Is the appeal to euphonic distortion learned?

I don't think its learned.

The presence of enough 2nd or 3rd (both are treated by the ear the same way) masks the presence of the higher ordered harmonics. This is common in tube equipment but not so much in solid state equipment, although Nelson Pass (as an example) is careful to see to it that his stuff expresses a bit more of the lower orders than many solid state products to create this masking.

I'm not saying that his stuff makes more distortion. I am saying that the **ratio** of lower orders to higher orders is enough that the lower orders are able to mask the higher orders to a certain extent. So you can still have lower distortion, say 0.05%THD and still get this masking to work.


Traditional solid state has typically been lower distortion but since the higher ordered harmonics aren't masked solid state has gotten a reputation for being bright and harsh, since the ear is keenly sensitive to these harmonics and assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion. This is why tubes are still around.

Its arguable that the orders of the harmonics should have a weighting system applied, since the ear is insensitive to the lower orders and very sensitive to the higher orders.


When the music is correctly reproduced, the higher ordered harmonics won't be audible. But when the 2nd in particular is too profound, the electronics are said to be 'euphonic', which is to say that they are musical, just perhaps not all that neutral.


But this is certainly not learned! All humans respond to these harmonics in the same way; the higher orders are used by the ear to sense sound pressure. That is why the ear is so sensitive to them.

I believe what we learn has a weight, i will take it the other way round.
Imagine what our reaction would be if hearing a euphonic amp for the first time having heard only accurate ones. 

G

I'm not saying that his stuff makes more distortion.

This is something easily seen in the Stereophile measurements, but judging Pass gear is not the point I'm trying to make here.

In large part I wonder if my like or dislike for certain gear has to do with how I grew up, in terms of gear.  Nature vs. nurture.

I crave detail. If it's all euphoric and warm, I'd figure I was being cheated. But, then again, I'm all vinyl and tubes so anything could be in there! My current main rig is detailed, sweet, holographic and surprisingly clear, transparent and neutral. 

I don’t think its learned.

The presence of enough 2nd or 3rd (both are treated by the ear the same way) masks the presence of the higher ordered harmonics. This is common in tube equipment but not so much in solid state equipment, although Nelson Pass (as an example) is careful to see to it that his stuff expresses a bit more of the lower orders than many solid state products to create this masking.

I’m not saying that his stuff makes more distortion. I am saying that the **ratio** of lower orders to higher orders is enough that the lower orders are able to mask the higher orders to a certain extent. So you can still have lower distortion, say 0.05%THD and still get this masking to work.


Traditional solid state has typically been lower distortion but since the higher ordered harmonics aren’t masked solid state has gotten a reputation for being bright and harsh, since the ear is keenly sensitive to these harmonics and assigns a tonality to all forms of distortion. This is why tubes are still around.

Its arguable that the orders of the harmonics should have a weighting system applied, since the ear is insensitive to the lower orders and very sensitive to the higher orders.


When the music is correctly reproduced, the higher ordered harmonics won’t be audible. But when the 2nd in particular is too profound, the electronics are said to be ’euphonic’, which is to say that they are musical, just perhaps not all that neutral.


But this is certainly not learned! All humans respond to these harmonics in the same way; the higher orders are used by the ear to sense sound pressure. That is why the ear is so sensitive to them.
Report this

Very good posts right on the spot for me thanks...


I will only add that all discussion in audio about S.S and tubes are secondary to the main point : how to reach the highest S.Q. possible...

Why?

Because that means nothing at all comparing tubes/versus S.S. in general... There is too much difference in the different embeddings conditions where these comparisons took place sometimes and too much difference between bad and good S.S. and bad and good tubes and all levels between bad and good.... Then chosing one abslutely over the other possiblity make no sense....Anyway electronic design can create these 2, tubes and S.S., on par with each other... Sansui made it 45 years ago.... 


Acoustic control is one of the 3 keys to S.Q. and the main one key, choice of gear are only fouth,five,and six’th keys..... Second key is electrical noise floor control and third key mechanical vibrations and resonance control...

Why?

Because it is way more easy to buy a decent very good piece of gear than implementing the processus of controlling all the different parameters embeddings ,especially the acoustical one...

How do you think a tube amplifier or a S.S. amplifier sound in a bad room?

How much value can we give to a review in an bad or not optimally controlled room when the reviewers speak about "nuances" and subtle acoustic cues ?


Creating this thread is fun anyway and we must learn something with post like the one i just used ..... Thanks to the poster....Thanks to the OP.