Csontos,
I imagine we all pretty much have the same goal but different approaches can lead one in different directions down the path toward that goal. I just keep it simple,hear live music and figure out the way to come close to replicating it in your home system.Everyone has their own way, that`s mine.
Regards, |
Oh. I guess the entire chain of events is dependent on each link to arrive at the desired destination. I never looked at it that way. Makes a lot of sense considering the limitations of each component. But then you are limited by the recording source, aren't you? The best you can hope for is a general level of synergy. Then again, isn't that everyone's goal regardless of their point of view? Is yours a "method" or simply a different mindset? No matter one's approach, it seems in the end, we all find the light at the end of the tunnel. What's good is good, no matter how we formulate it. I can understand the stumbling block in relying solely on reviews when assembling a system. However your ears don't lie. Having to settle once money is spent is obviously the worst that can happen. Sad if we only find the light at the end of the tunnel when we can afford to. I've recognized a few heroes on this site so far. Not enough going on to single them out vs. the bs. though. |
Csontos,
I`m speaking in a general sense (not just comments on this thread). There are people who don`t believe that live music is useful or beneficial for judging the merits of audio components. Some advocate truefulness to the recording source as a more accurate approach.I don`t find that method the better option. Go through the archives and you`ll find more than a few of these advocates.
Regards, |
Charles, in what sense is your goal a template? How and why would anyone disagree? What has the contention been so far in this thread? I seriously don't mean to be provocative but something's gone over my head here and "I don't know what it is". |
|
Onemug,
Yes, the objective (at least for me)is to capture as much of the true sound of live instruments that`s reasonably possible.That`s the best template I know of. I realize others disagree but I`ve found no better way to obtain good sound at home.
Regards, |
Charles and Frog, I like your posts.
Going up one level on the "Structural Differential" :D
When products are measured with a bleached input, then the closer the bleached output is the more "accurate" that product is. Hooray for some, not so much for me.
I think this bleaching effect of reproduced music is at least one reason why I like SET's and especially 300b's. They add some of the "correct" color back to that live moment with their, OMG, 2nd order distortion.
Not to say all distortion is good. Give me a photograph of some green grass that the camera has bleached. Now if I put on some green tinted glasses, it's going to distort the photograph but the grass looks better to me. But put on some rose colored glasses and now the grass has a brownish tint to it. I still recognize it as grass but it's not as enjoyable.
I really don't want an accurate reproduction of a bleached event. I hear many boast of their .005% distortion amps. Maybe they enjoy brownish grass. To each their own, just don't tell me what to enjoy. |
Frogman,
Your comment concerning "accuracy" rings true. Last night a friend and I attended one of our favorite jazz clubs.The quartet consisted of B3 Hammond organ,alto saxaphone,guitar and drums.The sound in this venue just sweeps you away with beauty and presence. Driving home we both kept referring to how rich, warm and full these instruments sound and project when heard live and up close.
What we both heard was the real deal,beautiful rich tone,complete fullness, weight and tonal saturation...accurate(because it`s real).
Components that strip away the'natural'charcter and result in leaner,thin tone(less color saturation) and body are`nt accurate,they`re inaccurate.I don`t understand why this approach has now become accepted by some as "accuracy". It moves further away from what you hear in the presence of live musicians doing their thing.
Regards, |
But at the end of the day, do we not settle for what pleases our ears? It's a given that language itself is the largest barrier to communication. So even if we were cavemen running around with clubs, grunting our needs, we would still end up with what we want. Miscommunication just makes things take longer. Our individual perceptions of terminology used here may have us completely misrepresenting our gear but not necessarily preventing us from arriving at the same destination. |
Not exactly; but more the latter than the former. In the broad sense, what I meant is that I believe that if audiophiles would take it upon themselves to learn more about music at a level of understanding approaching the level of understanding that many reserve for the technical aspects of the playback equipment, their scope would be broadened in a way that would allow them to assemble audio systems that more closely approach the sound of live music; not to mention, enjoy music even more. Unless we dismiss the importance of what we may each learn about equipment via reviews, discussion forums, etc., the importance of using terminology that is universally used is obvious. As far as the more specific sense goes, let's look at some terms that are used frequently used in audiophile descriptive language that are problematic. A couple that come immediately to mind:
"Dynamic"- Often used to mean the ability to play loudly. It has nothing to do with loudness, but rather the way that the sound gets from point A to point B on the volume scale. Is it done seamlessly?
