Jump to content

tubes and seasoned age


DrWho

Recommended Posts

That is the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard. You never cease to amaze me Mike.

Typical of his BS.. Validating his preference by denigrating others. Pretty obnoxious.

My favorite is when he complimented Craig on his VRD amps by telling him they sounded just like solid state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 123
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Apart from distortion characteristics (since those have been beat to death), what are the other factors?

Slew rate.

Thanks - sounds like I've got a bit more reading to do.

No, not really Doc. Just more listening. You can't explain everything you hear, hear well or don't hear at all. Now, if you could ever just tell me what treatments I need for that "Slap Ecco" (sp) bay area. What do I need?

post-17434-13819333826926_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard. You never cease to amaze me Mike.

Typical of his BS.. Validating his preference by denigrating others. Pretty obnoxious.

My favorite is when he complimented Craig on his VRD amps by telling him they sounded just like solid state.

I'm offended by his following remark. Seems to be stereotyping those who like tubes.

We all know that with the onset of old

age, comes a decrease in our ability to hear high frequencies. Since

most speakers usually exhibit rising output impedance as frequency goes

up (especially tweeters), I have to wonder if perhaps all the rage

about tubes with the more seasoned folk on the forum is that the tonal

balance is shifted up a bit? It would definitely explain all the

observations about clarity, detail, imaging, whatever that can arguably

be associated with high frequency extension.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from distortion characteristics (since those have been beat to death), what are the other factors?

Slew rate.

Thanks - sounds like I've got a bit more reading to do.

No, not really Doc. Just more listening. You can't explain everything you hear, hear well or don't hear at all. Now, if you could ever just tell me what treatments I need for that "Slap Ecco" (sp) bay area. What do I need?

I see a Crown, in that shot ...... D150/2 ..??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well, in 1985 when I switched from tubes to SS I eliminated high-freq noise, rumble, muddy bass, hum, and feedback at high volume levels. I don't think I want to spend thousands of dollars to go backwards for some psuedo musical trait that 99.99999% of the population cannot hear.

JJK

JJ,

Oh. At first, I thought you were describing the difference between LP's & CD's! [;)][:o]

tc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It would definitely explain all the
observations about clarity, detail, imaging, whatever that can arguably
be associated with high frequency extension."

I don't understand this. Why are those words indicative of high frequency extension? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from distortion characteristics (since those have been beat to death), what are the other factors?

Slew rate.

Thanks - sounds like I've got a bit more reading to do.

No, not really Doc. Just more listening. You can't explain everything you hear, hear well or don't hear at all. Now, if you could ever just tell me what treatments I need for that "Slap Ecco" (sp) bay area. What do I need?

I see a Crown, in that shot ...... D150/2 ..??

You devil: you spotted that sucker. Pretty observant for a seasoned...oh nevermind.

BS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrWho wrote: "You're right - I'm never going to get it until someone
starts posting quantifiable data instead of all these fancy descriptors
subjective to psychoacoustics."

Do you think you would have a
better chance understanding a woman (I know, it's a trick question) by
reviewing her written profile or meeting her in person?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrWho wrote: "You're right - I'm never going to get it until someone starts posting quantifiable data instead of all these fancy descriptors subjective to psychoacoustics."

Do you think you would have a better chance understanding a woman (I know, it's a trick question) by reviewing her written profile or meeting her in person?

....................Do you think you would have a better chance understanding a woman......................

pauln,

Not sure that the boy is quite seasoned enough to answer that question.[:D]

Who, ya know, there is a bit more to it than just having hair on your head.[H]

Sorry Mike, I couldn't help it.[:D]

tc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how I share about a very quantifiable and audible behavior of a trait inherant with a certain topology and everyone goes right to criticizing the messenger. My apologies if my humor about old age didn't make it through the translation process - sheesh, you'd think y'all were insecure! (well the ones complaining anyway).

The crazy thing is nobody has yet chimed in as to how this might even be benficial! I wonder how many of the whiners even have a clue what I'm talking about...quick, everyone go run to google! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard. You never cease to amaze me Mike.

Care to enlighten the world about how output impedance doesn't matter? or the impedace of the speaker? Or was it the jokes about old age bothering you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DrWho wrote: "You're right - I'm never going to get it until someone

starts posting quantifiable data instead of all these fancy descriptors

subjective to psychoacoustics."

Do you think you would have a

better chance understanding a woman (I know, it's a trick question) by

reviewing her written profile or meeting her in person?

I guess that this is in comparison to all of those subjectivists who do...

And the comparison is not reading about her versus meeting her, its meeting her and then observing and noting objective data versus subjective and amorphous terms.

Why is it the folks who like the subjective approach assume that the objective approach doesn't involve reality? Just who is suggesting that you "understanding a woman by

reviewing her written profile"? What a screwy assumption.

Just because someone persists in describing events in terms that are meaningless except to themselves does not mean that others who persist in attempting to identify qualities that are independently reproduceable and definable fail to experience and understand reality! The difference is that one group attempts to identify qualities that can be communicated in a meaningful manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apart from distortion characteristics (since those have been beat to death), what are the other factors?

Slew rate.

Thanks - sounds like I've got a bit more reading to do.
No, not really Doc. Just more listening. You can't explain everything you hear, hear well or don't hear at all. Now, if you could ever just tell me what treatments I need for that "Slap Ecco" (sp) bay area. What do I need?

I'm confused - are you saying slew rate doesn't matter?

As far as that pingy slapback action - I think a few absorption type panels going along the sides of the parallel walls surrounding the couch would be a good start. Go as thick as you can (like no less than 4" if it'll fit). I'm not exactly sure what kind of aesthetics you're aiming for, but you might consider throwing a heavy curtain that wraps around back there or something crazy like that - it would probably help to cover up that window and the folded shape of the heavy curtain will do a little diffusion as well (provided it's heavy enough - none of this lace stuff...). It would probably also help to throw some stuff along that front wall too, but diffusion is probably the better route there. The absence of side walls will kinda be working to your advantage, but there's some chance that the room is coming back at the listening position all weird too (something easily verified with a few measurements). I suppose it sounds like a lot of work, but it could be done way overkill for under $500. You can work your way down from that to fit a price range and aesthetic impact that you desire.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm offended by his following remark. Seems to be stereotyping those who like tubes.

My apologies for offending - it was meant in good humor.

Btw, the obnoxious description doesn't change the behavior of high output impedance...surely you're not offended by that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"It would definitely explain all the

observations about clarity, detail, imaging, whatever that can arguably

be associated with high frequency extension."

I don't understand this. Why are those words indicative of high frequency extension? Maybe I'm reading it wrong. ???

Let's say you're in the studio and the manager comes up behind you and is like, "man - could you make that image better?" or "increase the detail?" or "increase the clarity?" - basically requests being made by someone that doesn't know what he's doing. The easiest thing to do is lean over and crank the HF knob on the mixing console. Then when he walks away you put it back to normal - which is fun when he comes back and talks about how much better it sounds...but that's probably going a bit off topic. I love psychoacoustics.

Or to look at it another way - it would be very hard to achieve those descriptions with a system lacking in high frequency extension.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just because someone persists in describing events in terms that are meaningless except to themselves

does not mean that others who persist in attempting to identify

qualities that are independently reproduceable and definable fail to

experience and understand reality! The difference is that one group

attempts to identify qualities that can be communicated in a meaningful manner.

Listening with the measuring equipment out?!? Blasphemy! I thought

women were the only ones capable of multitasking? Oops, there I go

stereotyping again! Shame on me.

But just to stress the same point Mark is making....why in the world

would anyone want to quantify anything that has no bearing on actual

perception? Talk about a complete waste of time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who, ya know, there is a bit more to it than just having hair on your head.[H]

Is that why you shaved it off? [;)]

Speaking of seasoning....would that be like the Axe deodorant stuff? Or would garlic work better? [A]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the most ridiculous theory I've ever heard. You never cease to amaze me Mike.

Typical of his BS.. Validating his preference by denigrating others. Pretty obnoxious.

Isn't it ironic that those who complain the loudest, most seem to embody that which they protest...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...