From some of the systems I have heard, maybe they shouldn't! I've visited homes with $100,000 systems that sound horrible.
Maybe I just try to have a buck each way - anything built has to make some sort of engineering sense. However. The original musical performance exists once, I go for reproducing it in a manner I find plausible and enjoyable, and with one (SE) amp in particular, it's got a bit of 2H distortion, but I like it.
Until I get bored and swap amps.
At the moment a modified Tubelab SPP is playing, it's fun, and not burning up any rare tubes, it just bounces along with some John Coltrane on a pair of mk1 Heresys. An imperfect but fun speaker.
Context is everything, and personally, if I am not having fun because I'm agonising over one dud note, I'm doing it wrong.
Respect to Andy for his pursuit of the magic that interests, and Anatech for an interesting counterpoint. We play on. Great thread 🙂
Until I get bored and swap amps.
At the moment a modified Tubelab SPP is playing, it's fun, and not burning up any rare tubes, it just bounces along with some John Coltrane on a pair of mk1 Heresys. An imperfect but fun speaker.
Context is everything, and personally, if I am not having fun because I'm agonising over one dud note, I'm doing it wrong.
Respect to Andy for his pursuit of the magic that interests, and Anatech for an interesting counterpoint. We play on. Great thread 🙂
Last edited:
Although it will sound as if came from a mental health hospital, I have a different hypothesis of why different tubes have a specific sound, including mesh plate ones.
Some years ago, I began testing, although subjectively, the influence of different materials (woods, metals, liquids) when placed on inherently vibrating surfaces, such as speaker baffles, walls and speaker basket itself. I also believe our audio components, such as amplifier chassis do resonate mechanically together with music, by direct airwave excitation, or mechanically coupled by the ground floor and cables.
I also tested tubes. Smaller ones, big ones, mesh plate ones, triodes, pentodes, heptodes, thyratrons. It seems that, when the tube bulb and vacuum are intact, the tube when mounted/glued to a resonating surface, reduces harshness and gives midrange depth/richness in a strikingly similar way as if employed in an electric circuit. However, a broken tube with a lost vacuum has no more midrange "magic".
Honestly said, after discovering this, I ditched all DIY tube project and began building solid state stuff by adding passive tubes. I think they work as a vibration dampener, because of their vacuum, where atmospheric pressure is applied to the bulb. Pressure on a surface dampens vibrations. As for mesh construction, the mesh itself has a lower mechanical resonance Q, compared to a thin solid surface. Nowadays, I just add copper braid/mesh, oil, sand, bitumen, copper mass to vibrating surfaces instead of using tubes.
If one of you has some time on his hand, it might be useful to test this hypothesis by adding tubes to different devices/surfaces and then take measurements using an accelerometer to the surface or microphone.
As for a subjective test, one can also try connecting a passive tube to speaker basket and do some A/B tests. Especially a mesh vs non mesh tube.
Some years ago, I began testing, although subjectively, the influence of different materials (woods, metals, liquids) when placed on inherently vibrating surfaces, such as speaker baffles, walls and speaker basket itself. I also believe our audio components, such as amplifier chassis do resonate mechanically together with music, by direct airwave excitation, or mechanically coupled by the ground floor and cables.
I also tested tubes. Smaller ones, big ones, mesh plate ones, triodes, pentodes, heptodes, thyratrons. It seems that, when the tube bulb and vacuum are intact, the tube when mounted/glued to a resonating surface, reduces harshness and gives midrange depth/richness in a strikingly similar way as if employed in an electric circuit. However, a broken tube with a lost vacuum has no more midrange "magic".
Honestly said, after discovering this, I ditched all DIY tube project and began building solid state stuff by adding passive tubes. I think they work as a vibration dampener, because of their vacuum, where atmospheric pressure is applied to the bulb. Pressure on a surface dampens vibrations. As for mesh construction, the mesh itself has a lower mechanical resonance Q, compared to a thin solid surface. Nowadays, I just add copper braid/mesh, oil, sand, bitumen, copper mass to vibrating surfaces instead of using tubes.
