|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
99.234.172.233
In Reply to: RE: You do understand my point, correct? posted by ivan_terrible on February 23, 2016 at 09:09:29
Deciding which tubes sound good and which sound bad is a purely subjective pursuit, like most things in audio. You can go up the blind A or B testing road to get some "scientific" angle, but really what's the point?
You hear a tube in your amp and decide if you like it or not. Then something else comes along and you decide if it is better than the first tube. You do this long enough and you create a rating scale. Many other people do the same thing in their amps. They come up with their own ratings. On a forum, somebody asks for a opinion on a certain tube. The people who have experimented with that tube chime in with their opinions. Sometimes a consensus forms, with many different people using that tube in their equipment responding the same way about the way the tube sounds. This is not bullshit, but it is not exactly scientific either. Does that make the general opinion on that tube wrong?
Not sure of your points regarding mass production other than to say that 2 (6sn7s) tubes from the same company may sound different. I agree but find the better the tube the less variation in production. That's why I generally prefer NOS tubes. With them the variability is generally tied to prior use and or abuse.
Regarding hearing loss at high frequencies, since 90% of most music (just a guesstimate I admit) is between 100hZ and 4000hZ why does this mean us old men (I am 53) can't judge the sound of a tube? Should all us old men sell our stereos and switch to Bose radios?
Edits: 02/23/16 02/23/16Follow Ups:
"Deciding which tubes sound good and which sound bad is a purely subjective pursuit, like most things in audio."
Couldn't disagree more.
If everything is subjective then there is no point in doing anything properly, it's just a world full of arbitrary ideas and pseudo science.
I know Pseudo science is incredibly popular, as it resembles witchcraft.
"You can go up the blind A or B testing road to get some "scientific" angle, but really what's the point?"
The point is you CAN measure what sounds good and what sounds bad.
Usually this is done in industry with Bruel and Kjaer equipment which has a totally flat response.
What you see it what you get.
If it applies to measuring the spectra of aircraft engine noise and taking measures to change it, then it's good enough for me.
"You hear a tube in your amp and decide if you like it or not. Then something else comes along and you decide if it is better than the first tube. You do this long enough and you create a rating scale."
Well I never do things like that for the simple reason I design my stuff to do what is says on the tin.
In other words it's been designed to work as it was designed.
If it does something unexpected or sub optimal, then it's my fault for having done the design wrong or picked the wrong component in the first place.
I don't blame radio valves for being non linear and becoming picky about components,while causing chaos in all their operating parameters.
Such amplifiers are fundamentally unstable distortion creators.
The whole point about linear amplifiers, as viewed by people like Linsley-Hood, was that the output signal should resemble as close as possible the input signal.
That's how it works in studio mixers for decades, and I don't see how or why it should be any different in a power amplifier.
OK Ivan you can stick to your numbers and testing I will trust my geezer ears. After all its my system in my house. I will use the tubes I like, and if any one asks about a tube I am familiar with I will tell them what I think.
Feel free to disregard or roll your eyes or make any comment you like!
Regards,
Mendel
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: