Would you call tubes "accurate" or just really nice sounding?

[oldbuckster]

THE TRUTH IS A POWERFUL TOOL.............ISN'T IT.........Those are the same words from articles SET guys gave me to read and study....LEARNED WELL didn't I?

KLIPSCH THIS.

[jazman]

Remember, you can't use "your ear" or "my ear" or "his ear" as a measure of anything objective.

Yes you can. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that the ear is absolutely required for true objective measurement. It can be no other way.

The concept/process of choosing "which is better" is when things become subjective. It is fairly trivial to quantify the differences in non-linear behavior between all the different topologies. And it is all too apparent when you start comparing the differences between designs - where you can see how the designer is compensating for the specific flaws of the system.

If I may make an observation...there seems to be a very consistent difference between SS and Tube topologies - the people on both sides claiming their compromised design is better. But I don't think it a stretch for everyone to agree that both designs (when implemented well) have very signature sounds. Like it wouldn't be very difficult to walk into a room and go "hey, that's a Tube/SS amp playing" (provided of course the acoustics are decent and the listener is familiar with the music and speakers).

For what it's worth, I don't think any recording engineer would be caught dead with a BAT amp powering monitors in the studio...[]

................WHAT??? The Dr of bs has spoken again. Maybe you should change your login to Dr "WHAT???" It appears you have an overblown image of what you "think" you know. May I suggest you start with a better understanding of the word objective.

expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

Klipsch out.

[damonrpayne]

I sorta agree with much of what benklipsch said. I am not yet familiar with nor have I heard digital amps but am generally a believer that technology can ultimately get to the point where Good Digital is as good or better as Good Analog. That, of course, puts me squarely at odds with people who believe that film will always be better than digital pictures or digital film, that tubes will always be better than solid state or digital amplification, that records and reel to reel will always sound better than any form of digital recording technology.

I think a lot of snake oil has come into the audio industry specifically to avoid acknowledging ABX tests as a valid way to determine if such-and-such a change made a difference in your system.

[Me Loves Khorns]

NOTICE: THE FOLLOWING IS TO BE REGARDED SIMPLY AS MY OWN HUMBLE OPINION, AND IS IN NO WAY MEANT TO REPRESENT THE OPINION OF ANY OTHER POSSESSORS OF A SET OF LISTENING ORGANS MOUNTED MIDWAY ON THE LATERAL ASPECT OF THE SKULL.... AKA THE EARS...[]

WITH MY KHORNS, SS SEEMS TO SOUND HARSH IN A WAY. THE TUBES SOUND BETTER. Now, I'm not really sure if they are more accurate. But to me, they sound better. Could it be that the speakers are really accurate and that they need to "mellow" out with the tubes? I don't know...[*-)]

And, at the end of the day, when I sit down to listen at the end of a hard day, put on my favorite album, and am literally transported to somewhere else by their sound, that's what matters most I suppose.[]

Hey, maybe we could talk about passives vs. actives, Boses, interconnects, selling stuff for a profit that we buy from here, or some other fun topic next!!![6]

Anyone?[:^)]

Paul

[Daddy Dee]

Once past the "my dog is better than your dog", which is the remark you would prefer to hear from someone who just listened to your system?

"The music sounds accurate!"

or

"The music sounds really nice!"

DUH!

Klipsch out.

I'm pretty sure I'm one of the DUH! people.

The compliment I'd most like to hear is something like what Larry Clare says about sound recordings. He knows and remembers what the actual instruments and vocals sound like live. That is a good perspective from which to make judgements about the sound of a system. If the system sounds more like the live instruments and voices than another, it's "better" than another. Something that sounds accurate would be nice.

But then, I am among the really easily entertained.

[damonrpayne]

Hey, maybe we could talk about passives vs. actives, Boses, interconnects, selling stuff for a profit that we buy from here, or some other fun topic next!!![6]

Anyone?[:^)]

Paul

Sure, I'll tuck those back in my list of inflammatory topics for a rainy day []

[benklipsch]

I used to drive a sports car, could feel every bump in the road, every

groove in the pavement - I could tell when I drove over a leaf.

I drive a big, comfortable, 4,000lb sedan now, very tubey.

Funny that engineers would be swayed by subjectivity. Not like them at all - usually quite objective those guys.

[DrWho]

MD: Remember, you can't use "your ear" or "my

ear" or "his ear" as a measure of anything objective.

Dr. Who: Yes you can. In fact, I'd go so far as to claim that the ear

is absolutely required for true objective measurement. It can be no

other way.

============

Ok, would you explain in detail how the ear is used as an objective

measuring tool? In particular, explain how the measurement instrument

is calibrated, what standard uints are used, and how the measurements

are repeated by other independent parties confirming the same results.

md

The easiest way to make the point...go measure the

temperature of the volume knob on your favorite tube and SS amp. Which

temperature is better for the reproduction of the music? The nice warm

tube knob or the cold SS knob? It doesn't bloody matter because the

temperature of the volume knob introduces no audible difference - and how do

we determine if something introduces an audible difference? Surely not our ears...

And note the distinction between "audible difference" versus "audible better".

There

are gobs of experiments conducted that use the ear as a tool for

objective measurement. Here is an interesting one off the top of my

head (conducted by the dude who has been pushing ABX testing...):

http://www.ethanwiner.com/phase.html

[Me Loves Khorns]

My SS car: I prev. had a BMW M3, 2001 model. Very precise, obnoxiously quick, nimble. ACCURATE, ACCURATE, ACCURATE , to a point where your back gets sore, fun to race teenagers in Mustangs, but not something you would want to take on a cross country trip. (Too darn costly, sold it, got a Chevy truck)

My current tube car: 1970 Caddy DeVille Convertible. Gold. Great shape, but cannot corner worth a flip. SMOOTH, SMOOTH, SMOOTH. Unbelievable cush and plush to drive. Hardly that accurate, but non fatigueable. Could drive it every day and never tire.

Liked em both for very different reasons. Which is 'better', well... I still have the Caddy around (helps that it has 6 seat belts for my whole crew!)

Paul

[damonrpayne]

There's a lot of great articles on audioholics regarding what can be measured as different by sensitive electronic equipment vs. what will be audibly different to the human ear. ABX testing would be perfectly acceptable to establish statistical liklihood that something is audible, and having established that people can say if they Prefer (the subjective part) A or B etc.

[damonrpayne]

My SS car: I prev. had a BMW M3, 2001 model. Very precise, obnoxiously quick, nimble. ACCURATE, ACCURATE, ACCURATE , to a point where your back gets sore, fun to race teenagers in Mustangs, but not something you would want to take on a cross country trip. (Too darn costly, sold it, got a Chevy truck)

My current tube car: 1970 Caddy DeVille Convertible. Gold. Great shape, but cannot corner worth a flip. SMOOTH, SMOOTH, SMOOTH. Unbelievable cush and plush to drive. Hardly that accurate, but non fatigueable. Could drive it every day and never tire.

Liked em both for very different reasons. Which is 'better', well... I still have the Caddy around (helps that it has 6 seat belts for my whole crew!)

Paul

My solid state car is good for the track OR a long drive. I don't see why it has to be one or the other.

[benklipsch]

Hey - you stole my metaphor!

[damonrpayne]

...And to make it worse, solid state clipping is notoriously painful, compared to the smooth clip that tubes provide...

I guess I've never heard solid state clipping because I have efficient Klipsch speakers, tons of power on tap, and don't wish to damage my hearing...

[]

[JohnA]

I say nice sounding and add +1 to what Dee said. If you like 'em, run 'em.

[jackpod]

Different does not necessarily mean better

make a change, yes it sounds different, but does it necessarily sound better

Can't several things sound good without sounding better?, can't they just sound different?

[Me Loves Khorns]

True, a car can be good at both.[ap]

My daily driver is a Ford Excursion 4wd, not good at cornering and certainly doesn't smooth out the bumps as my Caddy, not sure what kind of amp it would be...[au]

Sure hauls Khorns and Kids good though![H]

Paul

[benklipsch]

If you spend $1,000 upgrading something, it had better sound better than different. Trouble is, many times it does just sound different. Does a $2,000 system sound different than a $50,000 system? Probably. Does one sound better than another? The component manufacturers, audio magazines, and high-end music stores will do their best to convince you that big money = superior sound. ABX comes to a different conclusion. The experts now say that ABX itself is faulty and you shouldn't pay any attention to ABX results. Isn't there a show on cable called Mythbusters? This topic should go there.

[jackpod]

different is an actual state

better is only relative

[Parrot]

Isn't there a show on cable called Mythbusters?

I watched an episode of Mythbusters that had a vodka test. They had 8 different shots of vodka, ranging from top-shelf vodka, down to low-end vodka filtered six times, filtered five times, then four times, three, twice, once, to unfiltered low-end vodka.

They had three testers, drinking from glasses that were not identified to them. One young woman rated the lowest grade vodka far superior to the top-shelf vodka.

But a vodka expert was able to determine each and every one of the 8 samples perfectly!

Applied to audio, this means:

1) Not everyone is equally good at determining the quality of a piece of equipment.

2) It's wasteful to buy more expensive audio equipment if you yourself can't discern that it is better. Just buy to the level that sounds good to you. You may even prefer the crappier gear, just like the woman preferred the low-end vodka to the top-shelf stuff.

[benklipsch]

I saw that one! The vodka expert was a real expert on vodka - was a professional taster of sorts. Other people involved liked vodka, thought they knew vodka, but turns out they didn't. So what does that mean?

For someone who spends his waking hours profiling sound systems - I mean real experts with no day-job other than high-end audio - they might be able to score well in a blind test. Everyone else, that is, 6 billion minus 100, can't tell Levinson from Stolichnaya.