What does tube equipment sound like?

[KeithL]

I said this (at great length) elsewhere - but I'll reiterate it here....

Tube rolling not only doesn't HAVE to be expensive, but there's not much benefit in making it so.

The audible differences between various tubes in specific equipment are virtually always caused by RANDOM interactions between the characteristics of the individual brand of tube and piece of equipment. That rare Telefunken tube that sounds wonderful in a Brand X preamp didn't cost any more new than any other tube. Someone happened to notice that that particular tube sounded good in that preamp, and so people started buying them up, which pushed the price up. There's nothing inherently better about that tube than a $5 RCA one EXCEPT that it works well in that particular preamp (according to some peoples opinions).

This leads to TWO important conclusions:

1) Unless you have the exact same piece of equipment, there's no reason to expect that "wonderful" tube to sound the same in OTHER equipment.
(Remember, there's nothing special about that tube - it just happens to work very well in that particular piece of equipment.)

2) Most common tube types are made by LOTS of vendors. Aim for equipment that uses commonly available tube numbers. Then, if you want to tube roll, buy a whole bunch of different ones cheap on eBay. There's a very good chance that one or more of them will sound better than that super-expensive one you didn't buy. You get the fun of actually discovering something; you can tell all your friends about it and be the hero of your local forum or audio club; you get to save a lot of money; and you can even sell off the ones you don't like...

I simply fail to see how buying what amounts to a very expensive upgrade, based on someone else's opinion that it's good, is FUN... but then that's just me.

Feb 26, 2014 17:27:58 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

Feb 26, 2014 15:58:49 GMT -5 jefft51 said:

I haven't had much experience with tube amps/preamps (except maybe tube radios and TVs a Looong time ago).
I've known people who like to put hot sauce on pretty much everything they eat. More power to them.
Here is what I get out of all the tube discussion.
* Tube equipment adds some distortion to the sound, mainly pleasant sounding harmonics.
- The type of distortion is fairly well understood (I think)
* Components attached to tube equipment can alter the sound, sometimes drastically, due to differing impedance, power requirements, etc.
* Tube rolling is a fun and expensive way to play with the sound and maybe match to your other components.
* SS equipment has much less issues with sounding different attached to other components, esp. speakers.
- By this I mean, two different SS amps will probably sound very similar, where two different tube amps may vary a lot.
* Some people can hear small differences in SS equipment and it is an issue for them (guess those aren't "tubies")
* Tube equipment looks really cool

I like to sprinkle some hot sauce on some things, but most things probably not. (I don't go for hot sauce on ice cream)

Wouldn't it make sense to design a SS piece of equipment (probably a preamp) that maybe along with tone controls (which add distortion) that can also simulate tube distortion? Maybe a couple dials to adjust whatever parameters are needed. Probably easiest using DSP, but maybe analog circuits?
You could make it cool with some gauges, fake tubes, or maybe stick a Jacob's ladder on top (I've always wanted one of those).
Seems like you would get the best of both worlds. Maybe someones has done this.
Jeff

I'll leave most of the answer to those who are more knowledgable that I but tube rolling isn't really that expensive. I use a tube buffer which is around $150 give or take and you can buy decent tubes for around $20. Even the higher end "acclaimed" tubes can be had for $80ish. Of course you can pay more for really rare tubes and different types will have a different cost. In a way I find it massively cheaper than trying to switch out amps, pre-amps, or speakers for a different sound. If I'm bored of feel like trying something new I can buy a tube for cheap and it provides a suble change to my system (good or bad mind you).

I'll answer another question....yes. Tube equimpent looks cool haha.

[KeithL]

Thank you, and you're exactly correct.....

The reason I get so "het up" about it is that there is so much misinformation (or disinformation) out there.
And I've talked to too many people who were disappointed (by tube equipment and other things) when their unreasonable expectations weren't met.

If you want to buy tube equipment - then buy it FOR THE RIGHT REASON (because you like the way it sounds).
(Well, buying it because you think it looks cool is OK too.)

And, yeah, you'd be an idiot to buy a $1000 bottle of champagne (even though you'd never tasted champagne)
"because you read somewhere that champagne tastes good" or because someone told you that "all people with good taste like champagne".
Ditto for tube equipment (it really is very difficult to describe "how something sounds" so someone else can understand you).

Oct 18, 2013 0:03:48 GMT -5 aussie said:

It's really quite simple, yet hard to explain in ways. As someone already said "it's all about personal tastes". I don't think Keith/Emotiva is trying to put people off/away from tube equipment at all but rather just trying to clear the air on the myths and facts and are laying the cards on the table so to speak. To give you/us a understanding of why tubes have in general a different sound.

When it comes to what "we" or "you" like in regards to how something sounds is personal, simple as that. It's the same as food if you like, good food can be all about quality etc but does that mean you will enjoy eating it more than a hamburger? Some folks much prefer a hamburger or sausages and mash potato rather than a gourmet meal full of quality produce.

And it can be hard to explain how it tastes (just as in how it sounds) because of all the variables/different recipe/technique's in making that hamburger or divine dish. All of these differences can be measured and controlled but that will only tell us what it's made up of and now if you will enjoy the food or not. If you have tried something similar you may have an idea if you will like it, or if it's completely new to you the only way is to try it for yourself.

