[Mark Aitchison]

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

[Ian Bell]

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

[Mark Aitchison]

Does anyone have a translation for:

"The sound can only be described as magnificent, warm and silky, but
extremely powerful and live."

[Sander deWaal]

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. -

[Arny Krueger]

"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.