"Inferior equipment"? You sound like the Borg [not the tennis player].
This hobby is about enjoying music, therefore the importance of "accuracy" isn't necessarily THE primary attribute an audiophile seeks to attain, but just one of the MANY.
Krell??!! I guess if you're an emotionless bot, heheh. |
Thanks for giving me the green light Marco!!
I'll go fire up the Uncle Fester dungeon while you clean off the cobwebs in Grandpa Munsters' laboratory!
While I'm at it, I'll dig up Uncle Fester's funnel barrel shotgun and shoot 'm in the back!!
Jiwitn, would you mind turning around?
Better yet, I'll get a carot scraper and scoop out the mucus membranes in your nostrils. Then I'll make you suck two Mentholatem Eucalyptus cough drops up your nose.
Yeah, that's the ticket. |
Hey Mejames, Marco and me ain't heated. We're just glad we have a new victim to experiment on! LOL! |
Well..where are the other 92.7333333333% of audiophiles out there that have yet to post in here so we can look better than them lawyers?
I am immature and I am underdeveloped. And I have such an incredible build up of ear wax that if one looked close enough you could see the lifelike figures of Captain Jiwitn and his crew of solid state Romulans standing at their stations on the bridge of the Starship Krelluranus. Yet despite those flaws I can still discern enough detail to appreciate the warmth and lifelike presentation of tubes.
Now where's that Queen Borg? She's got the sexiest teeth this side of the Queen Alien...or my production manager.
Here Slappy, Slappy... |
Actually, that is a good point Jiwitn, I wouldn't match B&Ws with tube gear either. In my opinion, they are built around different philosophies and tastes.
Everytime I've heard B&Ws, I felt they were too analytical and lost interest quite quickly. For me, the extra detail didn't enhance the musical experience, but detracted from it.
When I've heard live instruments whether acoustic or amplified they've never sounded as steril as many of the SS rigs I've heard. But the whole "live" issue is a whole 'nother can of nightcrawlers.
I agree that sometimes I perk up when I hear details in a resolving SS system. But those are almost always treble cues and after the novelty wears off I ultimately find the experience unrewarding.
On the other hand, I feel that tube gear usually has much better midrange information, and since most of the music lies in this area I get a better spatial sense and for me a more "real" performance.
I feel the argument surrounding "accuracy" is really pointless, because what is the standard? The only thing that is important is every listener's own standard. |
Shubert, while going deep into the technical aspects of each camera format and missing Marco's point entirely, you actually justified his analogy in a round about manner, heheh.
And, what kind of tube equipment are you using that loses tubes in two weeks? Maybe you live close to the event horizon of a black hole and therefore have 17,520 hours each day?
Again, what's this whole issue of perfect and accurate?
This is like arguing who's hotter, Salma Hayek, Roselyn Sanchez or Monica Belluche. They're all incredibly beautiful women but in different ways.
You could fight about this all day until you're green in the nutsack, but what's the point? I work with a guy that thinks Martha Stewart is hotter than them all!
We're not robots and THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SOUND! |
Damn it! After reading Shubert's post I thought there was some new technology that somehow yielded digital information directly from an 8 x 10 film camera without having to scan a chrome or neg. Thanks for bursting my bubble Marco!
I'll try to draw another ANALogy. For the last eight years I've been a digital retoucher at a major motion picture studio in Los Angeles. My job is to fix tits, asses and wrinkles on hot chicks that have their own TV shows, and composite them into goofy scenrios that might not exist in real life. Basically, I make hot chicks and not so hot chicks...look hotter. Yeah, I'm a Photoshop Fag. The files I work with can sometimes get close to four gigabytes big. Lot's of information and lot's of resolution. For my kind of work and what the files will be ultimately used for high resolution is almost always important.
A few years ago when I decided to start experimenting with photography as an extension of my "art" outside of work, I sought the advice of a Dallas based photographer who specializes in the female form.
After long discussions he convinced me that I might enjoy my initial foray into photography more if I went the digital [solid state?] route. After twenty or so years as a pro shooter he dumped his dark room in favor of Photoshop and an Epson inkjet printer, and now shoots only digitally. I know Marco must be yelling "blasphemy!" right now, heheh. This photographer thought that in my case just getting a digital camera and a good printer was all I needed to start since I'm already an image manipulator by trade. Sounds a bit like a novice audiophile starting off with a solid state integrated amp, huh?
On the other hand, when discussing megapixels he made an interesting remark that I never forgot. He said, "more pixels or a sharper image isn't necessarily better..." Without him explaining, I knew exactly what he meant. Over the years, I've seen some incredibly beautiful images created with simple no-frills film [tubes?] cameras. Higher resolution or more information wouldn't enhance their beauty one iota. And I'd be hard pressed to duplicate some of the effects in these film images through digital means. Conversely, I know that I can do many things much easier in Photoshop than can be achieved in a darkroom.
I approach listening to music in a similar manner to creating fine art. While there are technical aspects in achieving both, the goal isn't technical. Whether I am moved by analog, digital, solid state or tubes doesn't matter one bit, as long as I am fulfilled by the result.
I realize what I may love about tubes is their distortion. I also prefer curvy, earthy Latin, Mediterranean women over squeeky clean blondes [some of 'em look like black and white film negatives to me]. Am I saying one is better? No. I just happen to prefer one more than other.
Likewise, it's useless to argue over which approach to amplification is better, especially based on "accuracy". One might as well start a discussion thread entitled "Clean Shaven, Trim or Hairy Momma Bush". |
I like broccoli.
It's an awesome colonic catalyst that's useful while levitating your girlfriend off the bed when you give her a Dutch Oven.
If your tube equipment is on while you perform, the extra warmth in the room enhances the sweet aroma. |
Slappy,
I had a look at your virtual system being that you're an evil SS type and hoping to find pics of some neat gothic/modernist pentagrams in your rug and saw some of the coolest pictures on the 'GoN'.
For the next update of my VS I'm gonna get "Slappy" and post some strange ass pictures of my rig! |
Aggie, I definitely can't dispute your choice, brother! I guess a better way of me stating my preference is that I enjoy eating both vanilla and chocolate ice cream. But I'll get more scoops of chocolate, heheh. |
Holy shee-ott, look at all these new posts! This is getting far too intellectual for my dumb ass. I'm going back to fixing tits. |
"Oh yes, film is still more accurate than digital. Ask any good photographer"
Yeah, but in most cases a scanned neg or chrome doesn't res up as well as a good digital file. Ask and any good retoucher. :) |
Heheh, Slappy, no matter how many people slap you, you can't be kept down!
You're right, and I don't get it either, why do so many people need to convince others their own opinions are the correct one. Why does it matter? Listening to music is art, not science, and that's why how a component "tests" or how "accurate" it is is irrelevant to me.
For the record, I use both solid state and tubes. |
