First would be to measure the frequency response at the output of both amps while the output is connected to: first nothing, then a 8R resistor, then the loudspeaker.
If significant differences appear in the frequency response between the "open" and "speaker" loads, then these are the prime suspects.
Next, now knowing the output impedance of the tube amp, stick an equivalent impedance in the output of the solid state amp. A resistor will probably work fine as an approximation. It should then sound closer to the tube amp since frequency responses will be more similar. Then, differences are more likely to come from different distortion from both amps.
Those '80s generation grew up with rock-n-roll. But when I had the audio hobby and used tube amps I started to think "Hey, what the hell is going on, why my music now countries, vocals, etc. Where is the fun of Twisted Sisters, John Bon Jovi etc.?"
I found my tube amp (and speakers) did not work well with Rock music so I started to search for the holly grail (until now).
Experience is not measured from our age, but what we do during those times. I have built more than a thousand amplifiers (in the last 2 weeks I have built 7).
Twenty years ago I found that experts in this forum (specifically Pavel Macura) do not like high distortion amplifiers. I was open minded (I was using class-A amps). I thought "These people must have experiences that I don't have". I was right.
Correct. From business perspective you must know the market segment that you want to enter. Red ocean, blue ocean, it is up to you.
I'd like to know too, but we probably would not be able to follow through, Chris mentioned about required measurement that involves poking wires into brains.
Thank you and yet who should we turn to ask about the characteristics of resulting acoustic output?
In case it missed your attention there is this paper by Eduardo de Lima Whysingle-endedtubeamplifiers.pdf showing interaction between amplifier and a single driver producing different distortion artefact on the acoustic output. To be fair, the result is applicable to all amplifiers exhibiting dominant 2nd harmonic.
I remembered this Mary Black from when I was using tube amps
Today I'm more happy with a system that is capable of showing me talented musicians. I prefer music (and vocal!) like this: Big Thief: NPR Music Tiny Desk Concert - YouTube
Indra1,
Thank you for the link i haven't seen it. I will read it and see what it is about ( i just scanned it quickly and seen some reference i already talked about but other things that bothers me too ( i like fullranger ( i've got 2 pairs of them now... an Alpair7 waw/fast and some Auratone clones) but like tubes amp this is not what i want to listen to as my main system as they would not withstand some music i listen to (too much bass in the music, not enough spl, too much directivity in the high for me...).
I don't get your question about the resulting acoustic output ( could you be more accurate or rephrase/ word it differently?).
The Spinorama usually gives all infos needed ( well not all infos but the most important ones in my view).
That said there is so many different approach to loudspeakers designs that it may not take into account all concepts ( line array, dipole, etc, etc,...). Each approach has it's own merits and limitations so we go back to preferences about their rendering and the way they interact with a room.
Thank you for the link i haven't seen it. I will read it and see what it is about ( i just scanned it quickly and seen some reference i already talked about but other things that bothers me too ( i like fullranger ( i've got 2 pairs of them now... an Alpair7 waw/fast and some Auratone clones) but like tubes amp this is not what i want to listen to as my main system as they would not withstand some music i listen to (too much bass in the music, not enough spl, too much directivity in the high for me...).
I don't get your question about the resulting acoustic output ( could you be more accurate or rephrase/ word it differently?).
The Spinorama usually gives all infos needed ( well not all infos but the most important ones in my view).
That said there is so many different approach to loudspeakers designs that it may not take into account all concepts ( line array, dipole, etc, etc,...). Each approach has it's own merits and limitations so we go back to preferences about their rendering and the way they interact with a room.
I think the effect is equally applicable to a multi amp system, each amp drives a single driver. Before I read that article I assumed low THD amp is the most sensible choice to have, now not so sure, still slowly plowing on the quest.
We also know compression cycle can theoretically gives rise to many times atmospheric pressure while rarefaction can only reduce pressure from 1 to 0. How would that affect perceived sound? Then how should we optimize our system?
We also know compression cycle can theoretically gives rise to many times atmospheric pressure while rarefaction can only reduce pressure from 1 to 0. How would that affect perceived sound? Then how should we optimize our system?
Last edited:
The world is beautiful because it is varied, I have discovered exactly the opposite.
In the early 90s I designed a pair of solid state amplifier (with a friend who died - RIP Carlo) for an italian company who distributed them around the world with some success.
To be clear, we weren't professionals and I still am not.
The first prototype of a 100W dual mono amp was presented at Top Audio in Milan in 1991.
The measurements of the amp were good and to the people who listened to it it sounded good too.
I also found it pleasant enough to listen to.
Over time I have found that a tube amplifier with high efficiency speakers for my taste sounds much better, or better it's much more realistic, much more closer to the real event.
I don't listen to rock-n-roll, the only exception is something progressive rock, much closer to classical than to rock music in some cases (usually progressive rock needs the ability to play an instrument at a high level rather than make noise).
Maybe this is the reason why my audio evolution has been exactly the opposite.
On the other hand I don't understand how one can judge the quality of an audio system with electronic music, which being artificial takes away any real reference.
It's unfortunate that you didn't have the correct music source to compare. In order to make the comparison objective, it has to be the same live music that the listeners experienced replayed within seconds to make the use of fresh aural memory. What you did was replayed the music which none of the listeners heard the live version of. It doesn't provide useful results.
Perhaps you could audition amps without the typically described "tubey" sound. The Harman Kardon Citation maintains it's reputation of being one of the best ever produced. It doesn't have that distinct characteristic attached to it. It's just a great sounding amp. Another would be the Fisher SA-100. Here is an interesting read you may or may not be aware of, the famous Bob Carver Challenge.
The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com
eat yer heart out S.E.T.
Last edited:
That would mean the lab equipment has a mind to begin with. Such news would have been all over the world.
No I meant " changes it mind " as an expression, the data changes. Again the data changes due to the introduction of a new parameter. Within the same parameter, for example, a lab equipment measuring say Iron in someones blood, the lab equipment will never ' change it's mind ', then you introduce a new parameter, so it starts measuring something else (additionally), then the sum total is a change of mind in the lab equipment, or if you want to be literal... a change of evaluation in whatever programming or heuristics have been placed in there, by the human. Then the second example when lab equipment changes it's mind, or changes it's data... is due to human hacking, so if a human hacks the lab equipment it can say anything at all. For example you can go to a doctor in Texas or in Singapore & the doctor can show you some manipulated data which has been hacked by humans. That's also one reason why electronic surveillance can be dangerous, since if person A let's call her Jane Cummingsworth, goes to a doctor and the doctor says the lab equipment says she has liver cancer. Then she doesn't believe it, then Jane Cummingsworth goes to doctor B on the other side of the city, then doctor B with the second opinion says she has liver cancer. Then Jane Cummingsworth goes to a different city on the other side of England, then doctor C in Essex says she has liver cancer. Then Jane Cummingsworth should be led to believe that she has liver cancer, while in reality it's just electronic surveillance rendering three doctors in different locations, to say the same thing...... (with the hypothetical hacked lab equipment data).
That would mean the lab equipment has a mind to begin with. Such news would have been all over the world.
Haha, lab equipment as in CPU chips, robots with CPU chips & A.I. software, will never have a 'mind' in the human sense of having a mind, just like ants & termites don't have a mind, they are robotic insects (and some Buddhists might disagree with me about the ants & termites although that's my opinion anyway). On that topic, sometimes I wonder if the math-heavy & study-heavy people in academic culture & universities might even 'forget' they have a mind, like they just studied maths & raw data stuff for 10 hours a day until their 'central feeling of having a mind and/or soul and/or sentience'...... started to disappear... since I see some academic university people in the internet argue that humans are deterministic robots without a mind which is just false & akin to selling snake-oil. Like, in the future an intelligent robot will say "I have a mind" and talk like a human, although it's just a CPU sorting through zillions of bits of data, much like a DAC chip processes an audio signal.
A member here (KatieandDad) has long used and favoured Aleph 4 amplifier but lately his new favorite/best amp is a tube amp (Now he's selling the A4). You're not the only one.
Why do we need a reference. It's about music. I believe that any talented musician can use any means to make music. Electronics music OTOH may not be reproduced properly in some systems. The result thus we're missing the talent and beauties in the music. In the video I posted, visually you can see the guitarist so immersed in the music. It's a good tune he played.
BTW, one of my findings: A good system should be able to show good/expensive device (piano, violin, etc.) as well as vocals and talent in music. In order to be able to do so the system must be accurate. This is a rare experience because most speakers and amps are not up to it.
Can you cite an example of demonstrating convincing evidence of audibility to claims like "I can hear smaller changes than .5dB" or "take about 3-days to audibly settle"?
well useful enough to know whose recommendations to ignore
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/121253-geddes-distortion-perception-2.html#post1482908
My simplistic take away from the above is that the distortions aren't audible because largely they aren't there
Perhaps you could audition amps without the typically described "tubey" sound. The Harman Kardon Citation maintains it's reputation of being one of the best ever produced. It doesn't have that distinct characteristic attached to it. It's just a great sounding amp. Another would be the Fisher SA-100. Here is an interesting read you may or may not be aware of, the famous Bob Carver Challenge.
The Carver Challenge | Stereophile.com
eat yer heart out S.E.T.
Now from the faith in the measures we have returned to the faith in the reviews.
It is also curious that everyone here knows what my auditions were.
Problem one. A concert grand can hit 130dBA close up and can also play pppp if needed. No one I am aware of issues piano recordings with anything close to the full pianoforte range captured. NP if you buy the cheap seats at the back as I do, but for the best seat in the house (or small venues) you won't even get close to the true impact of being there.
Sorry, I respect your musical taste, mine is a bit different and my definition of musical talent is also something different (eg Svjatoslav Teofilovič Richter).
Last edited:
The most relevant example I can think of is a usual stereo recording versus a binaural stereo recording (?)... you know when they place the microphone inside the human-ish shaped ear canals of a mannequin, binaural recordings sound " extremely holographic ", i.e. you can pinpoint 10 centimetres & 10 metres & 2.7 metres & so on... it doesn't require any practice / training and any listener can identify the distances immediately, binaural is most likely holographic enough to pinpoint 1.5 metres versus 1.6 metres.
A holographic image with floorstanding speakers is achieved with normal stereo recordings inside an anechoic room, the speakers need to be facing in the correct direction & have high quality enough transient response, velocity & THD / IMD stats to achieve the holographic images. Radio, satellite, power supply, cellular network noise are irrelevant, they just introduce tiny amounts of noise, it's like saying the tiny amount of noise from a power supply or cellular network or electromagnetic interference causes a blu-ray video on a 90" high quality screen to have 0.5% noise, it might although it doesn't interfere with the overall quality. On the other hand if you change a $5,000 Tokina lens to a $150 stock Nikon lens then the ~0.001% difference in the lens distortion measurement, is very visible to humans, Flickr.com provides the evidence.
Stereo provides holographic sound in anechoic rooms & binaural provides holographic sound in IEM's & headphones.
The 'soundstage' or 'imaging' or 'layering', all these words to describe 3D-ness, in IEM's or headphones, the difference in measurement would be I suppose in the same department as comparing binaural to stereo.
Keep in mind the most profitable / financial sky-rocket story of a headphone company is Skullcandy, so the average person just cares about cool fashion with tailored sound & a cool brand (with cool people & genuine interest inside the brand, not "university student with a degree in marketing explains how to pay for a celebrity"), etc.
The average person just wants a "cool Skullcandy" & they measure really bad. On the other hand in Japan Audio Technica is the most popular headphone / IEM brand & some of them measure really good (including partnership with Knowles & Knowles are American). Also in Korea $1,000 Cowon DAP's are common which measure much better than the non-audio Samsung, Apple, Huawei & Taiwanese junk. The best portable DAC/Amp's in both measurement & subjective perception are iBasso (Shenzhen) & Calyx (Korea). Although they are both using American amplifier chips & they both take knowledge from audio enthusiast circles like how to design a PCB & which resistors & stuff result in higher qual. (I am pretty sure they did listening tests as well to achieve their products, although they still 'copy knowledge' from the trial & error of other people & it's mostly (80%?) the sound of the ADnnnn or PCMnnnn or ES90nn then Cowon & Calyx just spend time on the perfect PCB circuit & perfect resistors & so on.
Thank you for the link to the article, it's nice to see employees at Texas Instruments explain audio stuff sometimes =) Not just 'crazy audio people which hear stuff which is not there'
Yes, very true. I can't stand listening to a drum live. I can't stand to stay inside Planet Hollywood due to the loud music for example. But most of the characters of instruments, techniques (fingerings etc.) or vocals come from the low level detail that is easily lost (or modified) in speakers and amplifiers.
I have no idea what you've listened to/auditioned. I've merely made a suggestion based on your bias toward tubes. Perhaps it's not too late to save you from the point of no return.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.