Sollid State versus Tubes

[Mallette]

That is definitely part of the issue IMHO. I can find hardly anyone on the list who is set up for or uses hi-res digital. All I hear is CD this and CD that. CD is the CASSETTE of digital, at best (and that makes mp3 the 8track!). Like a cassette, the very best CD's can sound quite good. However, if you wish to have anything like LP quality, fuggedaboudit. You have to get to AT LEAST 24/88.2 for that. I started building my own rigs for this purpose nearly 10 years ago now. I am no real geek, but my pursuit of clean sound is not limited to rearranging the speakers or changing amps. 24/192 is 16 times the resolving power of 16/44.1...not surprising it sounds more than just a little bit better.

Actually, I intended to add a comment about PWK's "....the recordings are "ghostly" quiet when there should be some noise."

Again, it is difficult to know precisely what he means. However, I understand one aspect. When I worked with R2R and tape in general, the presence of hiss at the right qualities told the experienced ear the high end was present and the eq and such were right. The first time I heard Dolby I didn't like it. Though it was rolling off the high end. It took me a while to realize it was just the loss of this familiar cue that was throwing me off. Sometimes I wonder if pure LP heads are using this same cue and are uncomfortable without it.

I don't know, nor claim to know. However, I find the discussion of all this absolutely fascinating and sometimes enlightening.

Dave

[Guest " "]

"It was the mid 90's for me when the digital format really started to blossum. I think that was about the time that 24-Bit, 96kHz came out? My memory is crap"

Most folks at your then age were playing T-ball, why were you into bit's and bytes?

[Guest " "]

"24/192 is 16 times the resolving power of 16/44.1...not surprising it sounds more than just a little bit better."

No longer the highest sampling rate....already a 24bit/768khz DAC has hit the streets.

[DrWho]

"It was the mid 90's for me when the digital format really started to blossum. I think that was about the time that 24-Bit, 96kHz came out? My memory is crap"

Most folks at your then age were playing T-ball, why were you into bit's and bytes?

Cuz audio was more fun than T-ball? [8-|]

[Mallette]

What the heck is T-ball?

That would be the Dodson Audio DAC-263 24-768 you are referring to. I've read the reviews and the "golden ears" definitely approve. I'm sure I would, too. OTOH, IF I heard any difference from the DAC's I presently use I have no doubt it would not be 8k worth by any stretch. All of the claims are based on upsampling and other things like power filtering that I've yet to hear the effects of. Upsampling in particular makes little sense to me. Upsampling video DOES, as doubling the frame rate in fact will improve the apparent resolution and decrease flicker. Don't have frame rates or flicker in audio, however. Of course, you wind up with -117db noise...great if your listening room is an anechoic chamber. However, the most important thing is this is a DAC, not an ADAC.

While higher rate machines have been hand-built, 24/192 remains the highest available and supported PCM rate I am aware of for recording.

Dave

[kaiser SET say]

Doc, as Richard Dawson would say "GOOD ANSWER" and there are a lot here who think you made a good choice for you[]

[Arky]

Doc, as Richard Dawson would say "GOOD ANSWER" and there are a lot here who think you made a good choice for you[]

Yep...his future's so bright he's gotta wear shades.

[DrWho]

While higher rate machines have been hand-built, 24/192 remains the highest available and supported PCM rate I am aware of for recording.

An interesting tidbit I heard from a few engineers is that 24/96 should outperform 24/192 due to sampling accuracy rates between the two clock rates. The only thing sampling at a higher rate will accomplish is a higher frequency response. It's the bit-rate that you want to improve on, not the clock rate. Then, with the increased bit rate you want to increase amplitude resolution instead of increasing the noise floor...though there is also merit to a better noise floor as it pertains to dithering...

I don't quite understand all of the theory, but that's why I'm in school taking a class on it right now [] The conversation I had with that engineer was 2 years ago so perhaps they have increased the sampling accuracy at the higher clock rates. I can't imagine it'd be that hard really since you've got way better DACs being used for video nowadays. In fact, there are some interesting DIY DACs being built with TV tuner cards that do insane bit and clock rates. The only downside is finding source material of the same quality...

[Mallette]

I BELIEVE that I can hear a slightly better quality at 24/192 compared to 24/96, but I would not be able to prove it and it may be entirely psychological. 24/96 is very high resolution indeed, and no more comparable to CD than cassette to LP. I find the difference between 24/96 and 24/88.2 to be so slight as to always prefer the later as it provides for near lossless downsampling to 16/44.1 to make CD's.

Dave

[DrWho]

Yea, I can't hear much of a difference at those rates either...I think the biggest advantage to the higher sampling rates is that you don't have to lowpass the topend as steeply, which does wonders for group delay and ripple on the output. With the higher rates, you can move the filter up an octave and keep all the possible detrimental effects outta the passband. And though most speakers drop like a rock above 18kHz, I think there's some advantage to some of the upper harmonics that supposedly aren't audible.

One of these days the format will hit the market, but until then we'll have to stick to CD []

[Mallette]

You may have heard me say this before, but it is my belief that HD-DVD and/or BluRay and beyond will eliminate "formats" as such. As storage space becomes a non-issue and once player makers add the software to play whatever you stick in there (easy and cheap enough to do), format tyranny will become a thing of the past and mom and pop producers (like me) will start to provide content for all tastes. I predict a new golden age and, in fact, far more material than available in the past. However, audiophiles will need to drive this by insisting that player makers include these capabilities. It is not Joe Average who pays a grand or more for a CD player. Seems to me you should get something more for that money beyond a fancy case and a lot of claims.

DVD-A and SACD are on life support (I am being kind) because DVD-A requires 5k in software (worth maybe a 100.00) to be compatible, and SACD is totally out of range for anybody but the big boys...and we know THEY don't care about us.

Linn is the first to address the audiophile with their "Master" downloads in 24 bit with no DRM. It is a start. Support them. Their "Messiah" is an artistic and technical masterpiece. Played back even with a 100.00 revolution (or top end SoundBlaster, for that matter) the quality is well beyond any CD player at any price, IMHO. Of course, most are not going to do this for some reason or the other, but it remains my hope that player makers will begin to support hi res formats in the not to distant future...if you guys demand it.

Dave

[PrestonTom]

Yea, I can't hear much of a difference at those rates either...I think the biggest advantage to the higher sampling rates is that you don't have to lowpass the topend as steeply, which does wonders for group delay and ripple on the output. With the higher rates, you can move the filter up an octave and keep all the possible detrimental effects outta the passband. And though most speakers drop like a rock above 18kHz, I think there's some advantage to some of the upper harmonics that supposedly aren't audible.

One of these days the format will hit the market, but until then we'll have to stick to CD []

The issue of using a "gentler" filter for a higher sampling rate is controversial. The "image" (from the signal's bandwidth (+ or - ) about the samping freq or 44 kHz) "leaking" through may not contain much energy to begin with. The higher sampling rates are frequently used so you don't need to bother with PCM modulation but rather can use delta-sigma modulation (at the DAC). When upsampled prior to the DAC the need for anti-imaging filters is obviated since the "image" is now at such a high fequency that the electronics (especially tubes, btw) and certainly the transducers would effectively low-pass the signal & its image and nicely "recontruct things" with out the image. Of course there are also some other benefits to sigma -delta modulation in terms of effectively reducing quantization noise.

Doc, I hope you don't buy into the myth about the "upper harmonics". They really are not very audible (if at all) and they are probably not in the original recording anyway. I hope you are also not buying into the issue of group delay or the audibilty of phase shifts up at 18 kHz (maybe at lower frequencies with very large delays, but that is another story....).

There are so many other more important weak spots to tackle that I would not worry about super-duper high sampling rates. Frankly, cyrogenically treating your tubes and speaker wires would have a more powerful impact on giving you that "warm" and "detailed" sound. That reminds me, I need to get back to freezer and pull out some stuff.

Good Luck,

-Tom

[wallflower]

O.K. back on track...

Is SS more like live music than tubes....

continue

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

Dunno....but I have demo'd both types and basically, my take is that it is driven by the master recording. Seems many of the modern vinyl has much more depth (processing) than the older material (i.e. Foghat (debut) album as an example).

In some case perhaps, more palpable, is a term where you perceptually FEEL and hear the sounds not recognized in digital format.

Then again, maybe it's psychological, but too many variables (apples to oranges) to accurately state one is substantially better than the other.

I just let my ears decide, and take it from there. I do believe SS is much more maintenance-free and less costly to purchase.

[Mallette]

Sorry, Wallflower...we did sort of wander, didn't we?

IMHO, SS is like SS, and Tubes are like, tubes. I don't much care for SS and prefer either tubes or digital amps. OTOH, it is NOT like they are terrible...just something undefinably not quite right. Somebody mentioned that SS amps are basically tube amps with transistors. Hadn't really thought about that, but I think there is something profound there. Maybe transistors should be used like transistors...in digital circuits.

When all is said and done, everyone will go home to their amp of choice and be happy.

Dave

[Gilbert]

When all is said and done, everyone will go home to their amp of choice and be happy.

Dave

Turn out the light before you go to bed... [|-)] nighty night

[Audio Flynn]

Sorry, Wallflower...we did sort of wander, didn't we?

IMHO, SS is like SS, and Tubes are like, tubes. I don't much care for SS and prefer either tubes or digital amps. OTOH, it is NOT like they are terrible...just something undefinably not quite right. Somebody mentioned that SS amps are basically tube amps with transistors. Hadn't really thought about that, but I think there is something profound there. Maybe transistors should be used like transistors...in digital circuits.

When all is said and done, everyone will go home to their amp of choice and be happy.

Dave

Maybe an interesting question is how many SS amps did a "tubie" own before going to tubes for more realistic musical reproduction.

I think I went through 12 + modestly priced SS amps ( and one digital amp) to arrive at my Scott LK-48 to get the emotional involvement of my parents top of the line 1959 Motorola console.

If you can listen to 5 CD or LPs non stop without fatigue, what you have works well for you.

[edwinr]

Like I said before, some tube amps don't sound like what most people think tube amps should sound like. I've compared the McIntosh MC-275 with the Audio Research VS-55. The Mac sounds a little dark and I guess 'tuby'. The Audio Research sounds like a good s/s amp with heaps of grunt, massive bass and a very clear and detailed sound. I have never heard VRD's, but others say these amplifiers are endowed with massive grunt and great imaging and soundstaging too. However, I admit a good s/s amp that can compare with a good tube amp costs lots of $$$. The cheaper s/s designs just don't cut it. Really good s/s designs like the Mark Levinsons and the Krells sound amazing...

[wallflower]

Thanks for getting back on track...<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Again the question isn't which sounds better (SS or tubes); its which can sound more like live music. I'm not sure live music has the best imaging or sound staging or other audiophile descriptors associated with it, but it does have certain characteristics. I'm trying to describe things like presence, dynamic qualities and perhaps a more upfront attack (in your face). Maybe it's the dynamic qualities that I hear in SS gear that sounds similar to what I hear in live and amplified music? I agree that tubes can be easier to listen to for longer periods of time than SS - especially at higher SPLs - but that the SS sound is closer (to my ears) to the effect of "being there" (not in the studio, but at the live show). I'll restate that I suspect that's because most PA equipment is SS.

Continue....

[edwinr]

Being a very high power s/s fan, the reason I like my amp is because of it's ability to reproduce the stuff recorded on my CD's without compression. Lower powered s/s amps just can't do that. What I can't understand is why a good tube amp some 3 or 4 times less powerfull can do that too...