Well I guess we can throw away two or three decades or more of recordings made with tube electronics since they're garbage.
But we all know you only listen to two CDs since your system is so revealing that those are the only two recordings you can stand to listen to. So that's a moot point.
Well the comment about two CD's seems like a low blow.
The other about recordings with tubes is certainly misdirection and not resembling anything Ethan Winer said.
If one produced with tubes because that is all that was available, then the idea to reproduce that with as much fidelity as possible doesn't seem odd to me or like someone is advocating the recordings are garbage. If someone produced with tubes as a preference, that too seems worthy of high fidelity reproduction to see what the maker of the recordings intended.
If either type of tube recording was done with changes in recording decisions based upon the idea playback would also be on tubed equipment, then maybe you have a point, but even then it doesn't change one tech as generally used is more accurate than another.
Mr. Winer can answer for himself, I would gather he means SNR, THD, IMD and FR. Those are standard metrics. And SS in general gets better marks on these tests than tubed equipment.
Only because you weren't around at the beginning of WBF when Ethan stated that he had improved his stereo to the point that he could no longer enjoy listening to music except for a couple of CDs. After he realized the ramifications of what he said, I believe he did some backtracking. If you want to do some sleuthing on the forum, you can dig up those chestnuts of information.
Well the comment about two CD's seems like a low blow.
The other about recordings with tubes is certainly misdirection and not resembling anything Ethan Winer said.
If one produced with tubes because that is all that was available, then the idea to reproduce that with as much fidelity as possible doesn't seem odd to me or like someone is advocating the recordings are garbage. If someone produced with tubes as a preference, that too seems worthy of high fidelity reproduction to see what the maker of the recordings intended.
If either type of tube recording was done with changes in recording decisions based upon the idea playback would also be on tubed equipment, then maybe you have a point, but even then it doesn't change one tech as generally used is more accurate than another.
Well the comment about two CD's seems like a low blow.
The other about recordings with tubes is certainly misdirection and not resembling anything Ethan Winer said.
If one produced with tubes because that is all that was available, then the idea to reproduce that with as much fidelity as possible doesn't seem odd to me or like someone is advocating the recordings are garbage. If someone produced with tubes as a preference, that too seems worthy of high fidelity reproduction to see what the maker of the recordings intended.
If either type of tube recording was done with changes in recording decisions based upon the idea playback would also be on tubed equipment, then maybe you have a point, but even then it doesn't change one tech as generally used is more accurate than another.
Don't be disingenuous. You know that even to this day, tubes continue to be used in the studio. In fact, some of the most treasured microphones of all time use tubes. Certainly tubes were used well past the introduction of ss topologies. But I've never said one technology is better than another; Ethan has.
Tubes are shown to have much less thermal distortion than transistors in general. However, once the proper semiconductor is selected and the operation point properly established there is not a winner anymore - both can have excellent results!
Mr. Winer can answer for himself, I would gather he means SNR, THD, IMD and FR. Those are standard metrics. And SS in general gets better marks on these tests than tubed equipment.
those are measurable but not guarantee must sound good, how about those can't be measure like transparency sound stage emotion etc. will make you feel sound good !
tony ma
those are measurable but not guarantee must sound good, how about those can't be measure like transparency sound stage emotion etc. will make you feel sound good !
tony ma
Or for what measurements are worth! From post #75 by Albert Porter a while back:
If specifications tell all, will amplifier A or amplifier B perform better on a 4 ohm speaker?
Amplifier A
Two channel @ 40 WPC at 4 Ohms.
Response 20 Hz to 20 KHz @ less than 1% THD.
Signal to noise greater than 94 DB
Damping factor >400 @ 4 Ohm
Amplifier B
Two channel @ 32 WPC at 4 Ohms.
Response 20 Hz to 20 KHz @ less than 5% THD.
Signal to noise greater than 86 DB
Damping factor 2.58 @ 4 Ohms
Didn't early SS amp design employ large amounts of negative feedback resulting in incredibly low THD numbers (0.00....%), which was subsequently found to have a significant negative impact on the sound of the SS amp?
Don't be disingenuous. You know that even to this day, tubes continue to be used in the studio. In fact, some of the most treasured microphones of all time use tubes. Certainly tubes were used well past the introduction of ss topologies. But I've never said one technology is better than another; Ethan has.
And I see not any of this contradicts what I said. We are talking amplifiers for playback. There are areas tubes may be better, but xfmr coupled tubes vs SS amps commonly available is not one of those areas.
I am not in a position to say if tube mics are preferred for their sound which departs from accuracy of the mike diaphragm or whether it is because they are more accurate. On the other end though tubes are less accurate in general though still preferred by some which is fine.
Or for what measurements are worth! From post #75 by Albert Porter a while back:
If specifications tell all, will amplifier A or amplifier B perform better on a 4 ohm speaker?
Amplifier A
Two channel @ 40 WPC at 4 Ohms.
Response 20 Hz to 20 KHz @ less than 1% THD.
Signal to noise greater than 94 DB
Damping factor >400 @ 4 Ohm
Amplifier B
Two channel @ 32 WPC at 4 Ohms.
Response 20 Hz to 20 KHz @ less than 5% THD.
Signal to noise greater than 86 DB
Damping factor 2.58 @ 4 Ohms
Amplifier A will perform more accurately if your measurements are correct. Whether someone prefer's Amplifier B is another story. I will look at your link, but gather B was a LAMM. And yes, if the A is a car amp with those genuine abilities connected to most reasonable speaker loads A is going to be more accurate. If one prefers the LAMM it is a testament to his knowledge of what humans like to hear and how to bend the inaccuracies to that service.
Looking at the link I see A was a Kenwood amp. Car amps are notorious for deceptive specs. If however, this one does as it says, and the 20-20khz at less than 1% thd is at rated power it would be more accurate.
Didn't early SS amp design employ large amounts of negative feedback resulting in incredibly low THD numbers (0.00....%), which was subsequently found to have a significant negative impact on the sound of the SS amp?
I think you are referring to the Japanese distortion wars of the 1970s and early 1980s where the race was on to see who could develop and market an amp that had the most zeros to the right of the decimal point in order to show how low their distortion was. So yes, that war was fought and won by using huge amounts of global negative feedback. Just as people who know nothing about cars would kick the tires to see if the car was "good," the same type of person could recognize by looking at a spec sheet that if the amp was rated for .00000005% distortion, it must be way better sounding than an amp that only has .005% distortion.
Which of course begs for the definition of "accuracy" within the context of musical enjoyment.
I have no data but strongly suspect if one were to perform repeatable, quantifiable measurements on the acoustic characteristics of various concerts halls or jazz venues, one would likely see a wide disparity.
Assuming there are disparities based on those measurements, could one reasonably and justifiably conclude (from a numbers based objective perspective) that one hall or jazz venue is more "accurate" than another?
Assuming your "oh boy" is about my Kenwood/LAMM statement think of the Bob Carver challenge. A few hundred dollar amp made to sound indistinguishable from a several thousand dollar thought to be state of the art big tube amp. Yet he did it to the Stereophile reviewer's satisfaction.
John Curl - who participates in long technical debates in the DIYaudio forum - recently posted a very interesting comment :
You will never understand the power of perfume unless you have been in the Paris Metro with a young woman who knew how to select her perfume properly to match her own scent.
IMHO, you will never understand the power of tubes, unless you have listened to excellent tube equipment in a good room, properly matched in a top system and playing a great recording.
And debating the .00000005% figure surely does not help ...
The only reason I brought up the 0.000..% THD spec is that it was suggested that this is one apparently accepted amplifier measurement falling into the "standard metrics", which apparently helps determine "accurate" performance.
John Curl - who participates in long technical debates in the DIYaudio forum - recently posted a very interesting comment :
You will never understand the power of perfume unless you have been in the Paris Metro with a young woman who knew how to select her perfume properly to match her own scent.
IMHO, you will never understand the power of tubes, unless you have listened to excellent tube equipment in a good room, properly matched in a top system and playing a great recording.
And debating the .00000005% figure surely does not help ...
John Curl - who participates in long technical debates in the DIYaudio forum - recently posted a very interesting comment :
You will never understand the power of perfume unless you have been in the Paris Metro with a young woman who knew how to select her perfume properly to match her own scent.
IMHO, you will never understand the power of tubes, unless you have listened to excellent tube equipment in a good room, properly matched in a top system and playing a great recording.
And debating the .00000005% figure surely does not help ...
