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

[damonrpayne]

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

Much of my listening is movies, but I do a fair amout of listening to classical music and operas, 40% I'd say. For that, I go back to PWK's goal of "Hearing a symphony in his livingroom". Before this thread, I've never heard anyone state their goal as "Hearing a symphony with the edges taken off in their livingroom" but that seems to be what some are saying. Some instruments will sound harsh at times. In most cases I have to assume that was the composer's intent, especially in opera where I'm watching a story unfold with the music. The queen of the night's high F in her aria is piercing, and I think that's how Mozart wrote it.

[JJkizak]

I would say just real nice sounding. Everybody knows I don't like tubes. I kind of liked those solid state circuits they used to plug into the old tube sockets. Maybe for the old tube addicts they can make solid state replicas with LED's in them to glow in the dark so no one can tell if you have tubes or replicas. Oh gees, now somebody will go out and do this.

JJK

[jacksonbart]

I hate the sound of all musical instruments, I just listen to what is pleasing, regardless of how distorted it is.

Klipsch Off

[cjgeraci]

I think we need to define the parameters of our discussion a bit.

I see a lot of generic references being made about tubes vs. solid state, yet it seems like most of the related experiences relate to tube amps v. solid state amps (except for Max's references).

What about preamps, tube v. solid state? And within those topologies, the differences amongst certain types of tube prepros and solid state pres? I maintain that the biggest difference in sound comes from a different type and quality of preamp as opposed to selections of a quality tube amp vs. a quality solid state amp.

Inserting the right tube preamp (in my case a JMA - thanks Mark!) gave me much of the warmth of tubes while retaining all of the accuracy (and actually more than) I am accustomed to with a quality ss preamp - just by using it in front of a nice solid state amp. On the other hand, certain tube preamps I have heard are too dark for me and lack some of the detail I desire.

So long as a nice tube pre is in the mix, I can run solid state or tube amps with detail, and without fatigue. Like right now, I am a running a QSC pro amp up front (to give my Marantz 8B a break in the summer) and a modded tube Stereo 70 in the rear.

Is the QSC as natural sounding, does it present as large of a soundstage, and is it as involving as my Marantz 8B in the midrange? No. Does the QSC present accurate, realistic, non-fatiguing music with incredible bass that still sounds great? Yes - so long as the tube pre is in front of it. BTW, I have also really enjoyed other ss amps with my Peach in front of them.

I do not care for all solid state combos, pre and amp. But, if a tube pre is in the mix, I can really enjoy solid state amps. I also advocate tube CDPs, but that is a different discussion for a different day.

Damon, I think that one can have nice sounding plus accurate with the right tube pre - regardless of tube amps or solid state amps. Without harshness at the higher regions.

Carl.

[coda]

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.

There is some irony that bonsai is misspelled in his commentary, perhaps another way of saying it doesn't have to be accurate to be enjoyed.

Not all tubes are created equally of course. The 2A3 tube is more accurate and revealing than the 300B IMO. Depending on what you're listening for, some will prefer to be startled with realism than merely soothed. But tubes can be both harmonically and tonally accurate and at the same time sound very pleasing, too, if the music was intended to be played that way. It's hard to generalize about tubes without it resulting into a wide range of opinions, though swapping the thread title to ask if we can call tubes "neutral" or just really nice sounding might bring out some different responses. .

[damonrpayne]

cjgeraci,

I, and I think most of us, have been referring to tube amplifiers. I would agree we should start a seperate thread to talk about about tube pre- vs SS pre. I, for one, have no experience directly comparing a tube PP to solid state PP on the same speakers and in the same room but its something I'm interested in.

[Cal Blacksmith]

Carl, I tend to believe more along the lines that you do. A

good amp, either tube or SS will impart less coloration: (That is not a bad

word, just accurate) than the preamp will, however they do color the music

also. For example, I do notice a difference when I change make/brand of output

tubes in my amplifier. I like the sound of my tube preamp and have run it in

front of a Yamaha SS power amp with pleasing results, though they do sound

different.

I think that the fact that tube amps have more THD than SS

amps AT RATED POWER is an overblown argument. With the very efficient speakers

that Klipsch makes, most of us here are using much less than RATED POWER

anyway. The distortion in tubes at low power use is less than SS at low power

use. The distortion in tubes at high power use is higher than SS at high power

use. Where do we listen to our music at? With Klipsch, most of us are on the

low power use side. For me, I like the quality of the sound I get with my tube

power amp but others like what they hear with SS. SO WHAT? Use whatever is

pleasing to your ears and the other guy can use whatever is pleasing to their

ears. Neither is MORE correct.

Price is no indication of quality; you can have some very

expensive junk or some higher quality low priced equipment. The difference is

in the design of the equipment and the volume of units that were produced. I

could make you a custom set of fireplace tools for your home. I will be making

each one by hand. I will be spending a lot of time on them. I have bills to

pay. You will be paying for my time. If the same tools were made in China by the

thousands, you will pay only a fraction of the price from them as you will if

you buy from me. Volume of units is a great indicator of price. You may or may

not like the looks of my tools and that is a personal opinion thus you will

make your choice of buying from me or from the HOME store down the block on

personal values. Is one choice more correct than the other for everyone? NO and

that is why there are so many choices in the marketplace.

People, we need to feel more secure about our choices and

stop trying to make everyone else change their mind to our way of thinking.

If you like tubes, fine

If you like SS, fine. Whatever works for you is good for me!

[jazman]

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

Much of my listening is movies, but I do a fair amout of listening to classical music and operas, 40% I'd say. For that, I go back to PWK's goal of "Hearing a symphony in his livingroom". Before this thread, I've never heard anyone state their goal as "Hearing a symphony with the edges taken off in their livingroom" but that seems to be what some are saying. Some instruments will sound harsh at times. In most cases I have to assume that was the composer's intent, especially in opera where I'm watching a story unfold with the music. The queen of the night's high F in her aria is piercing, and I think that's how Mozart wrote it.

60% of your listening is movies! That explains things.

Klipsch out.

[stan krajewski]

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.

Too realistic. That's funny. And I've been there.

As for me, when I get my system to sound like I'm in row 20 dead center in Carnegie hall - I'm done.

[kev313]

Here's some more interesting Gizmoisms on the point:

SELL YOUR PICASSOS!

Is music in our homes important? There is nothing more important! But before you misunderstand me, let me state here there is an imperial force we must contend with and nothingmind you nothingcan compare to the experience of live music. Our response to live musicthe millions of neurological quirks, tremors and pulsations that cascade through our bodiesis nature's process of recharging our humanity. We have in the thousands of years of walking upright developed a species-specific response to music that is so primal in its intensity and so complex in its Gestalt that it is beyond your ability to measure. Being engrossed in music is a form of altered consciousness when our entire body (and I mean from our scalp to our tippy, tippy toes) is participating. It is the cathartic experience that revives uscleans out the pollutiongets the rust out of our pipesmakes us feel magicmakes us cryfall in loveenlarges the Yoniputs our humanity in perspectiveit does all of this with great ease because our bodies' entire electro/mechanical system is easily seduced into surrendering to the complete sensual juicy energy jive of music. Listening to a live music event is the best way to repair the damage from playing in life's traffic.

This is obviously the benefit or live music. What then is state of the art audio technology? It is very simple. If you are able to create in your living room the same Gestalt you achieve from a live music event you have a state of the art music system. I will now refer to this system as STATE OF THE HEART. You cannot create such a system by examining specifications or buying a 10,000 watt amplifier. We are now talking about sound systems that have the aptitudes of bringing a level of sensual reality into a room 10 x 15 so that you have the same primitive neurological responses that you would get by sitting 20 feet away from Mistlav Rostapovich playing in Carnegie Hall, preferably a piece of music by Shostakovich. We are talking about weeping with tenderness in your listening chair. We are talking about transforming you into another dimension of experience while your children are watching MTV in another room and while your wife is having a fight with her mother on the kitchen phone. That is the function' of a State of the Heart music system.

We are seeking to conjure up the musical demon that carries you back across generations to sit by Bach's side in a candlelit drawing room listening to woven magic melodies (I hopethe Goldberg Variations). We are talking about delivery to your living room of a universe of experience that no other art form can create. We are talking about the most subtle and profound experiences of your life (after you get off the 6:05 from metropolis).

Is there anything more important than this? Some would argue that love is more importantbut think about this. The love between any two people or group is limited by the energy and experience of those finite livessomething that occurs in a millisecond of cosmic time. Music ~s love's shining intelligence. It is the hearth where love is galvanized; made durable against corrosion of time. It is the distillation of love's genius manifested in each composer, composition and musician that permits us the profound intimacy with our own capacity to love. Haven't you noticed what happens to your heart during that inspiring performance? Hasn't that enlarged your heart? Have you noticed how often you turn on the "music" before you make love?

A DEAR JOHN LETTER

This was, in a very slightly modified form, a letter to a reviewer of a leading underground magazine, who criticized me for my fanaticism over audio technology . . .

Dear John . . .

PIED BEAUTY

Glory be to God for dappled things

For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;

For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;

Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches' wings;

Landscape plotted and piecedfold, fallow, and plough;

And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;

Whatever is fickle, freckles (who knows how?)

With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;

He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:

Praise Him."

Gerard Manley Hopkins, 1918

I hope the above (which I have been re-reading for 27 years) will put my remarks about your article in perspective. It is understandable that you would call me "strange" for advocating an unmitigated commitment to the finest sound system. It appears that your response to my plea indicates that perhaps the incandescence of my words blinded you to the spirit in which they were used. It appears that a cooler hand is needed now, so I will be properly pedagogic.

For those of us who love all things musicalconcerts, the smell of concert halls, rehearsals, programs, instruments, composers, and their biographies, sheet music, instrument makers, recordings, engineers, studios, tape recorders, microphones, amplifiers, speakers, pre-amps, cables, record-cleaning machines, and so on ad nauseumthe live concert is an essential experience. But it is certainly not the total music experience. It is foolish, and I dare say, intellectually Neanderthalic to spend one moment on arguing about whether or not the music system in our home can reproduce a live concert experience. It never could, nor is it intended to do so. It is a tautology to say that the only accurate reproduction of a live concert is a live. concert, and a vinyl disc is not a musical event.

I would rather posture to you, that the home music system is an art form, like a painting or a piece of sculpture. Its intention is not to imitate the ''real'', but rather to represent it, to symbolize it and, in the process, gain the great power that symbols and illusion possess. Music in our homes is the icon of live musical performance and, in many ways, more powerful than the real-life musical experience. Should I be judging a painting of a rose by asking the question, "Does it look real?" And languishing over a painting of a rose in no way diminishes the ecstasy of a rose garden.

For the music lover who needs more than live concerts, for those who have a need to study, for those whose passions liberate their intellectual energies, the home music system permits a level of musical experience that is one of the great aesthetic revolutions of the century. Audio technology has permitted me to "feel" music at I a level of intensity denied all previous generations. I have in my record collection the wealth of centuries and the wisdom of many cultures; I can dance to them, sing to them, all in my own private abandonment. Did Louis XIV have this treasure? I

How do you study the Goldberg variations? After reading Wanda Landowski's book on Bach, can you go to a concert to understand her phrasing? (Hardly, being she is in Heaven with Johann.) Have you an interest in music played on original I instruments? How many concerts offer such an experience? In a single evening, where can you go to listen to Tibetan chants, Turkish water-wheel music, Georgian chants, or Tchenko?

I would ask you to think about the following points, because with your considerable intellectual skills pointed in the right direction, they may lead you to some instructive insight. What are the appropriate aesthetic values of recording music and are they the same for a live concert? This is not a simple question. Have you noticed that different microphones have different tonal colorations? The recording engineer and producer are making significant aesthetic contributions to any record performance and modifying it to suit their own values. Shouldn't we be exploring the questions I that center on the art of musical reproduction and not "Is the vinyl disc a duplicate of a live event?" I do not think that we should be embarrassed or feel diminished in our pursuits of an "illusionists" art form. To be sure, there are limitations to all expressive formsand as you have cogently pointed out, it may be that after the scope of chamber music, home sound systems fall apart.

On the other hand, I think that these limitations are important. In a recent trip I to Japan, it struck me that the Japanese value dynamic range above all other values, because large symphonic music is the musical epitome to them. This leads to the development of very sophisticated, refined speaker systems that are remarkable in their dynamic ability. They are obviously seeking a different illusion and think the speaker systems we prefer are anemic and unmusical. It seems obvious that aesthetics dictate engineering, and your magazine should be exploring this area more directly.

Why, then, am I so fascinated with sophisticated technology? The best technology represents someone's persistent effort to create a better illusiona more sumptuous experience. It is culturally imperative that we bring musical illusions to a higher I state of refinement. I would like to think that the designers of audio equipment are no different than architects and sculptors. Whether or not you approve, human consciousness goes forward, and that movement forward is expressed heroically in our pursuit of technology. This pursuit of technology should be inextricably related to artistic values and serve our needs for increased levels of joyous enrichment.

Selling your Mercedes, hocking your wife's mink coat, auctioning off your Picasso, or giving your kid a good sound system in lieu of a college education is quite reasonable to me; in fact, it is eminently sensible.

