Then your first step is to pass a blind test and prove that what you hear is real.I am interested in moving the science forward.
Then your first step is to pass a blind test and prove that what you hear is real.I am interested in moving the science forward.
Tubes supposedly have a certain sound (although a good friend of mine told me this could be avoided if implemented properly, he said you COULD make a tube amp with no sound signature), so I guess my next question is, if you don't mind disclosing, what
A classic logic fallacy. You have a bias with no knowledge of my experience but insist I am wrong. The proper response to being skeptical is, "I have not experienced that"
I answered the question you asked.Just to make clear, you're saying you know which amp levimax used in the DBT or which one is designed properly and doesn't distort?
I can't make that out of your post.
You have a belief the current limited measurements are somehow comprehensive.
A classic logic fallacy. You have a bias with no knowledge of my experience but insist I am wrong.
The proper response to being skeptical is, "I have not experienced that"
You haven't forgotten anything because you have misconstrued what people are saying. Nobody (well nobody who should be taken seriously) is saying that person X does not hear a difference. We can all "hear" a difference. The point is your, mine, their hearing is flawed and easily mistaken. So "hearing" a difference is no proof of a difference existing.Hi,
After reading the latest posts, the conclusion is quite simple. There are a lot of people having time to waste...
110 pages of posts that can be summed up in a few lines that would go like this more or less :
"I like this device but I do not like this other one.
- They both have the same measures.
- I know, but I hear differences.
- That cannot be.
- Maybe, but I hear a difference between those devices.
- Then your ears need to be siringed.
- Yes but I hear a difference.
- Then your testing has not been done properley.
- Yes, but I hear a difference.
- You are not a scientist.
- Do I need to be scientist to hear a difference ?
- You need to give proof that you hear a difference.
- Simple. Here is proof : I hear a difference.
- That's only proof you're stupid because you believe in things that do not exist".
Did I forget something ?
A fascinating read! I'm almost amazed it went on for 69 pages. To be fair, not all the questions in the first post hit the spot. It's not like if you prove some are well designed, all of a sudden those poorly designed become a black swan, I mean there are quite a few. Who knows, maybe an average audiophile would even recognize those properly designed as "not the real deal and a suck up to the modern times".Post in thread 'If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?' https://audiosciencereview.com/foru...be-sound-is-a-myth-why-tubes.8656/post-550116
I have not seen that in your posts before, but that is just me. Since it is obvious on a few recordings and not others, that pretty much tells you that it is the recording causing the problem. UNLESS, you have an intermittent problem somewhere in your equipment. If a piece of equipment is putting out a boosted 3khz signal, it should do it all the time if not broken. I think you have figured out in a rough way that it is the recordings.I have stated in my experience that most recordings do not cause this adverse sound.
It was the Dynaco ST 70 tested by Amir, you can find the test on this site. I used the "good channel" (driver tube was weak in one channel which I discovered after Amir sent it back) which had SINAD of 63 with fairly flat FR (-0.5 db @ 20 Khz). The SS amp was a Neurochrome Mod 86 with SINAD > 100. The amps sounded quite different to me until level matched at which point all the differences disappeared.You got my interest. In your opinion, how do you explain the fact that 60yo tube didn't sound different? Were the tubes themselves 60yo? Did you have means to measure how much power was "demanded" from the amps?
Tubes supposedly have a certain sound (although a good friend of mine told me this could be avoided if implemented properly, he said you COULD make a tube amp with no sound signature), so I guess my next question is, if you don't mind disclosing, what was the brand and make of the tube amp?
Thank you. BD linked it, I'm going through the whole thread. It's interesting. I'm trying to find what would happen if the tube amp is flat and a good design, but you have some old speakers with big impedance swings, but you're not pushing the amp to its limits. Would output still tend to follow the impedance curve?It was the Dynaco ST 70 tested by Amir, you can find the test on this site. I used the "good channel" (driver tube was weak in one channel which I discovered after Amir sent it back) which had SINAD of 63 with fairly flat FR (-0.5 db @ 20 Khz). The SS amp was a Neurochrome Mod 86 with SINAD > 100. The amps sounded quite different to me until level matched at which point all the differences disappeared.
In my opinion I could not hear a differences because unlike some "effects box" tube amps with very high distortion and very high internal resistance the Dynaco ST 70 was designed to be a "Hi-Fi" amp and with 0.7 ohm internal resistance, flat frequency response, and distortion of less than 0.1% it is pretty much transparent to me at the listening position. Where it did fall down was "noise" which I could hear a difference if I put my ear next to the drivers but not at the listening position.
