Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
from Goodbye Group conversation
"Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master
tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:58:10 -0500, "truegridtz"
wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. Shame that you did not include all the typical tubie SS knocking that preceded it, and my succeeding comment that some 'high-end' cretin will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. Not *necessary*, just much more common. Really good tube amps are thin on the ground, and *extremely* expensive. Think ARC and C-J. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Sure they were, so what? Everything is part of the performance, right up to the final mixdown master tape. After that, the job of the hi-fi gear is to get that signal to the speakers with the minimum possible degradation. That's a *lot* harder with tubes, especially if combined with vinyl. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:58:10 -0500, "truegridtz" wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. Shame that you did not include all the typical tubie SS knocking that preceded it, I did read some of it. SS can sound awful as can improperly designed tube circuitry. I listen to simple box phonos with tube amps sometimes. They turn themselves off, nice feature. They are very easy to listen to. SS box phonos are a different story, difficult to tolerate. and my succeeding comment that some 'high-end' cretin will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ Well, I guess the tube does help. Digital has some peculiar problems that tubes seem to smooth out. Converter noise is some nasty stuff. I have heard that tubes refuse to put out a square wave. This says to me that they don't readily respond to the jagged waveform that is characteristic of noise. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. Not *necessary*, just much more common. Really good tube amps are thin on the ground, By "thin" do you mean short on useable power? and *extremely* expensive. Think ARC and C-J. I don't think they must be expensive. I heard a Jolida that only cost a few hundred dollars. It sounded really good. stereo 6CA7 PP. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Sure they were, so what? So you are talking about good versus lousy tube circuitry. Assuming that the studios used the good stuff it seems that good tube gear would do a good job of reproducing the master as would good SS gear. One thing that I think is significant: I have an overhauled Fisher console with PP 6BQ5. I put a Dual in it. The older mono recordings from the 50s really come to life through this Fisher. No doubt these records were mastered with all tubes. The point here is that waveforms that come from tubes may be best reproduced by tubes. The horns in these old swing orchestras really come through clear with this Fisher, with a definition and presence that SS doesn't seem to be able to provide. 78 rpm records can really come to life through an overhauled Philco from the 40s. SS simply can't do this to a 78. Everything is part of the performance, right up to the final mixdown master tape. After that, the job of the hi-fi gear is to get that signal to the speakers with the minimum possible degradation. That's a *lot* harder with tubes, especially if combined with vinyl. I would say just the opposite: it is a lot harder with SS since distortion in SS is intermodulation and it is second harmonic distortion in tubes. Tubes do a much better job of smoothing noise. Everyone's hearing is different. I find cheap SS to be far worse than cheap tube circuitry. I don't recall have ever heard a SS amp that is what I would call exemplary. The only really expensive ones I have heard were in a high-end store. Tens of thousands of dollars of amps and silver cable, the whole bit. $4K Linn LP12 with Archive cart. It still suffered from the SS syndrome. I suppose it is the way they design SS amps, trying to get all of the bandwidth out of them. I agree that tube amps can get very "ringy", but I have never heard a SS amp that I thought was really clean. The only SS amp that I can consistently listen to is the one I built for myself. I over-compensated it such that it is down in response about 3% at 17KHz. I used multipliers in the preamp for electronic gain control. The controls are all DC voltages. No tone controls. The passive RIAA equalizer is built with teflon caps. The teflon smooths noise like paper caps. Teflon is a flexible dielectric. Caddock non-inductive resistors are in the feedback loop. MAT-02 supermatched pair was used for the input stage. TL431 programmable zeners were used for the input tail current and the output AB bias. The theory behind the 431 is that the improved dynamic response will decease modulation in the bias circuit as compared to using a simple zener. Does everything here help the sound? I don't know. With mint vinyl and whatever stylus sounds best with a particular record I can listen to it for hours without getting irritated with SS sound characteristics. Even so, I am still planning on converting to tubes when I can decide on some certain design aspects. All a matter of time. If you like SS the best, then you are lucky. If you like digital through SS then you are most fortunate. To each his own. What SS amp do you say is capable of yielding the sound of the master recording? Mark -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Below is a post from Spewit Oinkerton that has so many gross
descriptions of operation of tube amps that it is pointless replying in detail.. Beware the Oinkerton, for he is full of bull****. The sooner he leaves this news group where he operates as a troll and stops his condemnations of tube operated gear, the better. He manages to lead all intelligent and discerning readers of his posts to come to the same simple conclusion that he knows sweet **** all about tube operated equipments. Patrick Turner. Stewart Pinkerton wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:58:10 -0500, "truegridtz" wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. Shame that you did not include all the typical tubie SS knocking that preceded it, and my succeeding comment that some 'high-end' cretin will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. Not *necessary*, just much more common. Really good tube amps are thin on the ground, and *extremely* expensive. Think ARC and C-J. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Sure they were, so what? Everything is part of the performance, right up to the final mixdown master tape. After that, the job of the hi-fi gear is to get that signal to the speakers with the minimum possible degradation. That's a *lot* harder with tubes, especially if combined with vinyl. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
