Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps

[esldude]

Man, somehow I missed those discussions/reviews. I have never heard a DAC sound like an LP. Great LPs played back over really good LP rigs and phono stages take on a sound quality close to the tape the LPs came from. DSD shares some of those qualities that you hear from the analog cousins twice removed. And thus the statement "sounds analog-like."

Well as having done a comparison of CD, LP and pre-recorded reel to reel, LP was always the very odd man out. CD, and RTR surprised me in generally being much alike. LP surprising for how different it was. I didn't have the master tape for comparison of course, but I would not have a hard time being convinced the RTR and CD were closer to it than LP. I don't think you are likely to get any LP rig to more or less match the master tape. They get too processed getting the signal on the LP.. The master tape signal isn't there to be retrieved on an LP.

 

[esldude]

Conversely, I have been around people who couldn't hear a firecracker if you set it off next to their ear. Unless you were running the test and looking at the signal on a scope, how can you be sure he wasn't hearing what was there and you couldn't?

I generated the tone and knew when it stopped. It was clear in that instance. All you need is to start a stopwatch, and stop it when they said it was gone which is what I was doing. The tone was stopped, plain and simple. Now of a handful of people only one did that.

 

[esldude]

Oh boy here we go again. When will people learn that all ABX tests prove is that short term memory is fallible. We already knew that .... Duh....

People you gotta read up and understand more about short and long term memory and about serial vs. parallel processing processes that go on in the brain. To wit, short term memory has limited *disc* space, is easily filled and of short duration. Or we don't to this day understand how, why and which short term (and there is unconscious processing going on) memories are converted to long term memories. Ever wonder why crime witnesses are unreliable? Or why perception decreases with the complexity of the task? (Guess how many variables are going on during a listening session, conscious or unconscious?) But no ABX proponents continue to repeat their mantra like Moonies... Oh eel ignorance is bliss.

Yep, your correct. We also know long term memory is worse. Or are you going to try tell me you can discern differences better by listening once today, and again next week. Versus listening and switching immediately. And that is without mentioning that short term memory gets transferred to long term. So long term memory can't have something that never made it through short term memory.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Oh I would like to see a quantitative analysis of this oft repeated result about chopped off decay. One could use a recorded pluck of a stringed instrument or an artificially generated one with known decay. See if there is a difference in how long someone will hear it until they say it disappears. I have done this informally, and have seen one person claim to be hearing it after it actually had stopped already. I am sure we could come up with other appropriate tests.

Brian Cheney (RIP) demoed this effect very nicely at several CES Shows using live guitar vs. Red book vs high Rez digital. Red book sounds stark and barren next to DSD but neither could begin to approach the sound of a rather simple instrument. And the problem only gets worse with number of instruments.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Yep, your correct. We also know long term memory is worse. Or are you going to try tell me you can discern differences better by listening once today, and again next week. Versus listening and switching immediately. And that is without mentioning that short term memory gets transferred to long term. So long term memory can't have something that never made it through short term memory.

No short term memory is less reliable of the two. Go read some textbooks on motor learning and control.

 

[mep]

Well as having done a comparison of CD, LP and pre-recorded reel to reel, LP was always the very odd man out. CD, and RTR surprised me in generally being much alike. LP surprising for how different it was. I didn't have the master tape for comparison of course, but I would not have a hard time being convinced the RTR and CD were closer to it than LP. I don't think you are likely to get any LP rig to more or less match the master tape. They get too processed getting the signal on the LP.. The master tape signal isn't there to be retrieved on an LP.

How could it not be? It was the source for the tape that was used to cut the stampers. Prerecorded R2R tapes are way more noisy than a high-quality properly set up table/arm/cartridge and they go through an equalization process because they are high-speed dupes of the tape. Digital regardless of the format has to get run through A/D and D/A conversions. I have heard lots of 7 1/2 ips prerecorded R2R tapes and I have yet to hear one sound like a CD. Except for the noise, I would prefer the prerecorded tape to the CD version.

 

[mep]

I generated the tone and knew when it stopped. It was clear in that instance. All you need is to start a stopwatch, and stop it when they said it was gone which is what I was doing. The tone was stopped, plain and simple. Now of a handful of people only one did that.

How so? Please explain your test methodology.

 

[mep]

No short term memory is less reliable of the two. Go read some textbooks on motor learning and control.

Myles-Do you know how many times something has to be repeated through short term memory before it is transferred to long term memory? I'm pretty sure for most people the answer isn't once.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Well as having done a comparison of CD, LP and pre-recorded reel to reel, LP was always the very odd man out. CD, and RTR surprised me in generally being much alike. LP surprising for how different it was. I didn't have the master tape for comparison of course, but I would not have a hard time being convinced the RTR and CD were closer to it than LP. I don't think you are likely to get any LP rig to more or less match the master tape. They get too processed getting the signal on the LP.. The master tape signal isn't there to be retrieved on an LP.

There's something seriously wrong somewhere if you think prerecorded, 7-1/2 ips, high speed duped, reel to reel tape is better than an LP. Seriously. And actually the sound of many, new top tts are remarkably close to their 15 ips tape second gen masters - that are far more relevant than some prerecorded tape. You are the first person probably who has ever said 7-1/2 ips tape and cd are similar.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I fail to understand what is your pleasure of debating quantitative values that we do not know how to correlate with perceived sound quality. Just by curiosity, what are the specific parameters that you would love to witness the quantitative discussion?

You're the one who suggested the debate, what did you have in mind? I don't except the premise that we don't know how to correlate quantitative measurements with perceived sound quality. It's not easy, but they're doing it at Harman.

Tim

 

[mep]

You're the one who suggested the debate, what did you have in mind? I don't except the premise that we don't know how to correlate quantitative measurements with perceived sound quality. It's not easy, but they're doing it at Harman.

Tim

Attempting to correlate measurements with sound quality has been going for far longer than Harman has been in existence. It has been the cornerstone of the high-fidelity hobby since its inception. Sure, the precision of the instruments that take the measurements has gotten better and we have developed new measurement tools (and software) along the way, but really good companies have always tried to correlate measurements with the expectations of what those measurements would actually sound like in their products.

Speaking of Harman, when they put on their shows where they train people what to hear and then find out if they heard what they were trained to hear, the outcomes of the tests were already predetermined as far as expectations weren't they? So are these tests actually used as a learning tool for Harman or are they used as a marketing tool? These questions are probably better off in another thread.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Attempting to correlate measurements with sound quality has been going for far longer than Harman has been in existence. It has been the cornerstone of the high-fidelity hobby since its inception. Sure, the precision of the instruments that take the measurements has gotten better and we have developed new measurement tools (and software) along the way, but really good companies have always tried to correlate measurements with the expectations of what those measurements would actually sound like in their products.

Speaking of Harman, when they put on their shows where they train people what to hear and then find out if they heard what they were trained to hear, the outcomes of the tests were already predetermined as far as expectations weren't they? So are these tests actually used as a learning tool for Harman or are they used as a marketing tool? These questions are probably better off in another thread.

We've had that thread.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

You're the one who suggested the debate, what did you have in mind? I don't except the premise that we don't know how to correlate quantitative measurements with perceived sound quality. It's not easy, but they're doing it at Harman.

Tim

Tim,

I did not suggest any debate - I have referred it would be meaningless as the categories were not defined well enough. The published Harman studies apply only to loudspeakers, not to the so called small differences. Anyway the Harman official opinion is clear in the Mark Levinson ML53 webpage at their site: "As with all Mark Levinson Reference products, it goes without saying that the primary function of the Nº53 is to reproduce sound at the purest level possible. Following in the tradition of such Mark Levinson solid state power amplifier products as the ML-2 and the Nº33, the new Nº53 continues to prove that solid state electronics can rival the best sounding tube-based designs. "

I think no WBF member could write it better!

 

[Orb]

Oh boy here we go again. When will people learn that all ABX tests prove is that short term memory is fallible. We already knew that .... Duh....

People you gotta read up and understand more about short and long term memory and about serial vs. parallel processing processes that go on in the brain. To wit, short term memory has limited *disc* space, is easily filled and of short duration. Or we don't to this day understand how, why and which short term (and there is unconscious processing going on) memories are converted to long term memories. Ever wonder why crime witnesses are unreliable? Or why perception decreases with the complexity of the task? (Guess how many variables are going on during a listening session, conscious or unconscious?) But no ABX proponents continue to repeat their mantra like Moonies... Oh well ignorance is bliss.

Myles,
I proposed it for those that see value in dbt ABX or post saying "further ABX comparison validation is required" when discussing differences in technology-products-etc, my own views on it have been pretty clear in the past and fits in more with JA but that does not mean I should exclude providing such suggestions for those interested.
As I stressed the test has a limited focus-context, and it is using simple tones that alleviate the complexities of music (hence restricted conclusions) and to a lesser extent aural memory.

Cheers
Orb

 

[mep]

Tim,

I did not suggest any debate - I have referred it would be meaningless as the categories were not defined well enough. The published Harman studies apply only to loudspeakers, not to the so called small differences. Anyway the Harman official opinion is clear in the Mark Levinson ML53 webpage at their site: "As with all Mark Levinson Reference products, it goes without saying that the primary function of the Nº53 is to reproduce sound at the purest level possible. Following in the tradition of such Mark Levinson solid state power amplifier products as the ML-2 and the Nº33, the new Nº53 continues to prove that solid state electronics can rival the best sounding tube-based designs. "

I think no WBF member could write it better!

Good thing Harman said their amps can "rival" the best sounding tube based designs and didn't say they could better their sound!

 

[esldude]

There's something seriously wrong somewhere if you think prerecorded, 7-1/2 ips, high speed duped, reel to reel tape is better than an LP. Seriously. And actually the sound of many, new top tts are remarkably close to their 15 ips tape second gen masters - that are far more relevant than some prerecorded tape. You are the first person probably who has ever said 7-1/2 ips tape and cd are similar.

Well for starters, I didn't say it sounded better. I said CD and RTR sounded more alike, and LP obviously different. As most LP's have bass summed, and have different FR and other differences as you make your way toward the middle it shouldn't have been as surprising as it was. As for complaining of EQ as another poster did, ever heard of RIAA curves for LP? I can report what I and several friends heard on three different systems. The general balance, and character of CD was close to RTR. It was not close to LP. Yes, RTR suffered from tape hiss, and LP has some surface noise. Often the CD sounded like a non-hiss version of the RTR for the most part. LP didn't sound like surface noise added to the CD. Don't have a good way to quantify the difference. Just that LP sounded at least like some different mastering.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Tim,

I did not suggest any debate - I have referred it would be meaningless as the categories were not defined well enough. The published Harman studies apply only to loudspeakers, not to the so called small differences. Anyway the Harman official opinion is clear in the Mark Levinson ML53 webpage at their site: "As with all Mark Levinson Reference products, it goes without saying that the primary function of the Nº53 is to reproduce sound at the purest level possible. Following in the tradition of such Mark Levinson solid state power amplifier products as the ML-2 and the Nº33, the new Nº53 continues to prove that solid state electronics can rival the best sounding tube-based designs. "

I think no WBF member could write it better!

Ah...my poor reading comprehension skills again. I really do need to work on my command of the language. I took this as a challenge of sorts..,

Tim,

Again some progress - now we also have the good solid state and the not good (bad?) solid state. As you do not want to debate using technical qualitative and quantitative arguments, can you refer what are the good and not so good solid state examples? I hope that you will not answer that the good ones are those that sound like the best tubes! Yes, several great solid state designers do not hide they inspire themselves in the "tube sound" or other obscure "tube likeness aspects".

...my bad. I thought that meant that you did wan't to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments. As I said in my other post, in my excitement I blew right past that you, evidently, wanted to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments of the existence of good and bad solid state, probably because there is no argument there at all. I assumed, instead, that you were on-topic, and wanting to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments of the superiority of tubes. So sorry, my misunderstanding. Evidently you didn't even want to debate the possibility of the existence of good and bad solid state amplifiers. You didn't want to debate anything at all, is that correct? You only wanted to point out that I did not want to debate it either? So sorry. I get confused sometimes. For the record, again, I'd love to read the quantitative argument for the superiority of tubes, though I understand now that you don't want to make it. Can't say that I blame you.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Good thing Harman said their amps can "rival" the best sounding tube based designs and didn't say they could better their sound!

You girls don't even know when your skirts are being blown up, do you? Harman's not stupid. They know who the market is for amps in the price range of MLs and they're speaking to the audience. If they really thought tubes were better they'd be making them.

Tim

 

[mep]

You girls don't even know when your skirts are being blown up, do you? Harman's not stupid. They know who the market is for amps in the price range of MLs and they're speaking to the audience. If they really thought tubes were better they'd be making them.

Tim

Harman doesn't have any companies under their umbrella with experience designing and building tube amps.

 

[microstrip]

Ah...my poor reading comprehension skills again. I really do need to work on my command of the language. I took this as a challenge of sorts..,
...my bad. I thought that meant that you did wan't to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments. As I said in my other post, in my excitement I blew right past that you, evidently, wanted to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments of the existence of good and bad solid state, probably because there is no argument there at all. I assumed, instead, that you were on-topic, and wanting to debate the qualitative and quantitative arguments of the superiority of tubes. So sorry, my misunderstanding. Evidently you didn't even want to debate the possibility of the existence of good and bad solid state amplifiers. You didn't want to debate anything at all, is that correct? You only wanted to point out that I did not want to debate it either? So sorry. I get confused sometimes. For the record, again, I'd love to read the quantitative argument for the superiority of tubes, though I understand now that you don't want to make it. Can't say that I blame you.

Tim

Tim,

I was addressing mainly the methodology to carry the comparison. You admitted that you are not a technically prepared person, and my skills in psychoacoustics and sound reproduction are too limited to understand in depth audio specifications and its correlation with sound quality. I used the argument of the good versus bad solid state to show you exactly this point and that we would only be debating something we do not really master. IMHO single figures obtained from the root mean square of the error residuals are not good enough for this task.