Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
mini survey: sonic characterics techno-speak
Reviews of various makes and vintages of (mainly) output tubes are all
over the place on (mainly) sales websites, like "aggressive dynamic tone", "very smooth/silky midrange" and "American-sounding (i.e. more midscooped, less midrange grind, cleaner with more headroom, later breakup)" etc. Not wishing to start a war over subjective vs objective, but simply wanting to get a feel for what RATs generally think, I have two questions (multi-choice if you like!) for your consideration.... 1. What do YOU think of these subjective definitions of the sonic qualities of tubes/valves? (A) Very helpful, accurate descriptions of the tubes that anyone would notice and agree with if they had the time to try them in their own amplifiers. (B) Accurate, but describing fine details of differences that would be invisible to those with average hearing, but to intelligent audiophile ears they pin down the nuances that are so important to enjoyment of the sound. (C) Plain-English translations of differences in characteristics (such as capacitance, minor plate curve variations) that an engineer could glean from good technical spec sheets, but made more accessible to the public by using everyday language and taking into account what the implications might be in listening tests if using good systems. (D) Descriptions of sonic qualities of the tubes themselves, pretty much unaffected by the circuit in which they are placed (assuming a reasonably good quality amplifier), based on differences that ARE NOT usually contained within normal published technical data, but still have a foundation in physical differences (perhaps density of internal supports, oxygen content of heater wires, etc), and so these descriptions have repeatability and can pass scientific "double blind" tests. (E) Although sounding like everyday descriptions of tubes, this use of jargon (such as "dark", tight", bright") carries very specific technical information that is not for the uneducated public because it requires experience both in learning the meanings, associating emotions with sounds, and skill to apply sonic results that are obviously coming from a particular reviewer's standpoint (and influenced by their sound system) into your specific amplifier/speaker/room environments. (F) Basically valid differences (but possibly unnoticeable in real life) between devices, put in poetic inexact language - conveying a small amount of information but not a great help. (G) Mostly useless, sometimes contradictory, unscientific mumbo-jumbo that may contain claimed qualities that the tubes themselves have no control over. 2. What do you think OTHERS generally think when finding such reviews: (A) Those with engineering training, who can understand technical specs and curves won't need such descriptions, but generally still respect them as helpful for others. (B) Serious audiophile listeners and technically-literate designers alike will use these, placing greater value on them than on datasheets and plate curves; second only to long listening tests to their own finished equipment with components substituted where time/money permits. (C) Most readers of this news group would probably have a low opinion of much of the subjective reviews, but may still respect some observations concerning various makes and models if they come from many respected sources. (D) A lot of people might base their first decision to upgrade their amp by tube replacement on these descriptions, but soon learn to look to other sources of information. Mark A |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
mini survey: sonic characterics techno-speak
Mark Aitchison wrote:
Reviews of various makes and vintages of (mainly) output tubes are all over the place on (mainly) sales websites, like "aggressive dynamic tone", "very smooth/silky midrange" and "American-sounding (i.e. more midscooped, less midrange grind, cleaner with more headroom, later breakup)" etc. Not wishing to start a war over subjective vs objective, but simply wanting to get a feel for what RATs generally think, I have two questions (multi-choice if you like!) for your consideration.... 1. What do YOU think of these subjective definitions of the sonic qualities of tubes/valves? (H) A complete waste of time in any context. 2. What do you think OTHERS generally think when finding such reviews: (A) I'm an audiophile and I can hear things noone else can. These terms describe exactly what I hear. (B) I'm a high end tube audio marketing professional looking forward to early retirement in the Bahamas. I use these terms because I know the audiophools, whoops, audiophiles love them and will pay big bucks to by crap sounding kit. (C) I'm an engineer and I know this is a load of marketing bollox to part the foolish from their cash. Ian |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
mini survey: sonic characterics techno-speak
Does anyone have a translation for:
"The sound can only be described as magnificent, warm and silky, but extremely powerful and live." |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
mini survey: sonic characterics techno-speak
Mark Aitchison said:
Does anyone have a translation for: "The sound can only be described as magnificent, warm and silky, but extremely powerful and live." Yep. "Push-pull triode amplifier.". ;-) -- - Maggies are an addiction for life. - |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
mini survey: sonic characterics techno-speak
"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
Mark Aitchison said: Does anyone have a translation for: "The sound can only be described as magnificent, warm and silky, but extremely powerful and live." Yep. "Push-pull triode amplifier.". ;-) This definitely fits, as compared to say, a SET. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
This is techno | Pro Audio | |||
This is techno | Tech | |||
Techno Ejay | Pro Audio | |||
Anybody speak french ? | Audio Opinions | |||
FA: Classic 12" house and Techno collection | Marketplace |