"Accuracy"- It is bad enough that the importance of comparison to live is routinely dismissed. The term is often used as a description without comparison to anything else; simply to connote a quality that is considered to be lean, bright, or lacking warmth (even natural warmth); playback that is "accurate" is anything but.
"Brightness/harshness"- Often confused. Harshness does not have to be bright. It is very possible to have a harsh sound that is too dark; just as it possible to have a bright sound that is round and smooth. Tonality is often confused with texture.
Musical, warm...the list goes on
  |
Are you suggesting that there is a correlation between the descriptive definitions of musicians and various gear designers and consequently their result? Or just the systems that musicians put together vs. the rest of us? |
****But we audiophiles (and closet musician on the side such as myself)
have our own set of terminology that will befuddle most musicians. We use
many different terms to describe the similar, if not the same, thing (eg,
instrument tone, tonality, timbre, overtones, harmonics). ****- Dracule1
Yes, and that is a very real problem. It does befuddle that there should be
so little effort to understand and describe music in the same way (at least
as far as terminology, if not depth) that musicians do. At the end of the
day, this is one of the reasons that the sound of so many audio systems
bears little resemblance to the sound of live music. |
Hi Atmasphere - yes, I am of course familiar with 3/4 and 1/2 size instruments in the string world, I had just never heard the term "scale" applied to them, being purely a classical orchestral horn player. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank you again for all your highly informative posts I have read on this board over the last several years. You have a way of putting very technical subjects into layman's terms that is unequaled in my experience. |
Learsfool, when you are not talking about orchestra musicians, the idea of long scale and short scale basses is well-known. A short-scale bass (electric, BTW) will have a neck about the same length as a guitar. A long-scale bass will have a longer neck, so the translation between the scale for a string bass player to a long-scale bass is about the same.
Long scale and short scale concepts are not used with classical instruments. But there *are* different sizes, at least with basses; I played a half-sized bass in jr. high, but my personal bass was a 3/4 size. As I understand it, full-size basses are rather rare- I don't think I have ever seen one. Most of the basses you see in orchestras are 3/4 size. |
Learsfool, "neutral", in almost all cases, is a subjective audiophile term. IMO, only people truly qualified to use this term are recording engineers who have the capability to compare their recordings with the live performance that was recorded in their studios or venue. Don't get me wrong, as I've sinned too using this term in the subjective sense for lack of a better word.
As for "midrange", this can cover 200-300 Hz to 1-3 kHz depending on the audiophile. And yes as you state, this covers most of the frequency range of most instruments. That's why most audiophiles often proclaim the midrange is the most important because most of the music occurs in this range. Broad yes, but sometimes useful. |
|
Hi Kijanki - thanks for the link. I am going to have to ask one of my viola colleagues about this tomorrow! As far as I knew, the string lengths of all the instruments in the orchestra string family were approximately the same length (with the obvious exceptions of harp and piano), but that article claims this is not necessarily true of the viola. I am now wondering if this is a typically sloppy Wikipedia reference to viols, used in early music groups, which are of many different sizes, or if it does indeed apply to orchestral violas, which I tend to doubt. I will report back.
@Dracule - yes, audiophiles use quite a few terms somewhat differently than musicians do. My personal pet peeve is "neutral," LOL! But there are others, even such seemingly self-explanatory words as "mid-range." This is a very misleading term to a musician unfamiliar with how audiophiles use it, as it turns out that the vast majority of frequencies produced by acoustic instruments fall well within what most audiophiles call the midrange, though audiophiles will often disagree on exactly what constitutes the midrange. Other obvious candidates are "pace" and "timing." I have seen some very bizarre discussion of those two terms in particular on audiophile boards. |
NFB....love it or hate it.
Most things occur in shades of grey, not pure black and white. |
Hi Dracule1,
I `ve never read or been told that NFB exists within a tube`s internal/intrinsic construction.I don`t believe that"every amplifier" has NFB. I`m not an engineer nor a designer of audio components but I think some of them would disagree with your friends statement.When people talk of NFB it`s in terms of deliberate insertion into a circuit either globally or local loops.