These machines are my tools, my tackle that manifests the world's musical wealth in my living room. This is a miracle to me. This experience in no way diminishes me or any other facet of my love of "musica" and all things musical. I have devoted my creative energies to this art form; the technology is my paint brush.

Therefore, I would be clear about the audio designers intent. We cannot create a facsimile of a live musical eventjust the appropriate illusion so our disbelief is transcended and our musical souls jump for joy.

Yours truly, H.R.

[damonrpayne]

...

60% of your listening is movies! That explains things.

...

Does it? Please elaborate.

[maxg]

Not to get embroiled in the objective/subjective debate too much but....well....I am about to I suppose.

Listening tests of any form are subjective for sure, but the analysis of the statistical results is objective (one would hope).

This is no different from analysis of voting patterns. The choice of republican or democrat may be subjective but the 3 point lead for one party or another (within x% confidence) is objective.

All of which is a round about way of saying that subjective events can be combined into objective analysis - at least at the statistical level.

Therefore Dr Who may not be wrong - but I did not follow his link.

[damonrpayne]

Max, this is what ABX is all aobut. What ABX can tell us is "We feel that it is XX% unlikely that this power cord makes an audible difference in sound quality"

[kev313]

Not to get embroiled in the objective/subjective debate too much but....well....I am about to I suppose.

Listening tests of any form are subjective for sure, but the analysis of the statistical results is objective (one would hope).

This is no different from analysis of voting patterns. The choice of republican or democrat may be subjective but the 3 point lead for one party or another (within x% confidence) is objective.

All of which is a round about way of saying that subjective events can be combined into objective analysis - at least at the statistical level.

Therefore Dr Who may not be wrong - but I did not follow his link.

Yeah, except that you are sure someone voted and what the vote was. In a listening test, you are introducing unknowns - listening ability and the health of the listener's hearing.

Even Damon referred to his good ears in the first post. How do we know everyone in the test has good ears, Max?

[NOSValves]

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

Much of my listening is movies, but I do a fair amout of listening to classical music and operas, 40% I'd say. For that, I go back to PWK's goal of "Hearing a symphony in his livingroom". Before this thread, I've never heard anyone state their goal as "Hearing a symphony with the edges taken off in their livingroom" but that seems to be what some are saying. Some instruments will sound harsh at times. In most cases I have to assume that was the composer's intent, especially in opera where I'm watching a story unfold with the music. The queen of the night's high F in her aria is piercing, and I think that's how Mozart wrote it.

60% of your listening is movies! That explains things.

Klipsch out.

Something has to be way wrong when jazman makes me laugh... I'm outta here.

[Parrot]

On the other hand, I think that these limitations are important. In a recent trip I to Japan, it struck me that the Japanese value dynamic range above all other values, because large symphonic music is the musical epitome to them. This leads to the development of very sophisticated, refined speaker systems that are remarkable in their dynamic ability. They are obviously seeking a different illusion and think the speaker systems we prefer are anemic and unmusical. It seems obvious that aesthetics dictate engineering, and your magazine should be exploring this area more directly.

Smart guys, those Japanese.

[DrWho]

On the other hand, Scott's BAT's sound outstanding with his Cornwalls...

No offense to Scott, but if that was outstanding then I can see where a lot of differences are coming into play....

[Marvel]

On the other hand, I think that these limitations are important. In a recent trip I to Japan, it struck me that the Japanese value dynamic range above all other values, because large symphonic music is the musical epitome to them. This leads to the development of very sophisticated, refined speaker systems that are remarkable in their dynamic ability. They are obviously seeking a different illusion and think the speaker systems we prefer are anemic and unmusical. It seems obvious that aesthetics dictate engineering, and your magazine should be exploring this area more directly.

Smart guys, those Japanese.

Is that why they buy up all the great old JBL systems? Actually, some of it is still sold in Japan and you can't get them here.

[DrWho]

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

So if someone without bias hears A as different than B, then what would you call it? "Analysis" doesn't make sense. In my world, indicating a difference and identifying the direction is a qualitative "measure" of something happening. If you want to say that all measurements must have numbers then we are just arguing semantics. I would much rather spend my time discussing actual ideas instead of the meanings of words.

The only thing I took exception to was the concept that the ears can never be used objectively. (and that's not to say that ears aren't more often used subjectively).

All of science is grounded on perception. Surely you wouldn't require a chemist to use a colorimeter in order for a litmus test to be considered objective.

[Allan Songer]

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.

I nominate this one as the "dumbest post ever!" Anyone else agree?