That's why it's such a wonderful thing these days that we have so much choice, and audio equipment because we all enjoy different tastes we will always find that we may prefer different equipment synergy's to give our pallet the taste/sound we enjoy ourselves most.

Some say there is no right or wrong sound, I say there is...The sound you enjoy most is the right one for you, let your taste buds...opps ears be the judge and enjoy.

[Nodscene]

Well I specifically didn't mention anything along the lines of "fixing" anything with tubes or the like. Rather, it could help improve the sound of a poorly recorded cd to an extent and that improvement could actually bring it closer to what the artist originally intended. Of course that's an argument that can't really be decided one way or another and was more a stream of consciousness than anything else. That being said I do know a lot of the bands I listen to look specifically for a "tube" or analogue sound and aren't always able to achieve it (tape is getting harder and harder to find and tube gear can be quite expensive). Which I guess brings me back full circle to my point about having tubes in your system managing to make it sound closer to what the artist wanted. Of course I'm not saying that anyone would purchase tube gear and actually make that claim! It was more a thought exercise than anything

While your argument about using a DAW of some sort to correct faults in recording is sound in principal, in practice it's kind of ridiculous haha, no offense intended. The sheer amount of time it would take to convert all cd's to .wav and then try and remaster or at the very least somewhat correct issues found in the original recording would take a staggering amount of time unless you made if a full time job. Automation would be impossible as not every cd would have the same issues that needed correcting.

Boiling down my thoughts and reasons for liking tubes would be this. To my ears it can make music sound better whether it's a great recording or a crappy one. And yes, in some instances can mask unwanted frequencies (to what degree is impossible to say). Is it a case of polishing a turd, why yes...it probably is in some cases haha.

I fully agree that tube rolling will only make minutes changes to the sonic signature. I was originally disappointed with my tube buffer purchase as I was expecting a greater impact, and for quite a while I couldn't hear the difference between tubes. It takes some critical listening to discern the difference between one tube and another everything else being equal.

Now I'm sure you wondering what they hell I'm talking about (and probably the why as well) but I promise you it all makes perfect sense in my own head.

I am replying to your other post but it's so long didn't want to quote it and take up a ton of space.

[purebordem]

Feb 26, 2014 22:40:55 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

Well I specifically didn't mention anything along the lines of "fixing" anything with tubes or the like. Rather, it could help improve the sound of a poorly recorded cd to an extent and that improvement could actually bring it closer to what the artist originally intended. Of course that's an argument that can't really be decided one way or another and was more a stream of consciousness than anything else. That being said I do know a lot of the bands I listen to look specifically for a "tube" or analogue sound and aren't always able to achieve it (tape is getting harder and harder to find and tube gear can be quite expensive). Which I guess brings me back full circle to my point about having tubes in your system managing to make it sound closer to what the artist wanted. Of course I'm not saying that anyone would purchase tube gear and actually make that claim! It was more a thought exercise than anything

While your argument about using a DAW of some sort to correct faults in recording is sound in principal, in practice it's kind of ridiculous haha, no offense intended. The sheer amount of time it would take to convert all cd's to .wav and then try and remaster or at the very least somewhat correct issues found in the original recording would take a staggering amount of time unless you made if a full time job. Automation would be impossible as not every cd would have the same issues that needed correcting.

I am going throw my hat into the ring here with some information that basically reiterates what Keith is saying...

I come from a Audio Engineering and Music Background (B.M / M.M) and have dealt with everything from Jazz and Classical to Metal and EDM. And I will say it now...musicians and most audio engineers are idiots.

Why? Because currently the pro audio/music industry is in a HUGE analog this, tube that, craze (and has been for a few years). The idea that tubes, tape, etc. can make your recording magic is EVERYWHERE. I cannot tell you how many guitar players I have seen want tube amps and not even know what a rectifier is, let alone do to the sound of their instrument. As a non-guitar player I have had to adjust their amps for them because they do not know what sound they are even going for. The fact that bands like The Foo Fighters fondle over tape make everything that much worse (which BTW their latest album sounds horrible from an audio standpoint. The amount of compression and saturation from the tubes and tape is crazy).

Most bands do not work stream of consciousness, they just show up and play (not well most of the time mind you). Rarely does a band walk in with a well defined sound in mind. Usually it is up to the engineer (no one even pays for producers anymore) to assess their music and make the artistic judgments for them. Blues band? Maybe it is time to bust out some tube microphones. Really good RnB singer? You get a transformerless setup. Can't sing at all? 55SH for looks and a whole lot of pitch correction. And that is assuming the engineer is competent and not just a rich guy with a lot of gear who heard a U87 through a Avalon Mic Pre is suppose to be good (although in all fairness it usually is)

The perceived lack of a "tube" or "analog" sound in modern recordings usually gets attributed to the digital recording format. Want to know a secret? It is all lies. We have 24-bit ADC at 192kHz being common now and days. What you put in gets put right back out, tube analog saturation included. Others look to vinyl for a more "analog" sound. Truth is Vinyl only has the equivalent bit depth of about 10 bits. The only difference besides higher noise, is that the masters are less hot than CDs because of the formats limitations. 

