Mallette Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I said that the SAME people who wax philosophically about the differences in the amps are the same who wax philosophically over imaging presented by either the speakers or the amp! These same erudite audiophiles wax ad nauseum about a soundstage that they assume is captured in the recording, but which is at best an engineer created montage made possible by a pan knob! <?xml:namespace prefix = o /> Oh, and Dave, I agree. Ideally an amplifier should not impart a character of its own. In my opinion, a well designed amplifier is such that its job is simply to accurately reproduce whatever is fed to it....the proverbial 'straight wire with gain'. Nothing less, nothing more! My initial statement that got Mark so upset was that I posited that a well designed amplifier of either topology, operated in their linear range, should not be immediately distinguishable. And 'thems' fightin' words to an 'audiophile' ! I only have a horse in one or two of these races... FIrst of all, I have little respect for only a few professional recording engineers, especially those who attempt to create a soundstage with a pan knob. Soundstages are created with two or four mikes properly placed in the best seat in the house. Anything else is imagineering. If it sound like I am panning Pink Floyd here, far from it, so don't even go there. Great pieces have been imagineered. What I am talking about is pure acoustic events in time and a given space. I HATE most of the broadcast concerts from Kennedy Center as what I am hearing usually is utterly disconnected from what I am seeing. When I listen to one of my own recordings it never sees the light of day if I cannot close my eyes and immediately be where the mikes were, and while I often forget a face, I NEVER forget a space. As to the second quote above, I generally agree, though I suspect from a somewhat different context. I CAN hear differences in amps...though I must pretty well cancel out the music and listen carefully THROUGH it to detect them unless the performance or engineering is so poor I need something else to concentrate on. Only when a playback chain distorts a recording to the point it draws attention away from the art and to itself do I feel compelled to act. I am completely aware that many of our members revel in detecting minute differences in wires, tubes, transistors, crossovers, etc. and I have enormous respect for those abilities. They did most of the leg work for in building my own playback chain over the past 30 years. Even in the past couple of years Erik Mandaville and a couple of others turned me on to digital amps...something I'd have been utterly uninterested in trying without endorsements from those whose golden ears I've come to trust. I can see why you've stirred up a bit of a ruckus and your passion comes through loud and clear. Right on! Just remember that the view from the mountain varies somewhat depending upon whether the viewer is a skier, an environmentalist, a prophet, an engineer, or a bear. Regards, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Poor Mark. You still can't get over the simple criterion of of evaluating a piece of equipment on the virtue of its ability to accurately reproduce a signal rather than to impart its own character. But then you are the one extolling the virtues of an amplifier as you confuse its use as an FX generator ( an amp used by a performer) and an amp used to accurately reproduce a recorded signal - when conceivably, the FX generation process is long since over. But...no one told me! Tell us more about the wonderfully accurate nature of even harmonic distortion...and how distortion is accurate! Its quite obvious that you have exhausted your audiophile talking points and must grasp for straws... Maybe its time you went out and mowed the lawn and enjoyed the afternoon with your audiophile lawnmower. [][] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 LOL! I think I'll just say that generally, tube ampliers sound better to me than most solid state I've heard. The reasons why aren't as important to me anymore as the knowledge that they just do. The comments about some of us not understanding and appreciating what a recording is are ludicrous. Also, how is this even relevent to this discussion -- when amplifiers are evaluated in a system it is done with a few select recordings the listener is intimately familiar with. IOW's, we aren't comparing the units using different recorded material -- like, amplifier A was evaluated using recordings 1 and 2, and amplifier B was evaluated using recordings 3 and 4. At any rate, people who hear and appreciate the differences between amplifiers, preamps, or whatever -- aren't obliged to prove anything those who by their own admission -- can't hear sh!t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 mas, Whatever you do, don't bring up the fact that a 6DJ8 is a noisy preamp tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Dean, Can you give us a review of your Jubilees so far? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Can you give us a review of your Jubilees so far? Sure. A pile of plywood with a bunch of screws and glue on a nearby shelf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I choose not to listen to sh!t! And I choose not to listen to tube amplifiers operated in their non-linear range for the purpose of audio playback. But perhaps that is why I run the larger P-P variants - despite the plethora of posts extolling the extended output offered by the soft clipping characteristics of tubes. And my hearing is just fine, thanks! In fact it measures much better than most. Must have been them weeny Etymotic ear plugs. And you can like whatever you like. That has little or no bearing on the accuracy of the reproduction of a piece of gear. But as so many from Bob Carver and Nelson Pass have demonstrated, it is relatively easy to make an amplifier to sound like another if you assume/allow the presence of variations in distortion and wave shaping. And you are welcome to like any of them you like! This never was a debate over what you can like! That was posited from the beginning. But that would assume you read the statement and understood it. But since this is the topic at this point...well...! But the assumption that a tube amp must necessarily sound distinctively different and better is simply not valid. And the references to the recording process are predicated in former discussions of which you conveniently miss the significance. And its amazing how some can (literally) imagine a soundstage that is a result of an illusion studied by Henry and subsequently Haas, the original of which is not maintained in the recording process. Now thats talent! I wonder when the audiophiles are going to enlighten the industry, as it is amazing to listen to those on the very end of the food chain attempt to tell the rest of the upstream chain what is most accurate. Especially as this so called audiophile gear is conspicuous in its absence. Its amazing how that magical gear can recover nuances that have been lost using all of that 'inferior pro gear' to process it! That should be the real story! Whether its spam or filet mignon, your fancy grill and utensils are not going to improve on the cut of meat. But if it makes you feel better, you are of course free to believe whatever it is that helps you justify your expenditure in gear or any other facet that is important to you. Like whatever you want. A well designed SS or tube amp operated in their linear range do not necessarily sound appreciably different or one necessarily better. Can they? Sure! But I try to avoid the distortion. Both in playback and in the specious claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrot Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Can you give us a review of your Jubilees so far? Sure. A pile of plywood with a bunch of screws and glue on a nearby shelf. But is it audiophile grade plywood, or pro grade plywood? Audiophile screws or pro screws? Audiophile glue or Gorilla Glue? Jubilees seem like they're probably as far from audiophile speakers as you could get, whereas, say, the latest flavor of the month little box here, the Tekton/Fostex, would work better for the Stereophile/audio show kind of listener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajcllc Posted March 11, 2007 Author Share Posted March 11, 2007 Mark, I'm sure I can find something in this monstrous mess. Thanks to all who contributed. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallette Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I wonder when the audiophiles are going to enlighten the industry, as it is amazing to listen to those on the very end of the food chain attempt to tell the rest of the upstream chain what is most accurate. Especially as this so called audiophile gear is conspicuous in its absence. Its amazing how that magical gear can recover nuances that have been lost using all of that 'inferior pro gear' to process it! That should be the real story! ANSWER: At the same time the Met enlightens the Grand Ol Opry. Frankly, we (OK, I) don't give a hoot in hell about "the industry." If they all disappeared we'd build our own, record our own, or whatever in pursuit of music. In my own case, I got into recording just to find out why the vast majority of CD's were such sonic sadness. I found out more than I bargained for, and have had a LOT of fun as well. Anyway, thanks for a bit of the old spit and fire... Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 And I choose not to listen to tube amplifiers operated in their non-linear range for the purpose of audio playback. ================= Good Lord man! Are you just taking an obtuse position for fun? No one here is suggesting operating ANY amplifier in it's non-linear range. What planet are you from? No, don't tell me! And there haven't been far too many threads on the forum regarding the equivalent output power of tubes that includes the soft-clip characteristics!? Your selective attention is amazing, but not surprising! And why were the majority of the responses in this thread in favor of tubes repeatedly cite the distortion characteristics of tubes Mr. Wizard? Perhaps you should spend your time lecturing them! Gee, but the tube folks certainly seem preocupied with distortion! Where have you been? When you start to address reality, let me know. If all amps are operated in their linear range, why discuss their distortion characterisitcs? Hmmmmmmmm??? And why is it the tube folks who keep trotting out that old saw? And then you sit there acting like I am the one who brought up the issue! I only mentioned it to distinguish myself apart from those erudite folks telling us about the wonderful distortion tubes impart ! JUST LIKE YOU DID with YOUR reference to why you perceive tube distortion to be a benefit to musicians!!! Sorry, I know I was not supposed to point that out! Can we say "selective attention"? Yeah, wrap yourself in a cloak of linear operation. I would run as fast as I could from distortion too! Especially as you were one of those who extolled its