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

[Me Loves Khorns]

Man, after 8 shots of vodka, who could taste anything?

Paul

[benklipsch]

Here's one of many old salts on the amp vs amp subject.

http://www.mastersonaudio.com/audio/20020901.htm

But he doesn't once mention the "oooh" factor of tubes, which is their main draw. What's that extra THD in tube amps? That's your buddy in the background saying, "Oooh."

[scott0527]

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 =============== Um, I hate to say this, but that link is to a SUBJECTIVE statistical study, not an OBJECTIVE measurement using an ear. It's really not worth getting into a huge argument about such basic fundamentals here such as what "objective testing" means. So, actually, all you are pointing out is what I started with in the beginning: Subjective evaluation is the best means of selecting what you prefer. Yes, human ears can detact all kinds of differences in sounds between different kinds of gear, this is the basis of subjective evaluation. Some ears will hear things that others don't hear. Some ears can scarcely detect any kinds of differences, and some ears can detect very minute differences. Those are all part of the realm of subjective evaluation. AB/X testing is a formalized means of subjective evaluation or "taste testing". It doesn't use the ear for objective measurements. The subjects do not say, "I hear 1.296dB of difference between A and B," they instead declare, "X = A" and then "X=B" and so on. A listener who can correctly identify X with A and B consistently might have great hearing acuity, but that acuity can not be objectivized into a number or calibrated result. Repeating the entire test by moving all the gear to Timbuktu and getting new subjects might create an entirely new set of data. The statistical analysis of the "data" produced in these tests can be of course objective. Given that data set, any statistician manipulating it with standard functions will create the same results. But that has nothing to do with the ear as a measuring stick. ,md

Mark,

"Uhhmm..." is right. I wish I could get the 3 minutes of my life back that I spent following that link to see how the ear can be an objective measuring tool.

[kev313]

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...[]

Maybe not BAT gear, but how about some big ole triodes:

http://www.symposiumusa.com/MonRoom1.html

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/

SET power in the studio? YES. Now everybody please shut up, turn off your computers and listen to yer own goddang amps.

[Audio Flynn]

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.

I do not agree with the analogy.

Any decently rebuilt vintage tube amp or new tube amp I ever heard was

much more revealing of source details than my SS experiences.

All 3 guitars distinctly in space on Eagles tunes; CSNY vocals easily

identified as individuals without smearing; or high hat from

Levon helm of the band like he is in the room. I do hear an

unamplified drumset once or twice a month for reference.

Tubey being sloppy is bad implemenation of the technology.

[kev313]

I used to own tube guitar amps. I really liked the sound because it had a certain "color" to it, warmed it up. This is totally different than accurately reproducing sound. People are free to LIKE tubes all they want but I feel they lag significantly behind solid state in performance and accurate reproduction of sound. I'm sure next to nobody here will agree with any of my points but here goes.

Every time I've listened to tubes since picking up the Klipsch hobby I've been underwhelmed. With apologies to boomac, his BAT tubes, when played back to back with j-malotky's solid state McIntosh on the same pair of Khorns in the same room showed the weaknesses in tubes better than any other demo I've ever heard. The ability to reproduce bass was no comparison and the mid range sounded FAR TOO warm, too round. We listened to various classical music and electronica on both amps.

This is just my opinion of course, but if you review one of my favorite Bose-slamming sites here http://www.intellexual.net/bose.html a summary of the spl vs. freq tests done on a Bose sytem we find that Bass drops off far too early and the mid range is run artificially hot. People slam Bose constantly, but how is this different from the "tube sound" ? Every time I listen to tubes with a piece of music I know well its impossible to ignore the lack of bass reproduction and the over-warmth of the mid range. Bose does this on purpose because people like it better, but does that make it fundamentally better than accurate sound reproduction?

Finally, there is the question of tubes being less fatiguing. I've no doubt that there is truth to this. However, I'm reminded of the many many times I've walked into a Hifi shop and told that Klipsch was no good because horns are "sensitive" and too "harsh" on high frequencies. News flash: high frequencies are fatiguing to the human ear. If music or a movie soundtrack contains harsh mid and high frequencies, possibly bumped up a few DB by a particularly bright room, does this mean we need to start adjusting playback material to make it more palatable?

All in all, I don't understand the "tubes are superior" argument. Many will say I'm obviously dumb and inexperienced and that's fine by me. Some of you who know me have said I've got good ears. My ears say solid state is Great. Your mileage may vary.

Also, if you cannot tell the difference between BAT amplification on Khorns and Bose speakers, I suggest you immediately stop spending money on audio components.

[DrWho]

Um, I hate to say this, but that link is to a

SUBJECTIVE statistical study, not an OBJECTIVE measurement using an

ear. It's really not worth getting into a huge argument about such

basic fundamentals here such as what "objective testing" means.

So, actually, all you are pointing out is what I started with in the

beginning: Subjective evaluation is the best means of selecting what

you prefer.