Why do we then want to listen to tubes and vinyl? Or why does that tape make my vocals sound better? Because of inherit compression and saturation in those types of gear. Like it or not, but you and everyone else likes a little compression and noise. Compression creates a more even sound and noise improves perceived intelligibility. Want proof?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acutance

Acutance is the visual equivalent of audio saturation. When the noise shifts and adapts to the source it makes things appear bigger, wider, sharper, etc. The more non-linear and adaptive the noise, the less it sounds like noise and the more it sounds like something gets better. On paper it gets worse, but that is ok!

Now does that make it wrong to listen through tube or vinyl gear at home? Of course not! But understand that you are not going to be somehow getting closer to the artists vision; they probably didn't have one to begin with. However, if you are like me (and Keith it sounds like) you will prefer to listen through the cleanest gear possible to really hear the recording itself. Both view points are valid at home, but like Keith said Know why you are doing it. Don't be a part of the problem.

[KeithL]

You're just playing with semantics on that first point. What is the difference between "fixing" and "improving"? You fix things that are imperfect; you improve things that could be better. If something is totally right to begin with, then it can't be fixed or improved. If there's something not quite right with it, then you can improve it (which I call fixing it). I don't see an actual difference between "has something wrong with it" and "could be improved" - both refer to a condition in which there is room for improvement. (I guess some people differentiate between "actual problems that should be fixed" and "their own preferences - and things which, while not broken, would be 'better' if they were more aligned with their preferences.")

Getting "tube sound" or "tape sound" digitally - at least more or less - has actually gotten easier. There are numerous editor plugins that can produce "tube sound" or "analog tape sound". They each have different features, and sound slightly different - although, of course, many "serious artists" feel that they don't sound exactly like the real thing (they probably don't). There are ones where you can even dial in what sort of tube, what voltage it runs off of, how much it is overloaded, and about ten other things. And, if you want to "do it the hard way", I can't imagine an artist who can't afford a $500 tube preamp to play stuff through (or, for that matter, a decent reconditioned used tape deck). Either way, until I buy a CD that says "the artist would prefer that you play this through vintage tube equipment" on the cover, I'm sort of stuck assuming that what's on the disc is more or less what he/she wanted it to be.

I would also have to disagree with you about it's being "excessive" to use digital editing to correct flaws.

You can do audio editing on pretty much any PC or Mac nowadays; you don't need a specialized "DAW", or even an especially powerful computer. I happen to prefer Adobe Audition software for editing, but there are lots of alternatives, many of them free. It only takes five minutes to RIP a CD, and about the same time to write one, so that part isn't especially time consuming. (Since I have all my CDs ripped and stored on a server already, I don't even have to do that.)

One huge benefit is that you have what in software parlance is called "versioning". I can take my original, adjust it, and save a copy of the adjusted version. From then on I can play the original, or my edited copy, or a different edited copy.... and it's trivial, for example, to edit one copy to sound just right on headphones and another copy that sounds good in the living room. The editing itself can be monumentally time consuming - but only if you choose to let it. Either way, though, the huge benefit is that you don't have to modify your system, or buy new equipment, and you can apply whatever fixes or adjustments are best for each track or disc individually. (Do you maintain a non-tube system to play the recordings that clearly aren't supposed to sound like tubes? There used to be audiophiles in the old days who, literally, would write on each album cover the tone control and EQ settings they preferred for that particular record - talk about work!)

My point from before, though, is that using tubes to add a certain sound is fine IF YOU PREFER THAT SOUND and so want to add it to every disc you play, but isn't especially effective as a way to "fix bad recordings", or to make only certain changes to certain discs or tracks (as you yourself noted, if we're "fixing problems", then each recording probably needs different things fixed).

I think you made a very good point about "groups looking for analog sound" there, but you didn't take it far enough. Personally, I suspect that many modern musicians (like others of us) simply remember that some of those old recordings sounded very good, and many modern recordings sound like crap, and, not knowing why, ASSUME that it has something to do with the old recordings being analog. Maybe those old recordings sounded so good IN SPITE OF BEING ANALOG and not BECAUSE of it. While I'm sure some of them do want analog compression or other distortions "for artistic reasons", I'll bet many of them would be quite happy with producing a recording without excessive compression, remixing, and EQ - so that it actually sounded good. They simply, and erroneously, equate excessive remixing, editing, and compression as being symptoms of "digital sound" rather than what they are - symptoms of over engineering. (The poor quality sound we often hear today is "causally related" to digital editing; but only to the extent that the ease of doing such things digitally encourages people to "over-engineer" everything when they could simply - NOT do so.)

Feb 26, 2014 22:40:55 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

Well I specifically didn't mention anything along the lines of "fixing" anything with tubes or the like. Rather, it could help improve the sound of a poorly recorded cd to an extent and that improvement could actually bring it closer to what the artist originally intended. Of course that's an argument that can't really be decided one way or another and was more a stream of consciousness than anything else. That being said I do know a lot of the bands I listen to look specifically for a "tube" or analogue sound and aren't always able to achieve it (tape is getting harder and harder to find and tube gear can be quite expensive). Which I guess brings me back full circle to my point about having tubes in your system managing to make it sound closer to what the artist wanted. Of course I'm not saying that anyone would purchase tube gear and actually make that claim! It was more a thought exercise than anything

While your argument about using a DAW of some sort to correct faults in recording is sound in principal, in practice it's kind of ridiculous haha, no offense intended. The sheer amount of time it would take to convert all cd's to .wav and then try and remaster or at the very least somewhat correct issues found in the original recording would take a staggering amount of time unless you made if a full time job. Automation would be impossible as not every cd would have the same issues that needed correcting.