truegridtz wrote: "Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:58:10 -0500, "truegridtz" wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. Shame that you did not include all the typical tubie SS knocking that preceded it, I did read some of it. SS can sound awful as can improperly designed tube circuitry. I listen to simple box phonos with tube amps sometimes. They turn themselves off, nice feature. They are very easy to listen to. SS box phonos are a different story, difficult to tolerate. and my succeeding comment that some 'high-end' cretin will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ Well, I guess the tube does help. Digital has some peculiar problems that tubes seem to smooth out. Converter noise is some nasty stuff. I have heard that tubes refuse to put out a square wave. This says to me that they don't readily respond to the jagged waveform that is characteristic of noise. You have heard wrong. Tubes are capable of operation up to UHF frequencies and beyond. **All AUDIO** amplifiers are bandwidth limited devices, often only passing between 10 Hz and 100 kHz, and can pass enough of the frequencies contained in a square wave to make it look substantially like a square wave. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. Not *necessary*, just much more common. Really good tube amps are thin on the ground, By "thin" do you mean short on useable power? and *extremely* expensive. Think ARC and C-J. I don't think they must be expensive. I heard a Jolida that only cost a few hundred dollars. It sounded really good. stereo 6CA7 PP. Spewit Oinketon is one who will try to lead you astray on all matters asociated with tube amps. He really knows an extremely small amount about thier detailed operation. He has an irrational hate of tube amps, and has a set of ideas that are eventually poisenous to anyone who prefers what tubes do with music. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Sure they were, so what? So you are talking about good versus lousy tube circuitry. Assuming that the studios used the good stuff it seems that good tube gear would do a good job of reproducing the master as would good SS gear. Tube amps were retired from many studios in the years after 1960 because the new SS amps were cheaper, and had "features", and supposedly would last forever without a repair or re-tube, ran cooler, and occupied less space, and were easier to push around on a trolley. Many studios made their decisions with no regard to subjective sound quality. On that score, SS was certainly not always better, but was worse. One thing that I think is significant: I have an overhauled Fisher console with PP 6BQ5. I put a Dual in it. The older mono recordings from the 50s really come to life through this Fisher. No doubt these records were mastered with all tubes. The point here is that waveforms that come from tubes may be best reproduced by tubes. I can't agree here. Signals that have been produced by tube gear are in theory equally well transferred by SS gear. Be not worried by my disagreement though, since in practice the SS sometimes mauls the musical signal in subtle ways. Too many stages of amplifiers and tape transfers will degrade a signal regardless of whether tubes or SS are used. The horns in these old swing orchestras really come through clear with this Fisher, with a definition and presence that SS doesn't seem to be able to provide. 78 rpm records can really come to life through an overhauled Philco from the 40s. SS simply can't do this to a 78. I am not so sure I could say that. Sometimes the overall quality of 78 was so bad, and so noisy that no matter what replay system was used, nothing would make it as good as vinyl when its good, with all tube gear. What is crucial for "entertaining" 78 replay is a good magnetic cart and to get the right replay eq applied for the various ones used. In practice its a vague business to say the least. If anything, just using the RIAA with a bass/treble tone control should get 78 about right. An old customer has a huge stack of 78 and I supplied a Nagoaka 78 rpm cart for his Dual and he was happy as a mudlark. His MM preamp has EF86 with feedback RIAA eq. Since recordings were often bass shy, and treble rich, with only lip service paid to recording eq, most of his stack of ancient recordings are fun to listen to. After the long era of the 78 passed, the next generation of musicians had to sit and play all their tunes again so they could be recorded on vinyl. Many 78s were direct to disc recordings, no master tape. But with vinyl, there was usually a mastertape, and two or more tracks, with post recording processing and editing, as the electronics allowed it. The music industry is re-releasing the same master tape recordings but transferred to CD, and SACD and DVD. I cannot see the point of listening to 78 unless one enjoys crude reproduction of precious moments in history, and if one likes Dame Nellie Melba singing opera, she's only to be found on a 78. Nostalgia is fine, but it ain't hi-fi. The LP allowed far more musical scores to be recorded, since so many went for longer than 5 minutes. Further liberation occured with CD which allowed an hour. Now we have many fine examples of the same piece of music ( along with some dreadfuls, where nothing sounds good ) Its almost as if we have recorded everything worth recording, and the problem is that the production of interesting new musical works is drying up, and what we are getting is a stream of post deconstructionalist garbage, or a-musical noise, rather like the trend in modern art, which insults our eyes, and has us wincing in pain at the art gallery, and thinking the artist to be a right git. Sure there is some good new music, but there is much junk