If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?

[Willem]

I just posted in another thread on my own first and only double blind test experience: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...aphic-dac-available.17062/page-17#post-556223

 

[bozoc]

Guys, it's all human bias. Tubes only distort, and humans hopelessly romanticize their hobbies.
Double-blind tests surely confirm these hypotheses.

 

[avanti1960]

Guys, it's all human bias. Tubes only distort, and humans hopelessly romanticize their hobbies.
Double-blind tests surely confirm these hypotheses.

how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?

 

[SIY]

how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?

Why is that relevant?

 

[Robin L]

how many hours have you logged listening to tube based amplifiers?

Too many. Bad Tube designs? Plenty different. Good tube designs? Not so much. The better the implementation of each design type, the closer their sound qualities. But only tubes have that warm [usually orange] glow.

 

[MattHooper]

I still have my friend's Bryston 4B3 and I keep trying to put it in to my system and leave it there. But I can't. I've tried it numerous times with
my big Thiels, my Joseph speakers, my small Spendor speakers, and some ancient little Thiel box speakers and every time I hear tracks I'm used
to hearing I just don't enjoy it as much. Things sound more squeezed tight, electronic, harder, synth string parts that normally sound more lush and "float" more in the soundstage become thinner, harder, more icy sounding. I keep trying to get used to the change to see if I can enjoy it, but I then switch back to the CJ tube amps and...there it is, the things I was missing from the SS amp! Things sound rounder, fuller, more 3D, richer, smoother, with a slight "glow" in the upper mids/lower treble that sort of slightly illuminates the sound, in a way that to me actually reminds me a bit more of real instruments. And I find it just significantly more inviting to listen.

Too bad I still can't to a blind test to disentangle possible bias effects. But frankly the effect, whether objective or purely subjective, is so strong and distinct and so significant in my listening experience, I don't mind that much if I'd paid for the effect, because I sure can't seem to shake it

 

[Julf]

Too bad I still can't to a blind test to disentangle possible bias effects. But frankly the effect, whether objective or purely subjective, is so strong and distinct and so significant in my listening experience, I don't mind that much if I'd paid for the effect, because I sure can't seem to shake it

Probably not even bias, apart from a subjective preference for distortion and coloration. Quite normal. That is why things like Tube coloration DSP plugins exist.

 

[Sal1950]

Too bad I still can't to a blind test to disentangle possible bias effects. But frankly the effect, whether objective or purely subjective, is so strong and distinct and so significant in my listening experience, I don't mind that much if I'd paid for the effect, because I sure can't seem to shake it

After all the push-back you've given me over your love of vinyl and your worried about this? LOL It's not only possible but probable the CJ sounds quite different. All types of changes in the input signal occur during it's amplification in a tube amp, they are normally far from transparent. Distortion levels are higher but also frequency response changes occur do to interactions between the amps output transformer and your speakers input impedance.
The bottom line is if you enjoy its sound, roll with it. No one is here to tell folks they HAVE to listen to a accurate, flat, transparent system. Amir's goal is to show folks which gear does the best job of introducing the least amount of change to the input signal. What you listen to is up to you. I ran VTL tube monoblocks for 20 years, loved the way they sounded with my La Scala's. I run most stereo recordings upsampled to 5.2.4 for my enjoyment.
Listen to what pleases you.

 

[MattHooper]

After all the push-back you've given me over your love of vinyl and your worried about this? LOL It's not only possible but probable the CJ sounds quite different. All types of changes in the input signal occur during it's amplification in a tube amp, they are normally far from transparent. Distortion levels are higher but also frequency response changes occur do to interactions between the amps output transformer and your speakers input impedance.
The bottom line is if you enjoy its sound, roll with it. No one is here to tell folks they HAVE to listen to a accurate, flat, transparent system. Amir's goal is to show folks which gear does the best job of introducing the least amount of change to the input signal. What you listen to is up to you. I ran VTL tube monoblocks for 20 years, loved the way they sounded with my La Scala's. I run most stereo recordings upsampled to 5.2.4 for my enjoyment.
Listen to what pleases you.

I'm aware of all that.

My running hypothesis has been that the CJs do sound different than the typical SS amp, and it continues to be my presumption. But appropos of the very subject of this thread, I'm always aware of the possibility of sighted bias, and several members have given reasons to maintain those doubts (including levimax's blind test results with his Dynaco ST-70).

So I tried to balance my post in tune with the OP: both the question of "why tubes" (here's why I stick with my tube amps) and the question of the audibility of tube amp behavior.

If I did a blind shoot out of the CJ with the Bryston and couldn't tell the difference, on one hand I'd be shocked because the difference I hear seems so distinct (not "huge" but distinct). On the other hand I wouldn't be shocked because I'm acutely aware of the power of expectation effects etc.

So I think this thread stands a nice "open argument" questioning the assumptions regarding the audible qualities of tube amps.

On the other hand, for the rest of the discussions, I think it's reasonable to continue along discussing preferences for things like vinyl, tube amps and whatever speakers we choose, on the assumption of audible differences, which are plausible in such cases. If every time we wanted to mention a speaker we liked someone said "but that's out of bounds unless you have been to the Harman Kardon facilities to truly properly blind test speakers" then discussion would get impractical. I think, for general purposes, perhaps tube amps can go in to that category, with the caveat that while the audible differences can be plausible, we all know that it's always possible some bias is playing a part.

At least that's my take in trying to wend through these issues.

 

[levimax]

I'm aware of all that.

My running hypothesis has been that the CJs do sound different than the typical SS amp, and it continues to be my presumption. But appropos of the very subject of this thread, I'm always aware of the possibility of sighted bias, and several members have given reasons to maintain those doubts (including levimax's blind test results with his Dynaco ST-70).

So I tried to balance my post in tune with the OP: both the question of "why tubes" (here's why I stick with my tube amps) and the question of the audibility of tube amp behavior.

If I did a blind shoot out of the CJ with the Bryston and couldn't tell the difference, on one hand I'd be shocked because the difference I hear seems so distinct (not "huge" but distinct). On the other hand I wouldn't be shocked because I'm acutely aware of the power of expectation effects etc.

So I think this thread stands a nice "open argument" questioning the assumptions regarding the audible qualities of tube amps.

On the other hand, for the rest of the discussions, I think it's reasonable to continue along discussing preferences for things like vinyl, tube amps and whatever speakers we choose, on the assumption of audible differences, which are plausible in such cases. If every time we wanted to mention a speaker we liked someone said "but that's out of bounds unless you have been to the Harman Kardon facilities to truly properly blind test speakers" then discussion would get impractical. I think, for general purposes, perhaps tube amps can go in to that category, with the caveat that while the audible differences can be plausible, we all know that it's always possible some bias is playing a part.

At least that's my take in trying to wend through these issues.

Hi Matt. I'm not sure you noticed this but when I was doing the blind testing of SS vs Tubes I also checked the FR and the FR with a 1 ohm resistor added to the SS amp. As you can see from the attached the Tube amp had a slight increase in LF and slight roll off in HF compared to the SS amp. When I added the 1 ohm into the speaker cables of the SS amp it has almost identical FR to the tube amp. The scale is large on this attachment and I could hear no difference but I imagine with some speakers with some amps it may be audible.... maybe.

 

[MattHooper]

Hi Matt. I'm not sure you noticed this but when I was doing the blind testing of SS vs Tubes I also checked the FR and the FR with a 1 ohm resistor added to the SS amp. As you can see from the attached the Tube amp had a slight increase in LF and slight roll off in HF compared to the SS amp. When I added the 1 ohm into the speaker cables of the SS amp it has almost identical FR to the tube amp. The scale is large on this attachment and I could hear no difference but I imagine with some speakers with some amps it may be audible.... maybe.

Yes I remember and it's very interesting!

The thing is, as I mentioned before, the difference I'm hearing between the CJ amp and the Bryston seems entirely consistant across speakers of differing sensitivity and impedance loads (Thiels are harder load, lowish sensitivity, tougher impedance dips etc, Joseph speakers lowish sensitivity but "easy" higher impedance load for tube amps, Spendors and old Thiels easy loads, Hales speakers tough loads like the Thiels).

That's the head scratching thing for me. I get that a tube amp may sound different when acting something like a frequency filter given particular speaker load characteristics: but the puzzler then remains why the sonic difference I hear with the CJ, it's "character," seems so consistent across different speaker loads, including "easy" to drive speakers.

 

[Blumlein 88]

I agree with Levimax. FR is the most common reason for sounding different. And the output impedance of the CJ is surely higher. I think there is more to it than that, but I think that is probably the biggest part of the difference.

 

[Willem]

I have written about this before, but years ago I had the fortune to attend a private demonstration by Quad's Peter Walker with a blind listening test of his three famous designs: the Quad II valve amplifier, and his later 303 and 405 solid state amplifiers. At the time the press was arguing that his designs had become progressively less musical, which he thought was absolute bollocks, so he commissioned James Moir to organize a proper independent scientific double blind test. Needless to say, nobody could reliably distinguish between the amplifiers when used within their specifications. Peter Walker later also put together a demonstration rig, and I had the privilege of a private demo with it. I thought I could discern slight differences, but Peter Walker had a develish pleasure in showing me that I had not been better than random. Lesson learned. So even some (well designed) valve amplifiers can sound indistinguishable. The only reason, Peter said, to abandon the valve design was that it did not have much power and was expensive to produce. As for measurements, the 303 was much better and more powerful than the Quad II valve model, and the 405 current dumper was a lot better and more powerful again than the 303. Right now I am listening to a refurbished 405-2.

 

[MattHooper]

I have written about this before, but years ago I had the fortune to attend a private demonstration by Quad's Peter Walker with a blind listening test of his three famous designs: the Quad II valve amplifier, and his later 303 and 405 solid state amplifiers. At the time the press was arguing that his designs had become progressively less musical, which he thought was absolute bollocks, so he commissioned James Moir to organize a proper independent scientific double blind test. Needless to say, nobody could reliably distinguish between the amplifiers when used within their specifications. Peter Walker later also put together a demonstration rig, and I had the privilege of a private demo with it. I thought I could discern slight differences, but Peter Walker had a develish pleasure in showing me that I had not been better than random. Lesson learned. So even some (well designed) valve amplifiers can sound indistinguishable. The only reason, Peter said, to abandon the valve design was that it did not have much power and was expensive to produce. As for measurements, the 303 was much better and more powerful than the Quad II valve model, and the 405 current dumper was a lot better and more powerful again than the 303. Right now I am listening to a refurbished 405-2.

Great anecdote!

I am not surprised. Walker wasn't about producing colored sound, and his tube amp was known to measure quite well for the time.
Other tube amps measure more wonky though.

And even back then it seems to me that tube amps, reasonably paired with the "right" speakers, weren't like producing huge amounts of distortion.
My CJ is far newer than from the Quad era, but still a pretty old design, I think circa around '94 or so (though my units made in '99). The Bryston 4B3 is their latest model, so thoroughly modern solid state.

And yet when I compare the two I don't hear any "revelations" of details that were obscured by the other amp. I seem to hear everything, no matter how minute, from that teeny chime at the back of the orchestra to the tiniest reverb trails in studio recordings. It's just presented in a slightly different manner. This is one reason I remain suspicious about audiophile claims made for the "amazing advances" in SS design, sonically. (I think DSP is doing most of the heavy lifting for sonic advances at this point). And also why I'm not terribly concerned in chasing down the latest, greatest SINAD results for gear.

 

[Willem]

Apart from obvious crap, the electronics part of the chain has been transparent for decades, although some of it hugs the margins, of course. That is where Amir's testing comes in, and to expose audiophool wastes of money.
In my view the biggest advances in audio electronics have been:
1 the advent of digital sources
2 more power
3 lower prices
Just yesterday I installed the new integrated amplifier that I bought for my daughter: a well made and superbly measuring 2x85 watt Yamaha AS501 with both analogue and digital inputs, subwoofer output, plus balance, tone and variable loudness control (and a remote). All of this for only 359 euro. Source is a 35 euro Chromecast Audio and also a digital audio feed from her TV to produce good TV Audio. Are we not living in great times?

 

[egellings]

Enjoy whatever tickles your nun handles and looks good, in that order.

 

[Sal1950]

On the other hand, for the rest of the discussions, I think it's reasonable to continue along discussing preferences for things like vinyl, tube amps and whatever speakers we choose, on the assumption of audible differences, which are plausible in such cases. If every time we wanted to mention a speaker we liked someone said "but that's out of bounds unless you have been to the Harman Kardon facilities to truly properly blind test speakers" then discussion would get impractical. I think, for general purposes, perhaps tube amps can go in to that category, with the caveat that while the audible differences can be plausible, we all know that it's always possible some bias is playing a part.

I get what your trying to say Matt but let's cut to the chase. A large number of us here who believe in the science of audio design have spent many years on other "audiophile" sites where the magic dust believers have run us off with stakes and pitchforks whenever we tried to explain the facts to them about the snake-oil, pure BS things they gush over every day like digital cables, power cords, magic dots and all the rest. We've been banned, herded into special corners where we're only allowed to discuss the rational side of things, and gang raped by the members for daring to question their religion. The Spanish Inquisition version of audio. That won't happen here.
To make it short, yea, this is a science based site and if folks are going to come here and try to take the position they can here things we can't measure and all the rest, they're going to be asked to supply proof of what they think they hear, measurements, DBT's and all that. The science of High Fidelity is the pursuit of component design that most closely equals a straight wire with gain from the microphones input to the speakers output. Anything else is either failed or obsolete technology. The promotion of vinyl and tubes by the lamestream audio media is the most obvious money grab marketing game being played. They may do things some people enjoy, but in the world of High Fidelity they belong right next to hand cranks, solid rubber tires, and soup can carburetors in automobiles.

 

[Robin L]

We've been banned, herded into special corners where we're only allowed to discuss the rational side of things, and gang raped by the members for daring to question their religion. The Spanish Inquisition version of audio. That won't happen here.

At ASR, this also happens, only in reverse.

 

[Julf]

At ASR, this also happens, only in reverse.

The difference is that there are a gazillion other places for discussing subjective preferences and beliefs.

 

[Robin L]

The difference is that there are a gazillion other places for discussing subjective preferences and beliefs.

Yeah, but and still, things can get downright hostile 'round these parts.