Boiling down my thoughts and reasons for liking tubes would be this. To my ears it can make music sound better whether it's a great recording or a crappy one. And yes, in some instances can mask unwanted frequencies (to what degree is impossible to say). Is it a case of polishing a turd, why yes...it probably is in some cases haha.

I fully agree that tube rolling will only make minutes changes to the sonic signature. I was originally disappointed with my tube buffer purchase as I was expecting a greater impact, and for quite a while I couldn't hear the difference between tubes. It takes some critical listening to discern the difference between one tube and another everything else being equal.

Now I'm sure you wondering what they hell I'm talking about (and probably the why as well) but I promise you it all makes perfect sense in my own head.

I am replying to your other post but it's so long didn't want to quote it and take up a ton of space.

[Nodscene]

I understand both your points and for the most part agree (even about most engineers and artists being idiots). I think the thing the both of you are missing is that there are a ton of bands out there that do their own recording and engineering. It's also a little insulting to insinuate that bands/artists don't have any idea what their vision is in the first place, are there some that are like that....of course. But when you have band members saying that they wished their album sounds liked it does after listening to your system then maybe my idea won't sound so far fetched (although it wasn't the main point of what I was saying in the first place, is a minute number to begin with at best, and was also more an offhand comment as well). Let's not be belabor the point though as there is no real benefit to it.

Obviously there are different goals when creating the perfect sound system. Some people want the most accurate system possible and some people want the best sounding system. In a lot of cases they are mutually exclusive and utterly dependent on how the media was recorded (and in my situation that is exactly the case). If I were to opt for the former, I'd probably have to throw away three quarters of my cd collection as they'd be almost unlistenable haha.

[Nodscene]

I'm not sure why people are stuck on the recording side of things since once the cd is pressed and you are listening to it at home it has no bearing on this conversation per se.

Sorry but you will have to explain to me what the difference between "fixing" and "improving" means as you seem to want to belabor that point during your arguments but call it semantics when I'm following your lead and using the same lexicon. I specifically avoided the word "fixing" in releation to tube gear as it was never something I would imply. I am simply stating that it can make bad recordings sound better (to me).

"However, to me, what tubes add is a slight "blurring" of the high end (sometimes but not necessarily associated with a drooping HF EQ) and extra harmonic distortion. If the distortion is predominantly second harmonic, it will add a bit of "sparkle" to the upper mids, which can sound very nice with vocals, and can even improve intelligibility. Now, I can see how you might believe that "sounds nice" and want to add it to everything you play, but I DON'T see it as specifically correcting either of those other problems. In fact, in general, I don't see the colorations introduced by tubes as specifically FIXING any other common problems. (At most, the high-frequency droop exhibited by some tube equipment might compensate for an overly bright high end, but a high end that is so deficient that it works well as a high-cut filter for MP3 files would eliminate most of the desirable high end on recordings without that problem.)"

So you don't find 5 minutes per cd to rip and write a long time? Maybe not singelly, but at 400 cd's or so that is 2000min, or over 33 hours just for that. We haven't ever started looking at making any changes yet which will be at minimum another 33 hours but probably a lot more depending on the source material. Even for a quick fix. Maybe we have different views on what a long time is.

"It only takes five minutes to RIP a CD, and about the same time to write one, so it isn't especially time consuming."

I'm still looking for the word "excessive" or implication in relation to using software to correct things in my post but can't seem to find it. The sentiment of my sentence was that for me (and I'm sure most people), taking the time to do hundreds of cd's is way too time consuming.

"I would have to disagree with you about it's being "excessive" to use digital editing to correct flaws."

If you actually read my posts and what I say I'm actually not too far away from what you are proclaiming. I just have the feeling you are stuck in some tunnel vision with regards to tube and are assuming things which either aren't implied or not said.

So before bowing out of this conversation (it's not leading anywhere anymore), I'll just say that I use tube equipment because I like the way it sounds and TO ME, improves the sound of bad recordings overall (which I have a ton of so it's more than a worthwhile investment).

[pedrocols]

Doesn't any EQ alters the way either a solid state or a tube equipment will sound? Isn't EQ coloration?

[purebordem]

Feb 27, 2014 10:50:43 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

So before bowing out of this conversation (it's not leading anywhere anymore), I'll just say that I use tube equipment because I like the way it sounds and TO ME, improves the sound of bad recordings overall (which I have a ton of so it's more than a worthwhile investment).

And that is all that matters, what tubes do for you. The point of this entire thread is this...


-If tubes make you happy, use them

-Don't assume tubes will instantly make you happy

-No gear can fix or improve a recording, only change it. If that change is pleasing great.

-Tubes can sound very different

-Understanding how tubes affect the signal can lead to better purchases

[KeithL]

I can certainly clarify that a bit..... To me, the word fix strongly connotes "repairing something that is damaged or defective" (you fix something that is broken or damaged). In contrast, "improving" in contrast usually connotes making something better in a more abstract way - usually either getting closer to a goal OR doing something that produces results we like. So, if you start from those definitions, tube equipment could definitely "improve" the way something sounds (because, if you like the way it sounds WITH better than the way it sounds WITHOUT, then the net change is "an improvement"). However, adding tube equipment is almost NEVER going to fix something. (It would be pure luck if the coloration added by a particular piece of tube gear just happened to exactly counteract some flaw that was already there; and the odds of it doing so effectively in more than a few specific instances are even slimmer.) 

