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?

wrote in message
oups.com

Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,

Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.

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.

Bragging incessantly about their bad sound quality and economic decisions.

You know who they are.

Moi! ;-)

The thing is, what motivates this obsession with denigrating and
deterring users of vacuum tubes?

Inability to warn people who are walking over a cliff frustrates me.

Are unhealthy, often destructive pathologies at work here?

Yeah, like desire for welfare of fellow audiophile.

Better question - what is it with people who want to brag about the
unreliable, low performance, expensive tubed
equipment they already have, and induce others to make the same mistakes
they did?

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: wrote in message
: oups.com
:
: Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,
:
: Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.

Hmmm. You have a car ? MTBF there is a lot worse i'm afraid
-not a valid argument
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
oups.com

Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,

Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.

Hmmm. You have a car ? MTBF there is a lot worse i'm afraid
-not a valid argument Rudy

Guess what Rudy. Cars and power amps differ in complexity and typical MTBF.

IOW, not a valid argument.

said:

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?

Some people are afraid of emtpy spaces.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

wrote in message


Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,


Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.


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.


Bragging incessantly about their bad sound quality and economic
decisions.


You know who they are.


Moi! ;-)


The thing is, what motivates this obsession with denigrating and
deterring users of vacuum tubes?


Inability to warn people who are walking over a cliff frustrates me.


Good solid state amps as built by hobby constructors (not the Slone
poop piles) cost about as much as tube amps. The less expensive
commercially built High End ones cost in the same region as the solid
state ones the High End stores sell. Weight is roughly similar but the
solid state ones are typically higher power.

The tube ones are pretty reliable if well built. The solid state ones
are too. The tubes are consumable, of course, but they are less likely
to catastrophically fail than the solid state devices, which are harder
to change and often the amp must be reworked for newer devices-or
junked. Tube amps are generally more fun to tinker with.

Plus which, as a general rule of thumb, the failings of tube amps
sonically are much more euphonic than those of solid state amps. Tube
amps are preferred, whether Arny and Slone like it or not, by many
listeners. Many people have learned a lot and gained satisfaction from
building tube amps who never would have considered building a solid
state one.

Almost all the best recordings are made at least partially with vacuum
tube equipment-even in 2004. Many top studios and mastering
facilities-no, not all-have tube power amps for monitoring as well.

said:

Tube amps are generally more fun to tinker with.

Many people have learned a lot and gained satisfaction from
building tube amps who never would have considered building a solid
state one.

This is one of the main reasons I believe.

Plus, tubes are sexy.
Not one visitor of mine didn't like the sight of my tube amps, let
alone their sound :-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

wrote in message
oups.com

Good solid state amps as built by hobby constructors (not the Slone
poop piles) cost about as much as tube amps. The less expensive
commercially built High End ones cost in the same region as the solid
state ones the High End stores sell. Weight is roughly similar but the
solid state ones are typically higher power.

It's well-known that high end amps, and attempts to duplicate them are a
waste of time and money.


The tube ones are pretty reliable if well built.

There's no way to keep a tube from degrading in use, quite rapidly.

The solid state ones
are too. The tubes are consumable, of course, but they are less likely
to catastrophically fail than the solid state devices, which are
harder to change and often the amp must be reworked for newer
devices-or junked.

Key phrases:

"tubes are consumable, of course"

They ain't free, neither. This ain't 1959 where there were tubes and tube
checkers in almost every corner drugstore.

Tube amps are generally more fun to tinker with.

Now that's true. Unless you are fairly sophisticated tinkering with SS amps
can be a nasty, expensive business. The good news is that you rarely need to
tinker inside SS amps.

Plus which, as a general rule of thumb, the failings of tube amps
sonically are much more euphonic than those of solid state amps.

However, its a lot easier to make a SS amp that is free of audible failings.

Tube
amps are preferred, whether Arny and Slone like it or not, by many
listeners.

Take guitar players and other MI users. Unlike hifi where the goal is to
neither add nor subtract from the music being amplified, MI amps are prized
for their colorations. One important point - most MI amps amplify only one
instrument at a time. There's usually a separate MI amp for every musical
instrument that needs amplification. This means that IM is not an issue.

Technically speaking wherever there is harmonic distortion, there is IM.
This would seem to mean that a high distortion amp is condemned to sound bad
even with a single instrument. However a single instrument has only one
fundamental tone and one set of harmonics. This is in contrast to multiple
instruments playing through a hi fi amp. When there are multiple instruments
playing at the same time, considerably more IM, which can easily be
inharmonic, is generated. Thus a high-distortion amp can work out as an
amplifier for signals coming out of a single electronic instrument such as a
guitar.

Many people have learned a lot and gained satisfaction from
building tube amps who never would have considered building a solid
state one.

Yup, tube amps have charm as science fair projects. Indeed, I've built a
goodly number of tubed amps over the years, both scratch designs and kits.
Heathkits, Dynakits, Eico kits, I built some hi fi gear from each brand.
Some I built for myself and some I built and sold to earn a small profit.
Those were the days!

Almost all the best recordings are made at least partially with vacuum
tube equipment-even in 2004.

In the sense that many fine musicians prefer the sound of tubed MI amps,
that would be true. There are also a small segment of the market for audio
production equipment that includes tubes as a sort of EFX generator.

Many top studios and mastering
facilities-no, not all-have tube power amps for monitoring as well.

Again many does not mean the same thing as most or even a significant
number. There are always hold-outs for old technology, even when that
technology has been old and obsolete for hi fi, for over 30 years.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message

said:

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?

Some people are afraid of emtpy spaces.

Never even heard of an emtpy space before. Do they have those over in
Europe?

Kroo will tell you all those companies are irrelevant because you can't
buy them at Best Buy, in about five minutes. Watch and see.

I still think a homebuilt Marantz 7 clone with good resistors and caps
will beat all but the most expensive commercial High End products if
you build it in a good RF tight enclosure and put a shielded regulated
supply outboard. I'm not saying none will, but the c-j and ARC stuff
I've heard surely does not. Probably better RIAA is available with
multiple stages vis-a-vis Baxandall feedback, but I can't say for sure.
If you have no vinyl the integrated amp approach is probably more
sensible-just fit a good stepped attenuator.

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?


Since your premise is flawed IMO, there's no way to answer without
restating.

Some people don't like Vacuum tube equipment. None of them AFAIK care at
all if others like them or not. The reason some don't care for them is
because they understand that tubes do not provide the same level of fidelity
as SS equipment. From the measured performance of tubed equipment it clear
that they simply don't measure up to SS gear.

Guitars, which have six, seven, or twelve strings and therefore are
polyphonic, or Hammond organs ("a lot" of tonewheels) , are obviously
affected by intermod. For 'good' or 'ill', but we are not talking about
guitar amps, fx boxes, or Leslies ARE WE? Nooo.

A significant number-I'd venture 'more than not'-of studios have tube
mics and mic pre's. Many also have the Teletronix and Fairchild
compressors and Pultec limiters and their Manley and deParavicini
clones which are used on recordings where ofttimes "tube distortion" is
NOT called for. Put simply the tubes are not there for effects, at
least not always.

As far as tube life, tens of thousands of hours in properly built tube
boxes is the norm-key here, properly built. Marshall heads are, from
the standpoint of audio reproduction, improperly built on purpose. The
old McIntosh amps would run a set of output tubes ten or twenty years
in every-day listening-with a power cycle every day.

If tube amps had always been the standard we'd have tubes today that
would last much longer than the table scraps tubes made now do or even
those 'NOS golden era' tubes hoarders and tube rollers fetish over
today. To the extent that Arny and others deter people from tube amps,
the market size is reduced and the incentive to make new tubes to high
standards reduced-in that sense he's the problem.

I don't now and have never advocated telling people things that aren't
true about tube amps-the non-solderers out there are probably better
off at Best Buy!-but discouraging potential hobbyists from an enjoyable
pastime they might like (the pro users will continue to ignore you
anyway, Arny) is mean-spirited and showing your hindquarters.

Guitars, which have six, seven, or twelve strings and therefore are
polyphonic, or Hammond organs ("a lot" of tonewheels) , are obviously
affected by intermod. For 'good' or 'ill', but we are not talking about
guitar amps, fx boxes, or Leslies ARE WE? Nooo.

A significant number-I'd venture 'more than not'-of studios have tube
mics and mic pre's. Many also have the Teletronix and Fairchild
compressors and Pultec limiters and their Manley and deParavicini
clones which are used on recordings where ofttimes "tube distortion" is
NOT called for. Put simply the tubes are not there for effects, at
least not always.

As far as tube life, tens of thousands of hours in properly built tube
boxes is the norm-key here, properly built. Marshall heads are, from
the standpoint of audio reproduction, improperly built on purpose. The
old McIntosh amps would run a set of output tubes ten or twenty years
in every-day listening-with a power cycle every day.

If tube amps had always been the standard we'd have tubes today that
would last much longer than the table scraps tubes made now do or even
those 'NOS golden era' tubes hoarders and tube rollers fetish over
today. To the extent that Arny and others deter people from tube amps,
the market size is reduced and the incentive to make new tubes to high
standards reduced-in that sense he's the problem.

I don't now and have never advocated telling people things that aren't
true about tube amps-the non-solderers out there are probably better
off at Best Buy!-but discouraging potential hobbyists from an enjoyable
pastime they might like (the pro users will continue to ignore you
anyway, Arny) is mean-spirited and showing your hindquarters.

"Arny Krueger" said:

Some people are afraid of emtpy spaces.

Never even heard of an emtpy space before. Do they have those over in
Europe?

We have LoT'S ;-) of lysdectics over here.

My spellchecker lied to me, again!

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

wrote in message
oups.com...
wrote in message


Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,


Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.


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.


Bragging incessantly about their bad sound quality and economic
decisions.


You know who they are.


