Your argument isn’t logical. Recording and playback are two different things. Reference playback should impart near zero influence on the original recording. It should be a benchmark for accuracy and transparency. Even the best sounding tube gear is inherently incapable of that, especially when asked to drive the highest performance of speaker drivers. Artists and Recording engineers employ tubes to achieve a certain characteristic sound. Adding noise and distortion during playback by use of tubes alters that sound (for better or worse) from what the engineers/artists intended.
Good subjective performance does not automatically make the component(s) accurate. For example, I enjoy the sound of Magnepan speakers (some of them anyhow) but they don’t come remotely close to playing the truth of a recording. They are enjoyable but I don’t fool myself into believing they are reference (i.e. benchmark) level.
Preferring tubes in audio playback is akin to preferring the driving experience of an 80s air-cooled Porsche over a modern 911. That doesn’t make the older car the better performer.
There’s nothing wrong with preferring a “colored” system, but let’s not pretend that makes it better than state-of-the-art, nor a reference by which all others should be judged.
Okay sure, I agree sort of. That is why I have 3 systems and prefer tubes and your post is your opinion. Also not a VW guy, prefer trucks, snowing here today enjoy.
Some of the musicians I listen to I heard live and as such can compare. Anything introduces some coloration. For me negative coloration is the worst, that's what SS does brilliantly. Besides, not all tube amps are created equal, and not all tubes are equal either.
By the way, I heard that some do prefer vintage air-cooled Porsche. Besides being traditional it is much less safe and more difficult to drive fast than later Porsche. And that's why some prefer it. You do something stupid and you are gone. You really need to know how to drive.
Its a known fact as soon as you power up tubes, especially in tube amps, they are wearing themselves out. I don't need that kind of concern atttached to my system. I got more important things to worry about like room conditioning, cabling, speaker positioning and etc. If i use tubes it will be in low level devices like preamps, phono preamp etc and I will do that. But I still like solid state preamps a great deal for certain music and I have a couple of them as well.
Yes, I felt the way you did until I finally bought one… now, I could care less about the wear, or any other theoretical problem. The sound quality justifies it. I now have thousands of hours on tube amps with no failures and no tube changes.
Personally, I will never have a reference system but will always have a good sound with tube equipment and analogue source wherever possible. The core of any music is in the midrange, and if you don't get it right more or less - forget about the rest. Choice of tubes is very important too, the difference can be dramatic, as everyone knows.
inna, yes indeed you will have good sound with tube amps but they cannot be left on all the time and thats where I'm coming from.
I do have a solid state Conrad Johnson preamp that does an amazing job with the midrange, especially when it is left on for several days. It makes wonder why I should bother with a tube preamp when it sounds that wonderful. But when I insert the tube preamp it sounds pretty amazing in a different way. From time to time I like to switch up preamps because it keeps things interesting.
@OP "Personally, I will never have a reference system but will always have a good sound with tube equipment and analogue source wherever possible. The core of any music is in the midrange, and if you don't get it right more or less - forget about the rest. Choice of tubes is very important too, the difference can be dramatic, as everyone knows."
That's a rather different argument to the one you started the post with?
“Reference system” will only exist the day there is a system that can not be changed improved upon. State of the art playback is subject to personal preferences. If one seeks accuracy then solid state gives us state of the art in accuracy. If one seeks euphonic colorations then one can use tube gear or better yet tube simulation DSP. With tube simulation DSP one can have the bed of both worlds with an unprecedented level of control.
phd, I don't think tube equipment should be left on all the time to sound best and I didn't read anyone say it here. I do remember someone said some years ago that a particular Lamm preamp had to be left on for a few days to sound its best.
Switching preamps is fun indeed, as is tube rolling.
some solid state allows for adjustment of negative feedback. the darts have zero negative feedback, and that matters a lot in it’s musical flow and lack of grain and lack of solid state dryness.
tube rolling has an upside, and also a degree of confusion as to what is correct, and the uneasy feeling never knowing when something is going to blow.....and not knowing if something is going 'off'. tubes are always changing to some degree.
I had LiNN high end Solid state didn’t like too sterile went to valve wasn’t sure now Luxman class A and feels right although may dabble with an Allnic that is for sale SH near me …..
@OP If "reference sound" is sought then tube rolling is a disadvantage. How can you have a reference if the sound changes everytime the active devices are changed?
@invalid - I haven't argued that SS devices are transparent. The point is that, assuming that the manufacturer is strict about tolerances, SS amplifiers will sound the way they were designed to sound. Tube equipment will sound different depending on which tubes are installed.
transparent is not enough for a solid state amplifier, musically complete, grain less and flowing are the challenges. these are relative things. not absolutes.
however transparent does seem to satisfy many solid state amplifier owners.
it's about expectations. i'm a tube lover who owns solid state. i don't want to settle.
transparent is not enough for a solid state amplifier, musically complete, grain less and flowing are the challenges. these are relative things. not absolutes.
however transparent does seem to satisfy many solid state amplifier owners.
it's about expectations. i'm a tube lover who owns solid state. i don't want to settle.
The secret is to biamp your system. Use tubes for the upper drivers and solid state mega power for bass drivers.
This is a true reference system if done properly.
What the hell is a reference system anyway. Does it mean it's better or just something you reference to for comparative purposes. My $2500 system is a reference system as anything I add to it makes it sound different allowing me too appreciate any changes made. If you have a really expensive system sometimes it's difficult to discern differences by swapping in and out components. And then of course the quality of the recording is another factor that makes it more complicated and speaks to the need for reference Music, which no one really talks about.
this will be a source of incoherence in a reference system, unless the signal for the solid state amp on the bottom octaves gets it’s signal from the speaker terminal of the higher octave speakers. the bass amp needs to be very neutral, and then mimic the presentation of the tube amp on top.
if you desire a reference system. in lesser systems, not critical. lots of people do this, of course. which does not change the reality of it's limitations.
BTW; this is exactly how my speakers work. my darTZeel amps are on my passive speaker towers, and my active bass towers get their signal from the speaker terminal of the passive towers. then if i use a tube amp, which i have done, the bass gets that character to sound ’of a piece’.
it all depends on your expectations for a seamless coherent presentation. when you push the system, every amp acts slightly differently. you need things to stay of a piece with appropriate balance and feel at all musical points.
the odds of happening to find a tube amp and solid state amp acting exactly the same no matter the SLP’s are very very remote. not saying impossible. improbable.
This is a very thoughtful response and have to read it very carefully. Hoping I can learn something.
Yes I Believe you have an extremely awesome, very extremely awesome, System in a very very beautiful room. You could make a lot of money selling tickets to people for a visit to your room. How lucky for those people to be in your room and how lucky for you too.
micelavigne I agree withemergingsoul that your system is a masterpiece of thought and effort. It it is a good thing you have only 10 years involved and not 20 years otherwise you might need a bigger room.
Folks this all subjective and there are no right or wrong answers in regards to the question put forth in this thread.
“transparent is not enough for a solid state amplifier, musically complete, grain less and flowing are the challenges. these are relative things. not absolutes.”
transparent is all of those things if those things are in the recording. Transparent means the output is audibly indistinguishable from the input other than the gain. If one wants some additional seasoning then euphonically colored amps are an option. But so are DSP simulators that do it better at a fraction of the cost with greater flexibility and the option to turn them off.
done and done. both my Ampex ATR-102 decks have MR-70 Nuvistor tube preamps. both decks have direct out from the heads into the outboard preamps, one box per channel. the top pair for the 1/4" deck on the left, and the bottom pair for the 1/2" deck on the right. i have a switch behind to go back and forth. the decks and preamps are hot rodded. read the first post of the thread which describes the level of upgrades.
the MR 70 is a legendary late 60’s super deck. if you scroll down on this thread page you can read about it’s history.
here is a current picture with both decks and the -4- MR 70 hot rodded preamps on a rack between them. the MR 70’s surpass any newer custom output electronics.
transparent is all of those things if those things are in the recording. Transparent means the output is audibly indistinguishable from the input other than the gain. If one wants some additional seasoning then euphonically colored amps are an option. But so are DSP simulators that do it better at a fraction of the cost with greater flexibility and the option to turn them off.
i respect that unless you directly compare various solid state amps in a revealing system you might assume ’transparent’ is enough, and that transparent assumes other musical attributes. unfortunately that is not the case.
to illustrate my point here is a review of a very respected solid state amp, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the conclusion (final 3 or 4 paragraphs).
>>>"By comparison, my reference monoblocks, darTZeel’s NHB-458s, don’t grip quite as tightly as the Boulders, nor do they achieve the 2150s’ levels of transparency and solidity. What they deliver so well, especially for solid-state amps, is music’s liquidity and natural flow—due to their more generous sustain. You can’t have everything."<<<
when we look for alternatives to tube amplifiers, it’s not trivial to retain musicality and flow. these attributes come from simple elegant low parts count circuits, zero negative feedback, and amazing build quality. solid state but not strangling the music. these things are not absolutes, but there are solid state amps that are more or less musical while also being transparent. in my experience darTZeel is the most musical solid state.....in the context of this thread it’s the best tube alternative.
do you think Boulder 2160 owners think their amps are not musical? no, but have they compared them to a more musical alternative in their system?
Then you want added colorations. A perfectly legitimate personal preference. I like them too. But I use DSP for that so the transparency remains an option. Once you color your playback with a colored amp it puts that stamp on everything you play.
“ I respect that unless you directly compare various solid state amps in a revealing system you might assume ’transparent’ is enough, and that transparent assumes other musical attributes. unfortunately that is not the case.”
if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.
“to illustrate my point here is a review”
and that’s where you lose me. Subjective reviews from Stereophile or other similar publications laced with vague flowery language are of no real interest to me.
if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.
so you are an ’all modern solid state amps sound the same’ guy if they are not clipping? and that means they are transparent? so class A, class A/B. Class D. Global feedback? zero negative feedback? 50 pieces in the signal path? 10 pieces in the signal path? heavy protection circuits? not much protection circuits? heavy chassis? lightweight chassis? my 2 channel mono blocks? and my pair of 8 channel Home Theater amps?
all solid state. not clipping. all the same?
and let’s assume they are all driving a speaker with an appropriate load and impedance for the amplifier power. so we remove the speaker variable from the question. but might different amps sound different on different speakers? or would each amp sound the same assuming the power was sufficient?
scottwheel defines transparency not in a positive way...He believes in double blind test only, for sound qualia definition , then he defines transparency only in a negative way: Below a distortion limit if someone could not hear a difference this is transparency and all the rest is useless distortions or subjective illusions ...Any tube lovers is out for sure ...
I myself defines transparency in a positive acoustical way instead : it is the way the gear/system/room/ears let the recorded acoustic live event be correctly and convincingly translated from playback to your acoustic conditions ( with more or less some kind of distortions nevermind ) ... My definition is relative ...
Transparency in a negative definition by double blind test is absolute, because it ask for a threshold of distortion so low no human can hear it ...Said otherwise the best amplifier dont add anything by itself to the signal...
It is the way objectivist define a good sound without need to refer to acoustics, psycho-acoustics but only electrical measures of the gear ...
it is not even wrong ... It is why objectivism in audio is preposterous ideological position being not even wrong ...
But the great acoustic discovery in the last decade is about the way any stereo system is flawed by the crosstalk destructive effect on the spatial qualities of the recorded information of the live event for the ears ... Than transparency will be also related to a way (BACCH filters ) these spatial information could be translated in our room/ears for our brain ... Transparency is then not only and mostly an electrical notion about measured distortion it is mostly also the way the recording is translated in a room without loosing any of the recorded acoustic information even if some distortion is added 😊 ...
Scottwheel must know better then , he own the BACCH filters ...😁
«A non paradoxical man does not exist»-- Anonymus thinker🧐
if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.
I said that your definition of transparency is made in a negative way methodologically by using double blind test as an absolute standard which make possible to eliminate any distortion audible level as something added by an alleged "defective" design or by a subjective deceptive placebo illusion ......
Defining by the negative is not being negative in a psychological way ...
My own definition of transparency using acoustic, nevermind the presence of illusory or real distortion, is a positive way methodologically related to the way recorded information is translated acoustically in some other acoustic t context plus or less transparently relatively to the initial recorded acoustics conditions ...It is why as an example of transparent translation of acoustic information i refer to the BACCH filters which you own yourself...This is an example which explain my positive definition of transparency... This definition is positive because it appeal only to the presence of positive acoustics factors ( as timbre and spatial information etc ) not to an eliminative selection test as double blind test ...
I dont try to speak for you ...
I added the posts where you vouch only for double blind test against subjectivist audiophiles and the posts where you vouch for "transparency" in gear design ... If i add these two posts of you together, my last post is my interpretation of your position ...
Correct me if i interpreted you wrong ...
Please don’t try to speak for me. I don’t define transparency. It has its own definition. And there is nothing “negative” about it.
The interpretation is not an accurate account of my beliefs. So I guess I should make myself more clear at this point. Transparency in audio is an utter lack of any *audible* distortions between a component’s input and output. ABX DBTs are an effective way of determining real audible differences. I have never made any reference to a placebo effect.
You are right , you never accused any subjectivist audiophiles of placebo effect in the posts i read from you ...As do most objectivist audio tech ...But double blindtest is precisely a means to eliminate placebo effect or any other biases ...😁
But for the rest my description correspond to your opinion it seems ...
Transparency for me is not only a notion associated with gear design ( distortions or not) but also a notion associated with the room translation of the acoustic perceived information coming from the recording ...The gear design is a factor at play for sure , with or without pleasant or disruptive distortions, but for me acoustics as with the BACCH filters or the room /speakers/ears relation as in room acoustic play a great part in the information retrieval and the more transparent possible acoustic translation ...
Simply said we can imagine that the best amplifier will or must or may disapear and will only convey transparently the acoustic recorded information, but in stereo system we need more, we need the room acoustic positive addition and contribution and we even need the BACCH filters as you already know yourself owning them ...
In one sentence : we cannot exclude acoustics experience and concepts from the definition of "transparency" and limited the experience of transparency to mere gear design ... Than using blindtest and only gear supposed to be distortionless as wished by some, is not enough to understand "transparency" as an acoustic experience ... Because the recorded information must be retrieved and convey for some specific ears and specific head in specific room ...
I am not an expert for sure ... This is only my opinion ...
The interpretation is not an accurate account of my beliefs. So I guess I should make myself more clear at this point. Transparency in audio is an utter lack of any *audible* distortions between a component’s input and output. ABX DBTs are an effective way of determining real audible differences. I have never made any reference to a placebo effect.
“You are right , you never accused any subjectivist audiophiles of placebo effect in the posts i read from you”
When audiophiles perceive audible differences where non exist in casual non level matched non time synchronized comparisons it isn’t due to a placebo effect. It is due to how we hear, process and remember sound. We can not effectively compare an aural memory to real time sound. So while it may seem the same as a placebo it is not. The aural memory is incomplete and was filtered by steered focus.
But we cannot hear without an aural memory biases set, trained or untrained, engrammed in the body metabolism and not only in the brain ...Our focussed attention is like a children on the back shoulders of our giant aural memories history so to speak which walk always with us ... Even babies had one in the womb ... the focus of attention is not born from a virgin without father so to speak ...😊
It is because of these trained set of biases that musicians can beat more than 10 times the Fourier limits or Gabor limits about signals localization between frequency and time ...
Then supposing an ideal pure "sound" out of any biases is preposterous and an ideological proposition by objectivist crowd ...
By the way placebo does not means deceptive and illusory as in the vocabulary of the objectivist, in the opposite placebo work on the same neurological locus than a drug on the nervous system to help the self healing process ...It is a fact in medecine ...
Then using placebo concept as an illusion or aside effect compared to a real drug is a simplistic ideology or an interessed bias to favor and /or prove statistically that a drug can be effective or not ...Placebo is a very complex concept used by mothers , wise doctors, publicist, but also statisticians in the drug industry or any other industry etc because it work really as a drug work and must be eliminated to asess the power and effectiveness of other contributing factors as a drug etc ...
In the same way the sound qualities are perceived in the context of an aural history ... We can artificially disconnect this aural memory from the direct momentaneous sound experience but it is artificial and did not disprove the existence of a perceived quality always and in all case ... It just put them aside for the ideological standpoint that allege that sound quality are ONLY subjective biases that must be eliminated ...It is not even wrong ... And it is not right either because sound qualities may also convey objective information as qualia ... Then blindtest dont tell all the story there is to tell about sound experience...
When audiophiles perceive audible differences where non exist in casual non level matched non time synchronized comparisons it isn’t due to a placebo effect. It is due to how we hear, process and remember sound. We can not effectively compare an aural memory to real time sound. So while it may seem the same as a placebo it is not. The aural memory is incomplete and was filtered by steered focus
When audiophiles perceive audible differences where non exist in casual non level matched non time synchronized comparisons it isn’t due to a placebo effect. It is due to how we hear, process and remember sound. We can not effectively compare an aural memory to real time sound. So while it may seem the same as a placebo it is not. The aural memory is incomplete and was filtered by steered focus.
“so you are just a common run of the mill ASR troll. have a nice day.”
aren’t you the same Mike Lavigne who was challenged to a blind test between your Rockport Sirius III turntable and a digital copy of it made on a Tascam digital recorder and failed to hear any differences? Are you really someone who should be labeling other audiophiles and dismissing them? Didn’t you learn your lesson?
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