So, in the context of our discussion, a tube amp may make those crummy recordings "sound nice" - but that will be because it ADDS some coloration that we find pleasant - and that improvement may even be sufficient that it distracts us from the original problem. However, the reality is that it never actually repairs any of the original flaws; it is never going to undo the excessive compression, or fix the poor job the engineer did with mixing the album. We have added a "plus" to "counterbalance" a minus - but we haven't really done anything to fix the minus. What you end up with is a badly engineered CD with some nice tube coloration added to it. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't do it; just that you shouldn't expect it to fix the problem.

And the reason I harp on this distinction is that there seem to be a significant number of folks out there who believe that playing a bad recording through tubes is somehow going to make it NOT a bad recording... and anybody who hopes that playing a bad recording through tubes will "fix" it because they expect the excessive compression to magically go away, or the crummy mixing job to magically improve, is destined for disappointment. (If you read a few forums, you will find people who honestly believe that playing anything through a SET amp will magically make it sound like a high quality recording - and all the compression and digital artifacts will magically vanish. In particular, many of them seem to believe - even though they don't phrase it that way - that storing something digitally or playing it through solid state equipment somehow "contaminates" it, and that then playing it through tube equipment magically "wipes away the contamination" so they get back something closer to what they started with.... and this is just plain silly. It also borders on false advertising.) 
(And, no, I don't think YOU have that odd idea.... )

But, back to your first statement, I PERSONALLY do believe that there is a solid line between production and reproduction.... and the CD (or record, or whatever) sits on that line. The artist (and his friends) PRODUCE their product, which is demarcated by the CD. So, philosophically, that CD is "a frozen moment in reality". Everything before it is production; everything after is reproduction; and the CD itself connects the two. After the CD is created, therefore, my goal is to reproduce the original by rendering that recording such that I get back the original AS INTENDED. I personally prefer not to "fiddle around" and alter the original to suit my own taste - and so I limit my intercessions to instances where there are (to me) obvious unintentional flaws in the reproduction process. But that, obviously, is my definition and neither you, nor anybody else, is obligated to agree with it.

Feb 27, 2014 10:50:43 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

I'm not sure why people are stuck on the recording side of things since once the cd is pressed and you are listening to it at home it has no bearing on this conversation per se.

Sorry but you will have to explain to me what the difference between "fixing" and "improving" means as you seem to want to belabor that point during your arguments but call it semantics when I'm following your lead and using the same lexicon. I specifically avoided the word "fixing" in releation to tube gear as it was never something I would imply. I am simply stating that it can make bad recordings sound better (to me).

"However, to me, what tubes add is a slight "blurring" of the high end (sometimes but not necessarily associated with a drooping HF EQ) and extra harmonic distortion. If the distortion is predominantly second harmonic, it will add a bit of "sparkle" to the upper mids, which can sound very nice with vocals, and can even improve intelligibility. Now, I can see how you might believe that "sounds nice" and want to add it to everything you play, but I DON'T see it as specifically correcting either of those other problems. In fact, in general, I don't see the colorations introduced by tubes as specifically FIXING any other common problems. (At most, the high-frequency droop exhibited by some tube equipment might compensate for an overly bright high end, but a high end that is so deficient that it works well as a high-cut filter for MP3 files would eliminate most of the desirable high end on recordings without that problem.)"

So you don't find 5 minutes per cd to rip and write a long time? Maybe not singelly, but at 400 cd's or so that is 2000min, or over 33 hours just for that. We haven't ever started looking at making any changes yet which will be at minimum another 33 hours but probably a lot more depending on the source material. Even for a quick fix. Maybe we have different views on what a long time is.

"It only takes five minutes to RIP a CD, and about the same time to write one, so it isn't especially time consuming."

I'm still looking for the word "excessive" or implication in relation to using software to correct things in my post but can't seem to find it. The sentiment of my sentence was that for me (and I'm sure most people), taking the time to do hundreds of cd's is way too time consuming.

"I would have to disagree with you about it's being "excessive" to use digital editing to correct flaws."

If you actually read my posts and what I say I'm actually not too far away from what you are proclaiming. I just have the feeling you are stuck in some tunnel vision with regards to tube and are assuming things which either aren't implied or not said.

So before bowing out of this conversation (it's not leading anywhere anymore), I'll just say that I use tube equipment because I like the way it sounds and TO ME, improves the sound of bad recordings overall (which I have a ton of so it's more than a worthwhile investment).

[Nodscene]

So basically through all this conversation we are exactly on the same page haha. The only real difference between us is that I find there is a point whereby having a system that is too revealing will become a detriment to a lot of recordings. Actually we may not even disagree on that point, just that you would rather continue on evolving your system to become even moreso, whereas I get to a point where the enjoyment of the music takes precedent over that. Can't believe it took that many words to get to this point

I do understand what you are saying in regards to fans of SET amps for instance. I think part of the misunderstanding was due to me thinking your comments were directed solely at me and possibly you thinking I might be part of the rabid SET amp fanboys or their ilk.