If one of you has some time on his hand, it might be useful to test this hypothesis by adding tubes to different devices/surfaces and then take measurements using an accelerometer to the surface or microphone.
As for a subjective test, one can also try connecting a passive tube to speaker basket and do some A/B tests. Especially a mesh vs non mesh tube.
As I can see the problem is that not everybody knows the real timbre of not amplified musical instruments.
Other important thing is: when you listen at home you don't have the same room acoustics like for example you listen in a church, studio, concert hall, etc. So it's very very difficult to recreate the same sound....
Other important thing is: when you listen at home you don't have the same room acoustics like for example you listen in a church, studio, concert hall, etc. So it's very very difficult to recreate the same sound....
Heater power is not irrelevant.
The temperature of the grid will reach a level determined by the inflow of heating power multiplied by the effective thermal resistance of the grid structure (⁰C/W).
Comparing EF184 to PL802, the heater power is more than 2.5x greater. All the physical dimensions are closely matched (bar a little extra height), so the PL802 cathode can only grow width-wise. Extra width increases the cathode radiative area, but improves the grid's thermal resistance very little.
The cooling of the grid relies on a similar pair of support rods In both, but even these to will receive more radiative power.
This is offset by the addition of a top radiator.
The burden of anode and Grid.2 power dissipation is also far greater for the PL802: 9W vs. 3.4W (design maxima).
Reflected radiation from here can't simply be ignored.
Conclusion: the design-level of thermal dissipation within the anode radius increased from ca. 5.5W to 14W looking from EF184 to PL802. This naturally requires drastic redesign, considering the small size of anode structure in both.
The EF184 already required the thermal expedient of a mesh anode, so it is no surprise to find something more radical in the PL802.
Hi stephe,
The engineering lab isn't disconnected from the business office. Especially not back then.
If a product costs too much to produce, and most early devices are (look at CD player mechanisms and compare to today), then it can't sell. That means there is no point in producing it. It comes down to the engineering people to improve performance, or at least maintain it and find ways to reduce production costs. They got it working, now see what is actually required. Reliability was a massive driver back then, so was efficiency and cost. In other words, make the best product for an affordable price and sell enough so you get economies of scale. That hinges on performance and reliability.
The cheaper radios (farm radios for example) were concerned with power flexibly, power efficiency and being clear for vocals. I have a 1928 RCA console that was anything but bad sounding. Push pull outputs with a large speaker, two chassis design. These were highly engineered and not cheap! I have a few large floor standing console radios, pre 1940. You should study things like that. Some table radios were also quite good. All in all, they were as good as they could be at the price point they were sold at. I have some earlier Atwater Kent, and some unnamed "kits". There was a thriving audiophile market back then, the love of music isn't a new thing folks.
Now about that article. If you cared to read a 45 data sheet, one pair in push-pull delivered 12 watts at lower distortion. They had figured this out long ago. You just highlighted the reason why industry went from single ended to push-pull. It delivered far more power with less distortion using far fewer tubes. That also translated into far lower energy costs and much higher reliability. Also, a limiting factor wasn't the power transformer, it was capacitor technology. It still is, getting reliable filter capacitors above 450 VDC is tough, we have 500 VDC models these days. You can special order up to 600 VDC I think.
The engineering lab isn't disconnected from the business office. Especially not back then.
If a product costs too much to produce, and most early devices are (look at CD player mechanisms and compare to today), then it can't sell. That means there is no point in producing it. It comes down to the engineering people to improve performance, or at least maintain it and find ways to reduce production costs. They got it working, now see what is actually required. Reliability was a massive driver back then, so was efficiency and cost. In other words, make the best product for an affordable price and sell enough so you get economies of scale. That hinges on performance and reliability.
The cheaper radios (farm radios for example) were concerned with power flexibly, power efficiency and being clear for vocals. I have a 1928 RCA console that was anything but bad sounding. Push pull outputs with a large speaker, two chassis design. These were highly engineered and not cheap! I have a few large floor standing console radios, pre 1940. You should study things like that. Some table radios were also quite good. All in all, they were as good as they could be at the price point they were sold at. I have some earlier Atwater Kent, and some unnamed "kits". There was a thriving audiophile market back then, the love of music isn't a new thing folks.
Now about that article. If you cared to read a 45 data sheet, one pair in push-pull delivered 12 watts at lower distortion. They had figured this out long ago. You just highlighted the reason why industry went from single ended to push-pull. It delivered far more power with less distortion using far fewer tubes. That also translated into far lower energy costs and much higher reliability. Also, a limiting factor wasn't the power transformer, it was capacitor technology. It still is, getting reliable filter capacitors above 450 VDC is tough, we have 500 VDC models these days. You can special order up to 600 VDC I think.
lol! Well I do, and so does anyone who thinks to look at a real datasheet and read it. Never take what is written in an article at face value. Also look at the date in that article, newbies in the tube world.
if you break one open, you will see that the EF184 has a very skinny plate, that is diametrically opposed from the grid structures. The mesh is a screen. Many pentodes are made like this. It’s very hard to see when the tube still has its vacuum.😂
Better in consumer electronics means higher profit, cheaper to build, yet barely doing the minimum of what is required to sell. In that order. Actual quality of consumer items has been degrading since the industrial evolution, when consumerism took over.
The masses are listening to low bitrate mp3, via bluetooth headphones, playing compressed low dynamic-range music, while sliding right on their phones. They do not care about quality, they just want it cheap as dirt, with RGB leds and a like button. Remember when we had vinyl, tube amps and high efficiency speakers? Yes, those technologies are all complete gargabe in comparisson to what we have today.
The THD crowd is has a very tribal cult mentality here. They only look at their spectrum analyzer where lower number equals better sound in their minds. Listening is for fools, it's all about numbers. Anyone saying one component sounds better than the other must be lying or not know what they are talking about, because the THD spectrum is the same. Negative feedback for the win.
The tube camp has a lot of people that believe the 300B is the ultimate tube and are happy as long as they can tube-roll their 12AX7 drivers, but i don't see them hacking away at other-minded DIYers as aggressively as the THD crowd is doing.
BTW: Did you know THD is just DHT spelled backwards?
I've listened to so many tubes, transformers and parts... and no matter what natural phenomenon you want to use to validate it and no matter how hard you cover your ears and scream lalala: there is definitely an audible effect.
@stephe And if someone is deaf, then yeah, it doesn't matter either way 😀
The masses are listening to low bitrate mp3, via bluetooth headphones, playing compressed low dynamic-range music, while sliding right on their phones. They do not care about quality, they just want it cheap as dirt, with RGB leds and a like button. Remember when we had vinyl, tube amps and high efficiency speakers? Yes, those technologies are all complete gargabe in comparisson to what we have today.
The THD crowd is has a very tribal cult mentality here. They only look at their spectrum analyzer where lower number equals better sound in their minds. Listening is for fools, it's all about numbers. Anyone saying one component sounds better than the other must be lying or not know what they are talking about, because the THD spectrum is the same. Negative feedback for the win.
The tube camp has a lot of people that believe the 300B is the ultimate tube and are happy as long as they can tube-roll their 12AX7 drivers, but i don't see them hacking away at other-minded DIYers as aggressively as the THD crowd is doing.
BTW: Did you know THD is just DHT spelled backwards?
I've listened to so many tubes, transformers and parts... and no matter what natural phenomenon you want to use to validate it and no matter how hard you cover your ears and scream lalala: there is definitely an audible effect.
