They don't just send signals, they can alter them. Most are meant to alter the signal. You don't want the signal straight from your phono cart or CD laser pickup sent unaltered to your speakers, do you?
But they are all electrical signals. You stated that " fidelity to the original sound, not always to the original signal". How could that be in electronic gears?
Easy: EQ, RIAA or NAB compensation, loudness controls, distortions, frequency response limitations, noise, to name a few.
The usual THD, IMD figures and graphs done - say as in Stereophile reviews. Insufficiently comprehensive, and not testing aspects that are far more important to how subjectively the equipment will be perceived.
For example, examining the distortion spectrum under varying input signal and load conditions, while also varying the quality of the mains power.
In that case, you are in fact precisely agreeing with DF96's statement that you are looking for an effects box. You are asking for it to modify the signal it receives, rather than merely produce a magnified copy, in such a way that it becomes more pleasing to your ear. ("results in sonic realism")
Chris
What do those have to do with amplifier? Earlier on this thread, what good amplifiers are supposed to do, have been covered. The video I linked, covers this aspect as well.
How do you put "original sound" (from your "fidelity to the original sound, not always to the original signal") into the amp? 🙄 Would you send sound waves to your amp?
Line level input signal and amplified output signals are supposedly identical except for the amplitude if amp is performing well. How well it dose is judged for fidelity level. If this concept is not getting through you, then I'm not sure what there is to debate.
Am I? Did I say more pleasing to the ear? Or did I say more like the sound of real instruments? (as opposed to bad representations of them thru the playback chain). You know, the "Yes, that sounds real" moment. Or is that not important to you?
A lot, as far as I know. Amps change the signal. Power amps make it higher in voltage and current. Preamps can do that and much more, such as tone control or loudness curves. Phono and tape head preamps need to apply EQ. Active crossovers alter the frequency response. All of them have noise, all have distortion. Any of those could use tubes or transistors. How can those things not have to do with amplifiers?
Either that makes no sense at all, or I have no idea what you are talking about.
Do you really think I'm that thick? Look beyond that wall you are bashing your head against and think a little. I understand the pedantic definition of Hi-Fi - and wouldn't it be great if it were all so simple and easy? But it's not. Look beyond the wall, stop bashing your head, you'll feel better. 😉If this concept is not getting through you, then I'm not sure what there is to debate.
Yes, effectively you are precisely asking for a sound that is "more pleasing to the ear." You are asking for the amplifier to add a distortion to the input signal it receives, of such a kind that you get the feeling that it "sounds more like real instruments." And it is doing this by mechanically making a modification to the input signal, not by receiving additional real data from the original recording studio.
This is exactly what can be called an effects box.
Chris
You stated, "fidelity to the original sound, not always to the original signal".
When using electronic gear, amplifier to be specific (by the way, if we are talking about preamp, EQ or Active x-over, those names would have been used but they weren't), it is always about signal. How do you propose to change anything via electronic gear before the original sound (wave) is passed through microphone and converted into electrical signal?
Yes. Either that or we are not on the same page.
See the link below.
It is relatively simple. The task of comparing is very labor intensive. Speaking of which, I still haven seen your reply to fidelity level of amps posted here. Got any?
Last edited:
Everyone comes to an opinion about the sound as heard via a particular reproduction chain. So, in this context, ideally one does not come to a conclusion about the quality of what was done by the artists in front of the mic's, or the expertise of the recording engineer and level of his equipment - rather, as to how well the contents of the recording were faithfully reproduced by the system in front of you.
An experience that occurred over 25 years ago - had just recently got very enthusiastic about was possible in CD replay via the unit we had; then listened to the very high end, personal system of a local retailer, in his home. TT was very, very impressive with his demo tracks; then switched to CD, which he didn't like, via the highly hyped at the time California Labs tubed unit that he had. Huuuhhh?? A Tina Turner CD of ours, which I had heard many, many times on our very modest setup literally lost half the information!! Huge chunks of the musical threads were completely missing - the chap said, well, that's CD for you! Now, if I hadn't have known otherwise I would have accepted his 'judgement' ...
Hence, my 'perception' of his expensive CD playback was that it was highly flawed ...
There is another way. Nothing significant is added to the playback - rather, significant and disturbing distortion artifacts injected by the playback mechanism are eliminated as much as possible. If sufficiently well done this allows your ear/brain to separate the intended, recorded content from remaining distortions, and the musical message gets through clearly.
In fact you are "receiving additional real data from the original recording studio", that data is always there, always has been there, but often is masked by too high levels of low level distortion, call it "noise" if you want - get rid of that murky overlay and then you are hearing a higher fidelity version of the recording.
I see what you are saying; a bit like using a "scratch and rumble filter" to reduce unwanted imperfections in the output from a record player.
Now in that example, there is no doubt that there are real and verifiable imperfections that are being filtered out. A number of questions arise in the context of the present discussion:
I suppose that the "significant and disturbing distortion artifacts injected by the playback mechanism" are supposed to be caused by the digitising, storing, and decoding associated with using a CD or other such storage medium?
So first, one would need to establish whether such "significant and disturbing distortions" are actually occurring. If present, they must be detectable by measurements and/or by double-blind listening tests. I would think that a good way to look would be to set up an A/D -- D/A chain that precisely carries out all the steps of an actual CD reproduction path except for the (completely neutral) step of storing and retrieving the bits on a disc, and then comparing in real time the input and the output signals. If there is an audible distortion in the output signal it will be measurable. Double-blind listening tests could be conducted also. (I'm pretty sure I've read of such tests being carried out, with no convincing demonstration of an ability to hear such alleged distortions.) I would assume that the EEs who develop the CD recording and playing back systems will have done precisely these sorts of tests and measurements also.
If there really were such significant and disturbing distortions occurring, then this would be a technological problem, which is going to be best addressed by technological means. It would be an awfully stodgy and unimaginative sort of cludge of a "solution" to say that dragging an old amplifier from the 1950s out of the attic (figuratively speaking) "fixes" the problem, so there we are, we can all go home and be satisfied with that.
I actually seriously doubt that these alleged distortions, and their masking by means of amplifiers with restricted frequency response or whatever, is really what lies behind the supposed "tube sound." It may well be that the tube amplifier with the alleged "tube sound" is filtering something out and thereby giving a warmer feel, but I think it is much more plausible that it is filtering out actual signal that "should" be there, rather than just recording-induced distortions.
Chris
A very thoughtful response, Chris ...
As regards the source of these issues, there's not much that can be done about the recording and storage side of things - but in the case of the latter with digital that's not quite true, because the the data can be ripped to a hard disk, or retrieved over a network, or even wireless - which may help in fact, 🙂.
So it comes down to the decoding, and in my case I am certain that this can be effectively addressed - because I've done it so many times. The essence of the problem is that digital playback is very sensitive to interference effects, the sound can be easily corrupted or damaged in relatively subtle, but audibly disturbing ways - and once you "train" or sensitise yourself to hearing the artifacts they become obvious.
Tube sound can do a lot to disguise these disburbances - and it may be partly due to the fact that the tube amplifier itself in its working is generating less interference, compared to a typical SS amp.
It is a straighforward engineering problem, which can be addressed by technical means: simply make the whole playback path far more robust, less susceptible to these interference effects. But, first of all, people need to accept that such things are happening ...
As regards the source of these issues, there's not much that can be done about the recording and storage side of things - but in the case of the latter with digital that's not quite true, because the the data can be ripped to a hard disk, or retrieved over a network, or even wireless - which may help in fact, 🙂.
So it comes down to the decoding, and in my case I am certain that this can be effectively addressed - because I've done it so many times. The essence of the problem is that digital playback is very sensitive to interference effects, the sound can be easily corrupted or damaged in relatively subtle, but audibly disturbing ways - and once you "train" or sensitise yourself to hearing the artifacts they become obvious.
Tube sound can do a lot to disguise these disburbances - and it may be partly due to the fact that the tube amplifier itself in its working is generating less interference, compared to a typical SS amp.
It is a straighforward engineering problem, which can be addressed by technical means: simply make the whole playback path far more robust, less susceptible to these interference effects. But, first of all, people need to accept that such things are happening ...
Last edited:
Pano, if the electronics chain faithfully enlarges the input signal (high fidelity, in a literal sense), then all the information in the recording is preserved. If the electronics chain distorts or adds things, then it's an effects box, even if it makes you think that it sounds more "real" than an undistorted chain. And indeed you may prefer it on that basis, which doesn't change the fact that it's an effects box.
But... if you're claiming that these distortions and additions give the final sound higher fidelity to the original sound, you're running afoul of the Second Law.
But... if you're claiming that these distortions and additions give the final sound higher fidelity to the original sound, you're running afoul of the Second Law.
re" tube sound
this is a topic Ive been thinking about a lot lately(Im writing a book on Pro Audio projects- For what its worth here's my two cents
As an amplifier there is nothing special about a tube vrs any other device assuming they are all working properly in class A
The "tube sound" I think originated with musicians and not audiophiles - a musician tends to want to run the amp right up the point of distortion - here is where tubes are different.
All solid state devices exhibit - to some degree or other - what is known as the "Avalanche effect" - where a small increase in gain causes a massive increase in distortion (the "Avalanche").
Tubes do not have this property. They inherently distort by over-amplifying the harmonics of the signal - and usually the second harmonic. I have heard this referred to as the "blooming effect" which is a good description of what you see on a scope when this happens. It just so happens the 2nd harmonic is the same as the original signal one octave higher. This tends to make the signal sound "fuller" for the same reason a 12 string guitar does vrs a 6 string one.
The iron in the transformers also affects this, and my personal suspicion it is largely responsible for the "classic" sound of the old analog consoles such as Neve. What we call "distortion" today was once highly prized.
Just my thoughts what do you think?
this is a topic Ive been thinking about a lot lately(Im writing a book on Pro Audio projects- For what its worth here's my two cents
As an amplifier there is nothing special about a tube vrs any other device assuming they are all working properly in class A
The "tube sound" I think originated with musicians and not audiophiles - a musician tends to want to run the amp right up the point of distortion - here is where tubes are different.
All solid state devices exhibit - to some degree or other - what is known as the "Avalanche effect" - where a small increase in gain causes a massive increase in distortion (the "Avalanche").
Tubes do not have this property. They inherently distort by over-amplifying the harmonics of the signal - and usually the second harmonic. I have heard this referred to as the "blooming effect" which is a good description of what you see on a scope when this happens. It just so happens the 2nd harmonic is the same as the original signal one octave higher. This tends to make the signal sound "fuller" for the same reason a 12 string guitar does vrs a 6 string one.
The iron in the transformers also affects this, and my personal suspicion it is largely responsible for the "classic" sound of the old analog consoles such as Neve. What we call "distortion" today was once highly prized.
Just my thoughts what do you think?
The other aspect for instrument amp purposes is microphonics- not insignificant as any guitarist will tell you!
- Status
- Not open for further replies.