]

He probably meant there is a difference between something that sounds pleasant to him/others and something that measures good.
One does not exclude the other and they don't need to have any relation but can.

It is difficult to measure and argue about personal taste.
Some people simply prefer 'modified' recordings and don't care if it is modified as long as they prefer it.

The usage of the term 'sounds better' of course is incorrect. It sounds more pleasant to that individual. Nothing wrong with that unless they claim it IS better because technically it is not, just different.

 

[sergeauckland]

It's no different as far as I'm concerned as expressing a preference for tea over coffee or Bordeaux over Burgundy.

There's no accounting for taste and if somebody prefers higher noise and distortion, they prefer higher noise and distortion. Just don't say it's 'better' and don't say it's HiFi.

S.

 

[Willem]

Both tubes and vinyl are more expensive than the technically superior alternatives of solid state and digital. So for many wealthy people it is a way to express their social superiority and pose as connaisseurs. I notice that on audiophool sites such as Audiogon there is a clear social snobbery. I also have the distinct impression vinyl and tubes in particular are more an American thing (not exclusively, of course).

 

[anmpr1]

Tube sound is very distinct from solid state amps.

Not necessarily. Depends on the application.

Also, it is possible to make a SS amp mimic a tube amp. Recall the Stereophile-Bob Carver transfer function test. Of course whether that is what anyone wants is a different question. And like Peter Aczel said, to prove his point Bob had to screw up a perfectly good SS amp in order to make it perform as badly as the tube amp.

 

[Jimbob54]

This is comment about what actually sounds good and what measures good. They are very different.

Tube sound is very distinct from solid state amps. Vinyl sounds very different from cds too. Thd for tube is higher than solid-state amps. But it makes the vocal so smooth and rich, warm.. makes some pple like it. So how do you explain this??

What do you think explains it @escksu ? Several answers above put up some pretty convincing points. So, its either measurable differences in performance that SOME people prefer and equate with "vocal so smooth and rich, warm" and/ or people's hearing affected by the various other senses around tubes, vinyl etc.

OR- its the sound pixies sprinkling magic over tubes and vinyl.

Im not really sure what answers you were looking for , but you're unlikely to get one here telling you tubes and vinyl are superior to SS and digital.

 

[Pluto]

But it makes the vocal so smooth and rich, warm..

Bunkum.

I find that vinyl vocals have a distinctly characteristic distortion… a roughness that sends a shiver up my spine and makes my teeth itch. Much the same effect as fingernails scraping on a blackboard…

 

[tomtoo]

The same question would be: Why some people love oldtimers?

Many answers are possible. But for shure not that they can compete in a objective way with a modern car.
Go into a studio and look if they have tubes in the signal way. No tubes, but you can find them in the effects way.

 

[Feanor]

This is comment about what actually sounds good and what measures good. They are very different.

Tube sound is very distinct from solid state amps. Vinyl sounds very different from cds too. Thd for tube is higher than solid-state amps. But it makes the vocal so smooth and rich, warm.. makes some pple like it. So how do you explain this??

Largely you've answered your own question, escksu. People like them because they like the sound -- hard as it may be for low-distortion purists to accept that.

I retired by turntable a dozen years ago, though my focus is Classical music and there is next to nothing published in the last couple of decades on vinyl.

As for tube, again, it's the sound. Apart from the fact that there huge variation in the sound of tube equipment, my guess is that the compelling aspect of tube equipment is the distortion profile it produces -- relatively large amounts of 2nd and/or 3rd order harmonic distortion and relatively low amounts of higher order HD.

Acknowledging that, people buy tube equipment because they like the effects:

• The quality of the sound per se: "richer", "fuller", "organic", "musical", "holographic"
• May mask the sound of harsh sounding equipment up or downstream in the reproduction chain
• Will reduce the harshness found on many recordings, especially digital recordings vs. vinyl.

You can produce much of the distortion profile of tube equipment using solid state. N.B. an example seems to be the Parasound JC 2 preamp recently reviewed by Amir. Note the high 3rd order distortion that Amir reports. Without endorsing the JC 2 myself, I suspect the John Curl felt his design criteria were met by the JC 2.

 

[bigredrobotninja]

As for tube amps, I came across an interesting interview with Bruno Putzeys a while ago that included some interesting comments about tubes:

There are a few distortion mechanisms conspicuously missing in Class D, mostly those related to the input stage of a Class A(B) solid-state amplifier and nonlinear capacitances. Those are also missing in valve [tube] amplifiers so it’s quite common for people to notice that a Class D amplifier is somehow reminiscent of valve amplification in terms of “sweetness” for want of a better word.

I’ve heard several reports of valve aficionados ditching their glassware and switching to Ncore. All I can conclude from that is that those people clearly weren’t actively seeking the distortion of valves as many believe, but instead had a legitimate beef with certain sonic aspects common to most solid-state designs. That’s one thing I have to explain again and again to my fellow doubters: when audiophiles report a particular listening experience, that experience is real. Trust that. Just don’t trust the explanation they proffer.

I think we need to be careful ascribing every single difference in preference to "sighted bias" or "magic tube dust." The fact that we are able to measure stuff is really great, and I think a huge step forward for designers and consumers. But we need to remember that our measurements are incomplete, as is our understanding of psychoacoustics.

 

[Sgt. Ear Ache]

I think we need to be careful ascribing sonic differences we think we hear to mysterious as-yet-unmeasurable characteristics when we already know how much of an impact sighted bias and magic tube dust has on us...

 

[Jimbob54]

As for tube amps, I came across an interesting interview with Bruno Putzeys a while ago that included some interesting comments about tubes:



I think we need to be careful ascribing every single difference in preference to "sighted bias" or "magic tube dust." The fact that we are able to measure stuff is really great, and I think a huge step forward for designers and consumers. But we need to remember that our measurements are incomplete, as is our understanding of psychoacoustics.

See also , listening to the music , not the system its played on. I suspect I would like what I like played on most systems. But I would rather have core kit that is neutral and EQ what comes out of any transducer I choose to taste.

 

[tomtoo]

As for tube amps, I came across an interesting interview with Bruno Putzeys a while ago that included some interesting comments about tubes:



I think we need to be careful ascribing every single difference in preference to "sighted bias" or "magic tube dust." The fact that we are able to measure stuff is really great, and I think a huge step forward for designers and consumers. But we need to remember that our measurements are incomplete, as is our understanding of psychoacoustics.

I dont think that amp measurements are incomplete. The can get measured very well. What is hard to measure is, how much effects people like?

 

[tomtoo]

See also , listening to the music , not the system its played on. I suspect I would like what I like played on most systems. But I would rather have core kit that is neutral and EQ what comes out of any transducer I choose to taste.

Couse it's much more easy to add a effect than to get it out.

 

[KeithPhantom]

This is comment about what actually sounds good and what measures good. They are very different.

Tube sound is very distinct from solid state amps. Vinyl sounds very different from cds too. Thd for tube is higher than solid-state amps. But it makes the vocal so smooth and rich, warm.. makes some pple like it. So how do you explain this??

These do not have an inherent sound to them, but they have characteristics due to their specific application. Tubes can be used in good-measuring circuits if proper engineering is applied. To have an amplifier to sound perceptually different from another, this amplifier usually has to measure in a really bad way (you can go the lowest measured amps here and the subjective part will say that there was no coloration more often than not). We've had measurements with harmonics spiking at a mere -40 dBFS, and these amps are rated "perceptually transparent". This says a lot about how insensitive are our ears and how much help we need from measurements. Distortion is distortion, and tubes not just produce low-order distortion, also they produce loads of high-order distortion, which is a lot more objectionable.

Vinyl is different, usually having a high surface noise that can make it different from digital if the source file was digital. It can evoke a familiarity feeling when is played by some people, and these perceptions can lead to believe that they sound better.

As previously stated, people like distortion m, especially if they are familiar with it. Those are opinions that I do not disagree with, but I don't endorse bad engineering to achieve this goal. The best way IMO to get to that sound that you like is to have transparent sound chain and then add all the elements you deem necessary to please your taste. Then, you get to have your cake and eat it as well.

 

[timpert]

Enjoyment is an irrational thing. When the only thing that matters is the sound coming from the speakers, then surely album art, picture discs, a hologram (Star Wars TFA album) and the rituals surrounding playing a record don't contribute to the fun. But they do.

The same goes for tube amps. They are attractive, turning a tube amp and waiting for it to warm up brings an atmosphere that a streamer feeding a class D amp simply doesn't provide. A bit like making slow coffee versus pushing a button on a fully automatic coffee machine.

My latest tube amp project is a (perpetually unfinished) unity coupled design with Plitron output transformers and KT120 output tubes, aimed just at seeing how good I could make a tube amp perform. Of course, I disregarded the typical audiophile mantras by making it an all pentode design that employs a healthy amount of NFB, enabled by the stellar bandwidth of the OPT and a beefy driver. To make a long story short: it has superb performance, but it is also horribly inefficient (both financially and electrically). It is one of those challenges with very little practical value, that are nevertheless very satisfying to pick up.

So to me, people who argue about the technical merits of tubes and vinyl over modern tech are wasting their breath. They are rationalizing an irrational love affair. People like doing stupid stuff every now and then. It is just so hard to admit for some.

 

[KeithPhantom]

Enjoyment is an irrational thing.

I would say it is subjective more than irrational because there are valid reasons to seek enjoyment when taking the position of an individual. Also, it is important that enjoyment comes with the things you do for your leisure. I am not saying that science isn't important, but personal enjoyment is also a part of a good experience with anything in life.

So to me, people who argue about the technical merits of tubes and vinyl over modern tech are wasting their breath. They are rationalizing an irrational love affair. People like doing stupid stuff every now and then. It is just so hard to admit for some.

I agree with you, we could provide the same or better measurements at a cheaper price point with solid-state technology, this is when we are only examining the technical side of the things being considered. But, remember that audio isn't only about technical achievement, it is an experience for the individual looking for bettering the music the love. Love and feel are important to the individual and never disregard it as unimportant. Good measurements are an indicator that you're going in the right direction in your quest of getting your music sound the way you love, but never forget that your taste will never represent what is objectively correct.

 

[Blumlein 88]

As for tube amps, I came across an interesting interview with Bruno Putzeys a while ago that included some interesting comments about tubes:



I think we need to be careful ascribing every single difference in preference to "sighted bias" or "magic tube dust." The fact that we are able to measure stuff is really great, and I think a huge step forward for designers and consumers. But we need to remember that our measurements are incomplete, as is our understanding of psychoacoustics.

No, I disagree. I don't think you can trust Bruno these days. He has seen the golden riches and caters his comments to the audiophile crowd as that is where the money is. He makes great designs etc. But the idea you can trust experiences of audiophiles just not the explanations really doesn't ring true. There is just too much psycho-babble, garbage, and pollution due to bias.