virtues! Stick a fork in you. You're done! [][] Which way to Oz Scarecrow????? ROFLMAO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I have had a few different amps on my main speakers... but no tube amps so far. I can tell you this that the ones I have tried are more alike than different. Where I found a difference was at higher levels, ( the lesser amps run out of steam ) and start clipping, and the amount of noise at idle. ( through the speakers ) Most of the difference is in the bass region, with the QSC amp ( 550 wpc @ 20-20khz ), it exacts a level of control over the woofer cone motion that is unreal. It certainly had enough steam, and I did get the clip lights to come on driving my RF3II's briefly. Yes you read that right I did briefly send 550 watts into my Reference floorstanders. Dynamic headroom is well....dynamic. Brief transients ( such as watching a DVD ) are so much more intense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 If all amps are operated in their linear range, why discuss their distortion characterisitcs? Hmmmmmmmm??? Because even when run in their "linear range", they are adding distortion to the signal, and the distortion types and intensity of the distortion types vary between topologies. As for THD, if I say tube amplifier harmonic distortion is predominately made up of second and third harmonic components, and that transistor amplifier distortion is made up primarily of 7th and 9th -- it doesn't have as much to do with their behavior when clipping as it does with the distortion properties in general. A lot is always said about THD, but we don't hear much about TIM anymore. There are also other considerations, and since you mentioned Nelson Pass you might want to read this white paper: http://www.passdiy.com/pdf/cs-amps-speakers.pdf Let's back up mas, to the the original question, you said: "...assuming that you have a reasonably good SS amp and you operate it in its linear range, the only definitive statement that anyone can make is that a change to a tube amp may most likely result in slightly higher distortion..." The solid state THD specification is typically derived with "both outputs fully driven", where distortion for these amps is at their lowest. I believe it's possible for a tube amp to actually have lower distortion at the lower power range some of us are making use of. "Ideally an amp should not impart any particular sound to the signal - unless you really desire an FX generator." Ideally, an amp should help bring more pleasure to the listening experience. I see no point in listening to something that sounds unpleasent and disappointing to me, and convincing myself that it must be enjoyed because it meets some one dimensional definition of "accurate". The notion that a well designed amp operating in its linear range makes a significant change in the sound of a system is simply exaggerated. But its amazing how many people hear what they expect to hear. This is what I love about the objectivists: Things that measure the same sound the same, and things that don't sound the same too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mas Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Sorry its so complicated for you. Let me quote from the Hamm study cited at the beginning of the thread. It should really confuse you!: Tubes vs. Transistors: Is there really a difference? By Russell O. Hamm: "Engineers and musicians have long debated thequestion of tube sound versus transistor sound. Previous attempts to measurethis difference have always assumed linear operation of the test amplifier.This conventional method of frequency response, distortion, and noisemeasurement has shown that no significant difference exists. This paper,however, points out that amplifiers are often severely overloaded by signaltransients (THD 30%). Under this condition there is a major difference in theharmonic distortion components of the amplified signal, with tubes,transistors, and operational amplifiers separating into distinct groups." He seems to have no trouble understanding the meaning of terms "linear range", but then I am sure you will dismiss it because it does not support your foregone conclusion. I repeatedly referred to theequivalent power ratings of tubes whereby they extol the features ofthe tubes 'soft clipping', a euphemism for clipping albeit with a largedose (though not exclusive by any means) of even order harmonics. Clippingis not operating in a linear range. Now I realize that audiophiles seemto regard 'soft clipping' as nice warm and fuzzy, and you may even likeit, but in the world of electronics, that is not linear behavior. But Ilove how the tube world likes to redefine terms in a manner that isfriendly to their characteristics. I have made reference to the issueconsistently. And you have bounced all over creation in your referencesto distortion - ranging up to and including the musician's use of tubeamps which has historically been used primarily for its characteristicdistortion! And this has not simply been used for 'soft clipping'! Soyou cited the use of a tube amp, oft used in a saturated condition for FX to justify the use and preference for tubes! And now you claim to want to split hairs over exactly how you define distortion. Andmy initial response was a very broad generalization regarding SS andtubes in general. And yes, I can respond to issues commonly expressedon this site. I was talking about the amplifiers, and you do not definethe opinions expressed about them, except as a reflection of theschizoid approach to what makes an amp sound good. The