Moi! ;-)


The thing is, what motivates this obsession with denigrating and
deterring users of vacuum tubes?


Inability to warn people who are walking over a cliff frustrates me.


Good solid state amps as built by hobby constructors (not the Slone
poop piles) cost about as much as tube amps. The less expensive
commercially built High End ones cost in the same region as the solid
state ones the High End stores sell.

So, don't buy from a High End store. You can get perfectly fine SS equip
from plenty of other places for less.

Weight is roughly similar but the
solid state ones are typically higher power.

Having the proper amount of power is necessary if you play at anything close
to live music levels. More is better as long as you don't over drive your
speakers.

The tube ones are pretty reliable if well built. The solid state ones
are too. The tubes are consumable, of course, but they are less likely
to catastrophically fail than the solid state devices, which are harder
to change and often the amp must be reworked for newer devices-or
junked. Tube amps are generally more fun to tinker with.

Most SS equipment is good for around 20 years. No idea if you can go that
long without changing any tubes, but I suspect probably not.

If you like them fine. Why do you care what other people think?

Plus which, as a general rule of thumb, the failings of tube amps
sonically are much more euphonic than those of solid state amps.

If you have enough power from a SS amp you will not have to worry about
clipping.

Tube
amps are preferred, whether Arny and Slone like it or not, by many
listeners.

A few, yes, so what?

Many people have learned a lot and gained satisfaction from
building tube amps who never would have considered building a solid
state one.

They tend to be somewhat easier.

Almost all the best recordings are made at least partially with vacuum
tube equipment-even in 2004.

In your opinion. Not really relevant to playback. Rcording is about
getting what you want to make the performance sound the way you want. Play
back is (at least for me) about playing back exactly what the artist and the
engineer wanted you to hear. If you introduce more distortion from tubes,
then that won't happen, no matter how nice you think it sounds.

Many top studios and mastering
facilities-no, not all-have tube power amps for monitoring as well.

I suspect that all of them have SS amps as well.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
:
: "Arny Krueger" wrote in message
: ...
: wrote in message
: oups.com
:
: Some people really do not like the vacuum tube,
:
: Something about unreliable, low performance, expensive.
:
: Hmmm. You have a car ? MTBF there is a lot worse i'm afraid
: -not a valid argument Rudy
:
: Guess what Rudy. Cars and power amps differ in complexity and typical
MTBF.
:
: IOW, not a valid argument.
:
IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
you *don't* like vacuum tubes

Yep, logic @ work
Rudy

You're entitled to your preferences, but even if you concede that THD
is the metric of quality-which I don't-the fact is the "best" tube and
solid state amplifiers measure pretty close. The solid state amplifiers
that measure the lowest THD are generally thought to not be all that
great sounding by most solid state fans. The most successful solid
state designs are generally not that remarkable in measured
performance.

Do you have a Audio Precision test box and dummy loads in your living
room or home studio control room so as to impress your visitors and
provide yourself a sense of virtual penis hugeness? That's all
measurements come down to, really-whose is the biggest. I'm told AP
sells a surprising number of Portable One and ATS-1 boxes to people
such as yourself.

"Ruud Broens" said:

IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
you *don't* like vacuum tubes

Arny doesn't "like" his car.
He picked it in a double blind test drive.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

wrote in message
oups.com...
Guitars, which have six, seven, or twelve strings and therefore are
polyphonic, or Hammond organs ("a lot" of tonewheels) , are obviously
affected by intermod. For 'good' or 'ill', but we are not talking about
guitar amps, fx boxes, or Leslies ARE WE? Nooo.

A significant number-I'd venture 'more than not'-of studios have tube
mics and mic pre's. Many also have the Teletronix and Fairchild
compressors and Pultec limiters and their Manley and deParavicini
clones which are used on recordings where ofttimes "tube distortion" is
NOT called for. Put simply the tubes are not there for effects, at
least not always.


To create a particular effect when recording. You don't want to double up
on those effects when playing back, if you want to hear what you were
intended to hear.

As far as tube life, tens of thousands of hours in properly built tube
boxes is the norm-key here, properly built. Marshall heads are, from
the standpoint of audio reproduction, improperly built on purpose. The
old McIntosh amps would run a set of output tubes ten or twenty years
in every-day listening-with a power cycle every day.

So wil virtually all SS amps.

If tube amps had always been the standard we'd have tubes today that
would last much longer than the table scraps tubes made now do or even
those 'NOS golden era' tubes hoarders and tube rollers fetish over
today.

But they aren't, with good reason. The momomet you start running current
through a tube it is degrading.

To the extent that Arny and others deter people from tube amps,
the market size is reduced and the incentive to make new tubes to high
standards reduced-in that sense he's the problem.

They are more complicated to manufacture and less reliable and impose more
distortion than SS gear.

I don't now and have never advocated telling people things that aren't
true about tube amps-the non-solderers out there are probably better
off at Best Buy!-but discouraging potential hobbyists from an enjoyable
pastime they might like (the pro users will continue to ignore you
anyway, Arny) is mean-spirited and showing your hindquarters.

I doubt that's possible. Hobbyists like to be able to build things. Tube
amps are easier to build. There is a fair amount of learning that takes
place in building any of this stuff. I say go for it, just don't expect the
same low distortion and reliability from tubes.

"Michael McKelvy" said:

But they aren't, with good reason. The momomet you start running current
through a tube it is degrading.

Actually, after a hundred hours, the parameters of most tubes remain
pretty stable, to sink only when the end is near, like a NiCd battery.
With preamp tubes, usable life span can be 10,000 hrs or more, with
good (mostly NOS) power tubes it can be in excess of 5000 hrs.

In a McIntosh or Quad II the tubes have an easy life, they're biased
near class B.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"Arny Krueger" said:

IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
you *don't* like vacuum tubes

Wrong. What's the alternative to the modern car in my location?

Could be anything, as long as it is a one way trip, Arnold.

;-)

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

:
: IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
: you *don't* like vacuum tubes
:
: Wrong. What's the alternative to the modern car in my location?
:

Err, beats me, am i supposed to be a psychic ?
Rudy

"Ruud Broens" said:

: Wrong. What's the alternative to the modern car in my location?

Err, beats me, am i supposed to be a psychic ?

The Hive's mind is a quagmire. Don't even attempt to bother.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

wrote in message
oups.com

Guitars, which have six, seven, or twelve strings and therefore are
polyphonic, or Hammond organs ("a lot" of tonewheels) , are obviously
affected by intermod. For 'good' or 'ill', but we are not talking
about guitar amps, fx boxes, or Leslies ARE WE? Nooo.

Yup, but a guitar is just one instrument. An orchestra is more like 100.
Which one is more profoundly affected by IM?

A significant number-I'd venture 'more than not'-of studios have tube
mics and mic pre's.

Venture what you will, you've obviously got no facts to back yourself up.

Furthermore, few if any studios have only tube mics. Tube mics are like the
pepper sauce of audio. If you want THAT flavor, that's what you do.

Many also have the Teletronix and Fairchild
compressors and Pultec limiters and their Manley and deParavicini
clones which are used on recordings where ofttimes "tube distortion"
is NOT called for. Put simply the tubes are not there for effects, at
least not always.

Horsefeathers. The basic function of those boxes is EFX, aside from the fact
that a tiny fraction of them might be tubed. The tube sound is just EFX on
top of EFX.


However, you're playing ignorant of the fact that production and
reproduction are two different things. Home audio is about reproduction, and
musicians instruments and studios are about production. There's a big
difference.

As far as tube life, tens of thousands of hours in properly built tube
boxes is the norm-key here, properly built.

10.000 hours is optimistic if you are critical of performance. My Dyna ST70
had to be retubed a minimum of once a year if I wanted to keep it anywhere
near spec and sounding good and clean. In fact, its maximum power output was
down by an audible increment after a few months. Then there was the *joy* of
balancing the output tubes.

Marshall heads are, from
the standpoint of audio reproduction, improperly built on purpose.

OK. Few tubies would use a Marshall for a hi fi amp.

The
old McIntosh amps would run a set of output tubes ten or twenty years
in every-day listening-with a power cycle every day.

LOL!. Mac's cost an arm and a leg compared to mainstream tubed hifi amps,
but did provide some value in terms of longetivity. However, anybody who
went to Mac clinics saw plenty of tubes being swapped, and these weren't 20
year old Macs. I figure if Mac employees swapped Mac tubes at Mac expense,
then there was a good reason.

If tube amps had always been the standard we'd have tubes today that
would last much longer than the table scraps tubes made now do or even
those 'NOS golden era' tubes hoarders and tube rollers fetish over
today.

Let's face it, tubes are a dead-end technology except for a few niches. True
30 years ago, even more true today.

But you're right, the antics of many tubies takes a lot away from any
credibility they might have.

To the extent that Arny and others deter people from tube amps,
the market size is reduced and the incentive to make new tubes to high
standards reduced-in that sense he's the problem.

It's not me that deters people from buying tubed amps, its the simple hard
facts. Tubed equipment isn't reliable enough for the general public, and its
price/performance sucks mightily.

I don't now and have never advocated telling people things that aren't
true about tube amps-the non-solderers out there are probably better
off at Best Buy!-but discouraging potential hobbyists from an
enjoyable pastime they might like (the pro users will continue to
ignore you anyway, Arny) is mean-spirited and showing your
hindquarters.

Hey, if you want to inhale hot solder flux, be my guest. I've been to do a
bit of that myself. However, my time is valuable to the extent that I'd
prefer to spend my time with things that work well, last and have a
reasonable price, and that excludes tubes from hi fi.

"Ruud Broens" wrote in message

IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
you *don't* like vacuum tubes

Wrong. What's the alternative to the modern car in my location?


Err, beats me, am i supposed to be a psychic ?

OK, that was a trick question - there is no alternative.

