Is it a case where you may prefer tubes over SS based on speaker type choosen. I do notice most horn speaker types favor tubes over SS , where as large dynamic speakers with complex loads favor SS..
Then to correct for them you just need to know exactly what they are. You don't know? Then you can't correct for them. Equalisation is a red herring, as there we know exactly what has been done so we can exactly undo it.Pano said:
I didn't say it is wrong; I said it isn't hi-fi. One is a moral judgement; the other is a matter of technical fact.
And, at least at levels within the normal operating range of the amp, the audibility of distortion at those orders and those levels is very much in question. THD is known to correlate very weakly with, well, anything.
However, SET based amps often have another, clearly audible form of distortion: rolled-off frequency response. For example, here's a Jadis amp measured by Stereophile into a resistive load, and into their simulated loudspeaker load
IOW, it rolls off on the low end like a cheap AVR with inadequate power supply into a resistive load, and has about 3dB of midrange variation into their simulated speaker load.
Nothing about orders of distortion is going to be more audible than those glaring flaws.
These points belong under your psychoacoustics/marketing bullet, really, because these effects have not been documented in serious listening tests.
Yes. So is the power of marketing to influence what one thinks real.
The others you mention are idiot audiophool buzzwords with no meaning outside the world of marketing/propaganda, yes. However, it should be obvious by now that "tube warmth" is simply a shorthand for the midrange frequency response errors (3dB swings in the above SET example) caused by the interaction of the amp's source impedance and the loudspeakers' impedance.
Better wording then: replace "good" with "linear," you'd have it. That class A amplifiers perform linearly (frequency response and THD) at low power levels is well-documented.
Class A and frequency response are two orthogonal characteristics of an amplifier i.e. they are quite unrelated.
Most valve P-P are effectively Class A most of the time, as the quiescent current is a significant fraction of the peak signal current. You could argue that they roughly correspond to 'first watt' SS amps, but with much less of the 'next watt' distortion which is inevitable with the 'wrong' quiescent current. Fortunately SS uses NFB to hide this.
Most valve P-P are effectively Class A most of the time, as the quiescent current is a significant fraction of the peak signal current. You could argue that they roughly correspond to 'first watt' SS amps, but with much less of the 'next watt' distortion which is inevitable with the 'wrong' quiescent current. Fortunately SS uses NFB to hide this.
If only it were so simple, Chris - I'd be happy! 😀 Alas, reality isn't always so simple. But I don't have to tell you that.
If all I needed is an effects box to add some generic "concert hall sound" I could go buy a Lexicon reverb and be done with it. In fact I do own an effects box, the good old Yamaha DSP-1. It adds reverb - some of it sampled in real halls - to 4 effects channels. It's nice, it's fun, but it's always just a little too artificial. The setting I found myself using the most was Dolby Stereo, which is basically just the out of phase info folded back into the rear speakers. That's what sounds the most natural to me.
I am looking for an illusion of reality, that's what Hi-Fi is to me. If the perfect signal brings the closest illusion of reality, great. But does it?
Ah! And there we get to the heart of the matter. If your definition of High Fidelity includes just the recorded signal, nothing else, then that's all there can be - a technical fact. I can accept that as a definition, and a nice one. I loved the "straight wire with gain" idea for years, until I realized "What does it get me?" Why does that have to be the definition of High Fidelity? What's so sacred about the recorded signal? Isn't that just another dogma?
But I really don't care what happens to the signal as long as the resulting sound is accurate to what I know as the sound of instruments and voices. Why should I care about what happens to the signal? Basically, what does it do for me? Why is a wire with gain better than something else? That isn't necessarily a technical question, perhaps more of a practical or philosophical question. For music playback - Why is a strict adherence to the signal "better"?
WOW! For a commercial 300B amp, that looks really bad. Nice to see an honest review that actually reports shortcommings in an amp.
I wouldn't be surprised if my 6P1P SE amp has better performance than that 300B, although it has less output power.
I'm certain my 6P41S SE amp would outperform it.
I wouldn't be surprised if my 6P1P SE amp has better performance than that 300B, although it has less output power.
I'm certain my 6P41S SE amp would outperform it.
Short Pano: yes, I like an amp to be an effects box, but a different kind than a Yamaha.
In wine, aged Cote-Rotie, made the old-fashioned way.
In food, truffles and eggs, cooked simply.
In amplifiers, nothing.
In food, truffles and eggs, cooked simply.
In amplifiers, nothing.
I don't really understand what you are wanting to say. Seemingly you agree that you are looking for a distortion in the amplifier that gives an illusion of greater realism (not "true" realism, since you have agreed that it will not recreate the specific "reality" of the actual performance it is reproducing). I don't understand why you balk at calling this an "effects box." Is it just because that is a slightly too stark and brutal way of describing what you are seeking?
Chris
Last edited:
Here is a thought,
Looking at speaker types, Magnepan speakers can create an illusion of "being there". Is the signal distorted to create this?
If the valve equipment can help create this, is this also distortion?
If not its lost information from the source.
Regards
M. Gregg
Looking at speaker types, Magnepan speakers can create an illusion of "being there". Is the signal distorted to create this?
If the valve equipment can help create this, is this also distortion?
If not its lost information from the source.
Regards
M. Gregg
Last edited:
It is all we have as a record of the musical occasion. Anything else is guesswork at best, and preferred personal embellishment at worst.Pano said:
Yes. Anything added to the signal is distortion. By definition, anything in the output which was not in the input is distortion (or noise).M Gregg said:
Magnepan,
Does not sound like distortion.
However does it sound like a reference? Because if it doesn't the HIFI industry is stuffed!
I would rather listen to (High end ) Hifi, than perfect measured sound that might sound like a disco!
Because you have to ask yourself, is the TISS TISS, thump thump. Correct signal? Ie good measured performance. If it is then ANY roll off is an effects box, including record warp. because its in the source signal.
Regards
M. Gregg
Does not sound like distortion.
However does it sound like a reference? Because if it doesn't the HIFI industry is stuffed!
I would rather listen to (High end ) Hifi, than perfect measured sound that might sound like a disco!
Because you have to ask yourself, is the TISS TISS, thump thump. Correct signal? Ie good measured performance. If it is then ANY roll off is an effects box, including record warp. because its in the source signal.
Regards
M. Gregg
From the electronics chain, yes. Transducers are a different matter, but outside the scope of this thread.
Are those the only two options we have?M Gregg said:
No. Record warp is a form of interference. The groove information is the signal. Filtering out warp is the same as filtering out unwanted RF.M Gregg said:
I'm hesitant to enter this thread, because I don't have a dog in the fight, but it does seem to me that progress is being made in understanding each side. I had my doubts there for awhile🙂
I can side with Pano as I see him viewing a bigger picture of the listening experience, from recording to ear/brain, and desiring a true-to-life replication.
I can side with the succinctly phrased, "[The recorded signal] is all we have as a record of the musical occasion," and the wire-with-gain ambitions.
Ideally there shouldn't be a conflict between the two.
But there is... that is why DBT's are important IMO.
Pano, are you in a sense (by way of analogy) claiming that artificial banana flavor tastes more like a banana than a real banana?
Dave, is it possible that "preferred personal embellishment" could be chosen as more realistic-sounding by a large and statistically significant portion of blind listeners, therefore be not so personal?
I can side with Pano as I see him viewing a bigger picture of the listening experience, from recording to ear/brain, and desiring a true-to-life replication.
I can side with the succinctly phrased, "[The recorded signal] is all we have as a record of the musical occasion," and the wire-with-gain ambitions.
Ideally there shouldn't be a conflict between the two.
But there is... that is why DBT's are important IMO.
Pano, are you in a sense (by way of analogy) claiming that artificial banana flavor tastes more like a banana than a real banana?
Dave, is it possible that "preferred personal embellishment" could be chosen as more realistic-sounding by a large and statistically significant portion of blind listeners, therefore be not so personal?
I believe it is known that a significant proportion of listeners prefer some bass and treble boost, and a little low-order distortion. Should that be the new hi-fi?sofaspud said:
Perhaps a DBT involving real musicians playing behind an acoustically transparent but visually opaque screen would help. If Pano's 'improvements' really do make a reproduced violin (say) sound more like a real violin then he may have a point. The solution then would be to stop removing whatever it is, rather than adding a synthetic substitute.
Perhaps - or perhaps I consider ALL amplifiers to be effects boxes. I've never met one that had zero distortion, noise or flat frequency response from DC to light.
They all distort, they all add noise, they all have limited bandwidth and some sort of output impedance. All effects.
The problem comes in thinking that all these "effects" are created equal. They are not. Noise will be more or less audible depending on its spectral make up, not just its average level. That's why noise measurements are often weighted. Some distortions simply aren't audible, even up to levels of 1% or more. Other distortions are audible in much smaller amounts.
Even tho amplifier B may measurably change the signal more than amplifier A, those changes could be inaudible. The smaller changes in amp B can be more audible, thus the amp more "colored". Closer to the original signal, but more colored - because of the way the ear works.
I prefer an amp that sounds neutral to me. Assuming that I want an effects box assumes that I want some sort of audible coloration. Not true. It's just that I find some types of effects like distortion, clipping, clipping recovery, noise, etc more audible and more noticeable than others types. That's the typical "Solid State" sound to me, it sounds electronic, it sounds colored. It doesn't sound like what I hear live.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.