issue here ismuch larger than simply you and your trolling. And of your hangup with the imagined schism between pro and audiophile gear. My comments aboutthe nature of SS and tube amplifiers are by necessity general (as thereare any number of SS and tube amplifiers in the market, and we have notin any way attempted to narrow the field in ANY way)! And now youattempt to redefine the issue using your revisionist and reductionist version. Go ahead.You have done so repeatedly as you have propped up your absurd strawmen. And it will confuse you to no end that my conception of the differences in how various components sound together goes far beyond your understanding of that moving target of yours called "distortion". And I would loveto discuss it. In fact, it is something that actually interests megreatly, and a topic about which I would love to do more research. Unfortunately,there is very little actually published on the topic. And the aspect issimply too new to support allot of mainstream discussion. In fact, theonly people I know of that have actively discussed it live or in printin the past were Disk Heyser, Don Davis, Dr. Patronis and Don Keele inseveral seminars. But, if you want to discuss it, I would beglad to discuss the Heyser Spiral composed of the complex rotatingphasor extended about the frequency axis, the real and imaginarycomponents projected on the appropriate planes comprising the coincident and quadrature responses respectively, and the Nyquist traceof the complex signal; projected upon the XY plane. And the inverseFourier transform of both the real and imaginary parts in the frequencydomain produces the impulse response (real component) in the timedomain while a Hilbert transform of the impulse response produces thedoublet response (imaginary component). And from these real andimaginary components is calculated the Envelope Time Curve (ETC) - withvarious viewpoints simply focusing upon different aspects of the totalunified response accounting for, among other things, minimum phase and its compliment being significant signal delay, as well as a snapshot of the kinetic andpotential energy present at any point in time and/or frequency in the non-linear dynamicsystem. Of course, you might think of this as just a rotatingphasor exhibiting both a magnitude and phase angle varying with both time and frequency - commonly referredto as impedance, but seldom exhibited in such a complete form! And this is but a portion of what it presents directly. Ah, you mean that there is more than the nominal impedance reduced to a purely resistive static value? And a couple of forms of distortion that we frame to be beneficial - except if they occur in something others prefer? So typical of the snobs, pardon me, 'audiophiles', who define what others may think based upon what they like. And to think I find both topologies acceptable within limits. But then I suspect in your universe an optimally coupled source andload is to simply match a nominal, say, 8 ohm purely resistive source with a 8ohm purely resistive load. If only a maximally coupled system wereperfectly terminated in that fashion! Now the fact that multipledevises can be reduced to the same nominal impedance of 8 ohms does notimply that their complex topologies are in any way, any more than onecan say that by virtue of having the same (reductionist characteristicsuch as a) birthday render 2 people identical and that they will makemake a perfect couple. And would anyone care to postulate, given what we already know in classical physics about the effectsof an incompletely terminated system, on the complex dynamic behaviorof that system? And let's keep this extremely complex system very simple and ask: What if two systems whose responses were similar only in that they could be reduced to a 'nominal 8 ohm purely resistive load', but which are dissimilar in every other respect at all of the other points on the response curve, are mated? And, is it reasonable to think that several additional units/systems that exhibit the same nominal impedance but which were also radically dissimilar in every other respect of that response - would we expect the mating of those systems to exhibit identical responses with the other combinations? OK, I realize this may seem a bit overwhelming, but the answer is an easy "No"! But life is simple when we don't have to thinkabout all of those complicated squiggly lines in that complexnon-linear realm known as reality! And just because the remaining 359 degrees of phase are are labeled "imaginary" (as in "numbers") and completely ignored over the full time and frequency spectrum by your model does not mean that they both do not exist and that they have no effect on a system's behavior! Nope, no more than characterizing you by a single reductionist characteristic such as your birthday or your eye color can account for your total existence and your various interactions in a dynamic environment. I would suggest that your system is far too puny to account for the differences and the similarities. Soif you want to talk about 'why things sound differently' you might wantto expand your horizons. But don't even begin to try to tell me what I think about the causes of components sounding differently. You haven't a clue. But that is what I like about Dean. He makes pronouncements and doesn't even know what the measurement is to which he is referring. But he likes it that way. Just make it up as you go. Life is simple! And you still have no idea as to what my avatar is about. And you keep trying to define my position in terms of your very