Objectivity does not require quantification. You do not need an actual

physical number to objectively claim something is louder than something

else. And ABX testing completely removes the subjectivity of the

listener - why the heck bother if it didn't?

The capability of the listener in an ABX is another issue alotgether.

An ABX will only be able to accurately indicate when a difference is

heard - it is never conclusive that there is no difference. And the level of objectivity is purely

dependant upon how one interprets the results.

If a difference was heard in an ABX, then you can not objectively deny that observation. To make the observation more useful it would be beneficial to quantify the difference between A and B, but that does not enhance the objectivity of the observation.

All that crap aside...if you claim any specific conclusion isn't

objective, then you are claiming the interpreted results are dependant

ONLY upon the mental state of the observer at the time - and therefore

there will be a great disparity in the observations from the rest of

the population.

A lot of people argue which is better (subjective), but

everyone will agree there is a difference (objective). Those that don't

hear a difference fall in the less capable category and should just

choose the cheaper or more aesthetically pleasing option.

[Marvel]

I know there is a die-hard retro appreciation for Citation 12s and Dyna ST120s, but not even the most rabid of the Consumer Reports Meets Julian Hirsch type audio reporters would attempt to say that those squeeling ear-bleeders were better sounding than what they replaced. Take a look at the value of a Stereo 70 today versus a ST120. Why is that? Or a Citation 12 versus a Citation II. Or, a Mac C26 versus a C22.

There are today some amazingly great sounding SS amps. Everyone I'm sure has heard them. They aren't however the sheer crap that was produced in the 60s and 70s.

md

I had both and Stereo 70 and an ST120. I parted ways with the ST120 over 25 years ago, but still have the ST70. Last I heard was that the guy I sold the ST120 to had an accident with the amp. His cat had taken a piss on it. The cat obviously had good taste...

[kev313]

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...[]

Maybe not BAT gear, but how about some big ole triodes:

http://www.symposiumusa.com/MonRoom1.html

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/

SET power in the studio? YES. Now everybody please shut up, turn off your computers and listen to yer own goddang amps.

What? That is bullsh!t!!

[kev313]

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...[]

Maybe not BAT gear, but how about some big ole triodes:

http://www.symposiumusa.com/MonRoom1.html

http://www.stevehoffman.tv/

SET power in the studio? YES. Now everybody please shut up, turn off your computers and listen to yer own goddang amps.

What? That is bullsh!t!!

No, No. It is true. I read it on the internet.

[DrWho]

Measurements can be both qualitative and quantitative. Both are equally important and you can't do qualititave aural measurements without an ear. All it takes to be objective is to avoid opinion.

[Hardhead]

"KLIPSCH THIS" That's the funniest thing I've read in over a year!

I'd like to date that woman who couldn't tell the difference between good and bad vodka; maybe she couldn't tell the difference between good and bad sex, either.

[maxg]

To the original question - accurate or nice? I would answer - depends on the implementation.

There is much milage in the addage tubes are not good at bass - but it is not, as Mark said, a universal truth. I have heard tube amps (with KT88's as it happens) with excellent bass response on a par with any SS amp I have come across of similar power.

Tube amps can be accurate and harsh if that is what you want - they can also be soft and musher too. This also applies to digital amps (more accurately Pulse mode switching amps).

To go a bit further we need to establish the meaning of accuracy. How do we establish the accuracy of the reproduction if we were not at the original recording event? Further, how do we eliminate the issue of our failing audio memory of that event even if we did attend?

Anecdotal showing off (but there is a reason):

At one of the meetings of the ACA (Audiophile Club of Athens) after the one at my house we had a live violinist come and play for us.

The sound of the play was something of a shock for most of the attending audiophiles. It was far harsher and more in-your-face than I think most were expecting.

In the post-performance discussion one of the members proferred that the only system he had heard that reminded him of the sound he had just heard was, of all things, my system.

To my amazement just about everyone in attendance agreed.

I run SS.

Therefore SS is the only truely accurate amplification.

Except for a couple of minor points:

When they were all at my house one of the most common questions I was asked was "What tubes are you running?" No-one thought I was running an SS amp from the sound they were hearing.

I do run a tube pre-amp. Surely the inaccuracies of tube amps are equally applicable to tube pre-amps?

The follow up:

Not long after the meeting at my house I got hold of a Yamaha digital 500 wpc amp and a tube pre-amp I was reviewing. The sound was WAY better with this setup than with mine - fuller, richer, totally absorbing and utterly fantastic with classical music.

It was also, IMO, less accurate.

Go figure.

[SET12]

Excellent Max,

Recently I ordered a new pair of Svetlana 572-10's for my SET amp due to a filament failure on one of my 572's So I had to go back to my 811's which use some 20% less current when the new ones arrived I was in a little shock they where like a spot light in contrast to the 811's the 572 also has more extension in both frequency extreams but it turns out the 811 is entirely more musical then the 572's but I would call the 572 perhaps more accurate but its accuracy highlights many bad recordings and we all know how many there are! And I don't think even my old 572's ever quite had this musicalness of the 811 The difference being the 811 allows me to listen and be more involved with the music. So I have decided to go the musical route and not in totality, rather than the accurate route because I need to be involved with music to enjoy it.

SET12

[Audio Flynn]

Dr. Who: Objectivity does not require quantification. MD: It does if you're going to call it a measurement, and measurement is what we got started with here. This was my original statement which you took exception to: Remember, you can't use "your ear" or "my ear" or "his ear" as a measure of anything objective. The operative words being EAR, MEASURE and OBJECTIVE. md

Mark;

Why waste energy debating with PFC WHO he knows everything.

We will all be so well informed when he posts his personal ear measurments.

[kev313]

Doc, I'd be interested to know your reaction to Hoffman's use of a SET amplifier in the studio.

Also, for the rest of you, here is some interesting reading on "accuracy" (sort of) by Gizmo:

http://www.meta-gizmo.com/Tri/up_a_tree.html

I think there is some merit to the audio reproduction as an art v. science discussion, as least in terms of our (the listener's) goals in pursuing this hobby.

[damonrpayne]

Max, you go right back to the heart of my original statement with clarity as you so often do. Tube sound is "pleasing" to many people but often may not represent reality. Your comment that the live violin was in fact much more harsh than people were expecting is exactly my point. I get annoyed when some jerkoff in a hifi shop complains about how harsh horns are and that I should buy this $12,000 pair of <fill in the blank> instead. My response that some things really do sound harsh and the sensitive horns are just showing you reality is always met with laughter or head-shaking "Poor young guy isn't experienced to know better" etc.

[kev313]

Max, you go right back to the heart of my original statement with clarity as you so often do. Tube sound is "pleasing" to many people but often may not represent reality. Your comment that the live violin was in fact much more harsh than people were expecting is exactly my point. I get annoyed when some jerkoff in a hifi shop complains about how harsh horns are and that I should buy this $12,000 pair of <fill in the blank> instead. My response that some things really do sound harsh and the sensitive horns are just showing you reality is always met with laughter or head-shaking "Poor young guy isn't experienced to know better" etc.

Let's assume what you are saying is true. What do you want to listen to? Accurate or pleasing?

[Rivendell61]

Kev313,

Hoffman got rid of the HE-833 a few years ago. I would be cautious about the idea he used them to power his mastering speakers for normal use. He also gets personal visits from the WAVAC folks who give him amps--then they get photos and mention on his site--he is (unlike most MEs) quite secretive about the gear he uses for mastering.

Hoffman also had a WAVAC 300B "in the mastering chain"--but not to power speakers--it was an 'attempt' to see if he could get the 300B sound by adding it to the amps powering his record cutting lathe. Not sure if that worked out--

Mark

[kev313]

Interesting discussion on the issue:

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=set&n=35167&highlight=hoffman+wavac+use&r=&session=

You think I'm being paid? Really? You think WAVAC of Japan PAYS me to like their stuff? C'mon. This is troll fodder (and of course I'm taking the bait). Almost every High End manufacturer sends me stuff to try out and I usually send it back. WAVAC just sounds the best to me. You think they BOUGHT me? Heh, get real. I get to use their amp, that's it. Give me a break!

4. They don't pay me, why would they? I am lucky enough to use their EC-300B in my mastering suite. I've also tried out the cheaper MD-300B's and the giant HC-833's. Like a kid in a candy store.... The WAVAC folk are proud of our association and so am I. They have been really nice to me over the last few years and I think my work has improved because of it. I only wish most of their gear was within the affordable realm.

Some more:

had a special visit earlier this week from my friends at WAVAC Audio in Japan:

Mr. Ito
Mr. Matsuki
Takashi Hashimoto
Yukari (translator)
Jim Ricketts (of TMH Audio in Ohio, WAVAC distributor)

I took them on a tour of the RTI pressing plant and they enjoyed it very much. Also, Mr. Ito brought me a brand new EC-300B SET amplifier for my personal use. Now I have TWO of these amazing machines; the first one is in use at AcousTech Mastering as part of the special Audio Fidelity A/D converter I will be using on our 24 karat gold+ projects. We can cut records with it too.

The new system brings a bit (no pun intended) more resolution to digital but the tonality remains essentially neutral (as it should be). As you know, any extra tiny bit of ambient retrieval is always welcome. This makes things like echo and reverb sound more lifelike. I am only using it on projects that NEED more life; solid state mixes from the 1970's, etc. I bet we have the only A/D conversion process that uses Western Electric 300B tubes from 1940!!!!


This first picture is of the gang getting the lowdown on the low tech (but extremely effective) world of record pressing.

Attached Images

The fantastic WAVAC EC-300B single ended directly heated triode amplifier as incorporated into the mastering chain.

Attached Images

Steve does say that the 300b is his favorite tube for listening as opposed to mastering.

Interesting stuff, anyway.