So what is the alternative to the tubed hi fi amp?

wrote in message
ups.com

You're entitled to your preferences, but even if you concede that THD
is the metric of quality-which I don't-the fact is the "best" tube and
solid state amplifiers measure pretty close.

That's a bad joke.

The solid state amplifiers that measure the lowest THD are generally
thought to not
be all that great sounding by most solid state fans.

That's a tubie self-deception.

The most
successful solid state designs are generally not that remarkable in
measured performance.

That's more propaganda.

Do you have a Audio Precision test box and dummy loads in your living
room or home studio control room so as to impress your visitors and
provide yourself a sense of virtual penis hugeness?

If there's any question about the effectiveness of my reproductive powers,
people can check out my children.

That's all measurements come down to, really-whose is the biggest.

More tubie self-deception. The thing about measurements is that they have to
be done with care and interpreted with care. Modern equipment is often so
good that it vastly exceeds the practical requiments, which means that
further improvements in measured performance would be meaningless.

I'm told AP sells a surprising number of Portable One and ATS-1 boxes to
people
such as yourself.

The person you accuse me of being is a figment of your imagination.

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
: "Ruud Broens" wrote in message
:
: IOW, you *do* like your unreliable, low performance, expensive car
: you *don't* like vacuum tubes
:
: Wrong. What's the alternative to the modern car in my location?
:
:
: Err, beats me, am i supposed to be a psychic ?
:
: OK, that was a trick question - there is no alternative.

Well, thats your statement, but i deal in facts.
convince me

: So what is the alternative to the tubed hi fi amp?
:
........North Sea Jazz festival ?
R

Sander deWaal wrote:


"Michael McKelvy" said:

But they aren't, with good reason. The momomet you start running current
through a tube it is degrading.

Actually, after a hundred hours, the parameters of most tubes remain
pretty stable, to sink only when the end is near, like a NiCd battery.
With preamp tubes, usable life span can be 10,000 hrs or more, with
good (mostly NOS) power tubes it can be in excess of 5000 hrs.

In a McIntosh or Quad II the tubes have an easy life, they're biased
near class B.

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "


Sander's statements of *fact* are certainly refreshing and in marked contrast
to the anti-tube baloney pedaled as OSAF attempted by McKelvy. Sander was too
much of a gentleman to say "prove it" to the propagandist.

Another pragmatic question is that even when the tubes start losing some of
their original effectiveness, does this result in *audible* degradation of the
sound in terms of listener judgment - as opposed to purely instrument-based
measurements, per se, that don't necessarily correlate well with listener
perceptions. I realize this may be more problematic for output tubes, but even
in that case, would this not also depend upon (a) listening levels routinely
used, and (b) sensitivity of the speakers involved?



Bruce J. Richman

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.
But some beings believe it is their mission to tell others how to pleasure
themselves.
These beings usually have pointy heads and consume mass volumes of
mammoflesh for nutrition.

Personally, I listen exclusively to solid state. Nevertheless, it is invalid
for me to impose my beliefs on another individual, as much so as prescribing
what kind of music that person should listen to.

Recently, I became aware of a gathering at a local hifi watering hole where
apparent mutual reinforcement of tubophilia were conducted in an environment
of musical pleasure, while listening to a distorting medium known as
"vinyl." The subject of comparison was Sonny Rollins's "Way Out West",
played both as a CD and vinyl. The group-think of the evening was that vinyl
and tubes were "better" than CD and solid state.

Although the reasoning may have been flawed, it is nevertheless the case
that the participants experienced a mental state known as "fun", which
appears to be a form of release from pressures of everyday life, accompanied
by hedony and group interaction. It does not appear that there was mass
consumption of nutritional substances, although small quantities of
something called "orderves" were supplied, as well as an intoxicant with a
red color.

These are the only relevant facts.

"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.

"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.

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.
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.

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

In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote:

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.

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ate/index.html

He's a vinyl fan, too.

Stephen

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
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?

I hung a bunch of RadioShack Pro 77 Linaeums from the ceiling. I did this in
a 12' x 18' space. I haven't moved them, or the main speakers -- Kef
Reference III's, although it did take me six months to find the correct
placement of the Kefs, purely from the stereo point of view. I also managed
to squeeze in two additional pure stereo setups.

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.
OK.

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.

It really wasn't that hard, or expensive. A Sony TA-E1000ESD, as late as
last year, could have been had for $125, though they've gone up in price a
little since then. I use old amplifiers, Haflers and Acoustats.

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.

Well, I've got Kef Reference III's as the mains, and they are full range
speakers. There is an apparent myth that the surrounds have to be similar.
My experience is simply that they only have to be good at what they need to
do. Ralph Glasgal, whose outsize surround system is one of the audio wonders
of the world, does not use identical speakers, though his idea of a surround
is, amusingly, an Acoustat pasted to the wall.

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.

I urge a rethink. There are several points that deserve consideration. I am
not an Arny or a Ferstler, and I do not believe that all of anything sounds
the same, but there are several points of misunderstanding that, I believe,
are abetted by the audio press. The following is my impression of audiophile
group think. I do not wish to imply that you have any of these attitudes,
except perhaps (2):

1. Newer is better, or at least promises improvement
2. Stereo is better than multichannel, for the reasons that you gave.
3. Equipment that has an exotic aura is better than equipment that does not.
4. You get what you pay for, or, there is a strong correlation between price
and quality of reproduction.

There may actually be some correlation of the above parameters. However,
IMHO, it is so weak that were such notions promoted for use in clinical
psychology, you would reject them as defective. I wish to propose something
radically different:

From 1980 to 1995, men -- and oddly, they were all men -- who were conscious
of a heritage of design that goes back to the Willamson and Ultralinear
amplifiers exercised their remarkable talents in keen competition to design
electronics capable of handling the challenge of the CD. This was truely an
intellectual competition. Almost every year brought out the best that
Hafler, Strickland, Nelson Pass, Bob Carver, the Krell guys, , et al, could
muster. I mention Hafler first because he was based in Philadelphia, and
I've heard a bit about him.

As long as this continued, cosmetics were of secondary importance. For a
brief period of time, much like the thirty golden years of physics, people
with ears were amazed, surprised, enlightened, and entranced. But all this
is rapidly shrinking. The American consumer has limited disposable income.
The visual has supplanted the aural. The consumer tries to capture reality
in an inferior combination of both.

High end audio has a problem, which is that there is so much equipment that
is very well designed (and by this I don't mean Arny's PA amplifiers or
Howard's an-amp-is-an-amp), and the gap between objective accuracy and what
can actually be provided has shrunk to a very small gap. But the industry
wants to survive, and they do this by reinventing the audio orgasm.
Companies form, sell their wares for afew years, then dissolve and
mysteriously reform with the same participants, all in the pursuit of
newness, novelty, the neoteric. But neoteric is not necessarily better, and
is frequently worse.

My feeling is this. If you or any other perceptive listener had the
opportunity to listen to anything you wanted that you'd ever seen on eBay,
from 1980 on, to listen at length, you would discover diamonds you never
knew existed. I say this without denying the existence of pure trash. I say
it as an expression of personal eclecticism, which pays no attention to
reviews, buzz, aura, exoticism, image, price, or anything else. There is
equipment out there with all physical allure of a refrigerator that will
astound you, and cost peanuts, and there is equipment that also sounds like
a refrigerator. There is no way to tell except listen, because no one, not
even your friends, has the motivation to tell you the truth. Most hifi
listeners, myself included, have been caught up in severe cognitive
dissonance.

I'm afraid that we live in an audio version of THE MATRIX. There is no
denying the validity of any choice we make in pursuit of subjective
pleasure. At the same time, we blind ourselves to the virtual infinity of
choices that might sound marvelous, but deny us the validation of our peers.

With respect to one specific point, good surround need not be expensive. I
did it for peanuts.

"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Robert Morein" wrote:

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.

http://www.stereophile.com/amplifica...ate/index.html

He's a vinyl fan, too.

Stephen

But it does have the worship-wood

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]
I realize that when I'm listening to recordings (and I roll my own so I
can
listen to virtually anything I own -whether on LP or CD), that I'm
obviously
just hearing 2 channel recordings, but nevertheless, they *still* sound
better
with both front and rear speakers going than with just 2 channels.
Perhaps
there are some simulation devices available for car systems like mine now,
but
I just haven't researched this yet.

All well and good.
I would point out, however, for those who are interested, that it is
actually possible to recreate a venue based upon the research into acoustics
performed by Beranek et al. The result can be startling. I attribute the
reluctance of audiophiles to do this more to cognitive dissonance than to
factors involving decor, logistics, complexity, and price.

A car isn't going to do this, because some care must be taken in frequency
response and time delay to the listening position. In order to do what BB&N
do, one has to avoid errors, egregious to the acoustician, such as speakers
pointed well off axis, and at odd angles, which is inevitable in a car. At
the same time, paradoxically, I find the sweet spot enlarged from a point to
a line that one can walk, maintaining all the perception of an orchestra on
stage, enlarged and glorified by the reflections from the proscenium.

But I still enjoy fiddling with the front/back speaker balance in my car

Robert Morein wrote:


"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Robert Morein wrote:
[snip]
I realize that when I'm listening to recordings (and I roll my own so I
can
listen to virtually anything I own -whether on LP or CD), that I'm
obviously
just hearing 2 channel recordings, but nevertheless, they *still* sound
better
with both front and rear speakers going than with just 2 channels.
Perhaps
there are some simulation devices available for car systems like mine now,
but
I just haven't researched this yet.

All well and good.
I would point out, however, for those who are interested, that it is
actually possible to recreate a venue based upon the research into acoustics
performed by Beranek et al. The result can be startling. I attribute the
reluctance of audiophiles to do this more to cognitive dissonance than to
factors involving decor, logistics, complexity, and price.

A car isn't going to do this, because some care must be taken in frequency
response and time delay to the listening position. In order to do what BB&N
do, one has to avoid errors, egregious to the acoustician, such as speakers
pointed well off axis, and at odd angles, which is inevitable in a car. At
the same time, paradoxically, I find the sweet spot enlarged from a point to
a line that one can walk, maintaining all the perception of an orchestra on
stage, enlarged and glorified by the reflections from the proscenium.

But I still enjoy fiddling with the front/back speaker balance in my car



Granted - speaker placement in automobiles is difficult. I was fortunate to
find some veteran installers that able to place the front door tweeters close
to ear level and the midrange/woofers not too much lower. This would,
unfortunately, not be possible in car with smaller doors, since the drivers
require a certain amount of depth that a lot of car doors simply don't have.
The speakers, also, believe it or not, were installed, with small wood baffles
around them - the installers are IASCA pros that do some really wild jobs for
the auto sound show freaks, so they knew how to maximize my humble setup.
Also, the rear speakers are at ear level because they are in the rear deck.
The head unit has bass, treble, and midrange controls along with the usual
front/back and balance controls - so I've got a fair amount of flexibility.
And the amplifier is purely SS and it sounds great to me - so much for tube
bias (pun intended).



Bruce J. Richman

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Robert Morein said:

I urge a rethink. There are several points that deserve consideration. I
am
not an Arny or a Ferstler, and I do not believe that all of anything
sounds
the same, but there are several points of misunderstanding that, I
believe,
are abetted by the audio press. The following is my impression of
audiophile
group think. I do not wish to imply that you have any of these
attitudes,
except perhaps (2):

1. Newer is better, or at least promises improvement
2. Stereo is better than multichannel, for the reasons that you gave.
3. Equipment that has an exotic aura is better than equipment that does
not.
4. You get what you pay for, or, there is a strong correlation between
price
and quality of reproduction.

Bobo, I commend your attempts to connect a simple pastime to the larger
issues of consumerism and materialism, and possibly the travails and
compromises of modern life in a technological society.

My take is these four observations of yours can be applied to all
technological products. Now that audio (like video) is converging with
computers, it's getting easier all the time to support (1). Premise (2),
seemingly on the opposite side of the coin, is just a statement of
preference. It could be rephrased as "Simpler is better", or maybe
manual is better than automatic, or purism surpasses artificiality.
Either way, it's a preference.

(3) is a restatement of bourgeoism, an attitude common to enthusiastic
consumers, status-seekers, materialists, etc. But not to ascetics,
communists, the Amish, and a certain other group. In fact, isn't this an
issue of some cockeyed "morality" for Them? ;-)

(4) is a truism -- true to a degree, but not entirely. Honorable
manufacturers and merchants deliver value in accordance with prices, but
less scrupulous ones (the cloners in Hong Kong come to mind) are just
after a quick buck, integrity be damned. I believe this is common
knowledge, don't you?

[snip]
I'm afraid that we live in an audio version of THE MATRIX. There is no
denying the validity of any choice we make in pursuit of subjective
pleasure. At the same time, we blind ourselves to the virtual infinity
of
choices that might sound marvelous, but deny us the validation of our
peers.

This is, IMO, overly dramatic. Exploring an "infinity of choices" would
require inordinate time and effort. And do you really think "validation
of our peers" is such a paramount factor? I think most consumers are
glad to benefit from others' experience before purchasing. If somebody
shows off a gadget he bought and is obviously enthusiastic about, isn't
it natural to reinforce his enthusiasm to keep him feeling good?
Personally, when somebody shows off a tube system to me, I admire the
looks, or the sound, or commend him on getting a good deal. I keep the
observations about continually adjusting the bias, replacing parts, and
other maintenance issues to myself. That's because humanity comes before
ideology, at least to me. YMMV, of course.



P.S. As the departed Gregipus would say, 'borgs need not apply.

Yes, it's overly dramatic. Wait till you read my discovery of Eternal Life

I think of the validation of our peers as intrinsic to the choice; not a pat
on the back, or, "George, you've done good", but the value of the brand, the
pride of ownership. I think that indirectly, this is based upon a need for
validation, which has taken many bizarre forms, as for example, the
notorious Indian potlatch.

Since most consumers are not aesthetes or gadget-centric, my points do not
apply to them. When they buy a toaster, it's a utilitarian decision. Most
people make utilitarian decisions, reserving irrationality for little
corners of their lives. What I've said was an observation only about hifi
aesthetes, not purchasers of HT-in-a-box systems, or friends with money who
come to us for advice on what to buy.

Thorstein Veblen decreed that "conspicuous consumption" is an inherent part
of human behavior. But I wasn't aiming that broadly. I was referring, much
less glamorously, to audiophilia.

I have a good buddy for whom audio novelty is happiness. He's a very cagey
buyer, so his addiction doesn't cost him much. And I'm one of the prime
beneficiaries. Whether he loves a piece or hates it, it has to go. Thanks to
him, I get to hang out in the equivalent of a tiny hifi show. I've seen
hundreds of components come and go. This sample shows a sideways trend with
time, and there is little correlation between what he pays and how the
equipment sounds.

There are enough examples of under-designed equipment hiding behind 1/2"
thick panels adorned with gold-plated knobs to make (4) untrustworthy. And
on a more modest level, the audiophile press has long promoted modestly
priced amplifiers, ie., Rotel, that don't sound as good to me as even more
modestly priced amplifiers. I conclude that the buyer has no friends,
except his own independence, which is usually lacking.

Now for my own cognitive dissonance. I have piles of speakers. One pair are
AR BXI-58J's from 1986, finished in cheesey walnut vinyl. I refoamed them,
and hooked them up to one of my Acoustat amps. In the living room reside two
large, nameless bookshelves, rescued from the curb, on little discarded
stands that curiously match. They appear to have MicroAcoustics woofers and
Morel tweeters carefully surrounded by felt to cut the diffraction.

The sound provided by each of these systems is uncanny. I cannot say that my
much more expensive and recent speakers sound better. Logic says I should
chuck the Kef III's, the Polk LSi-15's, and the NEAR 50me's.

But I can't. It can't be true. What if I'm wrong? I don't trust myself.
People would laugh at me

Robert Morein wrote:
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

Bull**** on stilts. Pure and simple.

Both solid state amplifiers "modify the music", the question is to
what degree and how. Some amplifiers "modify" it much less than others,
both in terms of the perception of the experienced listener and in
measurable terms (although such measurements are usually done with one
or two steady state carriers.)

Amplifiers with extremely low measured THD and intermod can be built
with either solid state or vacuum tube devices, with or without
coupling transformers. The solid state ones require less maintenance
and have better power to weight ratios, certainly, and produce a little
less heat-sometimes a lot less heat, particularly at idle. The tube
ones need more maintenance but usually can be fixed with less test
equipment and skills and tend to tolerate short term abuse better.

For a given amount of money, a tube amplifier may still be built that
will be easy to build, easy to troubleshoot, and "modify the music"
less offensively than comparably built solid state amps. It will also
be aesthetically appealing in one's living room and generate a lot of
comments, usually positive.

Anyone who says the transistor-bipolar or FET- is in and of itself a
lower distortion device is uninformed or a liar. Both devices have
inherent nonlinearities. Transistors come in N and P channel types, and
are lower impedance devices-they modulate higher currents at lower
voltages for a given power handling quantity. If for historical reasons
high impedance loudspeakers had been the norm the tube amp would be "a
better inherent match" and solid state amplifiers would require step-up
transformers. I've always regretted that 50 ohms hadn't been the
standard for drivers instead of 4,8,16, but that would mean heavier
voice coils of finer wire.

Tube amplifiers have certain fundamental advantages, i.e. their
overload characteristics, and the type and order of distortion products
they generate. The people like Kruger and Slone who say "use enough
amp and you'll never overload" are knowingly ignoring the fact that
with speakers of average efficiency 10 kW is still not quite enough-and
in any event the drivers couldn't handle it. The people who say "no
distortion is the best kind" are idiots who think more NFB is
better-just shy of oscillation. Indeed I've heard exactly that.

They also have disadvantages-weight, size, cost are higher and there
is needed maintenance. No way around it. Personally I don't care, any
more than the fact that I could reduce maintenance and improve mileage
by fitting EFI to my Corvair. For that matter, I could sell the Corvair
and buy a Subaru. I see a lot more Corvairs on the street-the youngest
is older than Gwen Stefani and the earlier ones made while Marilyn
Monroe lived!-than I do Subarus old enough to have pushrod engines, and
similarly there are a lot more tube amps from the fifties and sixties
still running,all of which have had repairs and maintenance, than
Japanese solid state amps from the seventies and eighties that have had
any failures-most are summarily scrapped today.

Arny
The
old McIntosh amps would run a set of output tubes ten or twenty years
in every-day listening-with a power cycle every day.


LOL!. Mac's cost an arm and a leg compared to mainstream tubed hifi
amps,
but did provide some value in terms of longetivity. However, anybody
who
went to Mac clinics saw plenty of tubes being swapped, and these
weren't 20
year old Macs. I figure if Mac employees swapped Mac tubes at Mac
expense,
then there was a good reason.


What's a mainstream tube amp? A non-high-end one of course...The old
Dynacos and other kit amps were not even by Fifties standards the best.
Dynacos were the staple of a generation of modders and hobbyists
because you could still buy one not working for a $10 bill until the
advent of eBay, they had a chrome chassis (and were less susceptible to
rust than the cheap prechromed top sheet of most Macs!) but they were
and are terrible amps just as the solid state ones with output coupling
caps still are. In short you are comparing McIntosh apples with road
apples and you know it.

An aside, ARC, c-j or VTL are in the same price bracket as McIntosh
today...there are things I dislike about those brands and with current
Mac as well, but don't compare a Mac to a $999 budget ten watt SE amp
as Peter Aczel does. He's a liar and you know it..