@stephe And if someone is deaf, then yeah, it doesn't matter either way 😀
And do you know why they needed more power? So they could make cheaper speakers with ferrite magnets and greater tolerances, which could be made cheaper and faster by unskilled (cheaper) labor, resulting in lower efficiency speakers that needed more power. That is not "better" in terms of quality, that is just mass-produced consumer electronics instead of high-quality instruments. Lower tolerances always mean more reliable, as less can go wrong during manufacturing and during the lifetime of the product.
Re the caps: They needed more power to drive the cheaper speakers, so they needed bigger caps to lower the ripple. There are plenty of film and paper/oil capacitors in the kV range, they are just very large in the capacity ratings you need for the higher power amplifiers. A benefit from solid-state is that they operated at much lower voltages, so the caps could be made much smaller as well, meanig supply/demand for high voltage caps has dropped.
The only benefit for new parts (transistor vs tube) is the miniaturization and lower power usage for common everyday equipment. But just using that logic you could say that SMD, which is replacing THT components, is far "better" still.
We need to define the word "better" first maybe. Some people take that to mean THD, others cheaper for the consumer, other people take that to mean better sounding to the ears.
That problem was solved around thirty years ago, notably in the BHC ALS and related series of parts. Little Fish BHC was swallowed up by Big Fish Kemet, who continue to produce 500, 550 and 600V parts as ALD series, and others. Standard catalogue items frae Mauser, etc.
These have absolutely high reliability, no concession required for the high voltage, and 15000 hour high temperature operation or even more is guaranteed.
BHC Hampshire designed them with a pH-neutral electrolyte - maybe lower volume efficiency, but much higher reliability and stability - especially if the capacitor lies unused for a number of years, as they depolarise notably slower than ordinary types, with low pH electrolytes.
Oh, and yes they sound good too, compared to the usual lytics, and the sound does not degrade so fast, thanks to the stable chemistry.
Yes, I think so too.
With the PL802, this might be difficult, as it had to idle at up to 250V; the region where multiple finer grid lines are preferable to heavy lines; the grid is more inclined to lose control at HV with a coarse structure.
Sure, I've never read a tube data sheet, I have no idea why push pull amps exist and I should leave this discussion to obviously superior folks like yourself.
BTW this is a prime example of why I rarely post on this forum anymore.
I'm sorry, but heater power is irrelevant. Oxide-coated cathodes operate at 1000K. If you want more current from a cathode, then you need a larger cathode area, and that means it has a larger area from which to radiate, increasing its radiation loss, and that's why you need more heater power to achieve 1000K. But that does not mean that you are making the grid hotter - the cathode's radiated heat flux per unit area is exactly the same whether you have a large cathode that needs a large heater power or a small cathode for which low heater power suffices. And that means that grid temperature is determined by how well it can lose its radiant heat, determined by the surface area of the support rods, perhaps assisted by radiant fins.
Hi stephe,
You're the one who dragged up that erroneous article. I merely pointed out where the truth was, easily. Was my information incorrect?
Superior folk? No. This is my profession and life. I learned many lessons the hard way, and it bugs me when false information is presented to people trying to learn. This is all about truth and accuracy of information. Period.
Hi VT-52,
The old RCA has an electrodynamic speaker. 10" I think, I haven't looked in a while. No cheap anything in this radio. The flux in the voice coil gap doesn't care where it came from. What was nice was the addition of a hum bucking coil.
They needed more power to increase the SPL to more realistic levels. Yup, some of our great grandparents were the rockers of their time! lol! They needed more power simply because some wanted it louder, and some had hearing problems and this was their solution. It had zero to do with cheaper speakers. Push pull also has lower distortion, different maybe but lower. Back then not much was as good as we can make it today.
They needed larger capacitors to better filter the DC supply. That's why they used expensive chokes (which sometimes included the field coil in the speaker). 4uF and 2uF was common early, 8uF later on. Again, progress. The chokes were expensive in materials and to ship. Shipping heavy stuff is a killer. Capacitors were lighter and became cheaper, plus increased performance while lowering shipping weight.
