I didn't quite write what I was thinking. The assertion was that single-ended tube circuits sound better others and that this is inspite of being rich in harmonics.
How can this be true when we all know harmonics are bad? Is it that "better" is subjective and unreliable - the listeners are wrong? Is it that the harmonics compensate for a poor source? Perhaps.
I don't know about you but I find it easier to come up with reasons to deny a counter-intuitive observation than to change my assumptions so that it is no longer contradictory. Much easier but fallable.
There have been some whoppers in the audio business. I remember when CD first came out in the 1980s. What a relief from having to mess with olde vinyl and keep records clean and make regluar adjustments to the arm and so on. CD was all solid-state digital - no mechanics, no vibrations, no dust, no scratches, much lower noise floor and 20dB or more dynamic range, and so error resilient that you could drill a 2mm diameter hole in the disc and the music would be unaffected. And the discs would never wear out! The "perfect sound" Philips assured us and we were ready to believe it. Fantastic!
CD-1 was given pride of place and the shiny new disc was inserted and then we sat back in eager anticipation. But the first impression was not "the perfect sound". In fact is was dry and dull. Dynamic, yes. Low noise, yes. But somewhat hard to listen to. Ok, something is wrong. Maybe the cables are not good enough - replace them. Still not right. Ok, maybe the amplifer is not suitable for the wide dynamic demands of CD - after all, they never had to deal with this before. Ok, find the best amp available and try again. Still not right. Maybe not all recording studios have got the digitizing process right, it is a new medium after all, so try some other discs. Still not right, and so on.
Finally, heads were scratched and two popular camps emerged:
1. that Philips were being true to their word and that CD was indeed perfect. "Some" people didn't like it because they actually prefered distorted sound. The sound of vinyl and valves was what these "luddites" liked. They simply couldn't stomach perfect sound. And the marketers got supportive quotes even from popularly respected orchestra conductors and musicians and such to re-inforce the claim that the sound was indeed perfect.
2. those that did not accept the assumptions that CD was perfect and argued that vinyl was better inspite of the undeniable disadvantages. They agreed that CD had no scratches or dust. They agreed that CD was more durable and that its noise floor was lower and dynamic range higher. But it still sounded poor compared to vinyl.
The camp 1 folk considered the camp 2 folks position to be wrong and assumed this was because they were unwilling or unable to accept progress. The camp 2 people didn't care...they were enjoying their music whilst the camp 1 people were enjoying having the latest technology and convenience of CD...inspite of the poorer sound. Indeed some camp 1 folk then tried to make their systems sound more palatible by actually adding distorting components - warm sounding amps and speakers and so on. The camp 2 people were quite content UNTIL record companies started to announce new releases that would not be on vinyl: Oh no...the deaf masses are destroying our access to music!
This situation continued for many years until Meridien actually solved a major problem with the CD player implementation and made a half-decent player. Then the arguments diffused. Then the assumptions got changed in a way that fitted the evidence. The CD discs were fine. The recording studios were not incompetent. The amps and speakers were fine. Most importantly, human hearing was not incompetent after all. The problems lay in the inadequate precision of the players themselves. Now the camp 1 people were able to have their new technology and enjoy listening to it. The camp 2 people, still wary, often chose to have both systems: vinyl for serious listening and CD for convenience and new releases.
Even today, good vinyl recordings arguably convey music more convincingly than the best CD players. There is no need to blame people's hearing or their luddite attitudes for this truism. Why not blame the engineering?
The same principles apply to the single-ended tube discussion. If you assume that "rich harmonics" as measured are the big problem then you are forced to deny the observations. The theory must be right...right? But think about transistors versus tubes with the same open mind as CD versus vinyl. Don't make the mistake of blaming the observer...most people's hearing is way, way more accute that the best technologies avaliable today. Try instead to take the more difficult BUT more rewarding path of finding out why the new technology sounds poorer in some respects...which of your assumptions are wrong?
How can this be true when we all know harmonics are bad? Is it that "better" is subjective and unreliable - the listeners are wrong? Is it that the harmonics compensate for a poor source? Perhaps.
I don't know about you but I find it easier to come up with reasons to deny a counter-intuitive observation than to change my assumptions so that it is no longer contradictory. Much easier but fallable.
There have been some whoppers in the audio business. I remember when CD first came out in the 1980s. What a relief from having to mess with olde vinyl and keep records clean and make regluar adjustments to the arm and so on. CD was all solid-state digital - no mechanics, no vibrations, no dust, no scratches, much lower noise floor and 20dB or more dynamic range, and so error resilient that you could drill a 2mm diameter hole in the disc and the music would be unaffected. And the discs would never wear out! The "perfect sound" Philips assured us and we were ready to believe it. Fantastic!
CD-1 was given pride of place and the shiny new disc was inserted and then we sat back in eager anticipation. But the first impression was not "the perfect sound". In fact is was dry and dull. Dynamic, yes. Low noise, yes. But somewhat hard to listen to. Ok, something is wrong. Maybe the cables are not good enough - replace them. Still not right. Ok, maybe the amplifer is not suitable for the wide dynamic demands of CD - after all, they never had to deal with this before. Ok, find the best amp available and try again. Still not right. Maybe not all recording studios have got the digitizing process right, it is a new medium after all, so try some other discs. Still not right, and so on.
Finally, heads were scratched and two popular camps emerged:
1. that Philips were being true to their word and that CD was indeed perfect. "Some" people didn't like it because they actually prefered distorted sound. The sound of vinyl and valves was what these "luddites" liked. They simply couldn't stomach perfect sound. And the marketers got supportive quotes even from popularly respected orchestra conductors and musicians and such to re-inforce the claim that the sound was indeed perfect.
2. those that did not accept the assumptions that CD was perfect and argued that vinyl was better inspite of the undeniable disadvantages. They agreed that CD had no scratches or dust. They agreed that CD was more durable and that its noise floor was lower and dynamic range higher. But it still sounded poor compared to vinyl.
The camp 1 folk considered the camp 2 folks position to be wrong and assumed this was because they were unwilling or unable to accept progress. The camp 2 people didn't care...they were enjoying their music whilst the camp 1 people were enjoying having the latest technology and convenience of CD...inspite of the poorer sound. Indeed some camp 1 folk then tried to make their systems sound more palatible by actually adding distorting components - warm sounding amps and speakers and so on. The camp 2 people were quite content UNTIL record companies started to announce new releases that would not be on vinyl: Oh no...the deaf masses are destroying our access to music!
This situation continued for many years until Meridien actually solved a major problem with the CD player implementation and made a half-decent player. Then the arguments diffused. Then the assumptions got changed in a way that fitted the evidence. The CD discs were fine. The recording studios were not incompetent. The amps and speakers were fine. Most importantly, human hearing was not incompetent after all. The problems lay in the inadequate precision of the players themselves. Now the camp 1 people were able to have their new technology and enjoy listening to it. The camp 2 people, still wary, often chose to have both systems: vinyl for serious listening and CD for convenience and new releases.
Even today, good vinyl recordings arguably convey music more convincingly than the best CD players. There is no need to blame people's hearing or their luddite attitudes for this truism. Why not blame the engineering?
The same principles apply to the single-ended tube discussion. If you assume that "rich harmonics" as measured are the big problem then you are forced to deny the observations. The theory must be right...right? But think about transistors versus tubes with the same open mind as CD versus vinyl. Don't make the mistake of blaming the observer...most people's hearing is way, way more accute that the best technologies avaliable today. Try instead to take the more difficult BUT more rewarding path of finding out why the new technology sounds poorer in some respects...which of your assumptions are wrong?
Gordon Holt observed (correctly, I think) that it is inherently wrong to compare CD to vinyl; rather, one should compare CD or vinyl to the mike feed. In his opinion, CD was closer. That doesn't make it "better"; we love additives, whether the rich additions of the single ended effects boxes to our sound or the MSG in our food.
No, that is an example of one of those erroneous assumptions I was talking about. The notion that adding distortion is preferable to the real music is erroneous. This presumes that humans are wrong, not the equipment. This presumes that the musicians and instrument designers and sound engineers and recording specialists are wrong, not the hifi.
Look, it is fallacious to conclude that the reason a person claims a vinyl recording sounds more convincing than a CD is because they prefer a distorted rendering to the original source.
There is another explanation!
Look, it is fallacious to conclude that the reason a person claims a vinyl recording sounds more convincing than a CD is because they prefer a distorted rendering to the original source.
There is another explanation!
traderbam said:
Actually, the converse is true: the human ear, interacting, of course, with the brain, is the epitome of unreliability with regard to judging fidelity, or lack thereof.
When you put your fingers in your ear and talk, or sing, you sure can hear yourself better... it doesn't mean it sounds nicer though.
I think our brains are very good at following known patterns and filling in holes as and where they occur.
If you were to just hear some bits of a symbal comming through in the sound, your brain would still piece together most of the original sound... you will knida know wht it should sound like compared to what it does...
With vynil I always feel that the "distortion" adds to the sound in terms of giving our brains more detail to process rather than hideing the source...
I think our brains are very good at following known patterns and filling in holes as and where they occur.
If you were to just hear some bits of a symbal comming through in the sound, your brain would still piece together most of the original sound... you will knida know wht it should sound like compared to what it does...
With vynil I always feel that the "distortion" adds to the sound in terms of giving our brains more detail to process rather than hideing the source...
Does anyone doubt that the 'dry' sound, as many put it, of CDs is the result of a loss of low level detail. I feel that vinyl has a flow to it - this is not a tonal thing.traderbam said:
I imagine he was commenting on observations at high/normal levels.SY said:
We hear several kind of soundsystems. Home audio, live show, car audio, TV sound, compo boom box, etc.
Why is that people always think that the "right" one is live show, ie; other kind of soundsystems (reproduction = home and car audio) has to sound exactly like live show, otherwise it is not correct?
From the accoustical POV and how the sound is generated, it is impossible to make 1 kind of soundsystem sounds exactly like the other one.
Live show are mono system. Reproduction are stereo system. Live show has huge accoustical area. Reproduction has limited space area. Accoustically they are different in nature. Different reflections, different sound source, reproductions are made by small speakers, live show has huge and many speakers, live performances has no speakers.
I think that pursuing reproduction systems to sounds exactly like live performance is impossible. Those who pursue this way will end up in frustation.
The electronic parts may do it's best at this. But how about the speakers and the accoustics? Even the electronics 100% exactly doing its job, the speakers and accoustics wont allow reproduction systems to sound like live performance.
It is trying to make a tank looks like a sportscar just by arguing about changing the paint colour, without able to do a thing about the steel structures, it is impossible thing to do.
Home audio, car audio, live systems has their own generic sounds. One cannot be exactly like the other one. Hearing any kind of soundsystem has it's own pleasure. It is not only hearing the live show has the "only" pleasure to our ear.
Even hearing a music clip from TV can make me happy. No need 30hz or 18khz to make me enjoy the music clip from TV.
Reproduction system tends to sound more "beautiful" than live sound. More MSG (SY 😀) But nothing is wrong about this. The important thing is whether the auditioners enjoys the music or not. It is not about whether the sound is exactly like live performance or not.
Why is that people always think that the "right" one is live show, ie; other kind of soundsystems (reproduction = home and car audio) has to sound exactly like live show, otherwise it is not correct?
From the accoustical POV and how the sound is generated, it is impossible to make 1 kind of soundsystem sounds exactly like the other one.
Live show are mono system. Reproduction are stereo system. Live show has huge accoustical area. Reproduction has limited space area. Accoustically they are different in nature. Different reflections, different sound source, reproductions are made by small speakers, live show has huge and many speakers, live performances has no speakers.
I think that pursuing reproduction systems to sounds exactly like live performance is impossible. Those who pursue this way will end up in frustation.
The electronic parts may do it's best at this. But how about the speakers and the accoustics? Even the electronics 100% exactly doing its job, the speakers and accoustics wont allow reproduction systems to sound like live performance.
It is trying to make a tank looks like a sportscar just by arguing about changing the paint colour, without able to do a thing about the steel structures, it is impossible thing to do.
Home audio, car audio, live systems has their own generic sounds. One cannot be exactly like the other one. Hearing any kind of soundsystem has it's own pleasure. It is not only hearing the live show has the "only" pleasure to our ear.
Even hearing a music clip from TV can make me happy. No need 30hz or 18khz to make me enjoy the music clip from TV.
Reproduction system tends to sound more "beautiful" than live sound. More MSG (SY 😀) But nothing is wrong about this. The important thing is whether the auditioners enjoys the music or not. It is not about whether the sound is exactly like live performance or not.
lumanauw said:
True for the time being, for it implies reproducing the original sound pressure field, akin to holography in the case of light. Wonder if it ever will come to be.
Yet though sufficient, it may prove to be not necessary. Different seat positions will experience different sound fields in a given live performance, yet convey the same experience.
This is entirely another matter. What are we seeking to enjoy? The artist's genuine unaltered message or a personal tweak we happen to like more?
There is no "right" answer to this, but the individual freedom to choose, only no one should evangelize in absolute terms. My personal choice is accuracy, to get the message as the artist intended to be delivered, but again, it is only a personal preference.
