Wait - forget about what test, or who is right for a minute. I don't want to waste bandwidth on this emotional hot button... BUT, is anyone who is participating (posting) now saying that there are no audible differences to be found in (roughly equivalent type and quality):
- resistors
- capacitors
- inductors
- semiconductors
- opamps (two different suppliers, same type?)
- etc.??
Forget about these complex devices like D/A chips...
What exactly is being said now?
Are we back to saying that all gear that specs below some (low) threshold sounds essentially identical??
Are we saying that if this gear DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME that we can make that determination via ANY measurement or testing method?? If so which one(s)??
Edit: oh yeah, and if there is such a testing method that reveals differences, what is being found - things cluster up into groups that have indiscernable differences, a bell curve, or a linear distribution?
My position is that all we have at our disposal are tools, techniques and ears - thus in reality the field of audio remains that of an art based upon and utilizing technologies and is not a science. ie. nothing is completely deterministic.
THUS: a device like the BLOWTORCH!!
_-_-bear
- resistors
- capacitors
- inductors
- semiconductors
- opamps (two different suppliers, same type?)
- etc.??
Forget about these complex devices like D/A chips...
What exactly is being said now?
Are we back to saying that all gear that specs below some (low) threshold sounds essentially identical??
Are we saying that if this gear DOES NOT SOUND THE SAME that we can make that determination via ANY measurement or testing method?? If so which one(s)??
Edit: oh yeah, and if there is such a testing method that reveals differences, what is being found - things cluster up into groups that have indiscernable differences, a bell curve, or a linear distribution?
My position is that all we have at our disposal are tools, techniques and ears - thus in reality the field of audio remains that of an art based upon and utilizing technologies and is not a science. ie. nothing is completely deterministic.
THUS: a device like the BLOWTORCH!!
_-_-bear
Last edited:
There's a lot of wiggle room in the word "roughly." And it depends on what you mean by "gear." Speakers? Phono cartridges?
I will say unequivocally that NO ONE has ever demonstrated that they can hear the difference between two boxes of gain that have reasonably low distortion, adequate bandwidth, are not driven into overload, and have appropriate input and output impedances for a given application. To put a fine point on it, NO ONE has demonstrated that there is any audible difference between a Blowtorch and a cheap op-amp based linestage of competent design (the vast majority of commercial product).
The Blowtorch is analogous to a Rolex- it is gorgeous, beautifully made and engineered, and a total luxury and status item. But a $19.95 Timex tells time just as well.
SY, bring ur box with gain over some time... or your box with unity gain, and we can see what we shall see. Perhaps you will be on the mark and there will be no difference, but I'd be stunned if that were so... CERTAINLY not with a power amp. No chance. Zero, zip, nil, nada. Not here. And I don't have a weird load to present either... fyi.
Weird operator/owner perhaps, you'll have to decide.
The offer is pretty much open for anyone... you have to call ahead (email works...). I'll be sitting out waiting...
_-_-bear
PS. it's an art no matter how much engineering is applied... and it's not all the same.
Weird operator/owner perhaps, you'll have to decide.
The offer is pretty much open for anyone... you have to call ahead (email works...). I'll be sitting out waiting...
_-_-bear
PS. it's an art no matter how much engineering is applied... and it's not all the same.
Fill in the blanks - work with the general concept. It's the concept that counts.
Of course, this is the whole point of the Blowtorch thread in the first place.
People first wanted to copy it, as they had heard about it. Then, others of similar belief to SY, poked fun at it for being so expensive and excessive in mass, power consumption, etc.
After all, why couldn't a simple plastic box with a couple of IC stages do the same job?
Well, it doesn't, for me, especially on long term listening. I found this out, decades ago, especially when the 'new' solid state preamps were the only things available for retail sale, back in the early 1970's.
However, short term, and especially ABX tests would have fooled me into thinking that the new solid state stuff was at least as good as the older quality tube stuff. I'm glad that I did not go in this direction, however, Tom Holman and Dave Spiegel allegedly did, and dropped out of the consumer audio business.
People first wanted to copy it, as they had heard about it. Then, others of similar belief to SY, poked fun at it for being so expensive and excessive in mass, power consumption, etc.
After all, why couldn't a simple plastic box with a couple of IC stages do the same job?
Well, it doesn't, for me, especially on long term listening. I found this out, decades ago, especially when the 'new' solid state preamps were the only things available for retail sale, back in the early 1970's.
However, short term, and especially ABX tests would have fooled me into thinking that the new solid state stuff was at least as good as the older quality tube stuff. I'm glad that I did not go in this direction, however, Tom Holman and Dave Spiegel allegedly did, and dropped out of the consumer audio business.
Last edited:
Read my phono preamp article where I explain the rationale for using tubes in that application.
Except I did no such thing. The closest I came to that was my analogy to Rolex. I have, and will continue, to poke fun at goofy stuff like Bybee or Schumann or Belt until such a time as they step up to the plate with evidence. The fact that you're eager to defend them in a team-sport sort of way just means you're collateral damage.
And I have said, and will continue to say, that your excellent engineering efforts and reputation are good enough to stand alone; they are only tarnished by your continuing association with those sort of charlatans. You know that I have the highest regard for you personally and for your integrity, and devoutly wish that you'd not lend your prestige and reputation to these far lesser humans.
I'll subscribe to that. It's close to the Horowitz & Hill philosophy for Electronics design overall:
- Paul Horowitz, Winfield Hill, "The Art of Electronics" Preface to first edition, 1980.
Sure, I'll use simulation, CAD, measuring instruments and other Tools of Apollo, but science does not rule this work. Intuition, the bag-of-tricks, and listening & enjoying the music drive the finished result.
Rigid Scientific thinking, at its worst, ends up with the kind of designs of D. Self, who only discusses distortion measurement, and omits listening tests completely. Attempts to build amps based on his principles often end in complete disappointment, unsurprisingly. The whole purpose of amplifiers (to allow records to give pleasure) is forgotten.
I imagine Doug saying to his wife: "make us a cup of tea, Flossie. I'll put a nice CD on the distortion analyser."
I've limited my discussion here to line amps. Power amps are a different animal, with much more qualification necessary to ensure lack of audibility.
Likewise, you have an open invite anytime you're in Austin. My home system isn't too terrible to listen to.
That's because you didn't ask about line amplifiers. You just asked a general question about designing with tubes.
"Necessary" is your term, not mine. All things equal, the Rolex wearer will nail hotter babes than the Timex wearer and hand that watch to his grandchildren. That has nothing to do with telling me what time it is, but are part of the functions of that watch.
Have you seen the measurements on my line amp? Will an opamp be significantly better (assuming that 0.004% THD is "good enough")?
Perhaps you should read that article as well.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.