Cheers.

Edit: Maybe I should send you some of the recordings I have and maybe I might get you to budge a bit on wanting a pure, uncoloured reproduction

Feb 27, 2014 18:38:23 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I can certainly clarify that a bit..... To me, the word fix strongly connotes "repairing something that is damaged or defective" (you fix something that is broken or damaged). In contrast, "improving" in contrast usually connotes making something better in a more abstract way - usually either getting closer to a goal OR doing something that produces results we like. So, if you start from those definitions, tube equipment could definitely "improve" the way something sounds (because, if you like the way it sounds WITH better than the way it sounds WITHOUT, then the net change is "an improvement"). However, adding tube equipment is almost NEVER going to fix something. (It would be pure luck if the coloration added by a particular piece of tube gear just happened to exactly counteract some flaw that was already there; and the odds of it doing so effectively in more than a few specific instances are even slimmer.) 

So, in the context of our discussion, a tube amp may make those crummy recordings "sound nice" - but that will be because it ADDS some coloration that we find pleasant - and that improvement may even be sufficient that it distracts us from the original problem. However, the reality is that it never actually repairs any of the original flaws; it is never going to undo the excessive compression, or fix the poor job the engineer did with mixing the album. We have added a "plus" to "counterbalance" a minus - but we haven't really done anything to fix the minus. What you end up with is a badly engineered CD with some nice tube coloration added to it. I'm not suggesting that you shouldn't do it; just that you shouldn't expect it to fix the problem.

And the reason I harp on this distinction is that there seem to be a significant number of folks out there who believe that playing a bad recording through tubes is somehow going to make it NOT a bad recording... and anybody who hopes that playing a bad recording through tubes will "fix" it because they expect the excessive compression to magically go away, or the crummy mixing job to magically improve, is destined for disappointment. (If you read a few forums, you will find people who honestly believe that playing anything through a SET amp will magically make it sound like a high quality recording - and all the compression and digital artifacts will magically vanish. In particular, many of them seem to believe - even though they don't phrase it that way - that storing something digitally or playing it through solid state equipment somehow "contaminates" it, and that then playing it through tube equipment magically "wipes away the contamination" so they get back something closer to what they started with.... and this is just plain silly. It also borders on false advertising.) 
(And, no, I don't think YOU have that odd idea.... )

But, back to your first statement, I PERSONALLY do believe that there is a solid line between production and reproduction.... and the CD (or record, or whatever) sits on that line. The artist (and his friends) PRODUCE their product, which is demarcated by the CD. So, philosophically, that CD is "a frozen moment in reality". Everything before it is production; everything after is reproduction; and the CD itself connects the two. After the CD is created, therefore, my goal is to reproduce the original by rendering that recording such that I get back the original AS INTENDED. I personally prefer not to "fiddle around" and alter the original to suit my own taste - and so I limit my intercessions to instances where there are (to me) obvious unintentional flaws in the reproduction process. But that, obviously, is my definition and neither you, nor anybody else, is obligated to agree with it.

Feb 27, 2014 10:50:43 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

I'm not sure why people are stuck on the recording side of things since once the cd is pressed and you are listening to it at home it has no bearing on this conversation per se.

Sorry but you will have to explain to me what the difference between "fixing" and "improving" means as you seem to want to belabor that point during your arguments but call it semantics when I'm following your lead and using the same lexicon. I specifically avoided the word "fixing" in releation to tube gear as it was never something I would imply. I am simply stating that it can make bad recordings sound better (to me).

"However, to me, what tubes add is a slight "blurring" of the high end (sometimes but not necessarily associated with a drooping HF EQ) and extra harmonic distortion. If the distortion is predominantly second harmonic, it will add a bit of "sparkle" to the upper mids, which can sound very nice with vocals, and can even improve intelligibility. Now, I can see how you might believe that "sounds nice" and want to add it to everything you play, but I DON'T see it as specifically correcting either of those other problems. In fact, in general, I don't see the colorations introduced by tubes as specifically FIXING any other common problems. (At most, the high-frequency droop exhibited by some tube equipment might compensate for an overly bright high end, but a high end that is so deficient that it works well as a high-cut filter for MP3 files would eliminate most of the desirable high end on recordings without that problem.)"

So you don't find 5 minutes per cd to rip and write a long time? Maybe not singelly, but at 400 cd's or so that is 2000min, or over 33 hours just for that. We haven't ever started looking at making any changes yet which will be at minimum another 33 hours but probably a lot more depending on the source material. Even for a quick fix. Maybe we have different views on what a long time is.

"It only takes five minutes to RIP a CD, and about the same time to write one, so it isn't especially time consuming."

I'm still looking for the word "excessive" or implication in relation to using software to correct things in my post but can't seem to find it. The sentiment of my sentence was that for me (and I'm sure most people), taking the time to do hundreds of cd's is way too time consuming.

"I would have to disagree with you about it's being "excessive" to use digital editing to correct flaws."

If you actually read my posts and what I say I'm actually not too far away from what you are proclaiming. I just have the feeling you are stuck in some tunnel vision with regards to tube and are assuming things which either aren't implied or not said.

