JJ vs. Electro-Harmonix Tubes

[Peter]

I wonder if anyone might have compared JJ vs. Electro-Harmonix tubes, and
what their findings were?

Thanks a lot in advance.

[Scott Dorsey]

Peter <reply to newsgroup only> wrote:
>I wonder if anyone might have compared JJ vs. Electro-Harmonix tubes, and
>what their findings were?

I have in the past pulled curves on some tubes sold by each company. Any
particular type you are interested in and any particular application?

Electro-Harmonix rebadges tubes from many different sources. JJ is a
Slovakian manufacturer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I wonder if anyone might have compared JJ vs. Electro-Harmonix tubes, and
>
> what their findings were?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.



Which tube type(s)? I've just swapped out a pair of JJ 6V6's for Electro-Harmonix and found they are slightly less firm in the low end, but very similar in mids & highs. They seem to have a little less headroom (before distortion) than the JJ's, too. I think I liked the JJ's more & will likely switch back next time I replace my power tubes.

This is in an Egnater Rebel 20 and the type of amp its self will mean individual results will vary.

Mike

[gareth magennis]

wrote in message
...

On Tuesday, June 10, 2014 10:56:22 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I wonder if anyone might have compared JJ vs. Electro-Harmonix tubes, and
>
> what their findings were?
>
>
>
> Thanks a lot in advance.



Which tube type(s)? I've just swapped out a pair of JJ 6V6's for
Electro-Harmonix and found they are slightly less firm in the low end, but
very similar in mids & highs. They seem to have a little less headroom
(before distortion) than the JJ's, too. I think I liked the JJ's more &
will likely switch back next time I replace my power tubes.

This is in an Egnater Rebel 20 and the type of amp its self will mean
individual results will vary.

Mike





Can you back up those observations with a properly conducted Double Blind
Test?


Gareth.

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>
>>Which tube type(s)? I've just swapped out a pair of JJ 6V6's for
>>Electro-Harmonix and found they are slightly less firm in the low end, but
>>very similar in mids & highs. They seem to have a little less headroom
>>(before distortion) than the JJ's, too. I think I liked the JJ's more &
>>will likely switch back next time I replace my power tubes.
>>
>>This is in an Egnater Rebel 20 and the type of amp its self will mean
>>individual results will vary.
>
>Can you back up those observations with a properly conducted Double Blind
>Test?

You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in guitar
amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial differences.
In part this is because when the traditional tube designs and most of the
modern adaptations were made, nobody was thinking about how the tubes behaved
outside of the normal operating envelope, so when you run them way out of
the normal operating regions and into clipping, they tend to behave in less
than predictable ways.

The Electro-Harmonix 6V6 is from the Reflektor plant in Saratov, and I can
say that on a curve tracer it meets all the specs on the RCA datasheet and
performs as well within the normal envelope as the RCA. But.... run it
outside of the normal envelope and I wouldn't hazard any guess about what
it does.

Consequently, the criteria people use for selecting tubes for a guitar amp
are very different than those that one would use for selecting tubes for a
normal audio application.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On 12 Jun 2014 19:51:39 -0400, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>>
>>>Which tube type(s)? I've just swapped out a pair of JJ 6V6's for
>>>Electro-Harmonix and found they are slightly less firm in the low end, but
>>>very similar in mids & highs. They seem to have a little less headroom
>>>(before distortion) than the JJ's, too. I think I liked the JJ's more &
>>>will likely switch back next time I replace my power tubes.
>>>
>>>This is in an Egnater Rebel 20 and the type of amp its self will mean
>>>individual results will vary.
>>
>>Can you back up those observations with a properly conducted Double Blind
>>Test?
>
>You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in guitar
>amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial differences.
>In part this is because when the traditional tube designs and most of the
>modern adaptations were made, nobody was thinking about how the tubes behaved
>outside of the normal operating envelope, so when you run them way out of
>the normal operating regions and into clipping, they tend to behave in less
>than predictable ways.
>
>The Electro-Harmonix 6V6 is from the Reflektor plant in Saratov, and I can
>say that on a curve tracer it meets all the specs on the RCA datasheet and
>performs as well within the normal envelope as the RCA. But.... run it
>outside of the normal envelope and I wouldn't hazard any guess about what
>it does.
>
>Consequently, the criteria people use for selecting tubes for a guitar amp
>are very different than those that one would use for selecting tubes for a
>normal audio application.
>--scott

Guitar amps will show up tube differences where Hi Fi amps won't
because of the lack of negative feedback and its linearizing effect.

d

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:51:39 -0400, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Gareth Magennis > wrote:
>>
>>>Which tube type(s)? I've just swapped out a pair of JJ 6V6's for
>>>Electro-Harmonix and found they are slightly less firm in the low end,
>>>but very similar in mids & highs. They seem to have a little less
>>>headroom (before distortion) than the JJ's, too. I think I liked the
>>>JJ's more & will likely switch back next time I replace my power tubes.
>>>
>>>This is in an Egnater Rebel 20 and the type of amp its self will mean
>>>individual results will vary.
>>
>>Can you back up those observations with a properly conducted Double
>>Blind Test?

I'm not sure I believe in ABX or "double-blind" tests for audio anymore.

Anyone with ears can ABX a piano and a trombone and identify the piano.
But for very subtle things that might be happening on a barely-conscious
level or even completely subconscious level, I think ABX is useless.

Having said that, I would love to have a friend visit and swap 12AX7's in
my home-built guitar preamp and see if I can identify my favorite in a
"blind" test while playing live through decent headphones. I really don't
know what would happen, but at least it would be fun.

> You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in
> guitar amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial
> differences. In part this is because when the traditional tube designs
> and most of the modern adaptations were made, nobody was thinking about
> how the tubes behaved outside of the normal operating envelope, so when
> you run them way out of the normal operating regions and into clipping,
> they tend to behave in less than predictable ways.

Before clipping, they may be more predictable, but no one ever said
different manufacturers' tubes acted identically in any range. They meet
the datasheet specs, but there's a lot of room for variety within the
specs. Different manufacturers' tubes (at least for the 12AX7/ECC83
models I have here) seem to have different mechanical construction, so I
can't believe they produce exactly the same levels of harmonic distortion
products, which is what creates the timbre modification. People are
pretty sensitive to different timbres, so I expect different tubes to
sound different. (As long as there isn't any negative feedback canceling
out harmonic distortion.)

> Consequently, the criteria people use for selecting tubes for a guitar
> amp are very different than those that one would use for selecting tubes
> for a normal audio application.

I don't know the numbers, but I think most vacuum tubes nowadays live in
guitar amps, so what are you calling normal? :D

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 6/12/2014 7:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in guitar
> amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial differences.

Imagine the test setup for ABX testing of tubes in guitar amplifiers.
Because audio memory beyond just a couple of seconds is unreliable,
you'd need a way to switch tubes instantly unless you could prove out
two identical amplifiers as actually being identical other than the tubes.

I think that anyone who really wants to experiment with how their own
amplifier sounds with different tubes will just have to be prepared to
sell the "barely used" tubes on e-Bay that they didn't like as well as
others, and be quiet about their results so just because you didn't
prefer them in your amplifier won't mislead a potential buyer into
thinking that they're not good in any amplifier.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article >,
Jay Ts > wrote:
> I'm not sure I believe in ABX or "double-blind" tests for audio anymore.

> Anyone with ears can ABX a piano and a trombone and identify the piano.

Rather a black or white example?

> But for very subtle things that might be happening on a barely-conscious
> level or even completely subconscious level, I think ABX is useless.

It is if you are hoping that others will agree with any difference you're
claiming to hear.

--
*Give me ambiguity or give me something else.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Sean Conolly]

"Mike Rivers" > wrote in message
...
> On 6/12/2014 7:51 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in guitar
>> amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial
>> differences.
>
> Imagine the test setup for ABX testing of tubes in guitar amplifiers.
> Because audio memory beyond just a couple of seconds is unreliable, you'd
> need a way to switch tubes instantly unless you could prove out two
> identical amplifiers as actually being identical other than the tubes.
>
> I think that anyone who really wants to experiment with how their own
> amplifier sounds with different tubes will just have to be prepared to
> sell the "barely used" tubes on e-Bay that they didn't like as well as
> others, and be quiet about their results so just because you didn't prefer
> them in your amplifier won't mislead a potential buyer into thinking that
> they're not good in any amplifier.

Heresy! The unused ones go in the shoebox for other experiments. You can't
have too many tubes in the shoebox, or too many amps to try them in :-)

Sean

[[email protected]]

or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see if you can actually hear them....

of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"

Mark

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts > wrote:
>
>I'm not sure I believe in ABX or "double-blind" tests for audio anymore.
>
>Anyone with ears can ABX a piano and a trombone and identify the piano.
>But for very subtle things that might be happening on a barely-conscious
>level or even completely subconscious level, I think ABX is useless.

A double-blind test will tell you that there is something audible going on,
but it can't rule out that there is something audible (or that might be
audible under different listening circumstances).

It's not useless, it's just that it doesn't do what some people seem to
think it does.

>Having said that, I would love to have a friend visit and swap 12AX7's in
>my home-built guitar preamp and see if I can identify my favorite in a
>"blind" test while playing live through decent headphones. I really don't
>know what would happen, but at least it would be fun.

Problem is that to do it right you have to be able to do the swap very
rapidly... you can't stop and wait a minute to change tubes and then go
to a second sample. Also, it has to be very, very precisely level matched.

Which means to do this right you'd need two identical preamps and someone
to switch them. And gain trims. But this is not an insurmoutable task
and you can railroad anyone into doing the switching.

I suspect if you do this, you'll notice a lot more difference when
you're into preamp clipping then when you aren't.

>> You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in
>> guitar amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial
>> differences. In part this is because when the traditional tube designs
>> and most of the modern adaptations were made, nobody was thinking about
>> how the tubes behaved outside of the normal operating envelope, so when
>> you run them way out of the normal operating regions and into clipping,
>> they tend to behave in less than predictable ways.
>
>Before clipping, they may be more predictable, but no one ever said
>different manufacturers' tubes acted identically in any range. They meet
>the datasheet specs, but there's a lot of room for variety within the
>specs. Different manufacturers' tubes (at least for the 12AX7/ECC83
>models I have here) seem to have different mechanical construction, so I
>can't believe they produce exactly the same levels of harmonic distortion
>products, which is what creates the timbre modification. People are
>pretty sensitive to different timbres, so I expect different tubes to
>sound different. (As long as there isn't any negative feedback canceling
>out harmonic distortion.)

The curves on well-designed tubes match pretty well and are pretty consistent.
You'll see some variation in distortion spectrum between them, but IF you
are using a circuit designed to operate in the linear range with reasonable
feedback, these differences are minimized.

That is, regular audio gear is designed and uses standard techniques to
minimize differences between tubes, and guitar circuits do not do that.

The differences in construction wind up causing differences in microphonics
more than anything else, and in most audio circuits microphonics are either
not an issue or are carefully controlled with mechanical isolation. But,
in the guitar amplifier the microphonics become a big part of the overall
sound.

>> Consequently, the criteria people use for selecting tubes for a guitar
>> amp are very different than those that one would use for selecting tubes
>> for a normal audio application.
>
>I don't know the numbers, but I think most vacuum tubes nowadays live in
>guitar amps, so what are you calling normal? :D

By "normal" I mean the applications the tubes were originally designed for.
And there's a lot of research into how tubes behave under normal conditions,
but not so much research into how tubes behave in guitar amps. Same goes
for transistors in pedals, for that matter. There are a few people trying
to model this stuff but not anywhere near enough.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

> A double-blind test will tell you that there is something audible
> going on, but it can't rule out that there is something audible
> (or that might be audible under different listening circumstances).

The basic problem with double-blind testing is that it does not test audio
electronics under the conditions they are actually used.

Nor is double-blind testing in any way "scientific", let alone "science". It
is a testing protocol that removes certain biases.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>> A double-blind test will tell you that there is something audible
>> going on, but it can't rule out that there is something audible
>> (or that might be audible under different listening circumstances).
>
>The basic problem with double-blind testing is that it does not test audio
>electronics under the conditions they are actually used.

That's not a problem at all, that's the whole point of it!

>Nor is double-blind testing in any way "scientific", let alone "science". It
>is a testing protocol that removes certain biases.

It is, and it's a very good one. It is how it is used that is (or should
be) scientific. And just because some people use it poorly is no reason
to discount it.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...

>>> A double-blind test will tell you that there is something audible
>>> going on, but it can't rule out that there is something audible
>>> (or that might be audible under different listening circumstances).

>> The basic problem with double-blind testing is that it does not test
>> audio electronics under the conditions they are actually used.

> That's not a problem at all, that's the whole point of it!

I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX testing,
which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests that
are useful.

These would including listening to equipment as you normally do -- putting on
a recording and sitting down to listen to it. Not being asked to judge whether
A sounds like B or is different.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 12:44:39 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>
>>>> A double-blind test will tell you that there is something audible
>>>> going on, but it can't rule out that there is something audible
>>>> (or that might be audible under different listening circumstances).
>
>>> The basic problem with double-blind testing is that it does not test
>>> audio electronics under the conditions they are actually used.
>
>> That's not a problem at all, that's the whole point of it!
>
>I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX testing,
>which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests that
>are useful.
>
>These would including listening to equipment as you normally do -- putting on
>a recording and sitting down to listen to it. Not being asked to judge whether
>A sounds like B or is different.

How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
protocol for recording the judgment - whatever that might be?

d

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

> How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
> protocol for recording the judgment -- whatever that might be?

I don't have time to go into the details, but long-term listening with the
listener absolutely unaware of what he's listening to, and no ability whatever
to find out, or even guess. The listener would be able to swap components at
any time, but would be strongly discouraged (perhaps even blocked) from making
rapid changes. The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short
questionnaire at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining
his mental and emotional state.

Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of the
components, if he though they had any.

The most important part of such testing would be to have at least a dozen
listeners. Testing with just one person verges on the useless.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX testing,
>which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests that
>are useful.

ABX testing is perfectly valid. The problem is that it only indicates that
you can hear something in an ABX test. You cannot prove something is
inaudible in an ABX test but you CAN prove that something is audible and
that can be very useful.

>These would including listening to equipment as you normally do -- putting on
>a recording and sitting down to listen to it. Not being asked to judge whether
>A sounds like B or is different.

Well-conducted ABX tests can be a useful tool if they are properly designed
and interpreted. A good introduction to experimental design for psychology
will detail how to conduct reasonable tests.

Just because people like Arny go off their nut about ABX testing does not
mean it's completely useless. It is useless to prove the things that many
of them want to prove, but that's their problem.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> I don't have time to go into the details,

Standard boilerplate lame excuse. Your posting history doesn't jibe
with your evasive excuse.

> The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short questionnaire
> at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining his
> mental and emotional state.

Utterly unscientific.

> Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of
> the components, if he though they had any.

Utterly unscientific.

What you've described sounds like a load of mental masturbation for
audiophools to pretend that they hear magical properties at odds with
the known laws of physic, acoustics, and mathematics. It's the land of
green marker pens and magical hockey pucks and oxygen-free litz wire
power cables and directional audio connectors. Broadly outlining their
mental and emotional states. What a load of bollix.

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:59:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>> How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
>> protocol for recording the judgment -- whatever that might be?
>
>I don't have time to go into the details, but long-term listening with the
>listener absolutely unaware of what he's listening to, and no ability whatever
>to find out, or even guess. The listener would be able to swap components at
>any time, but would be strongly discouraged (perhaps even blocked) from making
>rapid changes. The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short
>questionnaire at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining
>his mental and emotional state.
>
>Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of the
>components, if he though they had any.
>
>The most important part of such testing would be to have at least a dozen
>listeners. Testing with just one person verges on the useless.

This is just hand-waving. You couldn't possibly derive anything
meaningful this way.

d

[Trevor]

> wrote in message
...
> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see if
> you can actually hear them....

The whole idea of a tube amp is that you should be able to hear the
distortion, or else you would simply use a bigger, cheaper solid state amp!

> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"

Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for such a
test.

Trevor.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX testing,
>> which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests that
>> are useful.

> ABX testing is perfectly valid. The problem is that it only indicates that
> you can hear something in an ABX test.

Which is exactly my point. It is not a definitive test.


> Just because people like Arny go off their nut about ABX testing does not
> mean it's completely useless. It is useless to prove the things that many
> of them want to prove, but that's their problem.

I feel testing time could be better spent, but otherwise I agree completely.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:59:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...

>>> How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
>>> protocol for recording the judgment -- whatever that might be?

>>I don't have time to go into the details, but long-term listening with the
>>listener absolutely unaware of what he's listening to, and no ability
>>whatever
>>to find out, or even guess. The listener would be able to swap components at
>>any time, but would be strongly discouraged (perhaps even blocked) from
>>making
>>rapid changes. The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short
>>questionnaire at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining
>>his mental and emotional state.

>>Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of the
>>components, if he thought they had any.

>>The most important part of such testing would be to have at least a dozen
>>listeners. Testing with just one person verges on the useless.

> This is just hand-waving. You couldn't possibly derive anything
> meaningful this way.

I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained truly meaningful
information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor objective
testing currently provide.

So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful information?
I really want to learn. Really.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

> What you've described sounds like a load of mental masturbation for
> audiophools to pretend that they hear magical properties at odds with
> the known laws of physic, acoustics, and mathematics. It's the land of
> green marker pens and magical hockey pucks and oxygen-free litz wire
> power cables and directional audio connectors. Broadly outlining their
> mental and emotional states. What a load of bollix.

If you're so smart... Tell me what measurements I need to perform on an
amplifier to determine in what ways it audibly changes the signal passing
through it -- or doesn't. (I'm waiting.)

You can't assume that measurements appealing to one's intuition ("Oh, 0.01%
distortion can't possibly be audible.") tell us anything useful. Measurements
are meaningless unless you have valid listening tests to correlate the
measurements with. I know of no one, anywhere, performing valid, useful
listening tests. The anecdotal tests run by audiophile magazines are not
scientifically valid, nor is ABX testing.

I find it amazing that whenever I say I disagree with both types of testing
that all anybody hears is that I don't like ABX testing. Are people deaf, or
what?

But what do you know about anything? Where do you get your knowledge of
science from -- Star Trek reruns?

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
> information? I really want to learn. Really.

Nobody believes that. Not even you.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...

>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>> information? I really want to learn. Really.

> Nobody believes that. Not even you.

Now who's waving hands? Your empty little head has nothing useful to
contribute on the subject. So what else is new?

I am one of the few genuinely open-minded people you will ever meet. And I've
known other people who were almost as unbiased.

I love that scene in "Plan Nine" where the alien bellows "Your stupid minds
cannot comprehend..."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:59:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:59:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>
>>>> How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
>>>> protocol for recording the judgment -- whatever that might be?
>
>>>I don't have time to go into the details, but long-term listening with the
>>>listener absolutely unaware of what he's listening to, and no ability
>>>whatever
>>>to find out, or even guess. The listener would be able to swap components at
>>>any time, but would be strongly discouraged (perhaps even blocked) from
>>>making
>>>rapid changes. The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short
>>>questionnaire at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining
>>>his mental and emotional state.
>
>>>Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of the
>>>components, if he thought they had any.
>
>>>The most important part of such testing would be to have at least a dozen
>>>listeners. Testing with just one person verges on the useless.
>
>> This is just hand-waving. You couldn't possibly derive anything
>> meaningful this way.
>
>I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained truly meaningful
>information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor objective
>testing currently provide.
>
>So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful information?
>I really want to learn. Really.

Don't try to turn it round. You made the claim - so put up or admit it
was so much hot air.

d

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> If you're so smart... Tell me what measurements I need to perform on
> an amplifier to determine in what ways it audibly changes the signal
> passing through it -- or doesn't. (I'm waiting.)

Ooooh! Are you tapping your toe impatiently with your arms crossed?

> You can't assume that measurements appealing to one's intuition
> ("Oh, 0.01% distortion can't possibly be audible.") tell us anything
> useful.

I never assumed any such thing, but I guess it makes a nice strawman,
which may be the best "retort" you can come up with.

> Measurements are meaningless unless you have valid listening tests
> to correlate the measurements with.

> I know of no one, anywhere, performing valid, useful listening
> tests.

Don't get out much, do ya, sunshine? Must be a lonely life, imagining
that you already know everything.

> But what do you know about anything? Where do you get your knowledge
> of science from -- Star Trek reruns?

Project much? I think anyone who's been reading this group for a while
knows who lives in that particular fantasy world.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>>> information? I really want to learn. Really.
>
>> Nobody believes that. Not even you.
>
> Now who's waving hands? Your empty little head has nothing useful to
> contribute on the subject. So what else is new?

You've never shown any inclination for learning around here. Just
pompous bloviating that you know more and better than everyone else.

> I am one of the few genuinely open-minded people you will ever meet.

Says the guy who insists that he's always right. Priceless.

> And I've known other people who were almost as unbiased.

It must have been so disturbing to know of people who were nearly as
superior as you imagine you are.

> I love that scene in "Plan Nine" where the alien bellows "Your
> stupid minds cannot comprehend..."

You really do live a world of fantasy, don't you!

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
> wrote in message
...
>> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
>> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see if
>> you can actually hear them....
>
>The whole idea of a tube amp is that you should be able to hear the
>distortion, or else you would simply use a bigger, cheaper solid state amp!

In the case of guitar amps, that's the case. But in the case of guitar
amps, it has to be a very specific and particular _kind_ of distortion. Just
any old distortion won't do.

>> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"
>
>Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for such a
>test.

No, no, it's very useful. It'll let you see that, for example, one tube is
more microphonic at 1kc and another tube has more high order even harmonic
distortion when biased a certain way, and after a while with some listening
tests you can come to the conclusion that you like that even harmonic but
you don't like that microphonic.

The measurements are _only_ useful when correlated with listening tests but
they are very, very useful when correlated with listening tests.

Having that correlation means that you can then have someone measure a device
somewhere else in the country and you can make a good guess as to what it
sounds like without having to do extensive listening to that exact device.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX testing,
>>> which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests that
>>> are useful.
>
>> ABX testing is perfectly valid. The problem is that it only indicates that
>> you can hear something in an ABX test.
>
>Which is exactly my point. It is not a definitive test.

It's not, but that does NOT make it useless. Please stop saying that it is
useless when it fact it is very useful.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[hank alrich]

Scott Dorsey > wrote:

> William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
> >William Sommerwerck > wrote:
> >
> >>> I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX
> >>> testing, which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up
> >>> double-blind tests that are useful.
> >
> >> ABX testing is perfectly valid. The problem is that it only indicates
> >> that you can hear something in an ABX test.
> >
> >Which is exactly my point. It is not a definitive test.
>
> It's not, but that does NOT make it useless. Please stop saying that it
> is useless when it fact it is very useful. --scott

"Live or die by shades of gray"

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[PStamler]

Please take this discussion over to rec.audio.opinion, where it belongs.

Peace,
Paul

[William Sommerwerck]

"PStamler" wrote in message
...

> Please take this discussion over to rec.audio.opinion, where it belongs.

It belongs here as much as it does there.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>>>> I should have made it Perfectly Clear that I was talking about ABX
>>>> testing,
>>>> which is not a valid test. There are ways to set up double-blind tests
>>>> that
>>>> are useful.

>>> ABX testing is perfectly valid. The problem is that it only indicates that
>>> you can hear something in an ABX test.

>> Which is exactly my point. It is not a definitive test.

> It's not, but that does NOT make it useless. Please stop saying that it is
useless when it fact it is very useful.

At the risk of offending someone I respect -- how is it useful? Has it ever
provided anything even remotely definitive about the audible errors of audio
components?

Yes, I know it was used in developing lossy codecs, and that its claimed
success in revealing the errors of such codecs suggests that negative results
in other tests /are/ valid. But it isn't proof, if only because you expect
lossy codecs to have sonic fingerprints.

The real "usefulness" of ABX testing is that it allows ignorant, uncritical
people to say "Duh, look, it's //science//. We're doing //real// scientific
testing, duh, and because it's, like, science, and you're supposed to believe
//science// without any critical oppo... oppuh... uh..." Well, I object. Just
as I object to someone saying "I //heard// a difference between these two
cables/amps/turntables. Are you calling me a liar?"

You cannot have an intelligent discussion with anyone devoid of critical
judgment -- without the ability to say "Just because everyone believes
something, doesn't make it true." That's about 99.9% of all people.

The audio industry (and its wholly owned subsidiary, the audio-review
industry) doesn't know what the hell it's doing. This is why companies build
$25K amplifiers and people buy them. (I was delighted with the
not-exactly-thrilled review such an amp just got in "Stereophile".)

A pox on both their houses.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...
"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...

>>>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>>>> information? I really want to learn. Really.

>>> Nobody believes that. Not even you.

>> Now who's waving hands? Your empty little head has nothing useful
>> to contribute on the subject. So what else is new?

> You've never shown any inclination for learning around here. Just pompous
> bloviating that you know more and better than everyone else.

What can I learn from you? What do you know? Nothing.

Let me show you and the rest of the group just how utterly ignorant and
incapable you are. I want an honest answer to this (though I doubt you will
give it).

Your boss comes to you with a problem. It could the company's failure to find
a qualified employee for a critical position. Or it might be that projects
consistently come in late and overbudget. Something that other people have
tried to do, and have failed at. He wants you to fix it.