filling small production runs of CDs. No amount of wonderful tube amplification will save some forms of modern music which is ****e to begin with. The PC looms large in the modern composers mind, and computer effects and enhancement mean that the signal called music are mucked about with considerably in the production process, and since there is so little acoustically generated sound, what's the point of accurate amps? Do we need a Halcro with 0.00005% thd to reproduce some repetitive PC generated garbage written by a jerk who has never attended music school or played a real instrument? I think not. And perhaps this is exactly where the crummy tube amp which measures grossly badly comes in handy, to add yet another layer of grunge and therefore some how appeals to some people. So there is a case for the correctness of deconstructionalism in audio trends. Anything is right if that's what you like. But where someone has gone to some trouble to play some Bach on an old cello well, I will prefer to have a really good SE amp and some good speakers. Everything is part of the performance, right up to the final mixdown master tape. After that, the job of the hi-fi gear is to get that signal to the speakers with the minimum possible degradation. That's a *lot* harder with tubes, especially if combined with vinyl. I would say just the opposite: it is a lot harder with SS since distortion in SS is intermodulation and it is second harmonic distortion in tubes. Tubes do a much better job of smoothing noise. Arguments about distortion don't really mean as much ans Oinky makes out. The fact is that both tube gear and SS gear both produce IMD as a result of the non linearities resulting from more simply described THD. Much of what has been recorded in the past using all tube gear used SE pentode gear, or balanced PP circuitry, with a lot of NFB, and with very tiny amounts of 2H. One simply cannot generalise that tube gear sounds best since the THD comprises of mostly 2H. Much tube equipment produces mostly 3H. This means that the wave forms tend to get a bit squashed as they move to the +ve and -ve extremes of their amplitudes. What is forced to move backwards and forwards tends to resist the change of direction at the turning points. This produces 3H. Some moving things, including electronic signals transfered in a device, tend to want to move one way more than the other, leaving the +ve wave peaks sharper than the -ve wave peaks, and this is 2H. Harmonic production in devices and transducer movements are not as simple as I suggest. Analysis will show far more complexity is possible, and the impact on music is variable. RDH4 is a good read on the subject, both for its information and to ease us away from obsessively wanting thd/imd to be at levels 2 orders of magnitude lower than can be audible. Everyone's hearing is different. I find cheap SS to be far worse than cheap tube circuitry. Yes, but for the price of a cheap tube amp you can buy a well measuring SS amp. A cheap tube circuit would be the type of audio amp used in a mantle radio set from 1955, which might have a 6V6 with no NFB and an appalling OPT and speaker, and fed with an AM signal with 5% thd of mixed odd and even order products, and with an audio bandwidth of 4 kHz. These radios were expensive in their day, costing a fortnight's pay in 1955, but they were crap performers. Today, what is meant by a cheap tube amp? I thought they were all somewhat "expensive", simply because the really cheap solid state junk exported from china etc simply gives us a warped set of values. I had to repair an SE EL34 power amp last year' It had the wrong value load for a pentode class A amp with the wrong value of Ea, and even with 12 dB of NFB it sounded no better than a crummy SS amp. The owner sure thought so. The measurements indicated it'd sound well below what could have been achieved with the same weight of iron, copper, and glass had the designer in Thailand known slightly more about wtf he was doing. This two channel horror was usd $700. But rock and roll or techno would sound fine, because all that junk is outrageously pre-distorted for consumption. The cheapest SS audio amps would easily outperform and sound better than a 6V6 as used in a mantle radio, or the more modern made POS from Thailand, if our aim is to faithfully reproduce the essence of a well played accoustic instrument. The SS AM tuners I have heard in cheap AM/FM recievers are abysmal, and sound worse than their tube counterparts from 1960. However, with a decent modern CD or vinyl source, Many audio enthusiasts find tube audio amps present music far more accurately and alive than any of the SS amps thay have tried. Oinky disputes that this is possible, since the measurements indictate otherwise, but he is simply a pharquit with cloth ears, and believes only in measurements. He is of that species, homo limitedentus The facts are that the measurements of most good tube gear indicate the signal handled by tube amps is not being mauled badly enough for the artifacts to be audible. The Williamson amp of 1947 made 0.1% of mainly 3H at 16 watts output. At a watt of average power, the thd averaged 0.025%. The eminantly stupid Oinkerton would have us believe that a Williamson amp would ruin what we listen to because of its excessive thd. I make tube amps which produce 0.2% at 100 watts on a routine basis, and with modern speakers the average level might be 4 watts, and the average thd is 0.03%. 