Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Tube Or Solid State? They are so different!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Tube Or Solid State? They are so different! - Page 8

post #106 of 150
Why the compulsion - and I think compulsion is the key word - to prove that the AKG 701 is a superior headphone?

I think if we understood that, we'd all relax a little.

If there are underlying issues that we don't understand, please feel free to share them with us, so that we can understand.
post #107 of 150
Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
I'm not espousing any theory of music. The musical instruments I play have nothing to do with this discussion.

You should listen in a quiet environment, using a good HP system, to music recorded so that the mikes pick up direct sounds, rather than sound reflected less than 10 milliseconds relative to the direct sounds, if you want to reduce phase distotion and interaural distorion. This will maximize sharp imaging with reduced muddy or blurred tones to provide maximum clarity - superior to the imaging and clarity of live music in a seat some distance from the instruments.

And yes, generalizations can be valid - such as the above statement.

If I really want to hear all the inner detail of an orchestra, with the greatest clarity, I prefer well-recorded to live music any day.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
No, you're making unusual assertions about musicality all through out this thread. At one point you said all fundamental tones were produced in the 2-6khz range. Grossly wrong.

Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.
post #108 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post

It's still confusing sometimes to figure that "Art" and "drarthurwells" are the same people.
DrAW: I didn't think you would ever figure that out.
post #109 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Originally Posted by drarthurwells:

Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.

There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz.
post #110 of 150
drarthurwells: The anemic and pitiful weak upper midrange and treble response of the HD650 is shown. This rolloff starts in the upper midrange and it very much affects the midrange, since midrange timbre is largely described by overtones extending into the trenble range.

Yes the midrange FR of the K701 and HD650 are practically identical - doesn't mean they sound the same in the midrange -which they don't.

Daverose: Where is "The anemic and pitiful weak upper midrange and treble response of the HD650" shown... I don't see it?? I especially don't hear it on my system: which is pretty accurate in source (ie "veiled" Senns

DrAW: Look at the dip of the HD650 between 3KHz and 6KHZ, which is a dip much below its average overall FR, then look at the K701 that rises in this range to be close to its average overall FR. This range is a critical overtone range for midrange and upper bass tones, as well as for fundamental tones of the lower treble region. Many treble fundamental tiones are in this critical 3KHz to 6KHz range. The overtones in this range describe upper bass and midrange timbre to a large degree. Here the HD650 is anemic and pitifully weak compared tot he K701. I think thls is why the K701 has better inner detail in the midrange than the HD650.


Davesrose: This was after hciman77 showed you that the HD650 was flat in the 2-3khz region and that the k701 had a hump in that area. The HD650 is flatter in the mids.


A: No, hciman's point in showing the graphs was the close similarity of the midrange FR of the HD650 and the K701. He empjhasixzed this similarity rto discount Cotdt's idea that the K701 had a better midrange sound quality (which I agree with). The midrange FR of the HD650 and K701 are both plus or minus 1.5 DB and that is considered flat for a HP or speaker. The midrange SQ of the K701 is still superior for me in spite of a similar FR to the HD650, and I have described why I think so.
post #111 of 150
Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.




Quote:
Originally Posted by sacd lover View Post
There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz.
Art: Who ever said there were?

Look again at my statement.

Tones below 2KHz include all bass tones, and most of the midrange tones, correct?
post #112 of 150
Originally Posted by drarthurwells:
That is why recorded sound is better than live


Quote:
Originally Posted by tim_the_gamer View Post
This snippet is worth quoting. Seriously... wow...

Art: You mean this snippet is worth quoting out of context. Here is the what I said on the subject:

You should listen in a quiet environment, using a good HP system, to music recorded so that the mikes pick up direct sounds, rather than sound reflected less than 10 milliseconds relative to the direct sounds, if you want to reduce phase distotion and interaural distorion. This will maximize sharp imaging with reduced muddy or blurred tones to provide maximum clarity - superior to the imaging and clarity of live music in a seat some distance from the instruments.

And yes, generalizations can be valid - such as the above statement.

If I really want to hear all the inner detail of an orchestra, with the greatest clarity, I prefer well-recorded to live music any day.



Quote:
Originally Posted by tim_the_gamer View Post
With all due respect Dr.Art, I think you need to stop listening to the equipment and start listening to the music. Most recordings are an attempt (a best effort) to try and capture what was performed live. Unless you were actually there live, listened to what was played and then listened to what was recorded before any mastering and then observed how the engineer mastered the recording and then listened to his master noting all the differences from the original live sound... and then finally compared things with your setup at home, then maybe... just maybe you could speak with the slightest bit of confidence about tonal balance or of details and accuracy, but I still highly doubt it since then we could probably argue a bit about the nature of human perception and memory.

In the end, respectfully, we're all just a little bit full of it when talking about this stuff... (yes of course, including me). Please get out and listen to the real world more... then come back and listen to some engineer's best attempt at trying to reproduce natural phenomena (i.e. sound waves). If you still try to argue with a straight face that real life sounds worse then might I suggest the custom title: "Is it real or is it Memorex?"

Art: Some select seats in a live hall do enable you to hear the live music without too much phase distortion and loss of high frequencies. Recording engineers generally do a better job at reducing phase distortion and capturing live frequencies than is done by even the best seats in a concert hall. Recorded music can be more pure and clear as a result.
post #113 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by greggf View Post
Why the compulsion - and I think compulsion is the key word - to prove that the AKG 701 is a superior headphone?

I think if we understood that, we'd all relax a little.

If there are underlying issues that we don't understand, please feel free to share them with us, so that we can understand.
Some people do have a compulsion for truth and validity. Others have a need to let other people know the best components for the money, to help others avoid buying mistakes.

