|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.241.205.115
In Reply to: RE: I want to add.... posted by Winston Smith on October 14, 2015 at 03:47:39
Let's not convolute our common language. To rely on others' experiences and data is NOT religion - that's called a 2nd opinion via third party experiences, which is exactly what we both offered the OP. Science is based on good method, experimentation, and both qualitative and quantitative data. As far as the OP, we've both done our jobs by supplying/inundating him with information to think about.
I think the marketing element is VERY important. It drives us to buy things with varying degrees of blind faith in the product. Look at Volkswagen! They continued to market their cars regardless of the well-known emissions issues, and people trustfully bought their cars believing in the quality. Just as well if they didn't market cryo tubes, we wouldn't be asking for them. Plus, the standing interest of making money has little to nothing to do with listening impressions. I'm not saying these resellers are shysters. Again, between batching, matching, and burn-in, that's a lot of work. And, if the cryo data says it's up in the air and up to the listener, well, why would the reseller even argue with that? Just cryo the tubes. Just like people might still buy or keep a Volkswagen...
If you can hear it, you can measure it at the output with some frequency analysis at different operating points: a rise or fall on a microvolt or microamp, increased or decreased distortion levels, background noise, a small change in transfer characteristics, small changes in the effective plate resistance, etc. I really believe that if cryoing tubes really had merit, I think manufacturers would have adopted the process to reduce reject rates, increase yields, and reap more profits from their already limited production runs. The second someone puts out solid data proving the margins, I'd gladly agree that cryotreating tubes works, and you will likely see manufacturers join the game. Even if it was a 1-5% change at the scope'n'calc, it's definitely something a trained ear can pick up. It's like using a 5751 in a 12AX7 circuit; it increases the tube's bandwidth potential, which is both measurable and audible. Until then, the subject is confused at best and we must wait evermore for the final word/numbers on the effects of cryo.
And not to poopoo the parade anymore than I have, there some who would say the airiness, spaciousness, and warmth you mentioned is effectively euphonic distortion associated to microphonics. Consider again the gentleman who reviewed all those 12AX7 tubes, from the regular stock, to the cherry-picked gold pin stuff, to a few sets of cryo'ed tubes. He says cryo treatement rendered the internals of his tubes more brittle and subject to microphonics. So, are the listening impressions you've shared a fact of controlled microphonics? And not to get deeper into this rabbit hole, but if you could evaluate opinions, why is yours more valid than his? And to further my point, the results will vary on the setup and listening levels. It's very possible someone with a very isolated system would hear no difference, yet someone without the isolation and dampening will hear a considerable difference. And from what I have read, that's the kind of variability that exists. One guy's setup is like this, another's is like that. One guy has the amp set aside in a separate room, another has his on a concrete slab footed with tennis balls. Some use a cage. Some use dampeners. Some use fancy cables. I guess my point is: do we really know what our ears are hearing, and how do I know what your ears are hearing?
Ultimately, It's like you say, YMMV. But, given the variability of our ears, gear, setups, room acoustics, whatever, the only thing that will really settle the issue is to isolate the issue and dig for hard data. Personally, my listening impressions can vary with the humidity in the air, whether I blew my nose earlier, and if I cleaned my ears in the last 48 hours. I've adjusted small settings back and forth on my setup a thousand times and found an improvement, only to flip back because I found I was just habituated to a certain tonal signature.
So, sorry, I cannot "get over it" just by washing my ideas in some anecdotes - THAT would be unscientific.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
Follow Ups:
...but you wasted all that time writing something I didn't bother reading. Too bad.
Believe what you want, no problem.
But when you go around telling people they didn't hear what they reported, well, it's time to say, adios, amoeba!
(Must burn your butt to know I got the last word, and you didn't Hee-hee!)
"But when you go around telling people they didn't hear what they reported, well, it's time to say, adios, amoeba!"I can sympathise with your feeling, but how would you counter the observation that there clearly exist people who sincerely believe that they hear phenomena that are imagined? A look at the "Tweakers' Forum" will show that there are people who have convinced themselves that they hear differences that are not real. How is an outside observer, who quite properly approaches the subject with a healthy scepticism, to weed out the chaff from the wheat?
The answer clearly cannot be that one should never reject claims unless one has tried them oneself. If I make an obviously ridiculous claim, such as that the soundstage is improved by burying a teapot at the bottom of the garden, you would not, I hope, feel that you would have to test it yourself before rejecting the assertion? It is reasonable to apply some measure of common sense, and make use of the accumulated understanding of basic physical principles, in order to decide sometimes that a claimed effect does not need to be tested in order to be rejected without testing.
Some of the claims on the "tweakers' forum" are almost as manifestly absurd as my manufactured example above. And yet, those who make those claims are, I presume, sincere in their belief that they really do hear a difference. Thus, the mere fact that somebody asserts that they hear something and they "trust their ears" cannot, of itself, be sufficient as an argument to expect others to accept it. And, indeed, since it is well established that the brain can easily be fooled into perceiving sensations that are not real, even the person reporting the effect should be willing to admit to themselves the possibility that they are imagining what they think they hear. Double-blind testing seems to be about the only way to eliminate these possibilities.
Chris
Edits: 10/17/15
Wait, what? What was that? I couldn't hear you over the money I saved not turning my tubes into icicles.
And I'll bet you did read it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
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: