There's little difference in the imaging of properly functioning SS and tube equipment. Dark Side of the Moon, Radiohead, I Robot are a few "holographic" recordings that fill one end of the room with an image as tall and wide as the room and much deeper. That's done with out of phase signals. If your two-channel, tube system throws images way beyond the speakers with an orchestra playing Mahler, then there's something wrong.
SS does not "fail" at imaging and I don't think that tube amps do either; however, one that throw images that are not in the recording are failing.
Have you got some specific examples?
Dave |
I don't think he's talkinga about "bloom" Mapman. I'm wondering if he heard those other amps in the same system, with the speakers in the same position. If so, then we've got something to talk about. If not, then he's likely talking about speaker-room interaction more so than amp.
My SS has great transparency, depth and body, but I think that's mostly due to very careful speaker placement, by a pro. Any system, SS or tube, with carefully placed high quality speakers, attention to vibration control, using high quality electronics will present an image with palpable depth and sense of lifelike image. Attributing it to tubes is folly.
BTW, IMHO, tubes should not add bloom and, IME, the best do not (ARC, Lamm, etc.). Bloom is usually a euphonic distortion that you might find in some lower quality tube rigs.
Dave |
"Bloom" is a term that can be good or bad, depending on degree. Just as "bass" can be overdone, so can "bloom". I think of bloom as the overtones and air around an instrument or voice. As someone said, it's 3-D rather than a one-dimensional cardboard cutout.
Bloom is generally pleasing and, just as with bass, some systems add too much. Ideally, a great system can extract and present the bloom in a recording without adding more than is really there. It's hard to judge what's right. ARC, Lamm and most other high end tube designs don't add bloom, but I do hear it in some of the lesser tube designs. Some users prefer that sound and it tends to be euphonic.
Dave |
Chris, you can't answer your question without hearing the original performance, which we seldom have the opportunity to do. This is one reason that attending a lot of classical performances develops a useful reference. This listening experience doesn't give you an ironglad judgement as to what's "right" and what's "artificial", but it does help.
I say that the very best tube and the very best SS are equally accurate. Added bloom or holigraphic effect are not part of the best systems. I'm talking about brands like ARC, BAT, Lamm, Rolwand, Boulder, Ayre, etc. They're very, very close, no matter what the owner of a particular unit may say. None "blows away" the others at this level.
When you hear an amp or pre that immediately strikes you as warm, extra rich, larger than real image, then some euphonic coloration has probably been added, usually on purpose by the designer. These systems attract a lot of followers and can give their owners much satisfaction.
If you don't get to hear a lot of live music, then try to hear a really great system with some of the brands that I mentioned. Take your favorite recording and see how it compares to what you're used to. There's more than one way to develop your references.
Dave |
Mapman, what horns have you heard that are omni-like? I find that very surprising.
Dave |
Mapman, thanks for your further thoughts. That makes more sense to me now.
DAve |
I think that bloom is a natural event that occurs in real, acoustic music. Some might call it "air" but to me it's the overtones and ambiance of a live music scene or event. So a trumpet player plays a ringing high C, there's a "brrr" of the bell that's the overtones adding the trumpets characteristic edge to the sound and that's all mixed with the room reflections and other instruments.
Atmasphere seems to have chosen to define bloom as an artificial event, distortion. I think that bloom is just like frequency response, it can be accurate or not. Added bloom is unnatural and to be avoided, just like a hump in the frequency response at 60 hz is to be avoided. Both are inaccurate and both types of distortion can be euphonically pleasant in certain contexts.
As I've said before, IME, the best SS and tube components have very accurate imaging and get bloom and frequency response right. Some lesser equipment adds bloom and holography to get peoples attention, but it's not good in the long run for most of us. At the top of the heap, both tube and SS are very good in all these respects.
Dave |
In my experience, there's very little difference in the holographic abilities of tubes vs. SS. Listen for yourself and decide for yourself without regard to one technology vs. the other. Listen for the overall presentation, with your speakers, preferable in your room. When you find well designed equipment the differences will melt away.
Dave |
Mapman, many of us associate holography with out-of-phase signals. Dark Side of the Moon and I Robot and Radiohead didn't get those huge images by accurately recording a performance in a real space. That's all done with signal manipulation. Carver does the same thing.
It can be very impressive to listen to, but it's not "real" except in the context that people like Alan Parsons meant it to sound that way. I love those recordings, but when I listen to the San Francisco Symphony play Mahler, I don't want it.
A system that adds it is performing a stunt, not unlike putting an effects pedal downstream from a guitar. Yes, it can be attractive, but is it the sound of the guitar, no.
Let's not confuse soundstage, bloom, depth, etc. with holography. One set of terms describes a real musical scene and the other describes an artificial effect.
Dave |
I think Tvad nailed it, there are two camps.
Mapman can go on and on about the advantages of whatever we're talking about, but he'll never convince those of us in Camp 1, me included, that what he's proposing is desired in our systems. Likewise, Camp 2 isn't going to like what I propose and it'll be found "lacking."
Dave |
Tvad, this moving of the image to in front of the speakers and way outside the speakers it typcially achieved with out of phase signals or room interactions. "I Robot", DSOTM and "In Rainbows" are recording examples that should fill a 180-degree image from the listening position in two-channel stereo, because the engineers added lots of phase anomalies in mixing.
To the outer edge of the speakers and with lots of depth from the front plane to beyond the rear wall is more typcial. It's unrelated to tubes vs. SS, IME.
When you start hearing an unusually large image (well beyond the speakers and/or with unusual height) that'll be due to some phase anomaly and it's usually not "accurate." A high ceiling (particularly with a dome), oddly shaped sidewalls and other room irregularities can contribute hugely to this. If you hear it due entirely because of electronics, then there may be some designed in phase shifting to create more than is really there on the recording. Carver actually made a living for a good while doing this.
It's not a tube vs. SS thing. Put ARC and Rowland side by side and you may notice some very small imaging differences, but one won't be "holographic" and the other not.
Dave |
Tvad said:
"Now, having just owned an ARC Reference 3 preamp, I agree it does not create a holographic image. Nothing as compared to the Atma-Sphere MP-1 or Lamm LL2 Deuxe preamps I owned."
So you're saying that you prefer the Atma-Sphere and Lamm to the ARC??
Dave |
Thanks for your contribution here Atmasphere. Several in this thread don't seem to appreciate or understand your contributions, but your input is very useful and your actual experience is particularly valuable to me.
The thread shows that some audiophiles are clearly enamored with holography, whether accurate or not. You explanation of why some tube amps add holographic effect help me what I've heard in a few amps, but didn't understand.
Dave |
Chris asked:
"Do you think that with vinyl there is a higher palpability factor and also better rendering of depth (and therefore better "holographic" imaging)?"
Not in my experience when using very good digital equipment; however, at the lower end of the price scale, say under #1000 per component, then analog tends to trump digital in almost every respect.
Dave |
Mapman said:
"How the DAC does its thing to produce the intended sound seems to be of more importance than the digital nature of the source."
I totally agree with this, but didn't think that it could be done for under $1000.
Running my $180 Oppo through my Playback Design MPS-5's DAC makes the Oppo sound better than an Emm, IMHO. Transports and sources are important, but the DAC is more important, IME.
Dave |
|
Bill, we're talking about the relative value of the DAC vs. the transport. Apparently you can't hear well enough to realize that a DAC is a very important component in the digital chain.
Do you dispute my finding? Have you run an Oppo's digital-out signal through a dCS or Emm DAC? (I know that you're very unlikely to have done it with the PD). If so, wasn't the improvement large and dramatic, or did you hear next to nothing? I DO concede that preference for the Emm vs. the PD is a personal sound preference, but I know several people, including myself that prefer the PD sound to the Emm sound. Both are very good, IME.
To a degree, Emm has supported this finding by using relatively inexpensive transports in their combo players. Of course, they use way better quality than Oppo, but not as high a quality as the Esoteric or the proprietery high-end transports. Despite this, their CD/SACD players are highly respected.
Still, IMHO, a good transport can add a significant performance increment to a good DAC, but the DAC is relatively more important by several orders of magnitude. (When I speak of the DAC I'm referring to the whole DAC/Clocking sampling/timing scheme, not just the DAC in isolation). Analog I/O is also very important to the end result. The very best players put all these elements together.
Dave |
Mapman said:
"I don't think the Corvette/Pinto analogy holds well in this case."
Yeah, maybe Bill owned a Pinto once and just wanted to use that comment in a post.
Dave |