Some people could care less about the truth or about helping others make the best purchase.
post #114 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.


Art: Who ever said there were?

Look again at my statement.

Tones below 2KHz include all bass tones, and most of the midrange tones, correct?
Apparently you did .... although I could care less if you did or didnt.

Read my statement .... that was my point.
post #115 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jahn View Post
well back to the OP...
I've heard some awe inspiring tube amps, and solid state amps too, but all of those are out of my budget. Once you get to that price point tho, all of the stereotypes of tube vs. solid state amps get tossed out, and it becomes more a question of preference of signature than flaw of design.
Hi Jahn,

Could you tell me what are the names awe inspiring tube amps and solid state amps? What are the price point? I hate myself for keeping upgrading continuously. I prefer to save up and try to get the best but once and for all.

Thanks,
post #116 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by regal View Post
To the OP's question: Have you tried a hybrid amp?
no haven't tried hybrid amp before. Any recommendations?
post #117 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
drarthurwells: The anemic and pitiful weak upper midrange and treble response of the HD650 is shown. This rolloff starts in the upper midrange and it very much affects the midrange, since midrange timbre is largely described by overtones extending into the trenble range.
..

A: No, hciman's point in showing the graphs was the close similarity of the midrange FR of the HD650 and the K701. He empjhasixzed this similarity rto discount Cotdt's idea that the K701 had a better midrange sound quality (which I agree with). The midrange FR of the HD650 and K701 are both plus or minus 1.5 DB and that is considered flat for a HP or speaker. The midrange SQ of the K701 is still superior for me in spite of a similar FR to the HD650, and I have described why I think so.
Art, when are you going to start on your promise to multiquote????

You're still making crap up. At least now you're admitting this is all your opinion "The midrange SQ of the K701 is still superior for me in spite of a similar FR to the HD650, and I have described why I think so."

The HR graphs show that the midrange of the k701 and HD650 are not that dissimilar, so now you're trying to say that all timbre for every note is effected in the 2khz to 6 khz region. Even bass notes. Do you know where middle C lies on a piano Art? It's around 261.6HZ. Is that anywhere close to 2khz-6khz?? If you had bothered to look at the link I've included to show FR of each individual instrument, the piano goes from 27.50 - 4,186.00hz. That's the largest range of any instrument....and treble is going from 261.6HZ to 4,186HZ. Not 2,000-6,000 HZ.

Since you only guage music by locking yourself in an isolated room, I'll have to clue you in about timbre. Timbre is the intonation you get when you strike a note. It has an initial attack and then a decay. It's effected by the actually instrument as well as which note is being played. If you bother to look up the FR of each instrument, you'll see that most do not fall anywhere around 2-6khz.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbre

http://www.tnt-audio.com/topics/frequency_e.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post
Some people do have a compulsion for truth and validity. Others have a need to let other people know the best components for the money, to help others avoid buying mistakes.

Some people could care less about the truth or about helping others make the best purchase.
Look at your self in the mirror....Art, drarthurwells, whoever I'm writing to now. This whole thread started with someone wanting to know what tube amp might be better for a Grado. That a SS was sounding better. Instead of helping anyone, you've launched into tirads about why your k701 and tube amp is better then anything else. That anything else is inferior.

So how about starting to actually trying to be open to the truth. The truth that you've admitted you don't like real music as a source. Go outside from your isolated room every once in awhile. You might actually get a sane perspective then.

PS. The main reason why I find it hard to equate Dr. AW and Art together is that doctors usually have a more sane, professional demeanor.
post #118 of 150
Art: Where did I ever say all fundamental tones were in the 2 to 6 KHz range? That is absurd as it would leave out most of the midrange and all of the bass tones. Show me where I stated this absurdity.

sacd lover: There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz.

Art: Who ever said there were? Look again at my statement. Tones below 2KHz include all bass tones, and most of the midrange tones, correct?

sacd lover: Apparently you did .... although I could care less if you did or didnt. Read my statement .... that was my point.

Art: Your statement that, "There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz." ?
I think we all know that. What is your point in this statement?
post #119 of 150
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davesrose View Post
Is it known if the EMP has good synergy with the GS1000 specifically? I haven't heard the GS1000 myself, but from FRs and people's impressions of them, they sound as if they are different then other Grados. That they have more bass and are more laid back (seems to be the consensus opinion). So maybe they need a different amp/ tubes then other Grados?
RS-1 sound signature changes considerably with tuberolling EMP. It almost feels like you are not listening to RS-1 at all. With EMP you can make the harshness RS-1 disappeared dramatically, making it very airy, floaty, laid back, with big soundstage. It's Sooo Smooth that you can listen to your RS-1 for hours without fatigue. I find that RS-1 has a very good synergy with EMP especially with those Amperex 7308 and GEC A2900.

With GS1000, I'm not really sure. GS1000 is not like any other Grado. If I were to only choose between GS-1000 or RS-1, I would choose RS-1 over GS-1000. With RS-1 I can make it aggressive, I can also make it very smooth, laidback and relaxing. Not so much with GS-1000 which is very picky with recording, and overall system.
post #120 of 150
Quote:
Originally Posted by drarthurwells View Post

sacd lover: Apparently you did .... although I could care less if you did or didnt. Read my statement .... that was my point.

Art: Your statement that, "There are no fundamental bass tones at 2khz." ?
I think we all know that. What is your point in this statement?
My point .... you apparently didnt seem to know that. At this point you have everyone so confused no one is clear what you say.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Tube Or Solid State? They are so different!