4 watts average, both channels, into 90 dB sensitive speakers, 1W/1M is painfully loud to me, since it gives around 99 dB SPL. CJ and ARC make tube amps which measure considerably better, but one pays a bigger price. I saw a brand new retro styled McIntosh 275 in a local store for aud $4,300, or usd $3,100. One could pay a heck of a lot more for some brands of SS amps. I don't recall have ever heard a SS amp that is what I would call exemplary. The only really expensive ones I have heard were in a high-end store. Tens of thousands of dollars of amps and silver cable, the whole bit. $4K Linn LP12 with Archive cart. It still suffered from the SS syndrome. I suppose it is the way they design SS amps, trying to get all of the bandwidth out of them. I agree that tube amps can get very "ringy", but I have never heard a SS amp that I thought was really clean. There definately are some 'clean' sounding SS amps about. One customer of mine swapped his 100 watt/channel Musical Fidelity amp for a pair of 25 watts SE tube amps. The music became music, with life, rather than the dry clinical dull sound he was getting. You'd think it was accurate until you swapped to some decent tube amps. Some folks like Oinkerton probably prefer the lifeless sound of supposed accuracy. He should not go around saying we all must conform to his silly ideas. The MF amps are to me amoungst the smoothest sounding SS amps I have ever heard. But the tubes sound better. The only SS amp that I can consistently listen to is the one I built for myself. I over-compensated it such that it is down in response about 3% at 17KHz. I used multipliers in the preamp for electronic gain control. The controls are all DC voltages. No tone controls. The passive RIAA equalizer is built with teflon caps. The teflon smooths noise like paper caps. Teflon is a flexible dielectric. Have you tried going to http://www.vacuumstate.com This is Allen Wright's web site with some interesting hybrid ideas for phono as well as some pure SS phono stages. My phono preamp has 2SK369 cascode driving 6EJ7 in triode, passive RIAA, then 12AT7 mu follower stage. No global NFB. snr is the best I have ever tested in any amp. thd is 0.1% at 10 vrms output, all 2H but usually i only want 0.5vrms at 0.02%. The music retains its life and warmth and dynamics. massed voices and brass have no hard fizz at elevated levels, and what I hear is close to the concert hall performance. I used mainly Wima polyprop caps, and Beyshlag R. I have had to change to Wewyn R, since the price of Beyshlag went up 400% when Vishay bought out Beyshlag. I don't think R or C make a huge difference; its the topology used and the circuit details that matter far more than brand names of the parts imho. Teflon might be flexible, but it'd be hard to prove it does anything better or substantially differently to any other sort of dielectric material as used in caps for a passive RIAA network. I have seen guys try teflon caps, then move to oil filled papers, and so on..... the perfect sound is just a new capacitor away........ Opinions differ about capacitors and resistor brands, but when you measure the effects of the materials used, and examine the claims made, there is no co-relation between measurements and claim accuracy, so I believe and disbelieve all claims, since no claim is the total truth or lie. Caddock non-inductive resistors are in the feedback loop. MAT-02 supermatched pair was used for the input stage. TL431 programmable zeners were used for the input tail current and the output AB bias. The theory behind the 431 is that the improved dynamic response will decease modulation in the bias circuit as compared to using a simple zener. Does everything here help the sound? I don't know. Zeners and diodes for biasing simply do not belong anywhere near a signal path in a phono amp. Zeners have noise across wide band of F, so don't use them, unless the noise from them is perfectly filtered after their position in a circuit, say as a shunt regulating element. With mint vinyl and whatever stylus sounds best with a particular record I can listen to it for hours without getting irritated with SS sound characteristics. Even so, I am still planning on converting to tubes when I can decide on some certain design aspects. All a matter of time. If you like SS the best, then you are lucky. If you like digital through SS then you are most fortunate. To each his own. What SS amp do you say is capable of yielding the sound of the master recording? Mark Better to ask him what system can reproduce the sound heard at a concert where no amplifiers were used at all. We need a good laugh. Patrick Turner. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Too bad you wasted a lot of thought and time on Pinkie.
Pinkie's self-professed objectivity is a sham. He is a troll in the true sense of the term; he is only interested in inciting people. Anyone sensible and rational who loathes tube craft as much as he does would find something better to do with his time than what Pinkie does here, acting like a complete asshole. Keep the faith. Cheers. Jon |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jon Yaeger wrote: Too bad you wasted a lot of thought and time on Pinkie. Pinkie's self-professed objectivity is a sham. He is a troll in the true sense of the term; he is only interested in inciting people. Anyone sensible and rational who loathes tube craft as much as he does would find something better to do with his time than what Pinkie does here, acting like a complete asshole. Keep the faith. The other guy replying to Mr Oinky had a few things worth the discussion. I really don't mean to be so blatantly opposed to Mr O but then he tries to engage us, but sooner or later makes the usual clanger, or series of them and ppl should know..... He could happily hang out here if he built his dreams and respected our plans but he tramples our dreams and he has no plans. Patrick Turner. Cheers. Jon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
truegridtz wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark What if the master tape was recorded with tube gear? Do we need SS amps to be sure we're hearing the tubes right? ;-) Lord Valve Solid State Tube Freak |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
truegridtz wrote: I have heard that tubes refuse to put out a square wave. This says to me that they don't readily respond to the jagged waveform that is characteristic of noise. What it says is that they are slow in the rise-time department. Although, we don't have any problem getting square waves out of Marshall stacks. ;-) Lord Valve Loud |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
comment that some 'high-end' cretin
will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ Lets see, a pair of 3V4 outputs, a pair of 1u5 drivers, and a pair of 5678s for the tape head preamp. Why not.... should be plenty of audio power for headphones... :-) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:49:22 GMT, robert casey