But really it`s just what sound we all prefer.You like some NFB in your amps circuit and that`s fine.What ever no or zero NFB is, that`s what sounds best to me when properly implemented.This has been an interesting thread and I appreciate the various points of view.
Rgards, |
Learsfool, I know "tight" is not a term most musicians use. But we audiophiles (and closet musician on the side such as myself) have our own set of terminology that will befuddle most musicians. We use many different terms to describe the similar, if not the same, thing (eg, instrument tone, tonality, timbre, overtones, harmonics). |
Kijanki, thanks for pointing that out on the Stereophile article. One famous amplifier designer told me there is no such thing as totally zero negative feedback. Even the tubes themselves can have built in feedback. |
Learsfool, Term "Scale" applies to all string instruments. Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_%28string_instruments%29
Upright basses have 10" longer scale than bass guitar. It makes for much higher string tension* resulting in (as Dracule1 called it) "initial fast transient attack followed by natural decay and rich harmonics".
*Since string tension goes in square of length 43.3" upright bass has twice the string tension of McCartney's 30.25" Hofner bass that in comparison sounds flabby with lack of definition - poor attack, muddy overtones. . |
Hi Kijanki - yes I realize this is semantics; I do now understand what you were talking about - however, your use of terms is very bizarre to an orchestral musician. Orchestral string players do not speak of the length of their strings as "scales" (and neither do they use the term "tight" to describe their sound, as I explained in my earlier post). The use of the term "scale" in the way you do must be a guitar thing. Probably because the length of the string on an orchestral instrument is always the same, whereas in a guitar it would not necessarily be.
I also fully understand the way in which some audiophiles use the term "tight" - I just disagree that it is a good term. I could see the term applied to an amplified string bass or acoustic guitar sound, but this would be because of the amplification, not because of the instrument itself. The term is simply not used in describing live, un-amplified, acoustically produced music (certainly not in the classical world, anyway), and therefore doesn't really have anything to do with Harry Pearson's "absolute sound" concept, if one agrees that that should be the standard for what a system should ideally sound like. If one doesn't agree, then by all means use the term. Dracule's definition of the common audiophile way of using it is as good as any, though I have never heard a pianist use it. Drummers, yes. Even timpanists, though they generally use the term to describe the tightness of their drumheads and the effect this has on the sound, which is somewhat different, I think, from Dracule's description.
Charles1dad, I agree with your post in response to mine completely. |
Ralph, My previous speakers had smaller woofers and smaller cabinets but bass extension was 5Hz lower. Bass quality wise it is much better now with more natural attack and decay. It sounds more even, resonating less with the room (same amplifier). I read that speaker bass can be tuned for max extension (it sells!) or for the lowest distortion. Bass now seems to be very melodic, natural and effortless while before it was a little congested. As for damping, my amp has DF=4000 at low frequencies, but it doesn't make much difference since xover inductor in series with the woofer is usually about 0.1ohm limiting DF to 80.
Dracule1, on p4 of the Stereophile article they test Cary amp with adjustable feedback and describe sound change. At the end no feedback sounded the best. It doesn't mean that amp had zero feedback. There could be still a lot of local and perhaps even some global feedback left. |
I listen to all sorts of music and even play electronic keyboards in my band.
'Tight' to me in its simplest definition is an artificial coloration imparted by overdamped speakers. You get a fast attack, but not so much body behind the initial thump. Depending on the amount of overdamped issues (no speaker is made that needs more than 20:1 BTW) this amount of body is variable. What I find is the low frequency ambient signature of the room is the first fatality to this problem.
Any tube amp can be made to have a 20:1 damping factor or more with enough feedback. Most transistor amps have considerably more. What I am talking about here is not really saying that the amp can't play bass right, but if there is no speaker that is not overdamped with that amp then its a moot point.