Rodolfo
That's right 😀
We can look a simple fact. Tube amps now live and will live for a long long time. Tube lovers will design, built, buy tube amps. No matter many people said that tubes are full of harmonic distortion, no good. What can you do? Tube lovers enjoys the music that way, it is not wrong to make, buy, to listen to audio amps that has harmonic distortion 😀
We can look a simple fact. Tube amps now live and will live for a long long time. Tube lovers will design, built, buy tube amps. No matter many people said that tubes are full of harmonic distortion, no good. What can you do? Tube lovers enjoys the music that way, it is not wrong to make, buy, to listen to audio amps that has harmonic distortion 😀
lumanauw said:
What else, if you want to reproduce the music???
Usually people unexperienced with live music prefer SE tubes, horn speakers etc. HiFi is about fidelity in sound reproduction, distortion is about creation of own sound impressions 😀 😀
2 different categories ...
Arrogant nonsense. An oxymoron.
You may choose to design things for the listening pleasure of your spectrum analyzer but the whole point here is the pleasure of people.
Hi, PMA,
I might be wrong, but I think it is not fair if one wants to have the same state of joyness like watching live show when he actually hearing a reproduction system (like home reproduction system).
I never saw Pavarotti or Michael Bubble live in opera/show, I just saw them on DVD.
But if I imagine I was sitting on live opera (where people can cry watching it), actually there are 2 senses that stimulated. Ear and eye.
If we watch the Pavarotti takes a very deep breath with big chest before he sings a note, the audience will be hypnotized to hold their breath also, making the involvement with the song more drastic. Or seeing live classic concert where all the violinist and master conductor making very strong movements, deeply involved with the notes.
If I was in Michael Bubble live concert and see the hysteris girls on the front seats, like it or not I will be more involved with the situation. It is the mind that is stimulated, by eye and ear at one time. If we attend a live show with eyes closed all the time, I think the satisfaction attending the show will be reduced so much.
Like watching TV. Even the stock TV sound system not good (in Hi-Fi POV), but since our eyes also stimulated besides our ear, watching a music clip that we likes in TV often gives more satisfaction than hearing the same song in Hi-Fi equipment.
It is difficult to have the same satisfaction from reproduction system if wants to achieve the same satisfaction from attending live show.
Attending live show has it's own joyness. But hearing a reproduction also has it's own joyness, but a different kind. The 2 will never be the same, but both can please people in their own ways, I think. 😀
I might be wrong, but I think it is not fair if one wants to have the same state of joyness like watching live show when he actually hearing a reproduction system (like home reproduction system).
I never saw Pavarotti or Michael Bubble live in opera/show, I just saw them on DVD.
But if I imagine I was sitting on live opera (where people can cry watching it), actually there are 2 senses that stimulated. Ear and eye.
If we watch the Pavarotti takes a very deep breath with big chest before he sings a note, the audience will be hypnotized to hold their breath also, making the involvement with the song more drastic. Or seeing live classic concert where all the violinist and master conductor making very strong movements, deeply involved with the notes.
If I was in Michael Bubble live concert and see the hysteris girls on the front seats, like it or not I will be more involved with the situation. It is the mind that is stimulated, by eye and ear at one time. If we attend a live show with eyes closed all the time, I think the satisfaction attending the show will be reduced so much.
Like watching TV. Even the stock TV sound system not good (in Hi-Fi POV), but since our eyes also stimulated besides our ear, watching a music clip that we likes in TV often gives more satisfaction than hearing the same song in Hi-Fi equipment.
It is difficult to have the same satisfaction from reproduction system if wants to achieve the same satisfaction from attending live show.
Attending live show has it's own joyness. But hearing a reproduction also has it's own joyness, but a different kind. The 2 will never be the same, but both can please people in their own ways, I think. 😀
I personally prefer solid state over tube for listening purposes. For guitar, the distortion charactoristics of tubes is what makes them gold.. and the way the harmonics distort in tubes when overdriven as opposed to transistors. ( I know it all sounds cliche, but it is true) Actually I've found the best sound for a guitar amp is a triode power tube.
Anyways this isn't about that. I do think cd's sound kind of dull. Although their ok for normal listening, I feel their low end and mid is still too limited and dry. At least, most Cd players dont do a good job of reproducing the sound from a cd without making it dry. I prefer digital music.. My computer is my main source of music entertainment. A good soundcard ( such as the audigy 2/x-fi ) really brings out stuff you probably have never heard in your LP recordings before. A decent stereo system does wonders too, obviously. I do prefer the warm charactoristics of well designed amplifiers of the 1970's, such as the marantz 22's , Pioneer flouroscans and others.
A lot of vintage speakers can sound very good too, and certainly much better sounding than modern ones, and MUCH better built.
As for the other part of this discussion, I have often wondered what makes sound 'true'.
If you listen to a recording by an artist , it will sound completly different than it will live- most of the time artists record a song and release it before playing it live. So the live performance will not be true to the recording, instead of the other way around. As for the term live, it really means ( or has meant to me at least)
not that you are listening to the performance 'live'
rather that you are listening to the recording in person, with all the instruments in the room.
I think it is more of a personal preference matter anyways. Some people drive around their cars blasting hiphop so loud their speakers are audibly ( and terribly) distorting OUTSIDE the car. Some people notice no difference when a cheap home theatre subwoofer 'bottoms out' and clips making a farting sound. Some people can't even hear as far as a cheap pair of speakers dynamic range can go. A lot of people just don't know anything other than what they have always done, or simply cant tell the difference and don't care. Then there are people that are ultra picky about what they listen to, how it sounds, and are so up tight about it having to sound absolutly perfect to the original sound that they miss the whole point of music- enjoyment. I am somewhere in the middle. I have my preferences, such as not wanting to hear distortion coming from the speakers ( duh) , and wanting the bass to reach where it is supposed to and the highs to sparkle like they should, and the vocals to pop out and be crystal clear. You can make statments on what "the way they should " means , but it is really a matter of " the way you think they should" , not "the way everyone else thinks they should."
In conclusion, HiFi should not all about "what others think it should sound like", rather what you think it should sound like for your enjoyment.
Anyways this isn't about that. I do think cd's sound kind of dull. Although their ok for normal listening, I feel their low end and mid is still too limited and dry. At least, most Cd players dont do a good job of reproducing the sound from a cd without making it dry. I prefer digital music.. My computer is my main source of music entertainment. A good soundcard ( such as the audigy 2/x-fi ) really brings out stuff you probably have never heard in your LP recordings before. A decent stereo system does wonders too, obviously. I do prefer the warm charactoristics of well designed amplifiers of the 1970's, such as the marantz 22's , Pioneer flouroscans and others.
A lot of vintage speakers can sound very good too, and certainly much better sounding than modern ones, and MUCH better built.
As for the other part of this discussion, I have often wondered what makes sound 'true'.
If you listen to a recording by an artist , it will sound completly different than it will live- most of the time artists record a song and release it before playing it live. So the live performance will not be true to the recording, instead of the other way around. As for the term live, it really means ( or has meant to me at least)
not that you are listening to the performance 'live'
rather that you are listening to the recording in person, with all the instruments in the room.
I think it is more of a personal preference matter anyways. Some people drive around their cars blasting hiphop so loud their speakers are audibly ( and terribly) distorting OUTSIDE the car. Some people notice no difference when a cheap home theatre subwoofer 'bottoms out' and clips making a farting sound. Some people can't even hear as far as a cheap pair of speakers dynamic range can go. A lot of people just don't know anything other than what they have always done, or simply cant tell the difference and don't care. Then there are people that are ultra picky about what they listen to, how it sounds, and are so up tight about it having to sound absolutly perfect to the original sound that they miss the whole point of music- enjoyment. I am somewhere in the middle. I have my preferences, such as not wanting to hear distortion coming from the speakers ( duh) , and wanting the bass to reach where it is supposed to and the highs to sparkle like they should, and the vocals to pop out and be crystal clear. You can make statments on what "the way they should " means , but it is really a matter of " the way you think they should" , not "the way everyone else thinks they should."
In conclusion, HiFi should not all about "what others think it should sound like", rather what you think it should sound like for your enjoyment.
PMA said:
Always wise to include a qualifier. 🙂 I hear live mic feeds of people I know weekly and prefer SE tubes.
rdf said:
We have different experience. I should add I speak about people who listen to and record classical music - philharmonic orchestra. I am one of them. I visit concerts quite often, and I have experience with recording of this music.
PMA said:
I wouldn't disagree, there are too many variables in source and equipment for certainty. My repetoire is mostly small combos, classical guitar or piano and, ironically, movies in an apartment environment. Complex material at high levels is very rare (~94 dB eff. speakers), though at normal listening levels I don't miss anything obvious on large classical works. (It's been twenty years since part of my job entailed regularly recording classical performances in a live venue. 🙂)
I don't mean to say SE tubes always trump solid state, just providing an alternate data point. That said, I've never been fooled into mistaking the mic feeds - Neumann U87s direct into a digital console over solid state biamped monitors - at work for live either. I'm at work listening to a live feed as this is typed. The closest I've yet come is the new Cash album on the SE at home.
To dirft a little further off topic, source material is such a critical determinant of accuracy I'm toying with building a couple mic pre's (low distortion SE tube of course) and recording my own test material using familiar sounds at 96 kHz 24-bit.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.