Hi folks, is the so called holographic imaging with many tube amplifiers an artifact? With solid state one only hears "holographic imaging" if that is in the recording, but with many tube amps you can hear it all the time. So solid state fails in this department? Or are those tube amps not telling the truth?
Just looked at the original question again.....Solid state amps can and do give a holographic soundstage.....the amp just needs to be highly transparent. But the same goes for tube amps too.
I read my post again and thought few clarifications are called for. Tubes does give you the 3D sound stage but not artificially deep, wide or etched and 'holographic' the way term means to me.
In my experience Tube equipment does give instrument tones and textures approaching 3d as compared to SS. (The primary reason I switched to all tube equipment). The 3 dimensional sound stage enhancement ( as compared to SS) that is needed to be holographic, I have not experienced that much in my all tube system. May be it is room dependent. My old SS gear probably had more of the 3d sound stage but not 3d instruments, but then tonal balance suffered in the process
I tend to think the claim of that German preamp proabably more alluding to the 3d instruments sound than the 3d sound stage.
I almost want to say that if you have perfect 3D sound stage on a regular basis, you might have imperfect (thinnish mids) tonal balance. IME of course.
How do you know when something is a marketing "trick?" Until recently I have found many tube amps that give a great sense of having depth to the image. Some were more able to have depth on the sides while some only had it in the center.
Some ss amps, such as the Cello and the little 47 Labs 25 watter did not have as much depth but retained in on the sides. The Exemplar had great depth in the center but less on the sides.
I guess I would agree that there was greater probability that tube had depth to their sound stage. But that is not the issue.
I'm sorry guys, once more, here another example of a (German) high-end manufacturer of tube electronics who refers to 3D imaging as a quality factor.
Quote: The EK***SE is a true class A line stage pre-amp. Designed for the audiophiles who want pure analog with the highest quality sound available, without the price of one. The quality of sound is a dream come true, with a true 3 dimensional sound. Where the depth of instruments and their location, the warmth and transparency puts you in a world where only few have been. You will discover that your music has details that were held back and now are being revealed.
It is striking that many manufacturers of tube electronics use this 3D "quality" to underscore the stregth of their products. Question: is referring to 3D quality in fact a marketing trick?
"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."
I would tend to agree.
I don't think the Corvette/Pinto analogy holds well in this case.
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.
The Mapleshade label, for example, uses different than norm recording technique, where microphones ( usually only two) placed on each side of human head shape fixture to resemble left and right human ears at the 'correct' height from floor. In addition, there is no additional processing to the signal. And then there are other basic good recording practices being employed at the same time, like shortest possible cables from mics. All combined generates pretty different and realistic sound quality- in a right (well balanced) system, where you get some of the bloom and air that a real live music event generates. In less than stellar system (My old components), sound quality is still comes across as real sounding minus the air and bloom.
In both cases, IME, holographic sound is not to be found
I am sure there are other labels employing similar techniques..
I don't know if we're there yet categorically but I am of the opinion that there is no good technical reason I know of why it should be a big problem these days.
My ears may not be the gold standard, but in general I am not hearing sound issues with digital sources that I can clearly attribute to jitter.
Poor or at least flawed recordings seem to be the culprit in most every case where I hear clear deficiencies IMO, and this has been getting better over time as well.
You think great DACs are realtively immune to the transport use? I always naively[?] felt thgat a good DAC should be able to deal with whatever jitter the source might present; maybe we are there
Interesting question - I wonder what experts think?
I suspect some DAC's are becoming relatively immune to digital source and jitter. Clocks and algorithms continue to improve so inherent jitter reduction is improving also (we went from PLL to double PLL's to buffering and asynchonous sampling). However not all forms of jitter are the same so the quality of the rejection may vary depending on what the source is creating. Some will reject a greater variety and a greater level of jitter than others so in essence they might sound the same with most transports. Of course some combinations, even older ones, may just happen to work really well, as the transport jitter is just the type that the PLL loop can deal with.
An old AES paper showed that certain forms of 20 nanosec jitter were inaudible - this is a huge amount by modern standards - so if people hear jitter artifacts then it may not even be an issue of "how much jitter" at all but a more sinister issue of "what type of jitter". If you consider source music and jitter may be related to eachother (IMD) then there are probably an infinite number of combinations. Added variables are that one may not be able to hear it, or your speakers may hide/mask it, or the track may be hypercompressed (other distortion dominates), or the track was recorded with a jittery A to D in the first place (so nothing can fix it)
I suspect we are way closer to jitter immmunity to the point of inaudibility than we were in the 80's and even the 90's. I wonder what others think - Are we really there?
What jitter sounds like, if present, and whether it matters to an extent that is significant is a very nebulous thing still to me.
I think the only way to conclusively know how two different digital sources sound through a particular DAC and whether there is a difference that matters, is to compare and listen and share your findings.
Listen with a reference source first then another source for comparison and see if a difference can be detected.
So far, in my case both Denon player and Roku Soundbridge sound more alike than different running through the same DAC. Both sound way different and I think better as well to me now running through the tubed DAC than they did running through their own built in native DACS prior. Also prior, through each units own internal DAC, each sounded very different, particularly in regard to dynamics.
You think great DACs are realtively immune to the transport use? And if so, is that a recent development? Seems like a while back, the transport was viewed as being just as important. In a review of my Accustic Arts DAC, the reviewer found that whatever source he used with it seem to have little effect - he was sure the compoany did not want to hear as they sell a fairly expensive transport as well (that I happen to own). I always naively[?] felt thgat a good DAC should be able to deal with whatever jitter the source might present; maybe we are there.
"I totally agree with this, but didn't think that it could be done for under $1000."
I'm not sure how much it must cost to get a particular sound, but I would say with certainty that $1000 spent on a good DAC that you can feed somehow from any decent digital source will probably get you a good bit further than $1000 spent on a complete CD player.
"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.
"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."
I've found recently adding a <$1000 tube DAC (mhdt Paradisea in my case)can help provide more of the common benefits mentioned that many associate with a more analog sound with digital source media.
I'm finding this to be true regardless of whether the source is a Wifi networked PC music server or a $600 CD player/recorder in my case.
How the DAC does its thing to produce the intended sound seems to be of more importance than the digital nature of the source.
"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.
Norm, (:Please forgive me, I could not resist the temptation. (: Chris, Not necessarily, I've found. But if you mean by palpability something closer to what could be called "natural", then yes, I would agree.
ROFLMAO: Goldeneraguy, Tbg, you are both so right: We did sometimes have to use HEALTH kits (Tbg your spelling ((: ! ) and DIY with or between girlfriends- ahem gear.
There must have been a great deal of satisfaction of building your own amp, truly yours. I'd be afraid of starting a fire, but the idea has alot of appeal - talk about pride of ownership.
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.
