|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
64.122.72.31
In Reply to: RE: Who thinks SS systems are generally more "truthful" than SET systems posted by Frihed89 on March 30, 2015 at 12:57:31
Do you have access to the master file or tape of the recording that you are using for reference?
One problem that has to be overcome in a conversation like this is the fact that our ears don't work the same way as the specs on paper. And what really relates to this thread is the simple fact that a SS amp may have less distortion on paper but the distortion is has is really audible to the human ear because the ear uses higher ordered harmonics as cues to determine how loud a sound actually is. Which is to say that it is far more sensitive to these harmonics than it is to the lower ordered harmonics, such that 0.005% is easily audible.
This is a fundamental human hearing rule. If an amplifier is particularly sinful in this area (and most SS amps are) is it more or less accurate and more or less truthful?
I don't agree with Tre- there is a 'truth' but before we can discuss that somehow the issue above has to get sorted first and don't hold your breath. We might be able to solve it here but the industry will continue on its steamroller way and pay no attention at all (after all, this human hearing rule was sorted out in the 1960s...)
Follow Ups:
There are a whole bunch ov assumptions in there.
Odd HD is not the only reason SS sounds objectionable to some. I am not quite ready to buy into the idea that the usual SS is cranking out enough to drive folks nutty. It is a nice label to attach, no doubt about it. Also, it assumes that even HD is not objectionable or noticeable...IME, tube stuff with the usual SE spectrum of HD turns my ears right off. Totally unacceptable.
So what contributes to SE working as well as it does? Gapped iron for one, as well as short signal path and a minimum of amplification stages come to mind.
Take for example, SS has variable input capacitance. Try listening to something built around a circuit that eliminates that effect.
cheers,
Douglas
Friend, I would not hurt thee for the world...but thou art standing where I am about to shoot.
Its not really assumptions, at least not on my part. I've been at this a long time, seen it, heard it and measured it.
Semiconductors often have variable input capacitance. Usually it is non-linear and varies with the current through the device. Some devices, like varactor diodes, take advantage of this 'feature' (ala Microsoft) and are used as a variable capacitance source for tuning FM radios. If you have a car made after about 1979, this is likely how the FM is tuned in it.
This non-linear capacitance contributes to odd-ordered harmonic generation as well as IM. This is *part* of the reason you have to run a fair amount of feedback in most SS designs to get them to work.
The problem is that the application of feedback also causes small amounts of higher ordered harmonics (see Norman Crowhurst). Of course you could just add more feedback and reduce that further, but to do that the amp has to have more gain requiring even more feedback. Its a carrot on a stick.
Note that I tend to say 'higher ordered' harmonics as evens above the 4th are not all that musical to the human ear.
The trick of course with SETs is to keep the power output on the low side (usually less that 20% of full power on peaks) if you want to really hear what the SET does. Almost any SET has a distortion curve that falls to unmeasurable as power is decreased. This is part of that great 'inner detail' that people talk about. Your typical SS amp has distortion that decreases to a point and then rises at power levels below that point.
Due to the ear's masking principle the signal is thus robbed of low level detail.
Disclaimer: Some generalization is employed for brevity.
"The trick of course with SETs is to keep the power output on the low side (usually less that 20% of full power on peaks) if you want to really hear what the SET does. Almost any SET has a distortion curve that falls to unmeasurable as power is decreased. This is part of that great 'inner detail' that people talk about."
This is why I think with SETs you have to use something super efficient like horns, bi amp, or the like. It's the only way you can get 10 to 12db of headroom out of a three watt amp. Plus what you just said.
Big speakers and little amps blew my mind!
Unless of course you have a 200W SET.
-
"I don't agree with Tre"
Ralph, I'm shocked. :-)
You don't agree that the listener needs to educate himself first as to what real acoustic instruments sound like by seeking out live performances of unamplified acoustic music?
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
It was dadbar I didn't agree with, not you.
Sorry about that.
I celebrate your ability to disagree with me.
The point I was making is that I don't really care about what the music should "really" sound like as long as I am totally enjoying what I hear out of my own system.
I have 7 systems set up around my living envelope (SET, PP, tube, SS) and they all sound very different (much of the difference comes from the room environment, too). Nonetheless, I enjoy listening to them all.....at least 6 of them are not "truthful" but it doesn't matter to me.
"The point I was making is that I don't really care about what the music should "really" sound like as long as I am totally enjoying what I hear out of my own system. '
That is the way most people feel about the subject but the original goal of the hobby, Hi-Fi, was to reproduce as accurately as possible the sound of the original event.
Since we can't control the recording process, reproducing the recording as accurately as possible is all we can do.
There is nothing wrong with having a different goal but having a different goal means that it's a different hobby.
I call it "Happy, Happy sound machine" with no real disrespect intended.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
LMAO. Happy Happy here!
I wouldn't call it a severe disagreement really. And I get what you are saying :)
I spend a lot of time in the recording studio and one thing that is abundantly clear is that you can't record what you can hear. Its as simple as that.
So as a result IMO/IME the best you can do is be true to the microphones (and then do your best to place them correctly).
While in the recording booth, usually one tends to think of the headphones as the most accurate, but if you rely on them you will get yourself in trouble pretty quick. They only work if the recording is strictly two microphones/two channels and that's all. Music recording is not about 'truth' the way a court of law might be (which is also debatable...). Its malleable in the way that mic placement yields different results and you have to sort out what is going to work best between the 'phones and the speakers. I do find though that tube mic preamps generally will sound better than solid state, as will a tube recorder, which trumps all things except direct to disc; all that and the amplifier choice is still down the road.
I do find though that even the best solid state amps will impart a brightness that does not otherwise exist in the recording or microphones. In that way I see almost any tube amp as more 'truthful' or accurate.
.
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: