Serious - open for discussion.
I think he is somewhat confused about a few points, but his goal is to bring some ideas that are not usually in the world of EEs to them... you can hear signals way below the noise floor... under some circumstances.
Was hoping that folks would find this interesting to discuss...
_-_-bear
I think he is somewhat confused about a few points, but his goal is to bring some ideas that are not usually in the world of EEs to them... you can hear signals way below the noise floor... under some circumstances.
Was hoping that folks would find this interesting to discuss...
_-_-bear
yes it is amusing/distressing to see "outsiders" (mis)interpretations of a subject you've spent some time studying – the different perspectives can be helpful in getting us to think about why we believe something
noise isn't a single number, you need the full spot noise vs frequency info, signal spectrum, knowledge of critical bands, masking, outer hair cell nonlinear amplification
the numbers for the ultimate range are impressive, but most music is experienced in situations with relatively high nose floor compared to our threshold in quiet after minutes of accommodation, above the level that saturates the outer hair cell amplification
an interesting extensively DBT tested result is seen in psychoacoustic compression algorithms, mp3 and better only use ~7 bits per critical band to achieve "transparent" coding of music
noise isn't a single number, you need the full spot noise vs frequency info, signal spectrum, knowledge of critical bands, masking, outer hair cell nonlinear amplification
the numbers for the ultimate range are impressive, but most music is experienced in situations with relatively high nose floor compared to our threshold in quiet after minutes of accommodation, above the level that saturates the outer hair cell amplification
an interesting extensively DBT tested result is seen in psychoacoustic compression algorithms, mp3 and better only use ~7 bits per critical band to achieve "transparent" coding of music
Both of them made from sands and metals. From my research, they have different way in driving loudspeaker, for example if a tube amp using high NFB they will sounds like not tube amps.
Thanks for that article, and tube amps are not the one with best sounds among all type of amplifiers.
You may have tube sounds coming out of solid state also if you make it driving loudspeaker like tubes did. First the informations of differences between tube current source and transistor current source in any condition should fully collected. Then advance to the next step, to make transistors do the same.
Heheh a waste may be.
Thanks for that article, and tube amps are not the one with best sounds among all type of amplifiers.
You may have tube sounds coming out of solid state also if you make it driving loudspeaker like tubes did. First the informations of differences between tube current source and transistor current source in any condition should fully collected. Then advance to the next step, to make transistors do the same.
Heheh a waste may be.
No. I totally disagree. My tube amps with high NFB, low THD, low output resistance, sound like tube amps. It is the proof that tube amps sound warmer not because hey add some "warm" distortions. But because they don't add "Cold" distortions. My SS amps that don't add "cold" distortions sound also "warm".
Its well known that valves put out more second harmonic distortion than SS amps. I have even built soft limiters to emulate valve type distortion.
SS amps can sound very cold due to lack of distortion.
Come on... It is well known fact that when my Pyramid puts -80 dB of second order harmonic it still sounds like a tube amp. The same with transistor amps, when they don't "put" some "cold" harmonics they sound "warm", like tube amps. Despite of "lack of distortions."
It is well known myth that as if absence of distortions sound "cold", invented by marketing types to sell crappy amps.
I did build SS pedals to emulate overloaded tube guitar amps, but it is totally different story. Also, I built a tube device to deliberately add low order harmonics, but nobody liked to add them when listening to recorded music, if such dial is available.
Last edited:
Interesting experiment - did they know that's what they were adding? Or did you label the control 'niceness' and then see how much of it they added? I reckon what people perceive about the control might well make a difference to how much of it they use.
I can't heard -80dB H2, I wonder if you could hear any H2 around recording noise floor.
Tube amps with: 'low THD = doesn't give any distortions'. No color.
Tube amps is not the best, some of them is very good but not best. it is already reach its limit for long time ago.
"best" is relative, ontoaba!
Dr. Earl Geddes' research indicates that within reasonable levels (like < 0.1%) distortion is important mostly related to the spectral distribution of harmonics, NOT the absolute level of distortion. In other words equipment with similar ratios of harmonics (distortion) tend to be heard as being similar in sound.
There are issues and compromises regardless of the amplifying devices, the argument as to which is "best" is pointless and a waste of time and effort.
Finding the best set of compromises and techniques to apply to one's designs and projects is a much more fruitful discussion to hold.
Oh, another point, utilizing the proper devices and designs for a given application is perhaps as or more important than trying to design and use something that is supposed to be the "best" but that does not truly fit the application! (example: the "best" truck engine is not the "best" in a small compact car. The "best" mototcycle engine is not the best engine to put in a truck.)
_-_-bear
Dr. Earl Geddes' research indicates that within reasonable levels (like < 0.1%) distortion is important mostly related to the spectral distribution of harmonics, NOT the absolute level of distortion. In other words equipment with similar ratios of harmonics (distortion) tend to be heard as being similar in sound.
There are issues and compromises regardless of the amplifying devices, the argument as to which is "best" is pointless and a waste of time and effort.
Finding the best set of compromises and techniques to apply to one's designs and projects is a much more fruitful discussion to hold.
Oh, another point, utilizing the proper devices and designs for a given application is perhaps as or more important than trying to design and use something that is supposed to be the "best" but that does not truly fit the application! (example: the "best" truck engine is not the "best" in a small compact car. The "best" mototcycle engine is not the best engine to put in a truck.)
_-_-bear
Right. But it still sounds like a tube amp: clean, warm, transparent. Easily fools imagination, as if sounds are real, so subconscious reactions happen before realizes that it is reproduction. While typical transistor amps with equal THD still sound like typical amps, and it is hard to close eyes and imagine that sounds are real.
It was exactly my point: tube amp with 0.01% THD still sounds warm and transparent, like a tube ampt. The conclusion can be only one: tube amps don't "add warmness". They simply "don't add coldness". So, don't search for "tube sound" in "added distortions". Search for what tube amp does not add.
Last edited:
Well, may be tube-only amps reached their limits somewhere, but I design tube amps assisted by solid state devices.
So am I true that tubes isn't best, because it is relative, right? So, which is better cars and trucks, between two engine, one is small compact, efficient, etc, says a modern engine, other is big heavy, less efficient, says an old WW2 era engine, or may be steam engine or even turbines.
So, you agree that with solid state is better, right?
I am able to remove the tubes and get better with solid state with this buffer, see attached. Very good stability and supply ripple rejection.Attachments
Except it is not adding harmonics unless the source is a single tone. The only device that could truly "add harmonics" would be a pretty sophisticated digital device that analysed a waveform, broke it down into its constituent source waveforms, tweaked the harmonics of each individual source, then re-synthesised the output. (It couldn't do much with non-harmonic/noise-like sources!)
Amplifier 'harmonic' distortion is primarily non-linearity that doesn't really care about fundamentals or harmonics. The non-linearity smears the individual source waveforms together, so that they can no longer be separated cleanly (by the ear), and one source in the mix influences another. Intermodulation distortion is spoken about as though it is a separate property distinct from harmonic distortion, but only a computerised gizmo could give you THD without IMD.
Maybe this wonderful tube-like quality sounds OK on already 'smokey' recordings - Nina Simone, jazz and stuff like that seems popular around these parts - but I wouldn't want it on a cool, spare, modern orchestral piece where I would want to hear each instrument as unaffected by the others as possible.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.