The head engineer of EV wrote a 2-part article about this back in the late 50s. You might think that somehow the physics that he was writing about went away in that time, but they didn't... about the only thing that is really different is that there are 4-ohm speakers now. If we are talking about a 4 ohm speaker, then the damping factor of the amp can be up to 40, as damping factor relates to 8 ohms only during measurement, whereas any speaker can be overdamped if its impedance is more than 20X that of the amp. |
I consider both acoustic and electronic forms of music in assessing quality of sound reproduction because I listen to it all. I have heard acoustic bass sound fabulous but synthesized bass be greatly lacking at the same time, and vice versa. |
As an aside, many years ago I had LWE speakers, which provided negative feedback from the speakers back to the amp. The idea was to monitor the speakers response to the input signal and correct the differences by providing feedback to the amp. So, it was an attempt to correct the imperfections of the speaker, rather than those of the amp. As I understand it, the feedback was trying to do more of a long term, overall correction rather than a short time duration correction. I was never sure how much the feedback effected the sound, but I did like them paired with an old Dynaco SS integrated. People always asked why I have wires coming out of the top of the amp. Obviously, the idea never made the main stream, but the speakers were well reviewed at the time. |
Dracule1,
I agree this is semantics, we all seem to be describing the same natural character of acoustic bass.The difference is our individual ways of achieving this sound in our systems.You chose PP tubes,Kijanki with class D and me with SET amps. Different ears ,different solutions.
Regards, |
Learsfool, this is all semantics. I have been playing classical guitar since high school, and have dabbled in piano and sax. I have attended concerts at some of the finest halls in the country (Symphony Hall in Boston, etc) and listen to live unamplified acoustic music on a regular basis (Jazz, folk, and classical). By tight, I don't mean bass that has been stripped of harmonic content and sounds dry. I mean muddy bass that has been stripped of harmonic content distorting the timbre of the instrument. Tight bass has initial fast transient attack followed by natural decay and rich harmonics. This can be heard with plucked stand up bass, low piano notes, kick drum, tympani etc. There are exceptions of course such as wind instruments, like church organ, tuba, etc. |
Learsfool, Upright bass has better "definition" related to fact that strings are, being long scale, at high tension. Sound of plucked string instrument can be defined by factors like Presence, Projection, Sustain, Separation and Tone. Upright bass has huge projection and great separation making for punchy tight sound, but at the same time has good presence and long sustain. Sound depends entirely on the player, that can play it to use projection and shorten the notes to kill sustain or can play softer because of good presence and use sustain "filling" the room with bass that reverberates. All I'm saying is that short scale bass guitar like McCartney's Hofner will sound flabby no matter how you play it, because it is extremely short scale bass with very low string tension. For the same reason Strat electric guitars sound punchier than shorter scale Les Pauls. |
Learsfool,
Thanks for your comments and viewpoint.I made it a point to be clear about the enrivoment in the jazz I attended.Kenny Washington`s stand up bass was 'natural' and unboosted. Definitely not'tight' in the audiophile sense.This is why IMO tube amplifier bass sound more real than most solid state when reproducing acoustic bass, there`s no artificial'slam' added.I do appreciate though that many do like that 'slam' factor and I`m likely in the minority..
Regards, |
If I may chime in here on the "tight" bass issue. Atmasphere's description of the string bass is a good one - no orchestral bassist would want to be told that he sounds "tight." I am sorry to say that Kijanki's post in response makes almost no sense from this standpoint. No truly great sounding instrument sounds "tight," though one with a problem, or a bad quality one might. This would be considered a very negative description.
Charles1dad makes a good point: "there are audiophile qualities/expectations that appear to vary from the reality of live acoustic instruments. If some audiophiles were blind folded and heard peter`s bass playing(but told they`re hearing a system and judge it) they might say it lacked tightness and was too warm and round.People like what they like,but many audio components tend to thin and make the sound leaner(tighter?) than real life presentations i.e. fuller tone and body with weight and presence."
To this point, I would add that we also need to distinguish between amplified and unamplified acoustic bass - as soon as amplification is used, as it almost always is in live jazz, for instance, this results in an artificially boosted bass, and a very different sound from the unamplified string bass.
There are a great many audiophiles who do not listen to classical music even on recordings, let alone live, and therefore really don't have any idea what an un-amplified string bass actually sounds like live. Their concept of how bass is supposed to sound is therefore entirely based on either electronically produced or at least amplified acoustic bass. This is the biggest reason why there is so much debate about this in the audiophile community - there are two VERY different references going on. When orchestral musicians use the term "tight," they are never describing timbre. You simply would never hear someone say "He sounds tight!" Instead this term is used to describe how rhythmically together the group is playing - as in tight or loose ensemble. |
|
Dracule1,
A 300b SET has 'very little' heat output.There`s only 1 output tube(8 watts) per monoblock.My PP amps run much warmer with 4 6550 per side. You may never prefer a SET no NFB compared to PP with some NFB. I`m just giving my own preference(after living with both amplifier types with extensive direct comparisons) and by no means making any sort of proclamation that applies universally.I wish you continued enjoyable listening with your system. |
Ah got it, Charles1dad. May be one day, if I have the right speaker, I'll get a DHT amp. But I'm not sure if I can deal with the heat. My OTL amp raised the temp of my listening room by 15 degrees F easily in the summer. I've owned KT88/6550/KT120/EL34 and OTL amps. |
Dracule1,
KT88s are beam tetrodes as you state. They are grouped and interchanable with the power pentodes(6500,EL 34,KT 90.120 etc.). Many amplifiers(such as mine) allow use of most of these, especislly KT 88 and the 6550 tubes.DHTs are a completely seperate catagory altogether.
Push pull amps can sound excellent(my Bella Extreme 100 monoblocks built by Bill Baker and my friend`s VAC Phi 300.1 monos). There`s just a different character to the sound.
Regards, |
Thanks Kijanki for the link. |
I thought KT88s are beam tetrodes, not pentodes?
I do like the sound of DHT amps without feedback in the right system. They have a certain magic to the sound that I think is missing in tetrode or pentode amps with feedback. IMO, DHTs are more expressive than life making tetrode/pentode comparably "dull", hence I can see why they are popular. However, I don't think DHTs are as true to life...I know many feel just the opposite. |
Dracule1,
"the ears have the final say"
This is right and the reason we`re all stating our preferences.I won`t argue with what you hear and say you`re wrong,we just differ based on personal experiences.
As I said in an earlier post,that`s why there`re numerous types of amplifiers in the high end market place.
I found DHT SET no NFB the better choice based on my ears. Your ears led you to PP pentode with NFB,The good news is we`re both very happy,choice is wonderful.
The bass debate may just be semantics regarding the term 'tight'.Two nights ago I had the pleasure to see(and hear) the Bill Charlap trio. Peter Washington was playing the acoustic bass. the club is intimate and unamplified, I was within 10 feet of the stage. The sound of peter`s bass was just beautiful,very full,round, dense and there is much a sense of bloom.I did`nt hear tight or taut,(it was`nt loose and sloppy either, but it was a bit'fat')even when he played very up tempo. The notes seem to linger with much substain and decay, just beautiful live and up close.I do believe there are audiophile qualities/expectations that appear to vary from the reality of live acoustic instruments. If some audiophiles were blind folded and heard peter`s bass playing(but told they`re hearing a system and judge it) they might say it lacked tightness and was too warm and round.People like what they like,but many audio components tend to thin and make the sound leaner(tighter?) than real life presentations i.e. fuller tone and body with weight and presence.
Regards, |
Ralph I think we're confusing semantics regarding 'tight' bass. To me, a KT88 amp with feedback has more natural bass than most SET amp with no feedback or for that matter an OTL amp with miss matched speakers. |
Atmasphere, It depends how tight is tight. Acoustic bass is the tightest type because of the very longest scale. On the other side of the spectrum is Paul McCartney's Hofner Violin bass that has very short scale and horrible definition. I believe McCartney started using longer scale Rickenbacker first time in "Paperback Writer" and it shows - much tighter bass. The best recorded bass (very tight) I have is on Chick Corea "Akoustic Band" and it is upright bass. Perhaps at 7th grade you couldn't afford good instrument? |
Mapman, I agree with you. The ears have the final say. That is why I posted. IME, negative feedback is beneficial. |
Atmasphere, Now I got it. Thanks! |
The problem with too much focus on negative feedback is that not all amps that use it are created equal. They do things differently and to different degrees.
I have heard some including mine deliver all the goods including bass quite well and naturally for both acoustic and electronic instruments, semantics aside.
Most are probably not able to discern from technical specs a good implementation versus a not so good one. One has to trust their ears. Generalizations focused on one of many design principles that go into these things are of little value IMHO. There is no consensus on this, even among experienced EEs and amp designers, obviously. So try various amps with various designs for oneself and see. Or just go with your gut but be sure to always focus on technical synergies between specific amps and speakers if you do, otherwise all bets are off. |
Dracule1, I have played string bass since 7th grade. 'Tight' is one thing is isn't. Energetic- yes, detail- sure- its a real instrument. But you won't ever find one sounding 'tight'. We may have a semantic problem here; for me 'tight' is punch but little else. Sure, I want the impact, but I want the detail too, and that is something that lots of feedback robs from the bass frequencies- things 'stop' too quickly. IMO/IME its the bass detail and ambiance that goes away first as things go wrong in a stereo.
Kijanki, I would agree with you regarding what NFB is **supposed** to do, but if you also have propagation delay in the amplifier there is no way that the NFB is not mixing with a different frequency- thus the IM. You might want to read Norman Crowhurst- he mentioned this very issue in some depth about 55 years ago.
In a nutshell, low IM is a function of linearity in the various circuits of the amp. If there are non-linearities and NFB is applied, its not reasonable to expect that there will be no IM afterwards. Instead, while the IM will appear to go down, you will find that the energy of the distortion is spread out over the spectrum- that is to say it is by no means eliminated.
Chaos Theory does apply here. If you analyze an amplifier operating with NFB it basically is a chaotic system, complete with bifurcation (which we audiophiles call distortion) and a strange attractor (which interestingly, Norman Crowhurst graphed before Choas Theory was a recognized science!). The formula for NFB and a classic Choatic system are strikingly similar, if not identical.
When you use Choas Theory to analyze an amplifier, then it is easy to see how IM and NFB interact. Imagine a balloon on the floor with air in it, and then a weight placed on top of it; the balloon will squish out to hold the air before it bursts. An amplifier with NFB is similar- when you look at the open loop spectra, using NFB is like adding the weight to the balloon. The spectra expands across many harmonics, with inharmonic information added due to intermodulations at the feedback node (I am nearly quoting Crowhurst verbatim here but that is the succinct way of putting it). IOW the energy of the distortion does not go away nearly so much as we have been led to imagine in many school classes! |
Dracule1, Read this:
http://www.stereophile.com/reference/70/index.html |
Getting back to my original point...here's a thought experiment. Let's say you design a tube amp with different levels of negative feedback, let's say in increments of 3 dB from 0 to 30 dB. Assuming you have a good speaker/amp match, what you you hear as you increase the negative feedback from 0 to 30 dB? This may be simplistic, but has someone actually performed this kind of experiment? |
Ralph, by "tightness" I'm referencing real acoustic bass instruments such as kick drum or stand up bass. Therefore, it is not an system artifact. |
Atmasphere,
Your explanation of the natural noise floor compared to the 'harmonic noise floor' sounds absolutely right,here`s why. I know my former Symphonic Line and my PP tube amplifiers will measure lower distortion than the 300b SET amp. Yet when I listen to familiar music with these amps the SET in reality had the lowest noise floor for actual listening. It teveals more nuance,inner detail,ambience clues, all the subtle sounds that were either buried or not heard at all with the other amplifiers.This contrast is very apparent. Thanks for this explanation. I could hear all of this easily but did`nt understand why.This is likely a major factor why evrything sounds substantially more real and convincing with the DHT SET in place.It all makes more sense now.
Regards, |
since IM will occur at the feedback nodes of the amplifier, resulting in a harmonic noise floor (rather than a natural hiss noise floor caused by component noise). Atmasphere, I'm not sure I understand it. IM is caused by the presence of two frequencies on non-linear element resulting in "harmonic noise floor" meaning that there will be new frequencies of small amplitude harmonically related (sum and the difference) to original frequencies. NFB reduces IM by linearizing circuit - therefore REDUCES harmonic noise floor. Very deep NFB can make it almost perfect practically eliminating IM at the cost of introducing TIM. Eliminating NFB might be possible with the inherently linear tubes but not with transistors that require linearization and regulation. Interaction with the speaker might have more to do with the type of the amplifier - SS representing Voltage Source and Tube amp representing Power Source. |