wrote: comment that some 'high-end' cretin will doubtless bring out a Walkman with a tube stuck on its output, and make wondrous claims for it, as they already have done with CD players................ Lets see, a pair of 3V4 outputs, a pair of 1u5 drivers, and a pair of 5678s for the tape head preamp. Why not.... should be plenty of audio power for headphones... :-) This will of course magically repair all the 'musical magic' somehow mysteriously lost in the preceding 843 transistors inside the Walkman, will it? :-) Personally, I'd much rather see everyone using the 211 for headphone amplification. This works bests if you take the headphone connection direct from the anode................. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Lord Valve" wrote in message ... truegridtz wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark What if the master tape was recorded with tube gear? Do we need SS amps to be sure we're hearing the tubes right? ;-) The quote given at the beginning of this post was not by me, it was from Mr. Pinkerton. You are asking a question similar to mine. That is, why is a SS amp necessary to hear the master (assuming the sound source is not from a multi-generation copy of the master). Also assuming that the record is not pressed with a worn stamper, or on recycled vinyl with chunks of label in it. Or on a press that didn't have sufficient steam pressure to form the groove right, or pressed with a stamper that has some "pull-off" stuck to it, or a lacquer master cut by an engineer that didn't know the pitch screw was worn out thus yielding groove walls that are punched through, or the engineer didn't align the cutting stylus right, or the stylus was worn and the studio was too cheap to have it sharpened. Actually, I wonder if a record (vinyl) cut with tube amps is not best reproduced with tube circuitry. Mark Lord Valve Solid State Tube Freak |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
truegridtz wrote: "Lord Valve" wrote in message ... truegridtz wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark What if the master tape was recorded with tube gear? Do we need SS amps to be sure we're hearing the tubes right? ;-) The quote given at the beginning of this post was not by me, it was from Mr. Pinkerton. You are asking a question similar to mine. That is, why is a SS amp necessary to hear the master (assuming the sound source is not from a multi-generation copy of the master). Also assuming that the record is not pressed with a worn stamper, or on recycled vinyl with chunks of label in it. Or on a press that didn't have sufficient steam pressure to form the groove right, or pressed with a stamper that has some "pull-off" stuck to it, or a lacquer master cut by an engineer that didn't know the pitch screw was worn out thus yielding groove walls that are punched through, or the engineer didn't align the cutting stylus right, or the stylus was worn and the studio was too cheap to have it sharpened. Actually, I wonder if a record (vinyl) cut with tube amps is not best reproduced with tube circuitry. Mark Regardless of the source, be it from vinyl without all the possible problems you list above, or from a CD which was produced almost solely by digital streams apart from the mic amp for the low mic signal, the tube or solid amps will impart their sonic signature. Amplifiers used in replay are often chosen on the basis of personal preference and I leave others to argue which sounds best, solid state or bottles. There **is no consensus**. It is **extremely** unlikely that any measured benefit is derived by using tube replay solely because it is known that tubes were used in the analog production process. There may be a subjective benefit, so if that's what you hear, then go with it, don't fight it. Most tubed cutting head amps were chosen because of their good enough linearity and suitablity for the task, and to get that linearity deemed necessary, lots of NFB was usually used for the amp, and the better ones were pure class A, so that the thd from the amp was much less than from other sources, including that there is inherent distortions produced in cutting a record, even if the cutting amps and any other amps used had zero noise and distortions. I recall that in 1965 one could purchase pre-recorded 1/4 inch tapes which one would run in reel to reel tape decks which were large heavy complex beasts, but the sound could be better than vinyl. I once placed a set of new heads in a large SS TEAC 4 tracker RtR and despite the class A solid state headphone amps, the sound I heard from tapes the guy lent me with 1988 recordings was fantabulous. One would like to think a large powerful class A tube amp would make an excellent low distortion cutting head amp and one that would contribute a negligible increase in the distortions already there from the mic, mic amp, recording amp, and tape, and so on. Then on replay, the same is also certainly possible as long as a few simple rules are followed. All this "tube goodness" practice was well established by 1965. Not by every studio though; some didn't service their gear often, used inferior tube amps, and generally didn't stick to the best known practices of the day. Along came digital and swept everything away including the analog SS recording gear, which BTW didn't make analog sound any better than the better tube amps in studios. Some diehards soldiered and they knew how to get analog to sound quiet, undistorted, dynamic, and plain fantabulous, or subjectively more pleasing than the digital guys could manage. I would say that with 96kHz and 24 bit, digital is only now maturing. If you believe in tubes, use them only, and don't worry who recorded what with whatever amps. Having a foot in either camp by keeping an SS amp system on the ready for comparison use isn't against any law I know of. Patrick Turner |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:35:09 GMT, Patrick Turner
wrote: Amplifiers used in replay are often chosen on the basis of personal preference and I leave others to argue which sounds best, solid state or bottles. There **is no consensus**. Well, actually there *is* a consensus outside of RAT. Tube amps tend to have distinctive sound signatiures, SS amps tend to sound like their input signal. Personal preference is a whole other matter. And of course, really good amps *can* be built using solid-state or hollow-state - it's just a lot more expensive with fire-bottles! -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
This will of course magically repair all the 'musical magic' somehow mysteriously lost in the preceding 843 transistors inside the Walkman, will it? :-) I'm talking about removing all of the SS and using all tubes :-) Personally, I'd much rather see everyone using the 211 for headphone amplification. This works bests if you take the headphone connection direct from the anode................. That would be shockingly transparent and airy..... ;-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... : On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 13:35:09 GMT, Patrick Turner : wrote: : : Amplifiers used in replay are often chosen on the basis of : personal preference and I leave others to argue which sounds best, solid state : or bottles. : There **is no consensus**. : : Well, actually there *is* a consensus outside of RAT. Tube amps tend : to have distinctive sound signatiures, SS amps tend to sound like : their input signal. Personal preference is a whole other matter. And : of course, really good amps *can* be built using solid-state or : hollow-state - it's just a lot more expensive with fire-bottles!$ : : -- : : Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering $ and getting from A to B in a TT is more expensive then in a Panda. So ? Rudy |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Patrick Turner" wrote in message ... truegridtz wrote: "Lord Valve" wrote in message ... truegridtz wrote: "Yup, and it's also great if you *really* want to hear what the master tape sounded like." Since the original thread got so long I put the above quote here. The idea here is that solid state circuitry is necessary to hear what the master tape really sounds like. I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark What if the master tape was recorded with tube gear? Do we need SS amps to be sure we're hearing the tubes right? ;-) The quote given at the beginning of this post was not by me, it was from Mr. Pinkerton. You are asking a question similar to mine. That is, why is a SS amp necessary to hear the master (assuming the sound source is not from a multi-generation copy of the master). Also assuming that the record is not pressed with a worn stamper, or on recycled vinyl with chunks of label in it. Or on a press that didn't have sufficient steam pressure to form the groove right, or pressed with a stamper that has some "pull-off" stuck to it, or a lacquer master cut by an engineer that didn't know the pitch screw was worn out thus yielding groove walls that are punched through, or the engineer didn't align the cutting stylus right, or the stylus was worn and the studio was too cheap to have it sharpened. Actually, I wonder if a record (vinyl) cut with tube amps is not best reproduced with tube circuitry. Mark Regardless of the source, be it from vinyl without all the possible problems you list above, or from a CD which was produced almost solely by digital streams apart from the mic amp for the low mic signal, the tube or solid amps will impart their sonic signature. Amplifiers used in replay are often chosen on the basis of personal preference and I leave others to argue which sounds best, solid state or bottles. There **is no consensus**. It is **extremely** unlikely that any measured benefit is derived by using tube replay solely because it is known that tubes were used in the analog production process. There may be a subjective benefit, so if that's what you hear, then go with it, don't fight it. Most tubed cutting head amps were chosen because of their good enough linearity and suitablity for the task, and to get that linearity deemed necessary, lots of NFB was usually used for the amp, and the better ones were pure class A, so that the thd from the amp was much less than from other sources, including that there is inherent distortions produced in cutting a record, even if the cutting amps and any other amps used had zero noise and distortions. I recall that in 1965 one could purchase pre-recorded 1/4 inch tapes which one would run in reel to reel tape decks which were large heavy complex beasts, but the sound could be better than vinyl. I once placed a set of new heads in a large SS TEAC 4 tracker RtR and despite the class A solid state headphone amps, the sound I heard from tapes the guy lent me with 1988 recordings was fantabulous. 1988 reel-to-reel tapes? I didn't think they still made them commercially. If you are talking about the Teac 3440 they had 741 op-amps. Someone gave me a couple of them and heads at that time were $700 per deck so I scrapped them. I remember seeing the 741s. I was surprised that circuitry made from 741s could be notorious for good sound. I have about 15 American Airlines 3 3/4ips reels here for in-flight music. They are from the 60s. I have never played them. They are Tijuana Brass, Paul Mariat, etc. One would like to think a large powerful class A tube amp would make an excellent low distortion cutting head amp and one that would contribute a negligible increase in the distortions already there from the mic, mic amp, recording amp, and tape, and so on. Then on replay, the same is also certainly possible as long as a few simple rules are followed. All this "tube goodness" practice was well established by 1965. Not by every studio though; some didn't service their gear often, used inferior tube amps, and generally didn't stick to the best known practices of the day. I have gotten the impression that many record manufacturing facilites were run like burger joints. OTOH, Liberty Visual Sound is impressive, if I can find unworn copies. The easy listening like Vikky Carr and Johnny Mann has some very good engineering. If this type of sound (mid to late 60s) is made with SS it would be surprising. Along came digital and swept everything away including the analog SS recording gear, which BTW didn't make analog sound any better than the better tube amps in studios. Some diehards soldiered and they knew how to get analog to sound quiet, undistorted, dynamic, and plain fantabulous, or subjectively more pleasing than the digital guys could manage. It may depend on what someone looks for in music. If a person has damaged hearing (as many people do whether they know it or not) then the bashing and grinding hi-freq of digital may rattle what is left of their ear bones. With analog it is easy to listen to any given instrument in an orchestra in conjunction with the spacial effects. Digital simply cannot contain the esssential information for this. Digital is like a huge picture painted on the side of a building that is only colored squares if you get to close to it. If I get too close to digital I only hear the converter raging in sensless chaos. It also has virtually no center image because the center is dependent on a lot of phase information. Phase seems to be what digital simply can't reproduce, it seems to be devoured during the quantizing process. A good analog phonograph record contains tons of information that digital doesn't. The detail in digital is overwhelmed by the predominant information in the signal. I simply cannot pick out a detailed aspect of a digital recording and listen to it. It is continually swallowed up by bigger and more brutal bits. I would say that with 96kHz and 24 bit, digital is only now maturing. The more bits the worse it sounds to me. Only the 1-bit SuperAudio has any merit to my ears. As I under stand 1-bit is does not quantize the digital info. If you believe in tubes, use them only, and don't worry who recorded what with whatever amps. I don't "believe in tubes", but they do have their advantages. Having a foot in either camp by keeping an SS amp system on the ready for comparison use isn't against any law I know of. It's all good fun to me. The more I dig into it the more I learn and the better the sound has become through the years. I have many turntables and amps both SS and tube. At this point I will surely put my construction efforts into "firebottles." They seem to have the most to offer. Mark Patrick Turner |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"truegridtz" wrote in message ... I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark Your information is correct. Many CD mastering facilities have a stereo studio analogue tape machine, as many clients ask for an analologue pass in the mastering chain. The tape machine in most demand for this role is the Studer C37, a valve machine. Iain |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:55:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches"
wrote: "truegridtz" wrote in message ... I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark Your information is correct. Many CD mastering facilities have a stereo studio analogue tape machine, as many clients ask for an analologue pass in the mastering chain. The tape machine in most demand for this role is the Studer C37, a valve machine. This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the question. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message ... On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 14:55:06 +0300, "Iain M Churches" wrote: "truegridtz" wrote in message ... I was told by someone in the recording business that tubes were extensively used for studio mastering well into the 70s. At least for the cutting amplifiers, as I recall. Anyone know for sure? Mark Your information is correct. Many CD mastering facilities have a stereo studio analogue tape machine, as many clients ask for an analologue pass in the mastering chain. The tape machine in most demand for this role is the Studer C37, a valve machine. This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the question. -- The OP asked for confirmation of a point. I replied to his question in the first sentence of my reply. I also added that analogue recorders with Dolby SR are often part of the CD mastering chain (and frequently requested by the client) People who are not familiar with mastering on a day to day basis are not aware of this. I thought that Mark might be interested. Cordially, Iain |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
The high priest of doped silicon complained thusly: This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the question. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Excuse me, but does anyone else see a bit of irony here?? - Jon |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
I once placed a set of new heads in a large SS TEAC 4 tracker RtR and despite the class A solid state headphone amps, the sound I heard from tapes the guy lent me with 1988 recordings was fantabulous. 1988 reel-to-reel tapes? I didn't think they still made them commercially. I don't know where he got his stock of tapes from, but he had a lot of them. The deck was a Teac A430, 4 tracker for 1/4" tape. A new head was aud $225, brand new from a Teac support guy in Melbourne.. If you are talking about the Teac 3440 they had 741 op-amps. Someone gave me a couple of them and heads at that time were $700 per deck so I scrapped them. I remember seeing the 741s. I was surprised that circuitry made from 741s could be notorious for good sound. I have about 15 American Airlines 3 3/4ips reels here for in-flight music. They are from the 60s. I have never played them. They are Tijuana Brass, Paul Mariat, etc. Ppl hate 741. Maybe placing a 5k resistor from the output to one of the rails to force the output to work in class A and emitter follower makes them sound better. All this "tube goodness" practice was well established by 1965. Not by every studio though; some didn't service their gear often, used inferior tube amps, and generally didn't stick to the best known practices of the day. I have gotten the impression that many record manufacturing facilites were run like burger joints. I'll have an extra large one with the lot thanks. So you get the noise and distortion and maybe some transistor sound ketchup....... OTOH, Liberty Visual Sound is impressive, if I can find unworn copies. The easy listening like Vikky Carr and Johnny Mann has some very good engineering. If this type of sound (mid to late 60s) is made with SS it would be surprising. Along came digital and swept everything away including the analog SS recording gear, which BTW didn't make analog sound any better than the better tube amps in studios. Some diehards soldiered and they knew how to get analog to sound quiet, undistorted, dynamic, and plain fantabulous, or subjectively more pleasing than the digital guys could manage. It may depend on what someone looks for in music. If a person has damaged hearing (as many people do whether they know it or not) then the bashing and grinding hi-freq of digital may rattle what is left of their ear bones. I get ppl saying they like the sound of vinyl and tape much more than any digital. Its almost irrational, almost neurotic... Anyway, I have heard both from state of the art systems, a friend had some Miles Davis on DVD audio and on vinyl, both from the same master tape, both palying at the same time, so we switched between the two and the vinyl was better subjectively. Our ears at our age are not as clear as we were at 20, but then at 20 ears are untrained, and Miles Davis is boring. And distortion that a 20 yr old wouldn't notice becomes noticeable now; and edgy sound is all the worse if over a certain threshold, so as we age the system has to get better to compensate for ageing, and that our expectations are higher. With analog it is easy to listen to any given instrument in an orchestra in conjunction with the spacial effects. Digital simply cannot contain the esssential information for this. Digital is like a huge picture painted on the side of a building that is only colored squares if you get to close to it. If I get too close to digital I only hear the converter raging in sensless chaos. It also has virtually no center image because the center is dependent on a lot of phase information. Phase seems to be what digital simply can't reproduce, it seems to be devoured during the quantizing process. I won't comment much, but sound stage is often better with vinyl. A good analog phonograph record contains tons of information that digital doesn't. The detail in digital is overwhelmed by the predominant information in the signal. I simply cannot pick out a detailed aspect of a digital recording and listen to it. It is continually swallowed up by bigger and more brutal bits. I would say that with 96kHz and 24 bit, digital is only now maturing. The more bits the worse it sounds to me. Only the 1-bit SuperAudio has any merit to my ears. As I under stand 1-bit is does not quantize the digital info. Again I won't comment since I know so little about digital. If you believe in tubes, use them only, and don't worry who recorded what with whatever amps. I don't "believe in tubes", but they do have their advantages. Having a foot in either camp by keeping an SS amp system on the ready for comparison use isn't against any law I know of. It's all good fun to me. The more I dig into it the more I learn and the better the sound has become through the years. I have many turntables and amps both SS and tube. At this point I will surely put my construction efforts into "firebottles." They seem to have the most to offer. Mark Its easy to make a tube amp sound well, and hard to make a class A triode amp sound bad if you have the power ceiling. Its harder to make any transistor amp sound as good as the triode amp......... I switched to MC last year, and that made a nice difference from the MM I had been using. I am considering a line array type of speaker, maybe a nice surprise awaits me. Patrick Turner. Patrick Turner |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 14 Apr 2005 09:13:02 -0400, Jon Yaeger
wrote: The high priest of doped silicon complained thusly: About the high priest of silicon bottles: This has absolutely *nothing* to do with the question. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering Excuse me, but does anyone else see a bit of irony here?? No irony in *my* amps, dude! :-) -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Some unattributed person wrote:
It may depend on what someone looks for in music. If a person has damaged hearing (as many people do whether they know it or not) then the bashing and grinding hi-freq of digital may rattle what is left of their ear bones. Urban legend. It's analogue that has problems at high frequencies. With analog it is easy to listen to any given instrument in an orchestra in conjunction with the spacial effects. Digital simply cannot contain the esssential information for this. Bull****. Even 16/44 contains *vastly* more information than vinyl. Digital is like a huge picture painted on the side of a building that is only colored squares if you get to close to it. Clearly, you have *no* idea how digital audio works. If I get too close to digital I only hear the converter raging in sensless chaos. Does this *mean* anything? It also has virtually no center image because the center is dependent on a lot of phase information. Bull**** - the centre depends on there being *no* phase information. Phase seems to be what digital simply can't reproduce, it seems to be devoured during the quantizing process. Utter nonsense. Clearly, you have *no* idea how digital audio works. If you want to see phase information *really* being destroyed, try vinyl. I won't comment much, but sound stage is often better with vinyl. That's because it's all phasey in the midrange.................. A good analog phonograph record contains tons of information that digital doesn't. The detail in digital is overwhelmed by the predominant information in the signal. I simply cannot pick out a detailed aspect of a digital recording and listen to it. It is continually swallowed up by bigger and more brutal bits. That's absolute rubbish. 16/44 digital has *at least* 20dB more low-level detail than does vinyl. Clowns like you forget that when CD was first launched, everyone was amazed by how much *more* they could hear, that had previously been obscured by vinyl noise and distortion. I would say that with 96kHz and 24 bit, digital is only now maturing. The more bits the worse it sounds to me. Only the 1-bit SuperAudio has any merit to my ears. As I under stand 1-bit is does not quantize the digital info. Of course it quantises the input signal. SACD also has absolutely horrific levels of supersonic noise.Clearly, you have *no* idea how digital audio works. -- Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Goodbye group | Vacuum Tubes | |||
Invitation to join the Yahoo Alesis Masterlink ML-9600 Discussion Group | Pro Audio | |||
What are they Teaching | Audio Opinions | |||
New Yahoo Group for Memorex MP3 Players | General | |||
Carillon Audio Computers discussion group | Pro Audio |