My definition of better is improved performance and increased reliability. Early solid state wasn't that. Today surface mount can be improve performance and reduce shipping weight and assembly costs with zero negative impacts on performance. When improperly designed, increased heat density and substandard heat radiation causes most problems. Certainly lead-free solder can be a real problem too. My logic is based on observation. You can pick out terrible products using any components/materials. The best products in solid state perform better than tube products and are far less expensive to run. Especially in summer with air conditioning!
Back in time we had issues with too much heat in a small area with tubes. Same as solid state. Those are not good products so let's not pick out one as an example as they don't represent what we are talking about (quality). I can probably dig up as many crappy tube based products.
THD. No, we're looking at all distortion products and noise across the audio spectrum. This is an accurate measure of performance - by definition. People I know who love tube products also love the solid state equipment that has great measurements. Oh ... my ... god! It's true. Now, what someone prefers is up to them and I have no argument. That is personal preference and has nothing to do with anyone else. You like a certain kind of distortion compared to none?? That's cool. Consider it is possible you haven't heard solid state that is actually good, not what is considered good in the press, but in real life good.
You're the one who dragged up that erroneous article. I merely pointed out where the truth was, easily. Was my information incorrect?
Superior folk? No. This is my profession and life. I learned many lessons the hard way, and it bugs me when false information is presented to people trying to learn. This is all about truth and accuracy of information. Period.
Hi VT-52,
The old RCA has an electrodynamic speaker. 10" I think, I haven't looked in a while. No cheap anything in this radio. The flux in the voice coil gap doesn't care where it came from. What was nice was the addition of a hum bucking coil.
They needed more power to increase the SPL to more realistic levels. Yup, some of our great grandparents were the rockers of their time! lol! They needed more power simply because some wanted it louder, and some had hearing problems and this was their solution. It had zero to do with cheaper speakers. Push pull also has lower distortion, different maybe but lower. Back then not much was as good as we can make it today.
They needed larger capacitors to better filter the DC supply. That's why they used expensive chokes (which sometimes included the field coil in the speaker). 4uF and 2uF was common early, 8uF later on. Again, progress. The chokes were expensive in materials and to ship. Shipping heavy stuff is a killer. Capacitors were lighter and became cheaper, plus increased performance while lowering shipping weight.
My definition of better is improved performance and increased reliability. Early solid state wasn't that. Today surface mount can be improve performance and reduce shipping weight and assembly costs with zero negative impacts on performance. When improperly designed, increased heat density and substandard heat radiation causes most problems. Certainly lead-free solder can be a real problem too. My logic is based on observation. You can pick out terrible products using any components/materials. The best products in solid state perform better than tube products and are far less expensive to run. Especially in summer with air conditioning!
Back in time we had issues with too much heat in a small area with tubes. Same as solid state. Those are not good products so let's not pick out one as an example as they don't represent what we are talking about (quality). I can probably dig up as many crappy tube based products.
THD. No, we're looking at all distortion products and noise across the audio spectrum. This is an accurate measure of performance - by definition. People I know who love tube products also love the solid state equipment that has great measurements. Oh ... my ... god! It's true. Now, what someone prefers is up to them and I have no argument. That is personal preference and has nothing to do with anyone else. You like a certain kind of distortion compared to none?? That's cool. Consider it is possible you haven't heard solid state that is actually good, not what is considered good in the press, but in real life good.
Is this the kind of "performance" you referred to in your previous posts saying that old tube designs perform worse than newer designs? I couldn't care less about this kind of "performance". It has mostly become irrelevant for todays market, and it was never relevant to me das a DIYer.
What I (and most other DIYers) do care about is the electronic performance as described in the datasheet. Also, the good old DHTs are as linear as it gets, which is great for audio amplifiers. In this sense, the old DHTs are better than the newer designs.
Hi mbrennwa,
No, that was an example of how you get a concept working, then reduce the costs to a reasonable level. They went way too far, making garbage for all DVD/CD transports these days. The data coming off suffers (actually an RF waveform = analogue).
Some new designs are terrible, driven by audio fads. I think the real engineers in the 1960's designed some of the best equipment. But then, these were teams of very good engineers. Not a single specially gifted individual.
Performance can be greatly improved over what the datasheet indicates. This is true of solid state sometimes as well. In the case of low mu tubes, of course they are more linear!!! They have lower gain, so what would you expect? That means if you don't believe in feedback, they make it easier to get passable sound quality. The issue is that properly designed amplifiers with feedback properly applied do perform and sound better. Tube equipment often uses an output transformer (which they should). That imposes phase issues that limits feedback, so you can't use it as effectively. Feedback used on a poorly designed circuit doesn't work, it isn't the fault of feedback. It is the design.
Again, if you prefer low to no feedback designs and all those characteristics, then great! Personally I would rather have a low noise, more accurate and load independent system. I could always buy an effects rack to impair the signal and make someone else happy. I'm rather happier hearing what came out as a finished product from the studio with minimal damage on my end.
No, that was an example of how you get a concept working, then reduce the costs to a reasonable level. They went way too far, making garbage for all DVD/CD transports these days. The data coming off suffers (actually an RF waveform = analogue).
Some new designs are terrible, driven by audio fads. I think the real engineers in the 1960's designed some of the best equipment. But then, these were teams of very good engineers. Not a single specially gifted individual.
Performance can be greatly improved over what the datasheet indicates. This is true of solid state sometimes as well. In the case of low mu tubes, of course they are more linear!!! They have lower gain, so what would you expect? That means if you don't believe in feedback, they make it easier to get passable sound quality. The issue is that properly designed amplifiers with feedback properly applied do perform and sound better. Tube equipment often uses an output transformer (which they should). That imposes phase issues that limits feedback, so you can't use it as effectively. Feedback used on a poorly designed circuit doesn't work, it isn't the fault of feedback. It is the design.
Again, if you prefer low to no feedback designs and all those characteristics, then great! Personally I would rather have a low noise, more accurate and load independent system. I could always buy an effects rack to impair the signal and make someone else happy. I'm rather happier hearing what came out as a finished product from the studio with minimal damage on my end.
Exactly. And the support rods have almost the same area between the two valve types, but one grid is facing a far greater radiated power than the other, and so requires enhanced cooling methods to prevent overheating.
@anatech I think you are looking at things from a different perspective than most folks here. Hence my question to define "better".
The general populous has the impression that tube amps sound warmer, because all they have ever heard with tubes are grandpa's old radio. Those generally used lesser output transformers to save on cost and weight. With a proper OPT (not cheap and def not light), that warm sound is gone, with today's manufacturers even reaching remarkable bandwidths.
Most DIYers here will plug in a part, listen to it and decide if it sounded better or worse than what was replaced, and often it is a combination which forces a compromise (better sound-stage but less controlled bass). And sometimes that improvement is indeed very subjective, as everyone is listening for different things, different tastes.
Making equipment for industrial applications, or even the consumer market has different demands than the single amp a DIYer will build. There I can agree with a lot of your arguments about what is better, as there better means part sourcing, reliability, operating conditions, cost, size, weight.
It would be great to translate all the things we are hearing into a single visual representation, but I have never seen anything that can capture the essence of what something sounds like into a 2D/3D graph. Equipment like spectrum analyzers are great for pinpointing technical limitations or deficiencies, but don't tell much about the end result in terms of sound. Only that it has x bandwidth and y distortion, which to me are just numbers like 6.1V on the heater or 1.6W output power. They help in the design of the device, but say little about the sound.
Somewhere I made the comparison about THD that a Prius must be a better car than a Ferrari 812 as it has higher mileage, the engine doesn't ping on 95 fuel and it is much cheaper. Yet I would rather drive (and hear) that 812 😉
The general populous has the impression that tube amps sound warmer, because all they have ever heard with tubes are grandpa's old radio. Those generally used lesser output transformers to save on cost and weight. With a proper OPT (not cheap and def not light), that warm sound is gone, with today's manufacturers even reaching remarkable bandwidths.
Most DIYers here will plug in a part, listen to it and decide if it sounded better or worse than what was replaced, and often it is a combination which forces a compromise (better sound-stage but less controlled bass). And sometimes that improvement is indeed very subjective, as everyone is listening for different things, different tastes.
Making equipment for industrial applications, or even the consumer market has different demands than the single amp a DIYer will build. There I can agree with a lot of your arguments about what is better, as there better means part sourcing, reliability, operating conditions, cost, size, weight.
It would be great to translate all the things we are hearing into a single visual representation, but I have never seen anything that can capture the essence of what something sounds like into a 2D/3D graph. Equipment like spectrum analyzers are great for pinpointing technical limitations or deficiencies, but don't tell much about the end result in terms of sound. Only that it has x bandwidth and y distortion, which to me are just numbers like 6.1V on the heater or 1.6W output power. They help in the design of the device, but say little about the sound.
Somewhere I made the comparison about THD that a Prius must be a better car than a Ferrari 812 as it has higher mileage, the engine doesn't ping on 95 fuel and it is much cheaper. Yet I would rather drive (and hear) that 812 😉
Hi VT-52,
I agree. You're right!
I think most people define "better" as what they prefer the sound of. I have tried to differentiate between the two. Some old equipment I have worked on sounds amazing and measures very well also. No surprise to me, and they are preferred by most over the average tube unit. When you measure the right things, they do equate to better perceived sound quality. That is unless a person is married to a particular sound. I'll trust the opinion of a woman or child over an audiophile for that reason. Too much mental pollution. Just enjoy the music!
Yes, The comparison of a Prius and THD is popular. It is also deeply flawed since neither takes into account all the factors, and the intended use. A high quality amplifier is a silly application for a public address system for example, as is a Ferrari anything to putt back and forth in traffic. If you enjoy driving and handling, that's where the 812 shines. A person not comfortable driving probably shouldn't buy one! "The best" always depends on the intended use and all other factors. Same as a capacitor type for example.
I don't think you could translate everything into a single representation. The requirements would define what is best for that application. So the squawking cell phone amplifier is the best for that application, not for many other applications.
So for everyone,
So when someone says "better", be honest with yourself. Either qualify "better" with the application and accept that you prefer that, nothing wrong with this. You like the sound ... cool. But better without qualification means performance. That has a definition.
I agree. You're right!
I think most people define "better" as what they prefer the sound of. I have tried to differentiate between the two. Some old equipment I have worked on sounds amazing and measures very well also. No surprise to me, and they are preferred by most over the average tube unit. When you measure the right things, they do equate to better perceived sound quality. That is unless a person is married to a particular sound. I'll trust the opinion of a woman or child over an audiophile for that reason. Too much mental pollution. Just enjoy the music!
Yes, The comparison of a Prius and THD is popular. It is also deeply flawed since neither takes into account all the factors, and the intended use. A high quality amplifier is a silly application for a public address system for example, as is a Ferrari anything to putt back and forth in traffic. If you enjoy driving and handling, that's where the 812 shines. A person not comfortable driving probably shouldn't buy one! "The best" always depends on the intended use and all other factors. Same as a capacitor type for example.
I don't think you could translate everything into a single representation. The requirements would define what is best for that application. So the squawking cell phone amplifier is the best for that application, not for many other applications.
So for everyone,
So when someone says "better", be honest with yourself. Either qualify "better" with the application and accept that you prefer that, nothing wrong with this. You like the sound ... cool. But better without qualification means performance. That has a definition.