The language of Reproduction and the language of Music.

[ddk]

David,

Just MHO, but I think your choice is due to existence of some players that play digital adding artifacts according to your preference.

The other way around, computers add artifacts that I don't like and lack any notion of naturalness and bass is still a joke with them.

BTW, did you listen to the Wadax Reference DAC?

No, I don't actively seek digital gear. It doesn't matter to me because no matter what the nature of digital is what it is as are the formats, no DAC is going to change that.

david

 

[microstrip]

The other way around, computers add artifacts that I don't like and lack any notion of naturalness and bass is still a joke with them.

Can I ask what kind of technical artifacts added by computers you addressing? CD players are known to add jitter, it is why they sound so different and sometimes more analog like.

No, I don't actively seek digital gear. It doesn't matter to me because no matter what the nature of digital is what it is as are the formats, no DAC is going to change that.

david

When electronic sound reproduction was developed many people said the same about the horrible music represented by electrical signals created by electrons - it was not a "natural" process - and stayed listening to mechanical phonographs and gramophones.

Surely there is still a lot to learn about digital. But IMHO SOTA digital bass is closer to master tape bass than to vinyl bass. YMMV.

 

[ddk]

Can I ask what kind of technical artifacts added by computers you addressing? CD players are known to add jitter, it is why they sound so different and sometimes more analog like.

Ok ! And analog is all about distortion that's why we like it, I've heard this tired argument forever. I have a single criteria and that's "natural" or not. I simply find computer front end sound "unnatural" and terribly boring in every way. We can call it hifi or audiophile sound if you like but for it's simply unnatural.

When electronic sound reproduction was developed many people said the same about the horrible music represented by electrical signals created by electrons - it was not a "natural" process - and stayed listening to mechanical phonographs and gramophones.

Surely there is still a lot to learn about digital. But IMHO SOTA digital bass is closer to master tape bass than to vinyl bass. YMMV.

I didn't say digital is horrible just commented that it has a particular nature of it's own. After nearly 40 years I'm pretty familiar with what digital is.
Analog remains the high quality standard for bass reproduction IME and IMO majority of DACs I've heard and owned fail miserably in this department including the current SOTA.

 

[wil]

Always found this interview with Joe Broussard humorous, on the superiority of 78 music:


Q: are you following any specific genre in your collection? Or maybe pressing years?

A: I got all types of music: everything from string bands and southern artists to Country blues and early jazz. Gospel and Bluegrass. In terms of pressing years, the best stuff is from 1929 to 1933, especially 1931, 1932, 1933. Nobody had any money, sales were low. So that what makes the records so scarce. And people didn’t take care of them with those old damn wind-ups. Those needles destroyed the grooves. That’s what happened to all those Charlie Patton records.

Jazz music ended in 1933, with the last recordings of worth being Clarence Williams in 1932. Also Benny Moten’s last recordings (he died in 1935). The problem was the sound changed in 1933; the tone was gone. When they came back with .25 cent records, the sound had changed for good. It wasn’t the same. Lost that beautiful tone.

In 1955, country music had its last gasp. Jimmy Murphy’s records (six titles actually) that were recorded in Trashville, oops, I mean Nashville, were the last real recordings. Songs like “Here Kitty Kitt,” “Looking for a Mustard Patch,” and “Baboon Boogie.” It all changed after that.

Q: Is there a music genre that you avoid?

A: Rock-n- roll. Period. Any of it. Hate it. Worse thing that happened to music. Hurt all types of music. They took blues and ruined it. It’s the cancer of music….ate into everything. Killed Country music, that’s for sure.

Q: A lot of people would claim the complete opposite. that Rock-n-Roll re invented and recharged music. What is it about rock-n-roll that annoys you so much?

A: Don’t like. Just my personal taste. Don’t like the sound of it, the meaning of it…doesn’t promote anything beautiful or meaningful. Idiotic noise, in my opinion.

Q: So artist like Miles Davis, John Coltrane don’t deserve your time?

A: Oh my god, you gotta be kidding me. None of that music moves me.

Joe Bussard – Dust & Grooves. Vinyl Collection Books

dustandgrooves.com

Another great example of the infatuation of one's strong opinions stomping the life out of one's intelligence.

 

[Cellcbern]

Excellent, David, excellent. I wish I could be this concise.

Living presence - the fabric of any space. <snip> One reason I love live recordings. Just listen to Vladimir Horowitz play Schumann's Fantasy in C Major on his "Historic Return" album from 1965 - live in Carnegie Hall - you feel the energy of an appreciative audience in a packed house, the electricity in the air. Fantastic!

View attachment 88716



I cannot recall the rationale for 180 and 200 gram LPs, if there was one. It increased prices when it started showing up. Less prone to warpage? In terms of formulation I'd prefer the money be spent on quality pellets, virgin vinyl that is non-repressed or re-used. Using a black light reveals some modern LPs with 'waviness' and discoloration. Neil Antin (record cleaning expert) speculates this is a sign of labels of repressed records getting into the mix.

Far as I can tell this post marks a departure from the subject/title of this thread ("The Language of Reproduction and the Language of Music") and everything that follows is off track.

 

[tima]

Far as I can tell this post marks a departure from the subject/title of this thread ("The Language of Reproduction and the Language of Music") and everything that follows is off track.

Well mea culpa. The short paragraph at the end about vinyl formulation was not in sync with the subject. The first paragraph tied into discussion of space/ambience with an example. I think there's a case that other departures happened much earlier.

I tried to offer an interesting topic and there has been some excellent discussion. Nonetheless, successful threads often attract nullards and kibitzers with unfortunate signal to noise ratios. I could ask moderators to remove the chaff but I don't. Your earlier comments were, if I recall, mostly on topic and somewhat interesting, just not drawing much response. I think Marty misunderstood David and the VTA topic went on too long, but either one of those fellows can say something extraordinary at any moment. The ever present analog/digital commentary is like bad hum from a transformer in the background of every thread.

 

[Gregm]

Are you joking? The Harman course trains people to detect and focus on the classical technical artifacts, IMHO exactly the opposite people in this thread are referring.

Long ago in the early WBF days I considered taking it, but after I read testimonies of people having gone through it, I decided to avoid it.

We are talking about the same thing -- a little application, downloadable for free?
Not to be argumentative but, as an excercise, the app can help one identify, and get accustomed to identifying, the presence or absence of certain distortions / artefacts and put a name to them.
That's about it.

 

[Ron Resnick]

The ever present analog/digital commentary is like bad hum from a transformer in the background of every thread.

Very funny!

 

[Cellcbern]

Interesting to me to compare the descriptions of the sound of the highest end amplifiers, e.g., in the TAS guide (link below) in the context of the stated goal of this thread. Two things stand out:

1) There are frequently differences in the language used to describe the sound of solid state amps vs. their tube and hybrid counterparts. Even when the description of a solid state amp's performance involves only superlatives, terms like "magic" (Absolare) and "you are there" (Ayon) only seem to be used when describing tube or hybrid amps.

2) As in this TAS guide, even with the most highly rated solid state amps, descriptions of their performance are frequently qualified ("best solid state I've heard") or expressed in terms of how close they get to tube attributes.

I am wondering if a new/refined vocabulary and way of describing audio component/system sound quality in terms of the language of music would eliminate this difference?

https://www.ch-precision.com/images/reviews/A1_TAS_Guide.pdf

 

[MarcelNL]

you mean 'eliminate this bias' ? ;-) (I am guilty of it too)

 

[Cellcbern]

you mean 'eliminate this bias' ? ;-) (I am guilty of it too)

No - I don't view this as a bias, and it is not something that one is "guilty of". For me bias implies a preference or prejudice for which there is no basis in fact - like racism, sexism, or homophobia. In the case of amplifiers that I presented reviewers are hearing something from tube amplifiers that they are not hearing from solid state amplifiers. A vocabulary and methodology for describing the sound of components/systems in the language of music (as opposed to the language of audio) would presumably be free of "bias" - otherwise why bother? Each amplifier, regardless of topology, would be rated solely on how much it sounds like live music and/or the extent to which it makes the listener feel the same as live music does.

 

[Cellcbern]

Interesting to me to compare the descriptions of the sound of the highest end amplifiers, e.g., in the TAS guide (link below) in the context of the stated goal of this thread. Two things stand out:

1) There are frequently differences in the language used to describe the sound of solid state amps vs. their tube and hybrid counterparts. Even when the description of a solid state amp's performance involves only superlatives, terms like "magic" (Absolare) and "you are there" (Ayon) only seem to be used when describing tube or hybrid amps.

2) As in this TAS guide, even with the most highly rated solid state amps, descriptions of their performance are frequently qualified ("best solid state I've heard") or expressed in terms of how close they get to tube attributes.

I am wondering if a new/refined vocabulary and way of describing audio component/system sound quality in terms of the language of music would eliminate this difference?

https://www.ch-precision.com/images/reviews/A1_TAS_Guide.pdf

FYI: Another example:

Absolare Hybrid Stereo Power Amplifier: Signature Edition - The Absolute Sound

Absolare Hybrid Stereo Power Amplifier: Signature Edition - Absolare’s new Hybrid Stereo successfully combines the warmth and harmonic richness of tubes with the power, bass control, and dynamics of solid-state. Robert Harley reports on this extraordinarily musical amplifier.

www.theabsolutesound.com

I have never - ever seen/heard language like this used to describe the sound of an amplifier without tubes:

"...In addition to nailing the timbre, the Hybrid also presented a wonderful sense of air and bloom around the instrument, furthering the impression of hearing music and not a recreation of it....as impressive as the Hybrid was sonically, it did something far more important emotionally—it revealed more expression and feeling in Gordon’s playing....take the Absolare’s reproduction of voice, particularly female voice. I heard a remarkable lifelike immediacy, heightening the singer’s emotion and expression. There was an intimacy that touched me deeply in a way that other amplifiers fall short of, no matter how clean, transparent, or detailed they may be....something about the Absolare’s reproduction of it breathed life and expression into the lyrics, the performances, and the heart of the song’s meaning....Concomitantly, the Hybrid Stereo’s utterly organic and natural presentation put me in a frame of mind in which I was more receptive to musical meaning....

I've never owned an Absolare component and am not promoting the brand. But this review is the best example I've come across of assessing a component's performance as much in terms of musical as audio attributes.

 

[tima]

No - I don't view this as a bias, and it is not something that one is "guilty of". For me bias implies a preference or prejudice for which there is no basis in fact - like racism, sexism, or homophobia. In the case of amplifiers that I presented reviewers are hearing something from tube amplifiers that they are not hearing from solid state amplifiers. A vocabulary and methodology for describing the sound of components/systems in the language of music (as opposed to the language of audio) would presumably be free of "bias" - otherwise why bother? Each amplifier, regardless of topology, would be rated solely on how much it sounds like live music and/or the extent to which it makes the listener feel the same as live music does.

Fwiw, that may be your definition of bias but it is not the traditional definition - nowadays too many words are being co-opted by dictionaries turned to ideologies - very difficult to avoid. It's a problem in the academy generall. Back to audio...

I agree that we can move toward describing components and systems in relation to music. The audiophile vocabulary of review publications can still apply when it aptly describes what one hears. The critical part is if and where the reviewer/describer places their advocacy or effort to influence.

1) There are frequently differences in the language used to describe the sound of solid state amps vs. their tube and hybrid counterparts. Even when the description of a solid state amp's performance involves only superlatives, terms like "magic" (Absolare) and "you are there" (Ayon) only seem to be used when describing tube or hybrid amps.

2) As in this TAS guide, even with the most highly rated solid state amps, descriptions of their performance are frequently qualified ("best solid state I've heard") or expressed in terms of how close they get to tube attributes.

"Magic" and "you are there" or "the best solid state I've heard" strike me as the reviewer stating his personal preference or experience rather than describing sound much less sound in terms of music. Of course we read reviews to get opinions as well.

Noticing differences in solid-state amp reviews vs tube-base amps is interesting. I'd suggest a broad sample from many authors is needed before we claim a general trend. There may indeed be tendencies among individual authors. I'm a bit sceptical of many (not all) reviewers who talk in terms of solid state vs tubes because it is often a gross generalization. I have read reviews that will say XYZ is "tube-like" or "like solid state". Saying something as "the best XYZ I've heard" is a fairly standard reviewer caveat.

But keep at it ... are there standardized differences between other types of components? Direct-drive vs belt for example? Consider what could be said in describing sound heard in a concert or what is not heard in a concert that is heard from a stereo. Is there a personal satisfaction from one not had in the other?

 

[wil]

No - I don't view this as a bias, and it is not something that one is "guilty of". For me bias implies a preference or prejudice for which there is no basis in fact - like racism, sexism, or homophobia. In the case of amplifiers that I presented reviewers are hearing something from tube amplifiers that they are not hearing from solid state amplifiers. A vocabulary and methodology for describing the sound of components/systems in the language of music (as opposed to the language of audio) would presumably be free of "bias" - otherwise why bother? Each amplifier, regardless of topology, would be rated solely on how much it sounds like live music and/or the extent to which it makes the listener feel the same as live music does.

Come up with all the refined music vocabulary you want, it will not eliminate audiophile bias, in my "un-biased" opinion. I've observed plenty of what I would call biased opinions on audio forums. And using "live" music as the touchstone won't necessarily give clarity either. One may go to horns with their lifelike dynamic ease, but suffer from very un-lifelike colorations from those horns. Or one can go in other directions and deal with other compromises. Some will decide they prefer one lifelike presentation over another. Some will plant their flag with what they decide suits them -- human nature.

 

[Cellcbern]

Fwiw, that may be your definition of bias but it is not the traditional definition - nowadays too many words are being co-opted by dictionaries turned to ideologies - very difficult to avoid. It's a problem in the academy generall. Back to audio...

I agree that we can move toward describing components and systems in relation to music. The audiophile vocabulary of review publications can still apply when it aptly describes what one hears. The critical part is if and where the reviewer/describer places their advocacy or effort to influence.



"Magic" and "you are there" or "the best solid state I've heard" strike me as the reviewer stating his personal preference or experience rather than describing sound much less sound in terms of music. Of course we read reviews to get opinions as well.

Noticing differences in solid-state amp reviews vs tube-base amps is interesting. I'd suggest a broad sample from many authors is needed before we claim a general trend. There may indeed be tendencies among individual authors. I'm a bit sceptical of many (not all) reviewers who talk in terms of solid state vs tubes because it is often a gross generalization. I have read reviews that will say XYZ is "tube-like" or "like solid state". Saying something as "the best XYZ I've heard" is a fairly standard reviewer caveat.

But keep at it ... are there standardized differences between other types of components? Direct-drive vs belt for example? Consider what could be said in describing sound heard in a concert or what is not heard in a concert that is heard from a stereo. Is there a personal satisfaction from one not had in the other?

Definition of BIAS

an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice; an instance of such prejudice; bent, tendency… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

A broad sample would be fine. But I'd settle for just one example of the sound of a solid state amp being described in terms of increasing the emotion and feeling of a musician's playing, making the listener more receptive to musical meaning, etc. Can you send me one? Can anybody?

I raised this and shared the reviews I shared not to argue tubes vs. solid state but to point out the differences in language used to describe and compare each. Note that the reviewer did not express a preference for one type of amplifier or the other - he described what he was hearing. Are we going to imply bias whenever a reviewer or poster likes what they are hearing? The obvious implication is that if you start to use more musical rather than audio attributes to describe/evaluate amplifiers the ones using tubes, particularly SET's will inevitably have an advantage.

 

[wil]

Definition of BIAS

an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice; an instance of such prejudice; bent, tendency… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

A broad sample would be fine. But I'd settle for just one example of the sound of a solid state amp being described in terms of increasing the emotion and feeling of a musician's playing, making the listener more receptive to musical meaning, etc. Can you send me one? Can anybody

I raised this and shared the reviews I shared not to argue tubes vs. solid state but to point out the differences in language used to describe and compare each. The obvious implication is that if you start to use more musical rather than audio attributes to describe/evaluate amplifiers the ones using tubes will inevitably have an advantage.

Look up reviews of DartZeel

 

[Cellcbern]

Look up reviews of DartZeel

I have. Never seen the kind of language that I shared above, i.e., the kind of language often used to describe the emotional impact of live music, used to describe a DartZeel amp, even though I've seen many rave reviews of DartZeel products. Interestingly, the raves about DartZeel amps are almost always expressed in terms of similarity to their tube counterparts. But I 'd be happy for anyone to share such a DartZeel review/assessment that I missed.

 

[wil]

I have. Never seen the kind of language that I shared above, i.e., the kind of language often used to describe the emotional impact of live music, used to describe a DartZeel amp, even though I've seen many rave reviews of DartZeel products. Interestingly, the raves about DartZeel amps are almost always expressed in terms of similarity to their tube counterparts. But I 'd be happy for anyone to share such a DartZeel review/assessment that I missed.

Well, here is some florid prose from Howard Milstien of Sound Advocate of a review of their integrated 8550 which seems to fit the bill ?

I've heard this amp and the 108 model 2 and in my experience (which includes quite a few tube amps) the DartZeel is the most musically engaging sound I've yet to hear in my system. It just sound "right" to me.

The reviewer may be a little over the top, though!

"The darTZeel produces music that is indescribably beautiful, exact, nimble, and subtle to the ears, dynamically extraordinary, and incredibly profound. It also is so filled with such musical “correctness’ that one can’t help to sit and listen to music with a feeling of such satisfaction as its sound permeates through your senses without barely…. any type of limitations!

Massed strings, solo violins, voices, double basses, horns, and full orchestra–whatever the instruments or its tonality may demonstrate, the CTH-8550 MKII brings forth an overall sense of reality and pleasure of the recording venue- be it live and/or studio that never fails to make you just shake your head in wonderment and a bit of disbelief. I have only recently experienced this on a “few” such amplifiers!

This amplifier brings forth to the listener a level of emotion, low level to large scale dynamics tonality as well as the utmost musical precision and satisfaction that is rarely found in components today.

Should I dare say that if you are a tube enthusiast and have not heard this unit, it will ultimately make you forget about the “legendary” tube vs. solid-state debate once and for all! It bridges all the conceived notions and gaps that may have once occupied your mind as such."

 

[cmarin]

A wonderful example that speaks to me about the beauty and emotional impact of music are the words spoken by Antoio Salieri in the movie Amadeus as Salieri catches a glimpse of Mozart’s score (Serenade For Winds, 3rd Movement) laying on a table:

“On the page it looked nothing. The beginning simple, almost comic. Just a pulse. Bassoons and basset horns, like a rusty squeezebox. And then suddenly, high above it, an oboe. A single note, hanging there, unwavering until a clarinet took over and sweetened it into a phrase of such delight! This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I'd never heard. Filled with such longing, such unfulfillable longing, it had me trembling. It seemed to me that I was hearing the voice of God.”

The visual impact of this scene, spoken with such emotional passion by the actor F. Murray Abraham, has created for me a permanent emotional connection to this piece that is replayed everytime I hear it. And it informs what I want to experience when I listen to music in my system at home.

 

[morricab]

Definition of BIAS

an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice; an instance of such prejudice; bent, tendency… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

A broad sample would be fine. But I'd settle for just one example of the sound of a solid state amp being described in terms of increasing the emotion and feeling of a musician's playing, making the listener more receptive to musical meaning, etc. Can you send me one? Can anybody?

I raised this and shared the reviews I shared not to argue tubes vs. solid state but to point out the differences in language used to describe and compare each. Note that the reviewer did not express a preference for one type of amplifier or the other - he described what he was hearing. Are we going to imply bias whenever a reviewer or poster likes what they are hearing? The obvious implication is that if you start to use more musical rather than audio attributes to describe/evaluate amplifiers the ones using tubes, particularly SET's will inevitably have an advantage.

The tendency for SS amp reviews is to take a technical and attribute checklist approach to describing the sound and not a how that sound impacts your senses and emotions. That might not be exclusively so, but it is a clear difference in language used.