How would you go about handling this? I don't expect a detailed answer,
because I'm asking a hard question that doesn't have a glib or easy answer.
But give it a try. A couple of sentences should indicate whether you have a
grasp of the process (or a process).

I doubt you'll any useful answer, because you suffer from what is one of the
worst forms of mental stultification -- you have no idea whatever how to go
about systematically solving problems -- one of the most-important components
of practical intelligence. If you had that skill, you would understand most of
what I talk about having to explain it.

[William Sommerwerck]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:59:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>>> I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained truly
>>> meaningful
>>> information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor objective
>>> testing currently provide.

>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>> information? I really want to learn. Really.

> Don't try to turn it round. You made the claim -- so put up or admit it
> was so much hot air.

If you don't understand what is inherently wrong with anecdotal listening, and
with (so-called) scientific testing (specifically ABX), then what I can I say?
Heck, Scott Dorsey understands it without my having to explain it.

If I said you had to put a blue filter on your lens to compensate for shooting
under incandescent light, you would say that I was blowing hot air and should
prove it.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
Kludge writes:
>> It's not, but that does NOT make it useless. Please stop saying that it is
>useless when it fact it is very useful.
>
>At the risk of offending someone I respect -- how is it useful? Has it ever
>provided anything even remotely definitive about the audible errors of audio
>components?

Certainly it has. There have been many times when people have said that
some effect was inaudible, but with a simple ABX test it could be proven
to be audible.

A good example that I personally experienced was a simple test in which it
became clear that the distortion of an electrolytic capacitor was audible
(or at least that untrained listeners could tell the difference between
unbypassed and bypassed electrolytics in a test amplifier).

>Yes, I know it was used in developing lossy codecs, and that its claimed
>success in revealing the errors of such codecs suggests that negative results
>in other tests /are/ valid. But it isn't proof, if only because you expect
>lossy codecs to have sonic fingerprints.

It's often useful to show that a thing has a definite sonic fingerprint. It
isn't useful to show that it doesn't.

>The real "usefulness" of ABX testing is that it allows ignorant, uncritical
>people to say "Duh, look, it's //science//. We're doing //real// scientific
>testing, duh, and because it's, like, science, and you're supposed to believe
>//science// without any critical oppo... oppuh... uh..." Well, I object. Just
>as I object to someone saying "I //heard// a difference between these two
>cables/amps/turntables. Are you calling me a liar?"

PLEASE do not judge a very useful technique just because it's misapplied by
people who don't know what they are doing.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "None" wrote in message
>> m...
>> "William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
>> ...
>
>>>>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting
>>>>> meaningful information? I really want to learn. Really.
>
>>>> Nobody believes that. Not even you.
>
>>> Now who's waving hands? Your empty little head has nothing useful
>>> to contribute on the subject. So what else is new?
>
>> You've never shown any inclination for learning around here. Just
>> pompous bloviating that you know more and better than everyone
>> else.
>
> What can I learn from you? What do you know? Nothing.
>
> Let me show you and the rest of the group just how utterly ignorant
> and incapable you are.

You are unable to show that.

> I don't expect a detailed answer, because I'm asking a hard question
> that doesn't have a glib or easy answer.

You're a pompous blowhard if you think you can compel me to play some
stupid game where you set all the rules. Are you still waiting,
glaring, with your arms crossed, tapping your toe impatiently,
sneering "I'm WAIT-ing!"? You don't even seem to know what a cartoon
you are. I'm not playing your childish little game, and your tantrums
are really more light entertainment than anything else. Find someone
else to feed your starving ego.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
> ...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:59:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> > wrote:
>
>>>> I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained
>>>> truly meaningful
>>>> information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor
>>>> objective
>>>> testing currently provide.
>
>>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>>> information? I really want to learn. Really.
>
>> Don't try to turn it round. You made the claim -- so put up or
>> admit it
>> was so much hot air.
>
> If you don't understand what is inherently wrong with anecdotal
> listening, and with (so-called) scientific testing (specifically
> ABX), then what I can I say?

You can't say anything useful or constructive, especially as you just
recently described a purely anecdotal listening test, and implied that
it was scientific. It's fascinating that you can be so belligerent and
blustering and full of hot air when you're demanding that others
respond you exactly on your own precious little terms, but you meet a
simple challenge to back up your claim by throwing up your hands and
saying "what can I say?"

> Heck, Scott Dorsey understands it without my having to explain it.

Appeal to authority. And he's disagreed with your sweeping
condemnation of ABX, pointing out some valid uses, which he himself
has used. Or maybe you didn't read that part, in your rush to call
attention to your own blubbering and hand-waving.

> If I said you had to put a blue filter on your lens to compensate
> for shooting under incandescent light, you would say that I was
> blowing hot air and should prove it.

Changing the subject, and ducking the question.

You could just ignore the question. But instead, you have to make a
huge look-at-me display of the fact that you have no answer, ensuring
that everyone knows that you're just blowing hot air from your endless
supply.

[William Sommerwerck]

"None" wrote in message
m...

> You can't say anything useful or constructive, especially as you just
> recently described a purely anecdotal listening test, and implied that it
> was scientific.

Thank you for displaying your utter stupidity in public.

The test I described is not in any way anecdotal. It is intended to remove the
biases that occur with anecdotal testing, without at the same being not much
different from the way we normally listen.

You're worse than a food worker with hepatitis -- you spread ignorance and
stupidity.

Perhaps my "problem" is that I expect people, when presented with potentially
novel ideas, to think about them. But then, people don't think, do they? All
they want to do is defend what they currently believe.

I detest stupid people. And I don't mean people with "low" IQs, or lacking a
formal education. I mean people devoid of imagination, immune to anything that
disturbs their mental stasis, folks who have never an original thought in
their lives, morons who damn themselves with every word they speak, because
all they can do is regurgitate what they read in books.

You cannot understand how offensive your inane, brainless, self-serving
jabberings are. You know nothing and understand less.

Some years ago I suggested a test that could give strong evidence about
whether cables varied in "sound". The test's rationale was perfectly obvious
to anyone with half a brain, yet somebody -- was it you? -- immediately
attacked the suggestion for its idiocy.


> It's fascinating that you can be so belligerent and blustering and full of
> hot air when you're demanding that others respond you exactly on
> your own precious little terms, but you meet a simple challenge to back
> up your claim by throwing up your hands and saying "what can I say?"

If you don't understand -- what can I say? I gave you the chance to
demonstrate that you have a basic knowledge of problem solving, but you're not
taking it.


>> Heck, Scott Dorsey understands it without my having to explain it.

> Appeal to authority. And he's disagreed with your sweeping condemnation of
> ABX, pointing out some valid uses, which he himself
> has used. Or maybe you didn't read that part, in your rush to call
> attention to your own blubbering and hand-waving.

Scott is one of the few intelligent people in this group.


>> If I said you had to put a blue filter on your lens to compensate for
>> shooting under incandescent light, you would say that I was blowing hot air
>> and should prove it.

> Changing the subject, and ducking the question.

Again, utter ignorance. I didn't change the subject.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
>
>> You can't say anything useful or constructive, especially as you
>> just recently described a purely anecdotal listening test, and
>> implied that it was scientific.
>
> Thank you for displaying your utter stupidity in public.
>
> The test I described is not in any way anecdotal. It is intended to
> remove the biases that occur with anecdotal testing, without at the
> same being not much different from the way we normally listen.
>
> You're worse than a food worker with hepatitis -- you spread
> ignorance and stupidity.
>
> Perhaps my "problem" is that I expect people, when presented with
> potentially novel ideas, to think about them. But then, people don't
> think, do they? All they want to do is defend what they currently
> believe.
>
> I detest stupid people. And I don't mean people with "low" IQs, or
> lacking a formal education. I mean people devoid of imagination,
> immune to anything that disturbs their mental stasis, folks who have
> never an original thought in their lives, morons who damn themselves
> with every word they speak, because all they can do is regurgitate
> what they read in books.
>
> You cannot understand how offensive your inane, brainless,
> self-serving jabberings are. You know nothing and understand less.
>
> Some years ago I suggested a test that could give strong evidence
> about whether cables varied in "sound". The test's rationale was
> perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain, yet somebody -- was
> it you? -- immediately attacked the suggestion for its idiocy.

You don't know who it was? II note that you're still utterly incapable
of meeting Pearce's simple challenge. You made a claim, and when
challenged, you said you don't have time to go into the details. But
you seem to have plenty of time for diversions, digressions,
self-aggrandizement, but not a peep out of you to back up your claim.
It's not that you don't have time. It's that you have no answer.
Instead of answering him, to tried to get me to play some stupid game
with you.

You can't put up, but you won't shut up. Most notably, you can't put
up. You just wave your hands and make really, really, lame excuses for
your inability to defend your claims. You're both hilarious and
pathetic at the same time.

>
>> It's fascinating that you can be so belligerent and blustering and
>> full of hot air when you're demanding that others respond you
>> exactly on
>> your own precious little terms, but you meet a simple challenge to
>> back
>> up your claim by throwing up your hands and saying "what can I
>> say?"
>
> If you don't understand -- what can I say? I gave you the chance to
> demonstrate that you have a basic knowledge of problem solving, but
> you're not taking it.

Of course, that had nothing to do with Pearce's challenge, and
demonstrating whether I have what passes for a basic knowledge of
problem solving in your psychologically crippled world does not have
anything to do with anything that was under discussion. More
hand-waving, bloviating, blowing hot air, and running away from the
simple challenge to support a claim that you made. You made the claim,
and you can't support it. That much is obvious. What's hilarious is
the way you call attention to your own inadequacy.

>>> Heck, Scott Dorsey understands it without my having to explain it.
>
>> Appeal to authority. And he's disagreed with your sweeping
>> condemnation of ABX, pointing out some valid uses, which he himself
>> has used. Or maybe you didn't read that part, in your rush to call
>> attention to your own blubbering and hand-waving.
>
> Scott is one of the few intelligent people in this group.

And he said you were wrong. Yup, you didn't read it. LOL! It might
have thrown your whole world view (that you're always right) into
disarray.

>>> If I said you had to put a blue filter on your lens to compensate
>>> for shooting under incandescent light, you would say that I was
>>> blowing hot air and should prove it.
>
>> Changing the subject, and ducking the question.
>
> Again, utter ignorance. I didn't change the subject.

Yeah, blue light and incandescent filters were the subject. How could
I have missed that? Thanks for the laugh, li'l buddy. You tried to put
words into my mouth, and then you vanquished a strawman of your own
device. You have plenty of time for spewing self-serving bull****, but
you can't even support your own claims. Priceless!


>

[Scott Dorsey]

Okay, maybe it IS time for this to move to rec.audio.opinion...
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:36:51 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:

>"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
>On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:59:33 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
> wrote:
>
>>>> I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained truly
>>>> meaningful
>>>> information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor objective
>>>> testing currently provide.
>
>>> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful
>>> information? I really want to learn. Really.
>
>> Don't try to turn it round. You made the claim -- so put up or admit it
>> was so much hot air.
>
>If you don't understand what is inherently wrong with anecdotal listening, and
>with (so-called) scientific testing (specifically ABX), then what I can I say?
>Heck, Scott Dorsey understands it without my having to explain it.
>
>If I said you had to put a blue filter on your lens to compensate for shooting
>under incandescent light, you would say that I was blowing hot air and should
>prove it.

So as we all thought. You have nothing. What a waste of space.

d

[Tom McCreadie]

William Sommerwerck wrote:

>Your boss comes to you with a problem. It could the company's failure to find
>a qualified employee for a critical position. Or it might be that projects
>consistently come in late and overbudget. Something that other people have
>tried to do, and have failed at. He wants you to fix it.
>
>How would you go about handling this? I don't expect a detailed answer,

Looks like someone just dusted off that old 'Problem Analysis' book from the
Kepner-Tregoe course that their employer sent the staff on. :-)

[William Sommerwerck]

"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
William Sommerwerck wrote:

>>Your boss comes to you with a problem. It could the company's failure to
>>find
>>a qualified employee for a critical position. Or it might be that projects
>>consistently come in late and overbudget. Something that other people have
>>tried to do, and have failed at. He wants you to fix it.

>>How would you go about handling this? I don't expect a detailed answer,

> Looks like someone just dusted off that old 'Problem Analysis' book from the
> Kepner-Tregoe course that their employer sent the staff on. :-)

And here it is...

http://iancos.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/kepner-tregoe-problem-analysis

Note that the analysis starts by //not assuming anything//, and by asking
questions, rather than thinking you know the answers. Note also that this
system encourages intuitive insight.

There is an "error" in the K-T process -- the assumption that everyone agrees
that there //is// a problem. I have the annoying habit of seeing problems
where other people don't.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
> ...
> William Sommerwerck wrote:
>
>>>Your boss comes to you with a problem. It could the company's
>>>failure to find
>>>a qualified employee for a critical position. Or it might be that
>>>projects
>>>consistently come in late and overbudget. Something that other
>>>people have
>>>tried to do, and have failed at. He wants you to fix it.
>
>>>How would you go about handling this? I don't expect a detailed
>>>answer,
>
>> Looks like someone just dusted off that old 'Problem Analysis' book
>> from the
>> Kepner-Tregoe course that their employer sent the staff on. :-)
> http://iancos.wordpress.com/2013/01/14/kepner-tregoe-problem-analysis

Plenty of time for subject-changing digressions and demands that other
defend a position that you put in their mouths as strawmen, but no
time to back up the claims that you yourself made. Pearce is right,
you got nothing!

> Note that the analysis starts by //not assuming anything//, and by
> asking questions, rather than thinking you know the answers.

That must seem bizarre to someone like you, who thinks that he knows
all the answers.

[William Sommerwerck]

> So as we all thought. You have nothing. What a waste of space.

Mr Pearce and Mr None are people consciously aware that they are arrogant
****s, and proud of it. They say whatever they like, no matter how stupid it
is, then snicker in private at how clever they are.

They are too cowardly to talk with me directly. If they had balls, I would
gladly given them my phone number.

[None]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
>> So as we all thought. You have nothing. What a waste of space.
>
> Mr Pearce and Mr None are people consciously aware that they are
> arrogant ****s, and proud of it. They say whatever they like, no
> matter how stupid it is, then snicker in private at how clever they
> are.

You don't have the slightest notion what I do in private. You make a
huge display of what a pompous know-it-all you are, and then you can't
actually back it up. That's here in the newsgroup, not in private. And
still, you're refusing to back up your own claims, and the simple
reason is that you can't. All your digressions and tangents and
subject-changing only serves to highlight this.

If you're not consciously aware of how arrogant you are, and proud of
it, then you have some serious problems with self-awareness, which may
help to explain why you've never really had any friends.

> They are too cowardly to talk with me directly. If they had balls, I
> would gladly given them my phone number.

Yeah, more subject-changing. You have nothing. Thanks for the
continuing comedy, li'l buddy. Now stop thinking about my balls!

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:22 +1000, Trevor wrote:
> > wrote in message
> ...
>> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
>> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see
>> if you can actually hear them....
>> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"
>
> Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for
> such a test.

You can watch on an oscilloscope to see when the waveform starts to clip,
but that will show up in an obvious way in the spectrum, too. So an
oscilloscope is not so useful for this.

A spectrum analyzer shows all of the harmonics that the circuit creates,
and it's a closer match to what we hear. (Since the inner ear essentially
acts like a "sound prism" that separates frequencies.)

I've been thinking for years to try different tubes in my guitar preamp,
put a sine wave through it and record the specra, showing the
differences. This is an everyday activity for me while designing audio
circuits, and would not be difficult. But there is no way to prove that
the results show differences that people notice. That's why I keep
procrastinating at it -- I think the results would not settle anything!

Someday I might go ahead and do it anyway, just to have the spectra
around for reference.

What's needed for this is a study that discerns how sensitive human
hearing is to relative differences in harmonic content.

[Sean Conolly]

"William Sommerwerck" > wrote in message
...
> "None" wrote in message
> m...
>
> If you're so smart... Tell me what measurements I need to perform on an
> amplifier to determine in what ways it audibly changes the signal passing
> through it -- or doesn't. (I'm waiting.)
>
> You can't assume that measurements appealing to one's intuition ("Oh,
> 0.01% distortion can't possibly be audible.") tell us anything useful.
> Measurements are meaningless unless you have valid listening tests to
> correlate the measurements with.

In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually found
the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put something together
with low enough distortion that whatever it's doing really is inaudible. The
problem is that by not adding anything it's kinda of boring or bland - it's
not what people want from their little audio box.

Case in point: I put together two little guitar preamps and had several of
my buddies try them out. One was the stupid simple single NPN circuit, and
the other was an equally stupid simple op-amp circuit. The op-amp circuit
had a slightly higher noise floor, but had much lower distortion and a
flatter response than the single NPN circuit. And everyone picked the NPN
over the op-amp - as one friend said: "this box sounds cool, the other one
doesn't do anything but make it louder".

Another less subjective example is the summing mixer: I think most of us
would agree that mixing digital signals before conversion is not adding or
missing anything in the process - and this has been true for a long time. So
when I hear the enthusiasm from well-respected professionals for how much
better some particular summing mixer sounds, I can only conclude that what
they really like is what has been *changed* in the signals in the analog
domain. It IS doing something audible, and that's what they like.

Just my two cents...

Sean

[None]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message
...
> In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually
> found the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put
> something together with low enough distortion that whatever it's
> doing really is inaudible. The problem is that by not adding
> anything it's kinda of boring or bland - it's not what people want
> from their little audio box.
>
> Case in point: I put together two little guitar preamps and had
> several of my buddies try them out. One was the stupid simple single
> NPN circuit, and the other was an equally stupid simple op-amp
> circuit. The op-amp circuit had a slightly higher noise floor, but
> had much lower distortion and a flatter response than the single NPN
> circuit. And everyone picked the NPN over the op-amp - as one friend
> said: "this box sounds cool, the other one doesn't do anything but
> make it louder".

But a guitar amp or preamp is typically not intended to be
low-distortion. The distorion is part of the characteristic sound of
the "instrument" which is the sytem including the amplifier stages and
the speakers, which are expected to add distortion in normal use. This
is not comparable to most other audio devices.
=
> Another less subjective example is the summing mixer: I think most
> of us would agree that mixing digital signals before conversion is
> not adding or missing anything in the process - and this has been
> true for a long time. So when I hear the enthusiasm from
> well-respected professionals for how much better some particular
> summing mixer sounds, I can only conclude that what they really like
> is what has been *changed* in the signals in the analog domain. It
> IS doing something audible, and that's what they like.

If they're good at what they do, what they typically prefer is the
signal that has not been changed, or if they prefer the distorted
signal, they understand exactly what has changed and why.

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Fri, 13 Jun 2014, Sean Conolly wrote:
> "Mike Rivers" > wrote:
>> Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> You know, I have never seen a proper double-blind test on tubes in
>>> guitar amps, but I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up substantial
>>> differences.

I wrote something about that earlier, so just to clarify, the kind of
test I was thinking of was something like this:

Take someone (like me) who thinks they have a favorite tube, and have
someone else, out of view, swap tubes in the circuit. See if the subject
can identify their favorite.

The idea was to keep it simple and fun, and it's possible that a useful
result can be obtained.

Of course, there is more than just 20 seconds to swap the tube; you have
to wait *many* minutes for it to get up to temperature!

>> Imagine the test setup for ABX testing of tubes in guitar amplifiers.
>> Because audio memory beyond just a couple of seconds is unreliable,

The basic reason I don't like ABX testing is that it makes me feel crazy.
I think listening to the samples even a few times confuses some part of
my brain that handles recognition of sounds, or something along those
lines.

Very little is really understood about how audio processing happens in
the brain. I am not an expert on psychoacoustics, but I think there's a
lot to be learned.

>> you'd need a way to switch tubes instantly unless you could prove out
>> two identical amplifiers as actually being identical other than the
>> tubes.

Well, you could do this:

1. Make recordings of the raw guitar sound
2. Play that through the circuit and record it.
3. Swap tubes, wait for the 2nd to warm up, keeping all other settings,
and record it.
4. Use ABX software and see if *anyone* can get a positive result.

A few months ago, I was reading about hi-def recordings and whether they
were really better than 16/44. Many people referenced a study that
"showed" in ABX testing, there was no difference. I found the original
publication (I think??) and in reality, there were a few test subjects
that were able to tell! But they were just dismissed as flukes or
something like that. (Bad science, I think, maybe??)

>> I think that anyone who really wants to experiment with how their own
>> amplifier sounds with different tubes will just have to be prepared to
>> sell the "barely used" tubes on e-Bay
>
> Heresy! The unused ones go in the shoebox for other experiments. You
> can't have too many tubes in the shoebox, or too many amps to try them
> in :-)

Haha! I agree, at least as evidenced from my 15-year-old collection of
12AX7's that I keep in a cardboard box.

If I want to sell them, my Ei ECC83 (12AX7) tubes are now worth about 5x
what I paid for them since it seems the factory closed some years ago. (?)

However, those are my favorites. A better plan might be to sell all the
others as a set so that other people can try them out and compare them,
too. And I've heard that some people actually *like* Sovteks. :D

[Sean Conolly]

"None" > wrote in message
m...
> "Sean Conolly" > wrote in message =
>> Another less subjective example is the summing mixer: I think most of us
>> would agree that mixing digital signals before conversion is not adding
>> or missing anything in the process - and this has been true for a long
>> time. So when I hear the enthusiasm from well-respected professionals for
>> how much better some particular summing mixer sounds, I can only conclude
>> that what they really like is what has been *changed* in the signals in
>> the analog domain. It IS doing something audible, and that's what they
>> like.
>
> If they're good at what they do, what they typically prefer is the signal
> that has not been changed, or if they prefer the distorted signal, they
> understand exactly what has changed and why.

Do a little reading on the topic and you'll find that the common belief is
that something is lost when you mix and then convert through a pair of
converters - that you will get a more precise conversion by doing each track
individually and then doing the final summing in the analog domain.

The 'what' part (that it sounds better) I can't argue because it's
subjective - as someone here used to have in their sig "if it sounds good it
is good". I find the why part to be questionable - I believe that whatever
tiny increase in precision you *might* get from analog summing will be
swamped by all of the other subtle non-linearities picked up in the trip
through the analog electronics. And I suspect that can be proven
mathmatically, but I'm too tired tonight to try to get my head around it.

Sean

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
> wrote in message
...
>>> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
>>> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see
>>> if
>>> you can actually hear them....
>>
>>The whole idea of a tube amp is that you should be able to hear the
>>distortion, or else you would simply use a bigger, cheaper solid state
>>amp!
>
> In the case of guitar amps, that's the case. But in the case of guitar
> amps, it has to be a very specific and particular _kind_ of distortion.
> Just
> any old distortion won't do.

No argument, but as I said you *must* be able to hear it!


>>> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"
>>
>>Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for such
>>a
>>test.
>
> No, no, it's very useful. It'll let you see that, for example, one tube
> is
> more microphonic at 1kc and another tube has more high order even harmonic
> distortion when biased a certain way, and after a while with some
> listening
> tests you can come to the conclusion that you like that even harmonic but
> you don't like that microphonic.

Nah the microphonic helps with the feedback when doing Jimi Hendrix! :-)


> The measurements are _only_ useful when correlated with listening tests
> but
> they are very, very useful when correlated with listening tests.

All the famous guitar amps were built long before any correlation of
measurements and listening tests were done.


> Having that correlation means that you can then have someone measure a
> device
> somewhere else in the country and you can make a good guess as to what it
> sounds like without having to do extensive listening to that exact device.

I'd agree with anything other than valve amps. The people who buy them
aren't interested in measurements, and don't believe them anyway.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Jay Ts" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:22 +1000, Trevor wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
>>> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see
>>> if you can actually hear them....
>>> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"
>>
>> Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for
>> such a test.
>
> You can watch on an oscilloscope to see when the waveform starts to clip,
> but that will show up in an obvious way in the spectrum, too.
>So an oscilloscope is not so useful for this.

Right, but it's *how* a valve amp clips that is important, and everyone has
their own idea of how that should be, or it would be easier to simply use
knee compression on a SS amp.

>
> A spectrum analyzer shows all of the harmonics that the circuit creates,
> and it's a closer match to what we hear. (Since the inner ear essentially
> acts like a "sound prism" that separates frequencies.)
>
> I've been thinking for years to try different tubes in my guitar preamp,
> put a sine wave through it and record the specra, showing the
> differences. This is an everyday activity for me while designing audio
> circuits, and would not be difficult. But there is no way to prove that
> the results show differences that people notice. That's why I keep
> procrastinating at it -- I think the results would not settle anything!

Exactly.

> Someday I might go ahead and do it anyway, just to have the spectra
> around for reference.
>
> What's needed for this is a study that discerns how sensitive human
> hearing is to relative differences in harmonic content.

No point, modern SS amps are already well below any human threshold (and
orders of magnitude better than the speakers they are usually plugged into),
and there is no consensus on how a valve amp should sound.

Trevor.

[Scott Dorsey]

Jay Ts > wrote:
>
>What's needed for this is a study that discerns how sensitive human
>hearing is to relative differences in harmonic content.

A good summary of the research on this subject in the past 75 years can be
found in:

E.R. Geddes and L.W. Lee, "Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion -
Theory," presented at the 115th Convention of the Audio Engineering Society,
(October, 2003)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>Do a little reading on the topic and you'll find that the common belief is
>that something is lost when you mix and then convert through a pair of
>converters - that you will get a more precise conversion by doing each track
>individually and then doing the final summing in the analog domain.

And, I don't know where this belief came from, because summing is actually
the easiest thing to do well in the digital domain.

So my theory is that what people are liking when they are going to analogue
summing networks probably has something do with the make-up gain amps.

I know that what I like about doing multitrack mixes to analogue tape is
that the fairly subtle flutter of the tape machine melds tracks together
and sort of provides a glue so they make a more-cohesive sounding whole.
It's possible converters with a little jitter may also do that as well.

>The 'what' part (that it sounds better) I can't argue because it's
>subjective - as someone here used to have in their sig "if it sounds good it
>is good". I find the why part to be questionable - I believe that whatever
>tiny increase in precision you *might* get from analog summing will be
>swamped by all of the other subtle non-linearities picked up in the trip
>through the analog electronics. And I suspect that can be proven
>mathmatically, but I'm too tired tonight to try to get my head around it.

I think those nonlinearities have something to do with what people like
about it. I find that ironic and kind of amusing.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>
>> The measurements are _only_ useful when correlated with listening tests
>> but
>> they are very, very useful when correlated with listening tests.
>
>All the famous guitar amps were built long before any correlation of
>measurements and listening tests were done.

Right, and that's part of the problem. Most of the famous guitar amps were
built without any particular sound in mind... Leo Fender picked a circuit
out of the back of the RCA receiving tubes handbook and put it together.
It had a sound, and people liked that sound.

But... now that people like that sound, they want other things that sound
just like that sound, and when you start trying to deal with that you start
having to quantify the sound.

>> Having that correlation means that you can then have someone measure a
>> device
>> somewhere else in the country and you can make a good guess as to what it
>> sounds like without having to do extensive listening to that exact device.
>
>I'd agree with anything other than valve amps. The people who buy them
>aren't interested in measurements, and don't believe them anyway.

That's just because they haven't seen any measurements that are actually
useful and correlate with perceived sound. When they do, they will use
them. But as long as all they get is THD and on-axis response plots, I
can't blame them a bit for their lack of interest.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Frank Stearns]

(Scott Dorsey) writes:

snips

>I know that what I like about doing multitrack mixes to analogue tape is
>that the fairly subtle flutter of the tape machine melds tracks together
>and sort of provides a glue so they make a more-cohesive sounding whole.
>It's possible converters with a little jitter may also do that as well.

For that year when I was "forced" by client demands to go all digital ITB, I was
being made crazy. Editing was cool and amazing in digital land, but the "sound" was
tedious and nearly impossible to get.

But I kept chipping away by trial and error. I'll give away a couple of digital mix
"secrets" that really seem to help:

- quality of reverb: Most default settings for digital reverbs are just beyond
awful. Ignore them all. Experiment with the various controls and *listen* to see
what they do. Get a couple of good sounding settings, try them on various things.
There will be a synergy (sometimes negative, sometimes positive) with the music
you're doing. Learn what to change in the reverb settings accordingly.

- have at least a couple of different reverbs, types and settings, and layer them.
Thankfully, CPU power now lets us do this, whereas not all that long ago multiple
good reverbs (and not the crappy-sounding "CPU efficient" reverbs) would bring a CPU
to its knees.

- reverb as glue: in addition to the above, I'll include one fairly bright reverb,
with a very long (7-9 second) tail, and put that in way underneath. You should
rarely hear this overtly, it should be very subtle. But magic can happen with this.
Seems to be a source of some form of stocastic resonance, perhaps serving a similar
purpose as tape hiss or distortion. Dimension and detail are elevated.

But this "glue" seems less damaging to sonics, when all is said and done. I'm to the
point now with it that I can't really tolerate the sound of tape -- at least for
what I do, which is mostly classical and acoustic music.

As always when it comes to mixing, one man's opinion. YMMV.

Frank
Mobile Audio
--

[david gourley[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) :

-snip-
>
> Right, and that's part of the problem. Most of the famous guitar amps were
> built without any particular sound in mind... Leo Fender picked a circuit
> out of the back of the RCA receiving tubes handbook and put it together.
> It had a sound, and people liked that sound.
-snip

Not to split hairs, but IIRC most of the early 50s-60s Fender amps have tube
charts referencing AT&T and Western Electric patents. Maybe not much
difference there ....

david

[Jay Ts[_4_]]

On Sat, 14 Jun 2014, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> Okay, maybe it IS time for this to move to rec.audio.opinion...

I feel like I started this, and if so, I *sincerely*apologize*.

[William Sommerwerck]

> I feel like I started this, and if so, I *sincerely*apologize*.

No, I'm responsible. I will not be provoking such arguments again.

[Scott Dorsey]

david gourley > wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) :
>
>> Right, and that's part of the problem. Most of the famous guitar amps were
>> built without any particular sound in mind... Leo Fender picked a circuit
>> out of the back of the RCA receiving tubes handbook and put it together.
>> It had a sound, and people liked that sound.
>
>Not to split hairs, but IIRC most of the early 50s-60s Fender amps have tube
>charts referencing AT&T and Western Electric patents. Maybe not much
>difference there ....

Yes! Look some of those patents up... some of them are for things like
negative feedback and cathode bias which are fundamental to any amplifier!
They are all very, very cool!
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Sean Conolly]

"Frank Stearns" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> - reverb as glue: in addition to the above, I'll include one fairly bright
> reverb,
> with a very long (7-9 second) tail, and put that in way underneath. You
> should
> rarely hear this overtly, it should be very subtle. But magic can happen
> with this.
> Seems to be a source of some form of stocastic resonance, perhaps serving
> a similar
> purpose as tape hiss or distortion. Dimension and detail are elevated.

+1 on keeping it subtle. I like having a very diffuse reverb way back in the
mix, enough that you can't tell it's there until you mute it.

Sean

[Scott Dorsey]

Sean Conolly > wrote:
>
>In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually found
>the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put something together
>with low enough distortion that whatever it's doing really is inaudible. The
>problem is that by not adding anything it's kinda of boring or bland - it's
>not what people want from their little audio box.

It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have fifty
of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't transparent at
all.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Lord Valve]

None wrote:

> What you've described sounds like a load of mental masturbation for
> audiophools to pretend that they hear magical properties at odds with
> the known laws of physic, acoustics, and mathematics. It's the land of
> green marker pens and magical hockey pucks and oxygen-free litz wire
> power cables and directional audio connectors.

....

Hey! You forgot C-37 lacquer and "tuned" control knobs, not to
mention Shakti stones. Don't you know *anything*?

Lord Valve

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jay Ts wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 21:42:22 +1000, Trevor wrote:
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> or heaven forbid you could make an actual measurement with a scope and
>>> spectrum analyzer to see what the differences are, and then try to see
>>> if you can actually hear them....
>>> of course it is a judgement call re which one is "better"
>>
>> Exactly, which is why a scope and spectrum analyser is pointless for
>> such a test.
>
> You can watch on an oscilloscope to see when the waveform starts to clip,
> but that will show up in an obvious way in the spectrum, too. So an
> oscilloscope is not so useful for this.
>
> A spectrum analyzer shows all of the harmonics that the circuit creates,
> and it's a closer match to what we hear. (Since the inner ear essentially
> acts like a "sound prism" that separates frequencies.)
>
> I've been thinking for years to try different tubes in my guitar preamp,
> put a sine wave through it and record the specra, showing the
> differences. This is an everyday activity for me while designing audio
> circuits, and would not be difficult. But there is no way to prove that
> the results show differences that people notice. That's why I keep
> procrastinating at it -- I think the results would not settle anything!
>
> Someday I might go ahead and do it anyway, just to have the spectra
> around for reference.
>
> What's needed for this is a study that discerns how sensitive human
> hearing is to relative differences in harmonic content.
>

There are VST plugins which do distortion modelling - at least of
the "wave shaping" variety and they are pretty interesting.

One such is a free one called FuncShaper. It includes Chebyshev
models for even harmonics and such.


--
Les Cargill

[Jonathan[_5_]]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 9:59:33 AM UTC-4, William Sommerwerck wrote:
> "Don Pearce" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 16:59:57 -0700, "William Sommerwerck"
>
> > wrote:
>
> >"Don Pearce" wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> >>> How would you conduct the test itself? I mean, what would be your
>
> >>> protocol for recording the judgment -- whatever that might be?
>
>
>
> >>I don't have time to go into the details, but long-term listening with the
>
> >>listener absolutely unaware of what he's listening to, and no ability
>
> >>whatever
>
> >>to find out, or even guess. The listener would be able to swap components at
>
> >>any time, but would be strongly discouraged (perhaps even blocked) from
>
> >>making
>
> >>rapid changes. The listener would also be obliged to fill out a short
>
> >>questionnaire at the beginning of each listening session, broadly outlining
>
> >>his mental and emotional state.
>
>
>
> >>Ultimately, the listener would be expected to describe the sound of the
>
> >>components, if he thought they had any.
>
>
>
> >>The most important part of such testing would be to have at least a dozen
>
> >>listeners. Testing with just one person verges on the useless.
>
>
>
> > This is just hand-waving. You couldn't possibly derive anything
>
> > meaningful this way.
>
>
>
> I've given a rough outline of the testing needed to obtained truly meaningful
>
> information -- something which neither anecdotal listening nor objective
>
> testing currently provide.
>
>
>
> So... Mr Know-It-All... How would one go about getting meaningful information?
>
> I really want to learn. Really.

What you're talking about sounds to me like scotch or wine tasting notes.
That's more like poetry than science.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>>
>>In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually found
>>the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put something together
>>with low enough distortion that whatever it's doing really is inaudible.
>>The
>>problem is that by not adding anything it's kinda of boring or bland -
>>it's
>>not what people want from their little audio box.
>
> It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have
> fifty
> of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't transparent
> at
> all.

And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input and output
that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind test, but not for
those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's not really that hard
these days either.

Trevor.

[Gray_Wolf]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:30:07 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:

>
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>>>
>>>In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually found
>>>the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put something together
>>>with low enough distortion that whatever it's doing really is inaudible.
>>>The
>>>problem is that by not adding anything it's kinda of boring or bland -
>>>it's
>>>not what people want from their little audio box.
>>
>> It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have
>> fifty
>> of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't transparent
>> at
>> all.
>
>And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input and output
>that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind test, but not for
>those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's not really that hard
>these days either.
>
>Trevor.

I suppose that's where Neve comes in when you have a big setup? I've
been watching some of Rupert's discussions on youtube. Very
interesting man. Didn't strike me as one to cut corners. :-)

[Scott Dorsey]

In article >, Trevor > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>> It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have
>> fifty
>> of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't transparent
>> at
>> all.
>
>And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input and output
>that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind test, but not for
>those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's not really that hard
>these days either.

I'd agree with you, if you brought signal in after the mike preamps and
bypassed the EQ.

On many of those cheaper preamps, watching the distortion spectrum and the
frequency response change as you adjust the trim control is a fascinating
exercise.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Trevor" wrote in message ...

> And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input
> and output that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind
> test, but not for those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's
> not really that hard these days either.

Some years ago I owned a Mackie 1604 mixer, which I'd bought mostly for the
mic preamps. I ran a //sighted// bypass test on it, with carefully matched
levels, and to my surprise, I could not hear it. Gordon Holt had bought one
for the same reason, and told me he was equally surprised that it didn't
audibly color the sound.

I worked at Neve for a while (around 1985). The employees told me that they --
and some customers -- felt the older consoles, using discrete electronics, had
"better" sound than the newer op-amp designs. The signal went through a lot
more gain stages in the latter.

Not all "elitist" designers are anti-IC. Some years back, when I was reviewing
surround-sound processors, the only active processor that didn't mess with the
sound was the Shure. I asked a well-known designer about this, and he had
nothing but good things to say about the RCA current-mode chips it used.

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Trevor" wrote in message ...
>
>> And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input
>> and output that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind
>> test, but not for those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's
>> not really that hard these days either.
>
>Some years ago I owned a Mackie 1604 mixer, which I'd bought mostly for the
>mic preamps. I ran a //sighted// bypass test on it, with carefully matched
>levels, and to my surprise, I could not hear it. Gordon Holt had bought one
>for the same reason, and told me he was equally surprised that it didn't
>audibly color the sound.

If it was the original 1604, I'm not surprised IF you were running fairly high
level signals into it. As you increase the trim, the low end response drops
substantially, though.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[William Sommerwerck]

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
William Sommerwerck > wrote:

>> Some years ago I owned a Mackie 1604 mixer, which I'd bought
>> mostly for the mic preamps. I ran a //sighted// bypass test on it,
>> with carefully matched levels, and to my surprise, I could not hear
>> it. Gordon Holt had bought one for the same reason, and told me
>> he was equally surprised that it didn't audibly color the sound.

> If it was the original 1604, I'm not surprised IF you were running
> fairly high level signals into it. As you increase the trim, the low
> end response drops substantially, though.

I was using line-level signals, as it's hard to run bypass tests with
microphones!

[Scott Dorsey]

William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message ...
>William Sommerwerck > wrote:
>
>>> Some years ago I owned a Mackie 1604 mixer, which I'd bought
>>> mostly for the mic preamps. I ran a //sighted// bypass test on it,
>>> with carefully matched levels, and to my surprise, I could not hear
>>> it. Gordon Holt had bought one for the same reason, and told me
>>> he was equally surprised that it didn't audibly color the sound.
>
>> If it was the original 1604, I'm not surprised IF you were running
>> fairly high level signals into it. As you increase the trim, the low
>> end response drops substantially, though.
>
>I was using line-level signals, as it's hard to run bypass tests with
>microphones!

Try a 40dB pad in the line and you'll hear all KINDS of stuff.

Also, the Mackie summing stuff did not scale very well. On the 1604 it's
perfectly workable as long as you're careful with levels, but move up to the
SR24-24 and you'll hear differences in the sound when you bring a stereo
signal in with the other 22 channels muted and when they are unmuted but the
faders are down. Go figure.

The real big difference between the cheap and the expensive consoles, though,
is the ability to be sloppy about gain staging and still get away with it.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Gray_Wolf wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 15:30:07 +1000, "Trevor" > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Sean Conolly > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In my *very* limited experience with simple circuits, I've actually found
>>>> the opposite to be true. It is realtively easy to put something together
>>>> with low enough distortion that whatever it's doing really is inaudible.
>>>> The
>>>> problem is that by not adding anything it's kinda of boring or bland -
>>>> it's
>>>> not what people want from their little audio box.
>>>
>>> It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have
>>> fifty
>>> of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't transparent
>>> at
>>> all.
>>
>> And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input and output
>> that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind test, but not for
>> those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's not really that hard
>> these days either.
>>
>> Trevor.
>
> I suppose that's where Neve comes in when you have a big setup? I've
> been watching some of Rupert's discussions on youtube. Very
> interesting man. Didn't strike me as one to cut corners. :-)
>


I really think of D&R, partly because I've used one. Very linear, very
transparent console. You needed the hi pass filters.

--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Gray_Wolf > wrote:
>
>I suppose that's where Neve comes in when you have a big setup? I've
>been watching some of Rupert's discussions on youtube. Very
>interesting man. Didn't strike me as one to cut corners. :-)

The nice thing about the modern Neve consoles is basically that you don't
have to worry about gain structure. Everything has insane amounts of headroom
so you can just put stuff up and it won't clip and won't be noisy.

This is really the main place where the cheap consoles fall down, that and
with reliability. You can get good mixes out of the cheap consoles, it's
just a whole lot more work.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Trevor >
> wrote:
>>"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
>>> It's easy to make one stage that seems transparent, but when you have
>>> fifty of those stages in the signal path, it turns out they aren't
>>> transparent
>>> at all.
>>
>>And yet there are cheap mixers with *many* stages between input and output
>>that still measure (and sound transparent too in a blind test, but not for
>>those who can see the badge of course :-), so it's not really that hard
>>these days either.
>
> I'd agree with you, if you brought signal in after the mike preamps and
> bypassed the EQ.
>
> On many of those cheaper preamps, watching the distortion spectrum and the
> frequency response change as you adjust the trim control is a fascinating
> exercise.

Sure, you can easily measure it, but a lot harder to pick in a blind test as
I said. (assuming youre not riding the trim just so you can try to pick it)
However the OP was about "fifty stages in the signal path. Nobody puts fifty
cheap mic preamps in the one signal path anyway. Or 50 poor EQ filter
designs either.

Trevor.

[Trevor]

"Scott Dorsey" > wrote in message
...
> The nice thing about the modern Neve consoles is basically that you don't
> have to worry about gain structure. Everything has insane amounts of
> headroom
> so you can just put stuff up and it won't clip and won't be noisy.
>
> This is really the main place where the cheap consoles fall down, that and
> with reliability. You can get good mixes out of the cheap consoles, it's
> just a whole lot more work.

Yep, but both may be a good trade off for many casual users considering the
difference in cost. :-)
The great thing IMO for those on a budget, is that the cheap mixers have
improved even more than Neve (in relative terms) over the last couple of
decades.

Trevor.