In Reply to: RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) posted by cpotl on August 24, 2015 at 21:11:08:
"SET amplifier "removes the bleached out" sound precisely because it adds in colourations that are pleasing to the human ear."
THis has been debunked by Keith Howard in a rather clever experiment involving software manipulation. He found that NO added distortion sounded the best. Given that this does not exist with real amplification devices (he was adding patterns of distortion to a file of music) then there is only worst, less worse and least worst.
So, if an amp sounds less strident, smoother and more harmonically like "the real" thing it is not because it added just the right amount of juju to the recording (otherwise it would not work from recording to recording because the amount of juju would have to change) it is because it is adding less ANNOYING juju to the recording.
2nd order has been shown to be inaudible up to several percent and according to Cheever if in balance with other "aural" harmonics it will remain inaudible. Only when it is out of balance with the other harmonics in the correct pattern and at the correct level will it sound this way. If out of balance and high enough in level to exceed masking thresholds, then it will "warm" the sound. However, correct harmonics is not just an injection of 2nd order to restore balance. It is far better if the ear hears nothing or next to nothing of the distortion.
The goal, until truly linear amplifying devices can be invented, is to put the distortion in the "blind spot" of human perception rather than try to eliminate it, which 50+ years of trying has failed to do from a perceptual standpoint. Why do you think SETs made a fierce comeback? It had little to do with nostalgia I can assure you (I am not nostalgic in the least...I am extremely pragmatic). I like modern televisions, computers, trains, planes and automobiles. I also like modern electronics for measurements and performing scientific experiments. It's not nostalgia that brought back the SET, it was sound quality, full stop.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 02:44:01 08/25/15 (12)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - gusser 12:08:01 08/25/15 (3)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:33:54 08/25/15 (2)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - gusser 20:43:22 08/25/15 (1)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 01:17:23 08/26/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 06:52:07 08/25/15 (7)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:38:59 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 09:14:18 08/25/15 (5)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:47:59 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 09:16:15 08/25/15 (3)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 11:25:29 08/25/15 (2)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 18:03:36 08/25/15 (1)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Mr_Steady 19:04:24 08/25/15 (0)