Robert Morein wrote:


"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Robert Morein" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
Some people really do not like the vacuum tube, or the fact that some
audiophiles really like them and persist in still building tube
equipment or buying it from "boutique" or high end vendors. You know
who they are.

The thing is, what motivates this obsession with denigrating and
deterring users of vacuum tubes? Are unhealthy, often destructive
pathologies at work here?

Yes, if one considers such a pathology an inability to separate the
subjective and objective.

Music + solid state = Music
Music + tubes = Modified Music

Modified Music is held to be more enjoyable than Music by many
listeners.

And don't forget, your so-called modified music, to some people,
sounds more like live music, and your so-called solid state 'music'
just doesn't soud quite real.

This is true, and very plausible. Music is seldom miked from the POV of an
actual audience. And how could the extreme example, a synthetic multitrack
recording, have any resemblance to an actual physical space? Long before
synthesized surround sound, listeners yearned for something to close the gap
with reality. For many people, tubes do this.


I think you've raised a very valid point. Whether it be via tubes, SS, or some
mixture of the 2 (an option for many of us), the central fact remains, as you
point out, that recordings are by design, artificial syntheses of mulitple
signal sources, microphones, mixing boards, etc. So to claim that only one
type of audio product - whether it be tubes or SS - is the ony path to "high
fidelity" I think misses the point. Most music lovers - or at least those with
a considerable amount of live acoustic music concert experience - may want to
try and come as close to that experience in their home as they can.
That does *not* imply that that the manipulations of a recording studio have to
be recreated. It's interesting in this regard to note that even in classical
music recordings, some of the most highly revered recordings for their "sound
quality" - i.e. RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Prescence recordings used
relativley simple microphone techniques - reflecting the less complex era in
which these recordings were made.


On the other hand, I find the absolute refusal of most tube and vinyl
enthusiasts to explore synthetic surround sound the reverse form of bigotry.

Exploring does not necessarily mean adopting. Many years ago, I
experimented with the Haller/Dynaco circuit via the use of a Dynaco Quadaptor
box. As I recall, this simple, inexpensive device, made use of out-of-phase
information sent to the back channels for amibience effects. I found its
effects variable from record to record, but perhaps not surprisingly, found it
most effective on live concert recordings. It would be nice if products like
this were avaialble today - i.e. inexpensive devices that don't necessarily
require multiple amplified channels - to see if multi-channel sound is worth
the investment. Presumably, if one liked the effects enough from this simple a
device, one could then move on to explore the added benefits of more
electronics, speakers, etc.



I actually do find a lot more reality in my twelve year old Sony TA-E1000ESD
digital surround preamp than I do in my buddy Larry's Sonic Frontiers gear.
My Sony's cold fluorescent display and rotary digital encoders give me
access to Beranek's monumental work, "Concert Halls and How they Sound",
which is still the fundamental reference to modern venue design. The tube
lovers take cheer in their rituals: voicing and biasing of tubes, cleaning
the records, measuring stylus force, and appreciating what to me is the
inappropriate use of fine wood.


If you know of some empirical studies that substantiate your claim that those
favoring tubes and/or vinyl are less likely to use multi-channel setups than
those favoring CDs and/or digital equipment, I'd be interesting in learning
about them.

As for rituals, what about the rituals involved in endless worrying about and
fiddling with numerous "room" and "hall" options on one's zillion-input,
multiple-LED display - with bright flashing numerals, no less - and of course,
endless experimentation with the numerous placements of all those speakers, not
to mention the need, perhaps, to change level settings between front, center,
and back for each recording to reflect the obvious differences in "recording
environment effects" intended by the engineers?

And for those of us using large planar dipoles (e.g. electrostatics, magnetic
planars, etc.), there is little if any "beautiful wood" to be concerned about.

And while it's anecdotal, a number of classical music lovers have been observed
to favor speakers such as Maggies, Quads, and Martin Logans. And yes, many
classical music lovers also favor tubes and vinyl according to most anecdotal
reports.

All that said, you're overlooking what for me, at least, and I suspect a number
of other music lovers, are several very valid reasons for not converting to
multi-channel sound systems. (1) Placement considerations, and (2) Cost
considerations. Not everybody has the type of listening environment options
that would lend itself to multiple speaker placements - at least not the type
of speakers some of us prefer (see above). Put simply, some of us would rather
have 2 highy refined, highly musical, and sometimes (but not always) rather
large speakers which give us maximal pleasure, then have to downsize - both
economically and sizewise - to recreate a multi-channel space. I suspect that
for many, preference for 2 good speakers versus 4 or 5 or 6 inferior ones (a
value judgment to be sure) is a strong factor. Also, the costs of additional
processing and amplification will discourage others. And then add to this the
aforementioned need to have much more "placement anxiety" re. speakers, and you
can see many reasons other than bigotry why some of us prefer a stereo setup.



Bruce J. Richman