So before bowing out of this conversation (it's not leading anywhere anymore), I'll just say that I use tube equipment because I like the way it sounds and TO ME, improves the sound of bad recordings overall (which I have a ton of so it's more than a worthwhile investment).

[KeithL]

I think we're really almost entirely in agreement.... and you don't need to convince me about some poor recordings needing "help".

Where we differ is that, philosophically, I don't think it is the place of my "main system" to make those adjustments.

So, if I wanted tube sound for everything I listen to, then I would certainly consider a tube preamp - or even a tube power amp. But, if I wanted it as a way to make only certain recordings better, then I would buy a tube buffer of some sort (or I'd probably edit the individual files), so I could CHOOSE when I want that particular sound, but, by switching it off, I could avoid altering the recordings that I'm happy with the way they are. My ideal "tube product" would be one where you could flip a switch and NOT use the tubes when you didn't want to.

There are even a few DACs on the market with switchable outputs (tube or not), which seems like a neat idea (we may offer one someday - but you didn't hear that from me ). Unfortunately, the only one I ever actually heard (the cheaper model from Maverick) didn't sound all that good to me - just as a DAC using the solid state output - which was a deal breaker .

(And, yeah, I do obsess a bit about it. Even if I were to make significant changes to a file to fix obvious flaws, I would still have a copy of the original on my music server as well, in case I or someone else ever "wanted to hear what it really sounded like" - or in case I later decided that my "fix" wasn't so good and decided to try again. )

Feb 27, 2014 22:42:21 GMT -5 Nodscene said:

So basically through all this conversation we are exactly on the same page haha. The only real difference between us is that I find there is a point whereby having a system that is too revealing will become a detriment to a lot of recordings. Actually we may not even disagree on that point, just that you would rather continue on evolving your system to become even moreso, whereas I get to a point where the enjoyment of the music takes precedent over that. Can't believe it took that many words to get to this point

I do understand what you are saying in regards to fans of SET amps for instance. I think part of the misunderstanding was due to me thinking your comments were directed solely at me and possibly you thinking I might be part of the rabid SET amp fanboys or their ilk.

Cheers.

Edit: Maybe I should send you some of the recordings I have and maybe I might get you to budge a bit on wanting a pure, uncoloured reproduction

[/quote]

[Nodscene]

I do have a tube buffer but unfortunately if it's powered off (there is no bypass on it) then the volume on the mains is extremely low. It wasn't an expensive product so I didn't expect it to have a lot of features mind you.

I am definitely considering a tube power amp, waiting to see what you guys come up with and if I can afford it. Other than that I'm stuck with a tube buffer as my system does double duties so a tube pre wouldn't fit (or maybe it will but would be a hassle to put it into the chain). So I'm really hoping Emotiva will release on of those as well hint hint

I really should do as you suggested though and fix some of the worst culprits. I have one album in particular which I can't listen to as the snare is way too hot and drives me crazy. Of course I can get pretty anal and would probably spend days tinkering with it haha.

Cheers.

Feb 28, 2014 11:25:39 GMT -5 KeithL said:

I think we're really almost entirely in agreement.... and you don't need to convince me about some poor recordings needing "help".

Where we differ is that, philosophically, I don't think it is the place of my "main system" to make those adjustments.

So, if I wanted tube sound for everything I listen to, then I would certainly consider a tube preamp - or even a tube power amp. But, if I wanted it as a way to make only certain recordings better, then I would buy a tube buffer of some sort (or I'd probably edit the individual files), so I could CHOOSE when I want that particular sound, but, by switching it off, I could avoid altering the recordings that I'm happy with the way they are. My ideal "tube product" would be one where you could flip a switch and NOT use the tubes when you didn't want to.

There are even a few DACs on the market with switchable outputs (tube or not), which seems like a neat idea (we may offer one someday - but you didn't hear that from me ). Unfortunately, the only one I ever actually heard (the cheaper model from Maverick) didn't sound all that good to me - just as a DAC using the solid state output - which was a deal breaker .

(And, yeah, I do obsess a bit about it. Even if I were to make significant changes to a file to fix obvious flaws, I would still have a copy of the original on my music server as well, in case I or someone else ever "wanted to hear what it really sounded like" - or in case I later decided that my "fix" wasn't so good and decided to try again. )

[lionear]

Yes, but "tube sound" and "transistor sound" are both departures from "the real thing". Use of transistors is no guarantee that it'll sound good. I think @keithl is thinking about the worst possible tube gear, and comparing them to the best transistor gear. Yes, you are correct, tube gear can sound worse than transistor gear. But then, the opposite is also true.

Whose "tube sound" are you talking about? There's VTL, conrad-johnson, Convergent, Carver, McIntosh, etc. and they all sound different. Are they all bad? And whose transistor sound are you referring to: Classe, Rowland, Goldmund, Krell, Mark Levinson, Emotiva, etc?

The VTL amps designed by David Manley sound very different from the current VTL amps. There's a "family sound" in conrad-johnson amps. The Convergent preamp is probably the "best" preamp I've ever heard - possibly matched now by Decware. Rowland amps are amazing - but there's something to their sound that makes me say "this is really good… but is it real?". Goldmund amps are magical but it seems like someone stole the bass. (Goldmund is sure that their amps are correct and everyone else's bass presentation is completely wrong.) Burmeister has a distinctive sound - apparently.

Did the Tafelmusik LP played by a Clearaudio cartridge on an AirTangent arm, mounted on a Goldmund Studio turntable, feeding a Convergent preamp feeding (late model) VTL amps driving Martin Logan speakers sound like the treble was rolled off and "soft"? No. Did it sound like I was "there"? Oh, yes! In a home playback system, that's enough.

When it comes to a home system, I think there's a lot to be said for mixing and matching so that we can get a sound that matches our preferences, and is compatible with our other gear. I had to use a a transistor preamp because I needed a phono stage with a lot of gain. I'm glad I found one that I liked, within my price range. And I loved using it with tube amps because I hated the sound of transistor amps I had heard to date (before Emotiva).  People who heard that system described it as a "hybrid" - not lush and romantic like bad tube sound, not grainy and dynamically challenged like bad transistor sound.

Perhaps the future is, indeed, a blending of tube and transistor circuits within the equipment itself - to get the best of both worlds. The new Audio Research Reference 75 is getting a lot of buzz. Famous reviewers are calling it a classic. Carl Marchisotto recommends it for his KO speaker (also getting a lot of positive buzz).

According to the Stereophile review, the input stage uses "direct-coupled JFETs and a 6H30 tube", feeding "four Tungsol KT120 output tubes (in ARC's ultralinear "partially cathode coupled" topology)". I have no idea what that means. But I'm not dismissing it "a priori" - I'm looking forward to the day when I can hear it, and having that approach trickle down to more affordable gear. Hint, hint.

[bayoutiger]

Feb 27, 2014 11:58:37 GMT -5 pedrocols said:

Doesn't any EQ alters the way either a solid state or a tube equipment will sound? Isn't EQ coloration?

I would say to some degree, but the impact of the tube design likely impacts more than just EQ. EQ is just one part of the equation.


This is a very interesting discussion, but I have to bear in mine that it seems somewhat colored by what seems to be a "SS is inherently better" bent. Then again I am on a board operated by and for enthusiasts of a SS house. Nothing wrong with that!

I own pretty modern amps of all three popular flavors and I don't see a particular "house sound" to any of them. The class D amps in my Anthem AVR and Peachtree integrated, don't sound distinctly different from my ARC tube amp, nor my Parasound SS amp. I see far more differences introduced when I change phono preamps. I don't know much about the designs, but care only about the result.

I guess it's possible that I'm not seeing the coloration that some consider the "tube sound". My only experience with tube has been my ARC VS-110 and SP16 preamp. I find these to be very neutral, but I am looking for something a little easier to live overall. (heat, tube life, etc).

[stlaudiofan1]

I have had many combinations of components throughout the years.  I have had solid state preamps, solid state amps, hybrid tubed amps, solid state integrated amps, tubes preamps and tubed integrated amps.  I have also had a mix of electrostatic and traditional high end coned speaker models.  

I think the effect of tubes vary on the system you have and the genre of music you listen to. I mainly listen to instrumental jazz, jazz vocal, blues and acoustic guitar. To my ears, when tubes match your system and you listen to these genres, tubes have the following advantages over solid state:
        

• Reproduction of hall/venue ambiance
• Better 3D image
• Better reproduction of vocals
• Organically natural sound you can listen to for long periods of time

I have found that tube impact is largely tied to your speakers ability create depth of soundstage.  This depth of soundstage seems to allow tubes to create the extra 3D image and ambiance recreation effect.  I have Magnepan speakers that are about 6 1/2 feet from both myself and the from front wall (equidistant).  They create cavernous depth of soundstage in my room.  EVERYONE who comes over to listen mentions it.  I think is why they have a synergy with tube amplification.  I have had many different solid state amps (Threshold T-200, Parasound Halo A21, etc.  Every time I have have listened to solid state amps in my system, I feel like they have the same sound effect as moving the speakers closer to the wall.  The image is "flattened" to some extent.  I have moved my speakers closer to the wall, and notice that the tube effect lessens, as the soundstage is already flattened by the speakers being moved closer.  Whatever you call the "effect" Magnepans create, tubes seems to make them do that better.  I know that many folks would disagree, as they argue high power is need to properly control them.  I have not found that to be the case in my experience.  I have a subwoofer integrated to handle the low end, so that may diminish the power effect.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.

[discoveror]

Thanks - for the refresher education, Keith.  For what (little) it's worth, I agree with everything you wrote and share those perspectives.

I grew up reading "High Fidelity" and "Stereo Review" magazines ... and remember virtually memorizing Hirsh-Houck (sp?) tests.

I lived through the vinyl-CD transition (back `round 1980) and fondly recall similar heated debates about which sounded better.   Realizing that CD's offered about twice the decibels range as vinyl, I marveled at those who argued that vinyl sounded better.  

I recall similar arguments, regarding guitar tube amplifiers vs. the newer solid-state amps.  Since so much 'success' (i.e. the big sales and buck$) in the recording industry emanates from coming out with new 'sounds', including distortion(s), I read preferences for tube guitar amps with intrigue.

At the end of the day, however, being engineering oriented, my perception of 'high fidelity' boiled down to the tested specifications.  I welcomed the advances/advantages of solid-state electronics ... and have never looked back ... except curiously.  

Thanks, again; the treatise brought back fond memories.  I enjoyed it.

[pdc33]

Thanks for the education!