limited world view. And Mark, set up so more straw men. I enjoy seeing how low you set your targets. ;-) Andthere is much more to this, but you are so typical of the many Ludditeswho are so afraid of science that your conception of the state ofmodern 'measurements' (eschewed by so many 'audiophiles' whohaven't a clue as to what this means but who fancy themselves soknowledgeable), arelimited to a VOM and an oscilloscope and have no correlation toreality, and instead subscribe to spiritualists, numerology (...nooffense to legitimate numerologists!), and Shirley MacLaine as they sitabout mesmerized by the glow of their tubes so confused by how they got those sea chickens into a can. Sorry guys, but current models suggest that "There are more things in heaven and earth... then are dreamt of in your philosophy." And rather than confusing yourself over attempts to define "linear response" and "distortion", may I suggest you begin reading Heyser, Benson, Schroeder, Davis/Patronis, and Olson for a start. At least then maybe we can start with the same definition of the simple words and concepts. There,that stomping on the anthill should get all of them little ants runningabout more than they are already! [][][][][][] Have a nice evening...the weather is wonderful! [] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pauln Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 And someone asked what's wrong with the forums @ Klipsch........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PrestonTom Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 I continue to be amazed! A few simple points about some of the previous posts. 1. Yes there is more than one kind of distortion and some are more audible than others. 2. No, distortion is never a good thing. 3. Distortion is a non-linearity. 4. Combinations of sine wave are adequate for detecting non-linearities in a system (the test signal does not have to be "music") 5. Non-linearities can be measured, although some are not time invariant (eg, transient IM distortion) and are a bit trickier to identify. My amazement is that some of these folks are apparently trained as engineers, so linear systems analysis (which is not a bad place to start) is part of their background. However, they throw the book out the window when the system in question is "audio". Why are the rules different? Please don't digress to nth order and trivial effects. The major problems are measurable ones and measurement is not a bad thing. Although I do acknowledge that the relation between the degree of a certain type of distortion and the resulting audibility is not always well-understood. -Tom Well, still continue to be amazed. I guess I forgot one point. It is a corollary of #2 6. Clipping is never a good thing, not even "soft clipping". This is an obvious example of being "out of the linear range". Incidentally clipping usually shows up as distortion that is predominantly at the 3rd harmonic. If you have a program like MATLAB, simply construct a sine wave and then "clip off the peaks" so they are flat. Perform your FFT, and presto .... energy (distortion) at the 3rd harmonic. Please spare me any discussion about whether 3rd harmonic or 2nd harmonic distortion has a "better flavor" According to the posts a few pages ago, I know there is now a "rule" that says we can't discuss electronics unless we own Klipsch speakers and tube equipment. I just remembered that I have a Dynaco PAS3 preamp in the closet. Can I be a member of the discussion? (insert a smiley face here with a touch of a grimace & frown) Good Luck, -Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 My tech skills are pretty simple, plug up and play. If I like the sound I keep it, if I don't like the sound I don't keep it whether it is tube or solid state equipment.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Tom you said "6. Clipping is never a good thing, not even "soft clipping". This is an obvious example of being "out of the linear range". " Like I said my tech skills are very basic but I understand the the idea of soft clipping but I don't understand what you and Mas dislike about it? I can understand not liking the "distortion" that tubes add just don't understand how "soft clipping is being used in your and Mas posts. remember non tech type here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbsl Posted March 11, 2007 Share Posted March 11, 2007 Tom you said " 2. No, distortion is never a good thing." Well if that is true and my tube amp has more distortion than any other amp I have owned then why does my tube amp sound better than any of the other amps I have owned. One thing I realized is that after getting my tube amp I hooked up my Klipsch SB3 bookshelf speakers(93db) to the system and did not hear much difference in sound compared to the SS amp I was using. In fact I would have had a hard time telling you which amp was which one. Did the same with Klipsch KLF 20s (100db)and I did notice a improvement of sound with the tube amp but not a huge improvement. Then when I hooked up the tube amp to the La Scalas (104 db) I could hear the difference and I liked what the "distortion" did for my system. If the distortion is what made it sound better to me I can live with the distortion. So yes, distortion is a good thing if you like how it make the music sound in your system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnyholiday Posted March 12, 2007 Share Posted March 12, 2007 somebody done snuck back over the fence welcome back mas aka xxxxxxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts