New Here and think I want to hear Valve Sound

Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
I never said anything about the "real thing" , what a "audiophool" illusion.
You could (A/B) compare a room system to a quality pair of headphones.
The real thing is someone singing next to you , tamborines and bongo's that the
kids fool around with. They even sound different in other rooms.
So "real" also has wide variance. The room and hallway is the folded
horn (or port). And street noises are the distortion mechanisms.
The real world can model the acoustic / electrical one.


OS
No, you are quite mistaken. "Real" does not have any variance at all. It is our reference. Sounding different in differing spaces does not diminish our conception of reality. We're fully capable of recognizing what we're hearing regardless of the room acoustics and I mean the effects of such. We don't need to hear artificially produced music in a hallway to intuitively know what that should probably sound like. We still use the real thing to qualify the artificial one.
 
Irrelevant to my point. You simply don't get it. I can't help you any further except to perhaps re-read my posts.
You didn't understand the term "hi-fi" in sound replaying electronics. It's a criteria used when judging the performance quality of such electronics, how the output is in comparison to the input, is it transparent between the two or not.

Your notion about resembling "the real thing" is often seen in audiophile myth threads all over the internet.

You can debunk my explanation on "hi-fi" in sound replaying electronics by showing me the method of knowing what the acoustic instruments or the singer's voice sounded like during the recording session without having been there. I'm all ears.
 
No, you are quite mistaken. "Real" does not have any variance at all. It is our reference. Sounding different in differing spaces does not diminish our conception of reality. We're fully capable of recognizing what we're hearing regardless of the room acoustics and I mean the effects of such. We don't need to hear artificially produced music in a hallway to intuitively know what that should probably sound like. We still use the real thing to qualify the artificial one.
Source please.
 
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
You didn't understand the term "hi-fi" in sound replaying electronics. It's a criteria used when judging the performance quality of such electronics, how the output is in comparison to the input, is it transparent between the two or not.

Your notion about resembling "the real thing" is often seen in audiophile myth threads all over the internet.

You can debunk my explanation on "hi-fi" in sound replaying electronics by showing me the method of knowing what the acoustic instruments or the singer's voice sounded like during the recording session without having been there. I'm all ears.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I'm saying it means squat if it doesn't relate to what you hear naturally. It does not matter at all what the singer's voice sounded like if after it was recorded, it sounds convincingly real. No one at that point would question it except to confirm excellent performance on the part of the gear. Was it accurate??? Maybe better, an improvement! Who cares! It sounds great! Obviously it must be true to the input. But measurements of such don't necessarily reveal the truth as it enters your ears, the ultimate arbiter. So 'Hi-Fi' is always subject to scrutiny.
 
Your ears
As I expected, the source is your own mind. IOW, in your own mind, ""Real" does not have any variance at all. It is our reference. Sounding different in differing spaces does not diminish our conception of reality. We're fully capable of recognizing what we're hearing regardless of the room acoustics and I mean the effects of such. We don't need to hear artificially produced music in a hallway to intuitively know what that should probably sound like."
OK, fine.
You're not telling me anything I don't already know. I'm saying it means squat if it doesn't relate to what you hear naturally.
In which room or setting?
It does not matter at all what the singer's voice sounded like if after it was recorded, it sounds convincingly real.
I thought I was talking about recording room. Why are you keep omitting the importance of room? The only reason I can think of is that you don't understand the value of room acoustics. Let me guess, you've never seen the frequency response of the room where your audio is set up, right?

No one at that point would question it except to confirm excellent performance on the part of the gear. Was it accurate??? Maybe better, an improvement! Who cares! It sounds great! Obviously it must be true to the input. But measurements of such don't necessarily reveal the truth as it enters your ears, the ultimate arbiter. So 'Hi-Fi' is always subject to scrutiny.
Have you ever done any recording and or mastering to use it as play back source? If not, have you ever talked to someone who's done it at pro level? If not, I'd suggest that you do. There's a lot of good info to digest.
 
But there is a chance that more faithful reproduction of the signal is the best way to recreate the sought after illusion.

This chance was explored billions of times, and where is the end result?

Faithful reproduction would be in proportion to versatility, but you can have many different audio systems, and I guess this is one of the reason tube amp guys have so many different tube amps. Who wants to collect 5 different Class-D amps. :D

Absolutely wrong. Class D amps are just another can of worms. All of them have own flaws, and after getting first impression you start noticing them.

I finally found my amp. It is a single ended 2 stage pentode amp, with 3 nested feedbacks. It is perfect for any genre of music.

However, for 2,000 listeners in the field I use several class D amps, for efficiency. Single ended class A amps for that purpose would require own power plant and industrial-grade cooling system.
 
This chance was explored billions of times, and where is the end result?...
I finally found my amp. It is a single ended 2 stage pentode amp, with 3 nested feedbacks. It is perfect for any genre of music.
...
You miss my point. I'm saying your SE amp with 3 nested feedback may actually produce lower acoustic distortion compared to regular "low thd amps". Designers of amplifiers measure distortion of output voltage, not the acoustic output. :)
 
I like the sound of kt120 at 650V 65ma in push pull with 100 watt transformer and a special phase inverter with pentode current sinks, all caps are film, no cathode follower and only the best NOS tubes.

However, this is not quite as visceral as a good class AB with 30Amps max impulse current. like a 100 - 200 watt amps with 8 output transistors.

I think I can reach that potential using quad 80 watts transformer with low insertion loss, gaining few decibels and using lower power tubes like kt77 I think I can best the kt120 amps.

That way I can achieve tube sound with transistor sound. Best of both worlds.
 
I like a amp that I can not hear. Or an amp so transparent .... I don't care.
One I can drink my wine , overload it and not fry tweeters
or components.


One that is not a overweight "boat anchor". Where it needs "snakeoil"
power conditioners or silver wire to compensate for some shortcoming
that is imagined or real.

OS
 
However, this is not quite as visceral as a good class AB with 30Amps max impulse current. like a 100 - 200 watt amps with 8 output transistors.

That way I can achieve tube sound with transistor sound. Best of both worlds.


These are my goals -
Tube like overdriven distortion products , while intoxicated. No worry of
burnt tweeter or components.
200 watts with 4 device error correcting (class H) output stages powered by SMPS's .

.Normal listening at 20W averages , occasional HQ FLAC will track into
Class H . Best of many worlds.
No big boat-anchor amps , but still 20th century analog.


OS
 
You miss my point. I'm saying your SE amp with 3 nested feedback may actually produce lower acoustic distortion compared to regular "low thd amps". Designers of amplifiers measure distortion of output voltage, not the acoustic output. :)

Absolutely not. Starting from a half of maximal output power distortions increase gradually, but they are not perceived as distortions, just as "too loud sound". :)

Below half of the max power distortions are pretty low, and the lower is the level of the signal, the lower are distortions, the lower is their order, and they decay faster than the signal level itself. It is the dynamics of the order of distortions on different levels that matter, not a THD on some pre-selected level of power.

And it is valid not only for tube amps that fool imagination. Nelson Pass's class A SS amps behave pretty similarly.
 
Status
This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.