 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
97.89.27.103
In Reply to: RE: Wavelength Crimson posted by Phelonious Ponk on May 24, 2010 at 05:55:21
"That is a matter of taste. And maybe that's what Merc meant to communicate.
"
Yeah I think so....Merc seems to have pretty good taste, well sorta.
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
Follow Ups:
Given that I have a solid state preamp/amp, I guess I don't embrace everything that the author discussed.
Are the 71a tubes colored? Well, every component has a signature sound. I guess that's where the "good taste" comes in. I just think that the 71A tubes contribute positively to the Crimson. It's a tough discussion if you guys don't have a Crimson to listen to on your system.
By the way, DR is just jealous of my dog.
It is tough to discuss what we think of the Crimson without one to listen to. It is very easy, however, to determine that "vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made," is a inaccurate statement. Actually, pretty much the opposite is true.
P
Given the range that the 71a tube is run in Gordon's design, I think it measures favorably when compared to solid state DACs. But John Swenson's response in this thread moved beyond opinion.
It did, but John's response was mostly theoretical. Actual tube amps, even high watt triode designs with zero feedback, typically have higher distortion than entry level midfi of decent quality. That doesn't mean the stuff doesn't sound good. But what John said is that tube designs can be "low distortion," not that tubes are the lowest distortion amplifying devices ever made. And sorry to pick at semantics, but I just don't think the dialogue is well-served by blurring the lines between subjective tastes and objective results.
P
What do you consider theoretical? I have a tube amp that I designed and built that runs at 25 watts per channel with zero feedback that runs at .03% distortion at 1watt and gets up to about .08% at 25 watts. Those are real measured numbers not theoretical. Try doing that with solid state devices without feedback.
The tube preamp I'm using has less than .01% distortion at full output, again actual measured results, not theoretical. Its probably less than .01% but its getting hard to measure down there, and I'm not really interested in spending the effort to improve the test setup to tell if its really .005 or .008.
The best zero feedback solid state preamp I can come up with is about .04%, which is still pretty decent, but not as good as the tube design.
I agree its true that most tube designs used today are fairly high distortion but tubes don't HAVE to be used that way. Careful selection of tube and operating point CAN result in very low distortion designs.
There is an article out on the net somewhere (it might take a while to hunt it down), where someone actually built a preamp circuit with something like 30 different tubes and optimized each for the lowest possible distortion and did the same for various solid state designs, again all zero feedback designs. Many of the tube designes handily beat the best SS designs. Some tubes were not that great, but others really were very good.
John S.
"What do you consider theoretical?"
-- More subjective than theoretical -- the implication that zero feedback tube designs are lower distortion, more accurate reproducers than well-implemented solid state designs that employ feedback. And again, you may believe that, you are certainly welcome to that opinion, but there are many legitimate sources who disagree and, FWIW, the available data is on their side, so it is just that -- your opinion.
P
It's quite practical. If you have an amplifier that has second order harmonic distortion and no higher order harmonic distortion and you apply feedback you will reduce the second order distortion component. However, you will now get higher order distortion. This is completely objective and practical and can be seen on a spectrum analyzer. It also conforms with theory. When it comes to preference that's another matter, perhaps, since there is no mathematical way to define "preference" when comparing different types of distortion. (Note that this is a different question from preference involving euphonic distortion where some listeners prefer increased amounts of second harmonic distortion.)
BTW, I don't mess with tubes. I want my equipment to be stable and repeatable for years at a time. I've had my share of tube rolling and gave it up over 20 years ago.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"...many legitimate sources who disagree and, FWIW, the available data is on their side, so it is just that -- your opinion."That you declare the sources legitimate is ALSO JUST AN OPINION, and that they may have some 'data' supporting their opinion (does not mean that all data supports their opinion) that you declare is "on their side" still only makes it AN OPINION. :)
In the absence of unequivocal data that we all can agree on, it's all just opinions, so what's your point?
"I think it's best if we don't couch our subjective opinions in false objective language."You suggested a couple of times that you don't like the use of objective language mixed up with subjective opinions.
John has provided objective test results that back up his statement. Are these not considered objective (or legitimate) by you?
clay
Edits: 05/25/10 05/25/10
It might settle the matter if you had more detailed numbers, e.g. the distortion percentages for various orders of harmonic distortion. Did you measure and record these?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
For a different point of view to the general drift here, see link (which is offered in the same spirit as Steve's original post - flame-throwers away please).
Stan Curtis has been a respected figure on the UK HiFi scene for decades.
BTW, I'd always believed that the fact that tubes (valves) are inherently more linear than transistors was so well known as not to merit comment - much as few dispute that resistors resist and capacitors cap.
How they perform in a circuit is a different matter, of course, but I cannot see why the original remark "vacuum tubes . . . continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made" is in any way controversial unless datasheets are to be considered "subjective opinions".
Is a confirmed sand wallah like me wrong here?
.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Seventy years later, vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made."
Sure this is only some guy's opinion. I agree with you on this.
But I live for the subjective experience. I can't tell you how many supposedly great amps I have purchased (measured great in a magazine) that sounded like crap in the long term.
Not to be pedantic, Merc, but while we agree that it is a guy's subjective opinion, it is improperly stated. The subjective opinion, hidden in this seemingly objective, but unsupported statement, is that you like the sound better. I can like a Bentley better than a Bugatti. But if, in my admiration and enthusiasm for the Bentley, I said it was faster than the Bugatti, that wouldn't be my subjective opinion. That would simply be wrong.
P
I think the point John Swenson makes is that lower measured distortion in SS designs gained by applying feedback does a disservice to the actual sound, despite that it might measure 'better'.
the question P is this - when you claim that a midfi piece of gear has lower distortion, are you talking about (and measuring) the inherent distortion of the output devices themselves, or the lower measured (but higher order, and therefore more annoying sonically) distortion of the overall design? I think it's the latter. The point under discussion, as I understand it, is (related to) the former. apples and oranges as they say.
YMMV,
clay
"I think the point John Swenson makes is that lower measured distortion in SS designs gained by applying feedback does a disservice to the actual sound, despite that it might measure 'better'."
-- Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that once you're talking about "a disservice to the actual sound," or anything similar, you are back into subjective, theoretical territory, and statements like "lowest distortion" no longer belong in the conversation. You want a subjectivist dialogue? Good. A subjective evaluation is the only thing that matters to you? Even better. But if that is the case there is no reason to fortify your point of view with terms -- distortion, dynamic range, transparency, etc. -- that imply objective measures. What you hear and why you prefer it, in strictly descriptive terms, should be enough. To put in such terms, good solid state, particularly in an excellent active implementation has, to my ear, far greater clarity, speed and precision than any tube rig I've ever heard. And YMMV as well.
P
N/T
And once again, Carcass adds nothing to a reasonable discussion but the live up to the last syllable of his handle.
P
"-- Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that once you're talking about "a disservice to the actual sound," or anything similar, you are back into subjective, theoretical territory, and statements like "lowest distortion" no longer belong in the conversation."
Of course it's subjective, otherwise how can we know/agree that it sounds like 'real music'?
sounds like you're saying that as long as the distortion is measured to be lower it has to sound more like the input, irrespective of the impacts on the actual sound of the different types of distortion generated by different types of output devices?
If so, we don't have a basis for further discussion. You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO.
clay
I think people need to let that sentence sink in.....
Indeed to some people Measurements is what sound is all about, they listen with their eyes as they view measurements.
Other people listen with their eyes in terms of how equipment looks, the more lavish it looks the better it sounds.
Still others let price dictate what sounds best...if it costs a lot then it must sound better than less expensive gear.
Sad to say, the ears have little say when it comes to sound....:-(
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
No, the numbers could be coincidental, for all I know. What I'm saying is that I don't hear what the tube lovers do. I've heard some very good tube equipment. But the best solid state, in my opinion, is faster, clearer, more controlled and precise, has greater dynamic range and, to my ears, a much more realistic presence, particularly in the trebles, though bass control is almost always better as well, and while an excellent valve midrange has its charms, good solid state systems always have an openness that sounds less like hifi and more like live music to me. MHO, YMMV, etc. In all fairness, I haven't heard a fully active tube system.Of course there still may not be further basis for discussion. We may just have to agree to disagree. But as long as there is more than one point of view to be taken, I think it's best if we don't couch our subjective opinions in false objective language.
P
Edits: 05/25/10
"You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO."
How true!
You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO.
Nor, indeed, in the HO of pretty well every good amplifier designer - but what do they know?
The illusion that a restricted range of parameters that only partially and inadequately describe the complex behaviour of a electrical circuit nevertheless provides adequate insight into (a one-to-one index of) the even more arcane complexities of perception is as hard to disabuse as it is banal.
It would be, if anyone here were making that argument.
P
