Everyone,

After almost a decade of being satisfied with my Rotel RB-990BX and
RC-990BX duo (amplifier/preamp), Marantz CD-63SE (CD player) and
Vandersteen 2 (speakers) -- I refer to these as my "lower-end of
high-end gear" -- I am now getting interested in moving into the tube
realm, especially DIY tube kits. I've already built one of those
Dynaco ST-35 amp clone kits, just for the heck of it, and am
impressed. Although it doesn't have quite enough oomph to drive the
fairly inefficient Vandies, it still sounds quite good (only a couple
times did I notice a lack of output power.) I now plan to build a pair
of high-powered monoblock tube amps which will be capable of driving
the Vandies or any other speakers I decide to use in the future.

Since the only input to the sound system will be digital audio (such
as audio CD), I've been thinking of dispensing with the preamplifier
and strictly going with a DAC and tube amplifier combination. For
playing CDs, I'd use a CD player with digital output to feed the DAC
(I assume that I can also feed a digital PCM signal from a high-end pc
sound card -- comments on this approach are requested.)

Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?
And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.

(One alternative I have is to purchase a high-end audio CD player with
a high quality built-in DAC with analog-side volume control. Do any
exist? How do the reasonably priced CD players from Rotel rate, both
for DAC quality and for volume control?)

As everyone should notice, I'm sort of spinning my wheels on this,
trying to make sense of what to do. I want to minimize the number of
components in my setup, while maintaining reasonable audio quality.
It does not help that I lack knowledge of some fundamental things,
so hopefully the replies, if any, will help me to better understand
these fundamentals and the various options I have.

regards,

Gary

Gary Jensen wrote in message . ..
Everyone,

It's funny you should ask. I recently got a Sony SDP-508ESD on e-bay
whose variable output had been modified. I use it straight into a
power amp. Sounds great. Most CD players have relatively poor variable
output stages, though.


After almost a decade of being satisfied with my Rotel RB-990BX and
RC-990BX duo (amplifier/preamp), Marantz CD-63SE (CD player) and
Vandersteen 2 (speakers) -- I refer to these as my "lower-end of
high-end gear" -- I am now getting interested in moving into the tube
realm, especially DIY tube kits. I've already built one of those
Dynaco ST-35 amp clone kits, just for the heck of it, and am
impressed. Although it doesn't have quite enough oomph to drive the
fairly inefficient Vandies, it still sounds quite good (only a couple
times did I notice a lack of output power.) I now plan to build a pair
of high-powered monoblock tube amps which will be capable of driving
the Vandies or any other speakers I decide to use in the future.

Since the only input to the sound system will be digital audio (such
as audio CD), I've been thinking of dispensing with the preamplifier
and strictly going with a DAC and tube amplifier combination. For
playing CDs, I'd use a CD player with digital output to feed the DAC
(I assume that I can also feed a digital PCM signal from a high-end pc
sound card -- comments on this approach are requested.)

Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?
And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.

(One alternative I have is to purchase a high-end audio CD player with
a high quality built-in DAC with analog-side volume control. Do any
exist? How do the reasonably priced CD players from Rotel rate, both
for DAC quality and for volume control?)

As everyone should notice, I'm sort of spinning my wheels on this,
trying to make sense of what to do. I want to minimize the number of
components in my setup, while maintaining reasonable audio quality.
It does not help that I lack knowledge of some fundamental things,
so hopefully the replies, if any, will help me to better understand
these fundamentals and the various options I have.

regards,

Gary

"Michael Scarpitti" wrote in message
om...
Gary Jensen wrote in message
. ..
Everyone,

It's funny you should ask. I recently got a Sony SDP-508ESD on e-bay
whose variable output had been modified. I use it straight into a
power amp. Sounds great. Most CD players have relatively poor variable
output stages, though.

Well, it's not like there's a choice for most CD players. If the output is
variable, that's the same one that goes to your preamp anyway.

"Gary Jensen" wrote in message


Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedances to directly feed a tube amplifier?

Lets's put it this way - they generally put out 2 volts or more with a
full-scale digital input.

And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself.

That's an incorrect assumption. OTOH, there's nothing wrong with analog
volume controls.

Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.

Don't forget a popular option, the so-called "passive controller" A
"passive controller" is just a volume control in a box with some jacks.

(Michael Scarpitti) wrote:
in rec.audio.tubes2fd2ff8c.0310081717.16ed71c9@posti ng.google.com,

: It's funny you should ask. I recently got a Sony SDP-508ESD on e-bay
: whose variable output had been modified. I use it straight into a
: power amp. Sounds great. Most CD players have relatively poor variable
: output stages, though.

Hey, my CDP is a Sony 308-ESD (bought on special - I just missed out
on the 508 at the time, but it appeared to be much the same except
with the "Gibraltar" chassis, possibly internal copper plating, etc.)

Any idea what the mod on the variable output was?
Just out of interest ... I don't use the variable out on mine so far.

I suppose I'd also be curious as to whether the DAC's in these are
suitable to mod in the way that Robert Casey has written about ...

Thanks,
RdM

Hi Gary,

Since your DIY'ing anyway, Mikkel Simonson (a regular RAT'ter) sells
excellent remote control volume control kits. There were some threads
one or two moths ago on this subject here in RAT, or just look for
Mikkel.
That way you can connect your CD player, to this volume control and
then to the amps...

Regards Xavier.

In article ,
Gary Jensen wrote:
Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?

Sure.

And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,

Why not? A stepped attenuator on each input would give you a high-quality
volume control with excellent tracking between the two channels.


--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

In article ,
jeffc wrote:
It's funny you should ask. I recently got a Sony SDP-508ESD on e-bay
whose variable output had been modified. I use it straight into a
power amp. Sounds great. Most CD players have relatively poor variable
output stages, though.

Well, it's not like there's a choice for most CD players. If the output is
variable, that's the same one that goes to your preamp anyway.

Nope. For example, my Adcom provides both fixed and variable level outputs.

--
a href="http://www.poohsticks.org/drew/"Home Page/a
Life is a terminal sexually transmitted disease.

Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?
And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.

"Xavier van Unen" wrote in message
...
Hi Gary,

Since your DIY'ing anyway, Mikkel Simonson (a regular RAT'ter) sells
excellent remote control volume control kits. There were some threads
one or two moths ago on this subject here in RAT, or just look for
Mikkel.
That way you can connect your CD player, to this volume control and
then to the amps...

Regards Xavier.

Before dealing with a CD transport and outboard DAC, you should investigate
the sound quality of DVD players these days. They've made a big leap by
having 96+kHz converters with jitter-eliminating buffers etc, while the
price has dropped through the basement. Best Buy sells Toshiba SD-2900's
for $60, and they have 192kHz DAC's in them! I have one, and it's stiff
competition with a Sonic Frontiers TransDAC. Add one of them remote volume
controls and you're testing your theory with minimal investment.

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.

Sugarite wrote:
Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?
And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.


"Xavier van Unen" wrote in message
...

Hi Gary,

Since your DIY'ing anyway, Mikkel Simonson (a regular RAT'ter) sells
excellent remote control volume control kits. There were some threads
one or two moths ago on this subject here in RAT, or just look for
Mikkel.
That way you can connect your CD player, to this volume control and
then to the amps...

Regards Xavier.


Before dealing with a CD transport and outboard DAC, you should investigate
the sound quality of DVD players these days. They've made a big leap by
having 96+kHz converters with jitter-eliminating buffers etc, while the
price has dropped through the basement. Best Buy sells Toshiba SD-2900's
for $60, and they have 192kHz DAC's in them! I have one, and it's stiff
competition with a Sonic Frontiers TransDAC. Add one of them remote volume
controls and you're testing your theory with minimal investment.

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.


--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the
"SWEN" worm, I have concluded we must conceal our
e-mail address. Our true address is the mirror image
of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame
such steps are necessary.

Charlie

On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 03:06:51 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Do today's DACs (both commercial and DIY kits) have adequate line out
voltages and compatible impedences to directly feed a tube amplifier?
And what about volume control? I would assume that the only acceptable
volume control would be on the analog output side of the DAC or on the
amplifier itself. Since the monoblocks will not have volume controls,
that leaves the volume control on the DAC.

"Xavier van Unen" wrote in message
...
Hi Gary,

Since your DIY'ing anyway, Mikkel Simonson (a regular RAT'ter) sells
excellent remote control volume control kits. There were some threads
one or two moths ago on this subject here in RAT, or just look for
Mikkel.
That way you can connect your CD player, to this volume control and
then to the amps...

Regards Xavier.

Before dealing with a CD transport and outboard DAC, you should investigate
the sound quality of DVD players these days. They've made a big leap by
having 96+kHz converters with jitter-eliminating buffers etc, while the
price has dropped through the basement. Best Buy sells Toshiba SD-2900's
for $60, and they have 192kHz DAC's in them! I have one, and it's stiff
competition with a Sonic Frontiers TransDAC. Add one of them remote volume
controls and you're testing your theory with minimal investment.

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(
--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

"Drew Eckhardt" wrote in message
...
In article ,
jeffc wrote:
It's funny you should ask. I recently got a Sony SDP-508ESD on e-bay
whose variable output had been modified. I use it straight into a
power amp. Sounds great. Most CD players have relatively poor variable
output stages, though.

Well, it's not like there's a choice for most CD players. If the output
is
variable, that's the same one that goes to your preamp anyway.

Nope. For example, my Adcom provides both fixed and variable level
outputs.

Nope what? You own most CD players?

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it
for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Sugarite wrote:


However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it
for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.










Well stated. Excuses to bash tube equipment because somebody "wants to hear
what the artist intended" are just ignorant canards. Unless you were in the
recording studio and/or happened to collect data and the various adjustments
made by the recording engineers, it's pure guesswork as to "what the artists
intended" on the part of end users.



Bruce J. Richman

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message

Sugarite wrote:


However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp,
which offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part
of the tube sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes
and customizing it for my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that
component. I'd be much more inclined to have a tube preamp and
solid state poweramp.

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of
view.

Is it naive to want the highest fidelity reasonably possible?

You going to buy a different stereo for each album?

How does that relate to having the highest fidelity reasonably possible?

Or carry a variety of studio monitors?

How does that relate to having the highest fidelity reasonably possible?

Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

...or take advantage of what's there. Or minimize the influence of the room.
Or listen without the influence of a room.

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the
hell are you here for?

To share information about having the highest fidelity reasonably possible,
of course.

There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the sound.

I believe that if you're talking *audible* flavor, you're wrong.

Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

How does that relate to having the highest fidelity reasonably possible?


Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what they are talking about... :-(tubed preamps, sonically transparent
tubed equipment is not that unusual.

Guess that makes you a narcissist.

How so? Your posturing is so easy to deconstruct.

Ask any mastering engineer how tube saturation affects sound.

If tube saturation affects the sound, and the goal is having the highest
fidelity reasonably possible, why would we put our audio through a saturated
tube?

Well stated.

True, endless dogmatic posturing is considered by some misguided souls to be
a good discussion style. Not me, but around here I'm considered to be a
little weird. It's tough being a one-eyed man in the land of the blinkered.

Excuses to bash tube equipment because somebody "wants
to hear what the artist intended" are just ignorant canards.

That's not what's going on here at all. The discussion involves tubes being
intentionally run into saturation in order to artificially change the
quality of the sound. It's well known that sonically transparent tubed
equipment exists. In the case of

Unless you were in the recording studio and/or happened to collect data
and
the various adjustments made by the recording engineers, it's pure
guesswork as to "what the artists intended" on the part of end users.

Well we are working with a slightly vaguely stated problem. What was stated
at the top was:

"I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended."

What you always get in a recording is what the artists plus the production
staff decided to deliver to you.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it
for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Hey dip****, take a look at the header. 'Here' for me is
rec.audio.tech, not RAT. ON rec.audio.tech, maximum accuracy is pretty
much the name of the game. BTW, what happened to the generally
pleasant atmosphere of RAT? WTF are *you* doing here? :-)

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? It *affects* the sound. A good
reproduction system does *not* affect the sound.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:10:16 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it
for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:05 +0000, the highly esteemed Stewart Pinkerton
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:10:16 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

However I would discourage you from going without a tube preamp, which
offers a lot of the tube saturation coloration, a big part of the tube
sound. Having had so much fun swapping preamp tubes and customizing it
for
my tastes, I think it's daft to avoid that component. I'd be much more
inclined to have a tube preamp and solid state poweramp.


I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view. You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

Whats a PP3? insert puzzled look here

Anyway, saying tubes are "colored" is just like saying "all solid-state
sounds bad" - both statements are equally absurd and untrue.


To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
Obviously not. It sounds like he has experience with one of those tube
"preamps" designed to give that "tube sound". You know, the ones that
run a 12AX7 with 24V (or less) on the plate.....

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

High fidelity *means* neutral. You might as well say "natural".

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 13:54:19 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


"Stewart Pinkerton" wrote in message
...
Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

High fidelity *means* neutral. You might as well say "natural".

Natural brings in the quality of the source material - neutral is
indeed the right word. Fidelity is about the reproduction of whatever
has been recorded as well as possible - whether that is or isn't
natural is the choice of the artist.

d

_____________________________

http://www.pearce.uk.com

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If
the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

This would be an issue of semantics. I'm of the opinion that tube
saturation doesn't suddenly kick in once the power levels reach a certain
proportion of tolerance, and that even at low levels the effect is present.
If what I'm hearing at low levels isn't a result of the same properties that
are influencing the sound near full saturation, then I'm not sure I care.
My point was that tubes are not a benign audio component at any output
level.

To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............

If you mean that I couldn't fix a tube amp to save my life, you're right.
What I can do is hear the difference between different brands and/or
vintages of the same tube in the same amp. But hey, if you've got the fancy
diagnostic gear that says tubes don't color sound then I guess I'm trumped.
Funny how I keep running into all these defective tubes that *all sound
distinctly different at any output level*.

If you mean audio engineering, I know enough to use tubes for coloration
effects, and to not use a tube amp for monitoring, instead to go the
"accuracy" route to better appreciate how the mix will sound on a variety of
gear, rather than just my own system which is tailored to my preferences.
On this matter I am not alone. I think I'll stick with the engineering
practices of the last 25 years rather than blindly follow the numbers
generated by a simulation gadget.

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view.
You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

Actually, what I consider a no-brainer is the way many people look at sound
reproduction, meaning that they're not using their brains. I'm not going to
waste my time going into detail about psychoacoutics, but considering that
I'll always be using the same set of ears, I have no difficulty with the
idea of the same "coloured wash" on all my music. Taking terms like
accuracy and neutrality and applying them in a literal fashion to sound
reproduction design requires the belief that everyone's auditory system
behaves exactly the same. Typically proponents of that type of design
require scientific data to be convinced of anything, yet there's no evidence
to suggest that people hear the same sounds beyond the very basic. If one
were to assume that people do hear highly complex sounds differently, just
like every different mic design renders a different response, there is only
one type of device that is capable of manipulating highly complex and subtle
psychoacoustic properties effectively and beneficially, and that is the
vacuum tube.

I do not imply that the same tube amp equiped with the same tubes should be
used by everyone, instead that only tube amps offer the type of
customization for sound reproduction to achieve fidelity to BOTH the
recorded material AND the listener. A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.

Furthermore, if you're a proponent of "absolute accuracy", what the hell
are
you here for? There is no tube circuit that doesn't put some flavor on
the
sound. Go join your misguided friends on the class A solid-state forums.

Hey dip****, take a look at the header. 'Here' for me is
rec.audio.tech, not RAT. ON rec.audio.tech, maximum accuracy is pretty
much the name of the game. BTW, what happened to the generally
pleasant atmosphere of RAT? WTF are *you* doing here? :-)

Only people who might be called dip****s are the original poster for
cross-posting between apparently incompatible groups, and yourself for
having the arrogance to bring profanity to a meaningful although heated
debate. And I'm here because usenet is public domain. Note that I wasn't
posting to rec.audio.pleasant.

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well now, that's the point, isn't it? It *affects* the sound. A good
reproduction system does *not* affect the sound.

Perhaps, but a SUPERB sound reproduction system will affect the sound in a
way to help overcome the variances in the auditory system of the unique
listener, such that the end result is perhaps LESS affected by the human
nature of sound reproduction, but definitely more appreciable by the
listener.

Sugarite wrote:

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view.

You

going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.


Actually, what I consider a no-brainer is the way many people look at sound
reproduction, meaning that they're not using their brains. I'm not going to
waste my time going into detail about psychoacoutics, but considering that
I'll always be using the same set of ears, I have no difficulty with the
idea of the same "coloured wash" on all my music. Taking terms like
accuracy and neutrality and applying them in a literal fashion to sound
reproduction design requires the belief that everyone's auditory system
behaves exactly the same. Typically proponents of that type of design
require scientific data to be convinced of anything, yet there's no evidence
to suggest that people hear the same sounds beyond the very basic. If one
were to assume that people do hear highly complex sounds differently, just
like every different mic design renders a different response, there is only
one type of device that is capable of manipulating highly complex and subtle
psychoacoustic properties effectively and beneficially, and that is the
vacuum tube.

You can listen to your music while wearing a football helmet if that's
your preference, but if you advocate that I do so you can expect some
negative comment.


snip

--
After being targeted with gigabytes of trash by the
"SWEN" worm, I have concluded we must conceal our
e-mail address. Our true address is the mirror image
of what you see before the "@" symbol. It's a shame
such steps are necessary.

Charlie

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:01:52 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If
the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

This would be an issue of semantics. I'm of the opinion that tube
saturation doesn't suddenly kick in once the power levels reach a certain
proportion of tolerance, and that even at low levels the effect is present.
If what I'm hearing at low levels isn't a result of the same properties that
are influencing the sound near full saturation, then I'm not sure I care.
My point was that tubes are not a benign audio component at any output
level.

Neither is a transistor. However, when properly used, both are quite
transparent and uncolored, particularly in a preamp.

To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............

If you mean that I couldn't fix a tube amp to save my life, you're
right. What I can do is hear the difference between different brands
and/or vintages of the same tube in the same amp. But hey, if you've
got the fancy diagnostic gear that says tubes don't color sound then I
guess I'm trumped. Funny how I keep running into all these defective
tubes that *all sound distinctly different at any output level*.

No, you are running into gear that is operating the tubes "way off their
curve". If you bias a transistor improperly (and don't use any corrective
feedback), guess what?

If you mean audio engineering, I know enough to use tubes for coloration
effects, and to not use a tube amp for monitoring, instead to go the
"accuracy" route to better appreciate how the mix will sound on a
variety of gear, rather than just my own system which is tailored to my
preferences. On this matter I am not alone. I think I'll stick with the
engineering practices of the last 25 years rather than blindly follow
the numbers generated by a simulation gadget.

Engineering practices? What kind of "engineering" are we reffering to?

I have got to ask - what kind of gear are you using to "color" the sound?

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.


Back in the early sixties, recording engineers and producers of top 40
rock and
roll would enhance the recordings to make it sound better on the sort of
equipment
95% of the kids owned back then. Portable record players and radios using
hot chassis circuits (using tubes like the 50C5 and 4 inch speakers).
Or the kids
used the console TV/radio/record player in the living room.

Radio station program directors like Rick Sklar of Musicradio 77 WABC would,
with the engineers, tweak the sound processing of the music (compressors
and such)
to sound good on transistor portable radios, AA5 table radios and such.
What
most listeners used. He had examples of these radios in his officce and
would
listen to see if the station sounded good from them.

So recording engineers taylor the sound to fit the playback equipment they
expect most of their customers to use. Of course checking to be sure the
material will still sound reasonable on a good system as well.

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:22:50 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:05 +0000, the highly esteemed Stewart Pinkerton
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:10:16 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

Whats a PP3? insert puzzled look here

Darn, it's no good when you have to *explain* your joke! A PP3 is a
small 9-volt battery. Less common now than it was, but still
available. Running a tube off a low enough rail will certainly force
it into saturation, even in a preamp.

Anyway, saying tubes are "colored" is just like saying "all solid-state
sounds bad" - both statements are equally absurd and untrue.

Quite so.


To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
Obviously not. It sounds like he has experience with one of those tube
"preamps" designed to give that "tube sound". You know, the ones that
run a 12AX7 with 24V (or less) on the plate.....

Yes, exactly my point above (sigh). :-)
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:01:52 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

Tube saturation coloration? I love it when people don't have a clue
what
they are talking about... :-(

Guess that makes you a narcisist. Ask any mastering engineer how tube
saturation affects sound.

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

This would be an issue of semantics. I'm of the opinion that tube
saturation doesn't suddenly kick in once the power levels reach a certain
proportion of tolerance, and that even at low levels the effect is present.

Your opinion is noted. Unfortunately, it doesn't agree with measured
reality.

If what I'm hearing at low levels isn't a result of the same properties that
are influencing the sound near full saturation, then I'm not sure I care.
My point was that tubes are not a benign audio component at any output
level.

Depends what you mean. No active device is 'perfect', but for small
signal use, almost any BJT, FET, or tube (given a decent rail voltage)
will provide linearity which is *way* better than is required for
*audible* transparency.

To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............

If you mean that I couldn't fix a tube amp to save my life, you're right.
What I can do is hear the difference between different brands and/or
vintages of the same tube in the same amp. But hey, if you've got the fancy
diagnostic gear that says tubes don't color sound then I guess I'm trumped.
Funny how I keep running into all these defective tubes that *all sound
distinctly different at any output level*.

Clearly, you have either a defective amplifier, or a vivid
imagination! Of course, you may have both...............

If you mean audio engineering, I know enough to use tubes for coloration
effects, and to not use a tube amp for monitoring, instead to go the
"accuracy" route to better appreciate how the mix will sound on a variety of
gear, rather than just my own system which is tailored to my preferences.
On this matter I am not alone. I think I'll stick with the engineering
practices of the last 25 years rather than blindly follow the numbers
generated by a simulation gadget.

The engineering practices of the last 50 years suggest that you are
incorrect.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 14:46:03 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

I'd rather hear what the artist(s) intended.

Please don't even start with that naive and over-debated point of view.
You
going to buy a different stereo for each album? Or carry a variety of
studio monitors? Renovate your house to have a variety of sound rooms?

That's pretty much what *you* are suggesting, isn't it? You want to
lay the *same* coloured wash over *all* your music. It might suit
some, but it won't suit all of them. Seems like a no-brainer to keep
the reproduction system as neutral as possible, if high fidelity is
your aim.

Actually, what I consider a no-brainer is the way many people look at sound
reproduction, meaning that they're not using their brains. I'm not going to
waste my time going into detail about psychoacoutics, but considering that
I'll always be using the same set of ears, I have no difficulty with the
idea of the same "coloured wash" on all my music. Taking terms like
accuracy and neutrality and applying them in a literal fashion to sound
reproduction design requires the belief that everyone's auditory system
behaves exactly the same.

Absolute rubbish! Neutrality means that the generated soundfield will
be as close as possible to that of the original performance. The
auditory system of the listener is completely irrelevant, since each
listener will hear the same from such a system as he would hear at the
original performance, regardless of his personal quirks.

Typically proponents of that type of design
require scientific data to be convinced of anything, yet there's no evidence
to suggest that people hear the same sounds beyond the very basic. If one
were to assume that people do hear highly complex sounds differently, just
like every different mic design renders a different response,

And, as noted above, this is totally irrelevant to the benefits of a
neutral system.


there is only
one type of device that is capable of manipulating highly complex and subtle
psychoacoustic properties effectively and beneficially, and that is the
vacuum tube.

Absolute rubbish! Distortion is distortion. While *you* may like the
sound of saturated and microphonic tubes, that does *not* make them
ideal amplifying devices.

I do not imply that the same tube amp equiped with the same tubes should be
used by everyone, instead that only tube amps offer the type of
customization for sound reproduction to achieve fidelity to BOTH the
recorded material AND the listener.

The first is a good idea, the second is a myth. You can mess with your
system to get a sound that *you* like, but you can't tell me what *I*
like. Especially since I like my system absolutely neutral up to the
speaker terminals.

A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.

Well, that depends if you're interested in *high fidelity* sound
reproduction, or just some pleasant warm wash of sound. If you
personally prefer the latter, that's just fine, but don't presume to
defend your choice by making up nonsense about 'beneficial
manipulation'.

To quote the late lamented Steve Zipser, "tubes are for boobs".
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 07:01:26 +0000, the highly esteemed Stewart Pinkerton
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 03:22:50 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 09:56:05 +0000, the highly esteemed Stewart Pinkerton
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 02:10:16 -0700, Greg Pierce
wrote:

On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:24:19 -0400, the highly esteemed Sugarite
enlightened us with these pearls of wisdom:

Well, when I use a tube (or transistor for that matter) in anything other
than a guitar amplifier, I make damn sure that it doesn't saturate. If the
mastering engineer in question is using a tube stage which is designed
to saturate (and cause distortion), then that is an effect, NOT
amplification (and a very dubious practice, IMO). A true preamp should
NEVER run its amplifying devices anywhere near that point.

Actually, that's always been the reason that I *like* tube preamps,
because they generally have very high overload margins and get nowhere
*near* saturation! I've no idea where this clown has got hold of a
tube preamp which *typically* goes into saturation - maybe he runs it
off a PP3? :-)

Whats a PP3? insert puzzled look here

Darn, it's no good when you have to *explain* your joke! A PP3 is a
small 9-volt battery. Less common now than it was, but still
available. Running a tube off a low enough rail will certainly force
it into saturation, even in a preamp.

Ahh - never knew what it's actual code was - I always called em a
"9 volt"...

Anyway, saying tubes are "colored" is just like saying "all solid-state
sounds bad" - both statements are equally absurd and untrue.

Quite so.


To me, it sounds as though you believe that tubes intristically cause
coloration - a few minutes with a proper model and a SPICE simulator
will quickly set you straight. Better yet, listen to some correctly
designed and built gear...

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
Obviously not. It sounds like he has experience with one of those tube
"preamps" designed to give that "tube sound". You know, the ones that
run a 12AX7 with 24V (or less) on the plate.....

Yes, exactly my point above (sigh). :-)

Yup - now I got it.

I remember the first tube regenerative receiver I built when I was about
12 or so. 90V "B" batteries were no longer a common item as they were
decades ago, so I used ten 9V batteries in series for the plate supply.
Ten "transistor" batteries to power a tube :-)

--
Greg

--The software said it requires Win2000 or better, so I installed Linux.

This would be an issue of semantics. I'm of the opinion that tube
saturation doesn't suddenly kick in once the power levels reach a
certain
proportion of tolerance, and that even at low levels the effect is
present.
If what I'm hearing at low levels isn't a result of the same properties
that
are influencing the sound near full saturation, then I'm not sure I
care.
My point was that tubes are not a benign audio component at any output
level.

Neither is a transistor. However, when properly used, both are quite
transparent and uncolored, particularly in a preamp.

Well my argument is that certain coloration lends itself to transparency
better than neutrality. If it's possible to render a neutral response from
a tube amp, then why haven't I ever run into one? Granted, many models are
geared to accentuate coloration beyond what I like, but the fact remains
that neutral tube amps don't seem to be especially popular.

If you mean that I couldn't fix a tube amp to save my life, you're
right. What I can do is hear the difference between different brands
and/or vintages of the same tube in the same amp. But hey, if you've
got the fancy diagnostic gear that says tubes don't color sound then I
guess I'm trumped. Funny how I keep running into all these defective
tubes that *all sound distinctly different at any output level*.

No, you are running into gear that is operating the tubes "way off their
curve". If you bias a transistor improperly (and don't use any corrective
feedback), guess what?

You end up with a boring neutral response? Fantastic.

If you mean audio engineering, I know enough to use tubes for coloration
effects, and to not use a tube amp for monitoring, instead to go the
"accuracy" route to better appreciate how the mix will sound on a
variety of gear, rather than just my own system which is tailored to my
preferences. On this matter I am not alone. I think I'll stick with the
engineering practices of the last 25 years rather than blindly follow
the numbers generated by a simulation gadget.

Engineering practices? What kind of "engineering" are we reffering to?

Audio engineering, as in recording, mixing, mastering, which I've been doing
for 7 years.

I have got to ask - what kind of gear are you using to "color" the sound?

In the studio, whatever's handy that does the trick. I'm often work out of
other people's studios, so too many models to list, and at home I've got a
DBX 386 (nothing outrageous) which has a reasonable tube circuit to play
with, none of which are geared for neutrality either. Ironically I do less
tube-swapping in the studio than I have at home.

At home I've taken over a year to find the right arrangement of preamp tubes
in my Audio Innovations S500 (25W/ch pure class A 5-stage preamp and
push-pull EL34's) for my particular tastes. I know two others with the same
amp locally, and they prefer different tube combinations to mine. We've
swapped tubes between amps before, and I even swapped amps with a friend
because I prefered his older model to my newer one and vice versa. The
experience has left me with the impression that the three of us literally
hear things differently since we each go after the same qualities -
transparency, imaging, timbre, etc. I've settled on three late-60's vintage
Telefunken ECC83's followed by two RFT PCC88's in the preamp and I've got
the original mid-80's Mullard EL34's now but might try others in time.

The other stereo tube amp I'd know best is an H H Scott 299B, which was
overly warm and I'm not keen on 7189's. I've got several guitar and bass
amps as well, but the only rig that deserves any attention here would
probably be the class A preamp in my Ampeg VT-22, which is pretty wild using
12AX7's, a 12AU7, 6K11, 6CG7, then a 12DW7 driver. I think it was designed
with neutrality in mind, then the class AB poweramp using 7027's with 525V
plates warms things up. Haven't toyed with that one much yet, I like the vi
ntage tone from the original caps which have surely gone way off-spec after
33 years.

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
Obviously not. It sounds like he has experience with one of those tube
"preamps" designed to give that "tube sound". You know, the ones that
run a 12AX7 with 24V (or less) on the plate.....

The worst tube circuit I work with is a DBX 386, 200V plate, and I switch
between Philips ECC83's and Telefunken ECC85's, which come in handy for
brightening certain instruments without the damaging effects of a half-assed
EQ plug-in on treble.

Just because I incorporate concepts and terminology from other areas of
audio doesn't mean I don't have a working knowledge of what's pertinent
here.

A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the
recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.

Back in the early sixties, recording engineers and producers of top 40
rock and
roll would enhance the recordings to make it sound better on the sort of
equipment
95% of the kids owned back then. Portable record players and radios using
hot chassis circuits (using tubes like the 50C5 and 4 inch speakers). Or
the kids
used the console TV/radio/record player in the living room.

Radio station program directors like Rick Sklar of Musicradio 77 WABC
would,
with the engineers, tweak the sound processing of the music (compressors
and such)
to sound good on transistor portable radios, AA5 table radios and such.
What
most listeners used. He had examples of these radios in his officce and
would
listen to see if the station sounded good from them.

So recording engineers taylor the sound to fit the playback equipment they
expect most of their customers to use. Of course checking to be sure the
material will still sound reasonable on a good system as well.

So... we should all just use typical stereos?

Read what I said again:
"It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded material in such a way
that the sounds perceived are most desireable to themselves."

That means taking such recording methods into account, or avoiding them,
whatever does it for you. Again, neutrality accomplishes nothing to that
end. Unless you record your collection yourself, you can't make unilateral
adjustments to accommodate anything but your own ears, which are themselves
not neutral.

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:24:28 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

Well my argument is that certain coloration lends itself to transparency
better than neutrality.

That's a ridiculous argument, unless you are making up your own
definition of 'transparency'.

If it's possible to render a neutral response from
a tube amp, then why haven't I ever run into one?

Because you haven't looked in the right places? Try the C-J Premier
Eight, or ARC VT150. OTOH, why bother, when good SS amps at a fifth of
the price are just as transparent?

Granted, many models are
geared to accentuate coloration beyond what I like, but the fact remains
that neutral tube amps don't seem to be especially popular.

Probably because they don't do anything that a good SS amp can't do
for a fifth of the price.

If you mean that I couldn't fix a tube amp to save my life, you're
right. What I can do is hear the difference between different brands
and/or vintages of the same tube in the same amp. But hey, if you've
got the fancy diagnostic gear that says tubes don't color sound then I
guess I'm trumped. Funny how I keep running into all these defective
tubes that *all sound distinctly different at any output level*.

No, you are running into gear that is operating the tubes "way off their
curve". If you bias a transistor improperly (and don't use any corrective
feedback), guess what?

You end up with a boring neutral response? Fantastic.

No, you end up with the same crummy coloured response that you claim
to get from your tubed devices.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:37:55 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

Engineering excellence doesn't seem to be his bag...............
Obviously not. It sounds like he has experience with one of those tube
"preamps" designed to give that "tube sound". You know, the ones that
run a 12AX7 with 24V (or less) on the plate.....

The worst tube circuit I work with is a DBX 386, 200V plate, and I switch
between Philips ECC83's and Telefunken ECC85's, which come in handy for
brightening certain instruments without the damaging effects of a half-assed
EQ plug-in on treble.

If that's the case, then you're definitely not running into saturation
on the tubes. You're probably hearing HF IM distortion and a touch of
reverb. Sure, that'll 'brighten' things up, if you don't care about
what the instrument actually sounded like.

Just because I incorporate concepts and terminology from other areas of
audio doesn't mean I don't have a working knowledge of what's pertinent
here.

No, it's your posted comments that tell us you don't have a working
knowledge of what's pertinent here.................
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 15:47:07 -0400, "Sugarite"
wrote:

A recording engineer's responsibility
ends at the audio media. It is the audiophile's job to present the
recorded
material in such a way that the sounds perceived are most desireable to
themselves. The assumption of neutrality being ideal in this matter is
naive. It's an entertainment system, not a laboratory.

Back in the early sixties, recording engineers and producers of top 40
rock and
roll would enhance the recordings to make it sound better on the sort of
equipment
95% of the kids owned back then. Portable record players and radios using
hot chassis circuits (using tubes like the 50C5 and 4 inch speakers). Or
the kids
used the console TV/radio/record player in the living room.

Radio station program directors like Rick Sklar of Musicradio 77 WABC
would,
with the engineers, tweak the sound processing of the music (compressors
and such)
to sound good on transistor portable radios, AA5 table radios and such.
What
most listeners used. He had examples of these radios in his officce and
would
listen to see if the station sounded good from them.

So recording engineers taylor the sound to fit the playback equipment they
expect most of their customers to use. Of course checking to be sure the
material will still sound reasonable on a good system as well.

So... we should all just use typical stereos?

No, we should choose our recordings carefully. Not every engineer
mixes for the lowest common denominator.

Read what I said again:
"It is the audiophile's job to present the recorded material in such a way
that the sounds perceived are most desireable to themselves."

That means taking such recording methods into account, or avoiding them,
whatever does it for you. Again, neutrality accomplishes nothing to that
end.

It does if you want to hear through your own gear, to what the
recording enginer intended.

Unless you record your collection yourself, you can't make unilateral
adjustments to accommodate anything but your own ears, which are themselves
not neutral.

Again, you fail to realise that the neutrality or otherwise of your
ears, is totally irrelevant to the utility of a neutral playback
system.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering