Discrete SS for I/V stage has always sounded great to me (I especially liked Zapfilter Mk2 and Legato 3.1), but I'm not a fan of most-opamp I/V stages. I'm sure good sound is possible with opamps, I just did not like most of the ones I've heard. I think what the OP heard was an opamp-based analog stage. They seem to measure well, I wonder what's amiss.
Properly designed feedback and circuits with sufficient open-loop bandwidth do not suffer from the time delay. TIM and it's ilk hasn't been an issue since the 1970's.
I probably am - from decades of working with tube gear.
I would love to see factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit.
And I'd like to see an objective (that means falsifiable) description of 'properly designed' but I very much doubt you're going to give us one.
How does something sound objectively better than something else? Or do you just mean measurements?
I'm guessing he's meaning a DBT designed, administered and evaluated entirely by robotsOr zombies?
Hehe... well if so, the result would not have much value to any human.
I do consider double-blind ABX as "objective" in the sense that you isolate away other perceptual factors than the actual listening experience. Thus you get a reasonably objective indication of what people actually hear, instead of what they think they should be hearing. No, not objective in an absolute sense, but do you have suggestions for better methods that don't boil down to "I think like this because I think like this"?
It is? You are the one who used the word, not me. But yes, "proper design" can definitely be described in a way that is falsifiable in the Karl Popper sense - the example mentioned here was TIM - simply a result of not following proper design guidelines.
See my previous message.
You seem to be turning this into some silly personal issue. I don't think it has anything to do with the topic of this thread any more. More than happy to discuss it further, but please start a new, more appropriate thread for it.
And what music should be used for this ABX test? Lady Gaga or Mozart? Maybe Metallica can create better objectivity?
I've already done these blind tests, and the tube amp won (over Hypex UcD, Gainclone, and another tube amp). Of course, the results could only convince myself and no one else, since the music was chosen by me and the subjects were family and friends. All the equipment was made by myself. I've also done blind tests that "prove" compressed MP3 sounds better than the original uncompressed files, but who will believe me?
I've yet to read a scientific paper that was completely rigorous. In science, objectivity simply means to use one's human senses to make observations. What we call subjective evaluations in audio are considered objective in science. In audio, objective usually just refers to measurements. You can create a lot of confusion by using this term "objective."
I saw it - no falsifiable description there that I could see for 'properly designed'.
That tells me something about your perception, thanks. In actuality this is just how science is done, as opposed to religion. Science needs falsifiable descriptions for categories like 'properly designed'.
Indeed 'properly designed' was never relevant to this thread, being your own private fantasy
no, thats incorrect, objective does not mean subjective under any circumstance. objective can mean using ones senses to observe something external to oneself (usually along with recording those observations). that would be a fair use of the word, but using ones own senses to study ones own sensations is a subjective/introspective evaluation of an event that takes place nowhere but within the observer and with audio, it is an event that comes and goes, leaving nothing but a fragile memory of the event.
Last edited:
I don't think I understand you, or whether if there is even a disagreement or you are just being extremely technical. I will elaborate.
Taste, smell, vision, hearing, etc., as processed by the brain are observations. "This speaker has more treble extension" would be considered an objective evaluation in science, but in the hifi world, it's called subjective and objective refers solely to measurements. Fair enough, if some hobby engineers want to redefine the word, I have no problem with that. The problem comes when one uses the word "objective" in a nonstandard way, then it's just confusing.
Not in the sense of hard science. What you are describing is perception, where the "raw data" is processed (and coloured) by the brain - affected by learning, memory and expectation.
No, it would be called an opinion.
"To me, it sounds like this speaker has more treble extension" is an observation. Not an observation about the speaker, but an observation on your subjective perception of the sound of the speaker.
OK, let me try again. How about "designed according to established industry practice, as thought in the university level electrical engineering curriculum and published in industry standards and peer-reviewed publications"?
But it doesn't matter. Forget the whole "properly designed" part - the only reason I attached any disclaimer to my question was to rule out totally pathological cases - I am sure we can all come up with silly circuits that sound absolutely awful, independent of whether they use tubes or semiconductors.
So, let's get back to my original question.
Can you show me any factual evidence of tubes sounding objectively better than a properly designed solid state circuit?
I have nothing against the discussion about falsifiability (apart from it being rather of-topic), what I was objecting to was the silly "not for the first time with you either" quipping...
Indeed 'properly designed' was never relevant to this thread, being your own private fantasy
I know, rather naive to dream about proper design when talking about hi-fi, isn't it
I would love to (seriously - no irony here) hear about your setup for the blind testing. Was it DBX, and how was it done? What were the exact results?
I, for one, have no reason not to believe you. MP3 is a perceptual encoding, that works by removing "irrelevant" information, possibly leaving a more focused result.
No for the simple reason that I haven't a clue how to select the 'properly designed solid state circuit' in order to make the comparison - not for want of asking. I don't use tubes myself, I get results that satisfy me with SS amps, but I don't knock those who prefer tubes. Each to their own.
Objecting is par for the course for an objectivist - I'm sure you can get over yourself though
When you're ready for a 'proper' scientific dialog about high-end design then let me know
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.