As of tbhe Linear Audio article, no way I am paying to read it, but in any case the fact he has to dig down to -170dBto "find differences" confirms my belief there are no differences at all.
Or from Mars.
Jim,
That is not what the article says. The limit of measuring distortion was -170dB Re the test level. The distortion measured was well above that. As many of the same resistors were mentioned in the first post and also measured, results can be compared. My take is the original poster prefers some distortions.
If you want to read the article, just ask Jan nicely for a complementary copy.
Traditionally on technical papers the author will also send you a copy if you express interest.
ES
So we are losing contributions such as:
I for one, won´t be missing them.
Are you trying to create a division with your "vs"?
I think many of the so called divisions are invented by those who just want to argue about perception, what is there actually to argue about? Why not simply accept what people say they hear, after all isn't that how psychoacoustics has developed and is still developing? There are still many unknowns about how the ear and brain process auditory information.That's quite likely and not unusual. Also, can we really be certain that some distortions can't actually help create a better, more lifelike, illusion?
Many love distortion. Until one hears a clean, well EQed system. Then no-one wants it
I guess your last sentence is the main problem, to me. When we listen to recordings on our hifi systems ... are we really trying to "recreate reality" - which is ... what someone who was sitting in the recording space would've heard?
I doubt it. What I would say is that we are looking to get the most enjoyment out of the listening process - and this means different things to different people!
Many love distortion. Until one hears a clean, well EQed system. Then no-one wants it
I have a mate who has a pair of AR 250SE tube monoblocs; as a tube amplifier, it obviously has much higher distortion figures than his other amplifier - a Purify P452.
Yet we all prefer to listen to the AR amps driving his spkrs.
Andy
I doubt it. What I would say is that we are looking to get the most enjoyment out of the listening process - and this means different things to different people!
But I like listen the system that as accurate as possible, because I respect the sound engineer and the musician who create the music. Like I enjoy a painting, no way I want to add a mustache in Monalisa painting. I can have different feeling each time I watch the painting ALTHOUGH the painting is still the SAME.
Last edited:
That's a good question. I've heard it suggested that the engineer uses his/her mixing monitors and experience to create a mix that would sound acceptable on what they consider most likely to be the listeners equipment.
I have a mate who has a pair of AR 250SE tube monoblocs; as a tube amplifier, it obviously has much higher distortion figures than his other amplifier - a Purify P452.
Yet we all prefer to listen to the AR amps driving his spkrs.
Andy
This is a common observation, can you say what it was about the sound you preferred?
I can tell you what I liked about my old tube amplifier, which I wish I still had.
It was modern, with a transistorized (quiet) power supply. Unlike other tube amps of the era, there was no hum, hiss, or snap crackle pops from this unit. Its function was essentially similar to the solid state amps of the day, except without the crunchy sound.
But what did I really like? The soft clipping. If you kept turning it up, it just compressed the music. Only recently have I developed a solid state circuit that mimics this effect (actually it's better) but it isn't simple and it requires fiddly adjustment. But this unit did it by its own nature.
It was modern, with a transistorized (quiet) power supply. Unlike other tube amps of the era, there was no hum, hiss, or snap crackle pops from this unit. Its function was essentially similar to the solid state amps of the day, except without the crunchy sound.
But what did I really like? The soft clipping. If you kept turning it up, it just compressed the music. Only recently have I developed a solid state circuit that mimics this effect (actually it's better) but it isn't simple and it requires fiddly adjustment. But this unit did it by its own nature.
I haven't heard a valve amp in many years, perhaps I should listen to one or build Nelson Pass' H2
Most tube amp that I heard have good imaging / sound stage. Some tube amps are not good when used complex music with high dynamic. Some tube amps sound too warm but pleasing when the music is vocal dominant.
I design solid state amplifier which have good imaging / sound stage that can match the best tube amps that I heard. My amps have very low distortion, so imaging / sound stage is no correlation with amplitude distortion.
Btw, resistor have different temperature coefficient, voltage coefficient and noise. Audio Precision address this characteristics. To get low distortion and low noise we must consider this characteristics, which type of resistors should use in particular circuit.
Last edited:
I haven't heard a valve amp in many years, perhaps I should listen to one or build Nelson Pass' H2
Early transistorized amplifiers weren't very good. I'm talking mid 60s to mid 70s. The transistors that were available weren't very good either.
My tube amp was an ultralinear design, with "modern" (for the time) parts and quiet operation. It employed global feedback. It was really quite good even by today's standards. Every part was 100% made in the US. It would be a hot item still in today's market - the real deal.
Due to IMD being more noticeable with complex music? Nelson Pass talks about this in his article on distortion and feedback.
Transistor amps typically use lots and lots of global feedback. Sometimes these amplifiers "fall apart" when they clip. Plus this also pushes the harmonic distortion profile into higher order harmonics.
The more global feedback you use, the more you have to tweak transient response for recovery from clipping. My tube amp had barely 10 dB of negative feedback @ 20 kHz, "just enough" to flatten out its response in the passband. On the scope, clipping was straightforward; no spikes and no sharp edges. I didn't do anything to tweak transient response; I was just a teenager and didn't know anything about all that. It just came out perfect in the mix. My first transistorized amps were terrible because it took a while for it to sink in that this was a whole different ball game. I didn't even learn about Nyquist stability criteria until I was 16 or 17. I did understand enough about stability (the "Miller cap") to build a nice tube amplifier (first iteration did oscillate). Once I digested Nyquist's work, it opened the door to a whole new world.
The more global feedback you use, the more you have to tweak transient response for recovery from clipping. My tube amp had barely 10 dB of negative feedback @ 20 kHz, "just enough" to flatten out its response in the passband. On the scope, clipping was straightforward; no spikes and no sharp edges. I didn't do anything to tweak transient response; I was just a teenager and didn't know anything about all that. It just came out perfect in the mix. My first transistorized amps were terrible because it took a while for it to sink in that this was a whole different ball game. I didn't even learn about Nyquist stability criteria until I was 16 or 17. I did understand enough about stability (the "Miller cap") to build a nice tube amplifier (first iteration did oscillate). Once I digested Nyquist's work, it opened the door to a whole new world.
Do not clip transistor amplifier.
This is my amplifier (simple amplifier) measured by Thimios. Bias current is too low, but harmonic profile like class A amplifier.
https://www.diyaudio.com/forums/solid-state/338815-anistardi-peletuk-4.html#post5835054
- Status
- Not open for further replies.