"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

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

"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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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... :-)

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

"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

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

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

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..... ;-)

"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

"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

"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

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

"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

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

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

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

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