The higher the internal resistance the more the FR will change with speaker impedance swings, this is independent of amp output. Some no feedback SET tube amps have 5 ohms of internal resistance which will definitely have more FR variation than a push pull feedback design like the ST 70 with ~0.7 ohms. Most SS amps have vanishingly low internal resistance.Thank you. BD linked it, I'm going through the whole thread. It's interesting. I'm trying to find what would happen if the tube amp is flat and a good design, but you have some old speakers with big impedance swings, but you're not pushing the amp to its limits. Would output still tend to follow the impedance curve?
Can tvrgeek offer any practical suggestions?
It seems to me you are asking this entire forum to be skeptical of conclusions most here have drawn on the basis of conducted experiments, while you are unwilling to be skeptical of your own sighted and uncontrolled test. This has been said to you without the slightest acknowledge so many times that I conclude you are arguing in bad faith, and simply trying to cause trouble.Be skeptical. That is a good thing, but that is not what you are doing. All you are doing is trying to prove your bias by making demands you know damn well are impossible. A classic logic fallacy. You have a bias with no knowledge of my experience but insist I am wrong. The proper response to being skeptical is, "I have not experienced that"
I gave you data. Specifics:
I have offered several suggestions of measurements that could be made. Relevant or not I do not know.
I have identified the frequency range were the differences I am hearing show up. If you do some research, that band is discussed a lot by recording engineers. It happens to coincide with our hearing sensitivity curves. There may be others or not, this is the one that bothers me. It also bothers my wife.
I have identified specific recordings where I hear the differences. Maybe you should listen the them. You may discover something yourself.
I have stated in my experience that most recordings do not cause this adverse sound.
You have a belief the current limited measurements are somehow comprehensive. If you wish to believe the world is flat, that is your choice.
I am interested in moving the science forward.
Fixed that for you. When something has a high probability of being true based on extensive past measurements and wide experience, the person claiming the opposite carries the burden of evidence....Tvrgeek posted about his own experiences (post #2101 and later) and I can understand the approach taken by subsequent replies, that (as I understand it) if you can't measure it, it probably does not exist outside one's own head.
...
You raise some interesting points, chiefly that the usual measurements of THD, IM and perhaps a few more esoteric forms such as TIM may not completely explain the story, insofar as it relies on the assumption that systems are mostly linear, and the most significant errors can be captured in frequency and phase deviations occurring in amplification and transduction, the latter being moving energy from electrical to mechanical forms in speakers and phonograph cartridges (IMO transduction could also embrace conversion not just in energy but also in forms of information, that is from digital to analog waveforms).Response to tvrgeek post #2101 and subsequent - and with some trepidation!
I am new to this forum, but have read many of the posts on it during the last 8 weeks and have had some of my previously-held opinions confirmed/changed/queried. All to the good!
I accept it's ethos and views, and will be using the information provided by many posters about the relative importance of the room and it's treatment as I attempt to improve my own system (hardware+software+room).
To emphasize – this is the most useful forum about hifi that I have found and I hope to continue learning from it.
BUT: - and I have given this some consideration before posting-
Tvrgeek posted about his own experiences (post #2101 and later) and I can understand the approach taken by subsequent replies, that (as I understand it) if you can't measure it, it does not exist outside one's own head.
It seems to me that he asked whether there might be some additional measurements, of some additional factors, so far unimagined (I assume) that we should be considering when making decisions based to a significant extent on the types of measurement undertaken and discussed in this forum.
Yes, I accept that if 1 item such as a DAC is indistinguishable from another one in the lab, and that the energy reaching the loudspeaker is the same between 2 such bits of kit, then the loudspeaker should behave identically, given no change in the surroundings.
Yes, I accept the current position regarding psychoacoustics and I have experienced some such effects myself (with due embarrasment).
Not much more than 100 years ago we knew nothing about quantum effects, it is less than 100 years since we knew anything about other galaxies, and even less since dark matter/energy became a scientifically acceptable subject. Is it inconceivable that we have more to discover about sound and how we perceive it?
Are double-blind tests the only way we can proceed to examine this issue? The expense and practicalities make it (almost) too easy to avoid by both sides of the argument.
Can tvrgeek offer any practical suggestions?
Can anyone propose a way of using something like REW + a specific microphone, with other stipulated parameters, to record the sound? For example, someone states they hear a harshness when DAC A is in use which appears not to be there when DAC B is in use - so record it.
If a recording were made of these 2 circumstances, within a set of accepted parameters, could anything useful be learned?
Has this approach already been tried, on a wide enough basis (and found wanting)?
Has the question been authoritatively answered, or, perhaps, debated to death elsewhere?
Not too many brickbats, please, but if any of the questions above are worth answering fire away!
Not only that, but these forum debates where you go against the tide (which is not always desirable) tend to look like playing a tennis match with you on one side of the court with your one racket and 50 people on the other side with 50 balls and 50 rackets. Even if they throw you soft balls, you'll go mad after awhile.I don't think he's out to make trouble. I think he's just taking the scepticism personally. Seeing accusations and obstinance where there is non.