Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps? - Page 9

post #121 of 366

Multichannel is usually speakers, isn't it?

post #122 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Multichannel is usually speakers, isn't it?

Nope, consult Google and you will find 5.1 channel headphones.

post #123 of 366

You ever heard them? Tell me about them.

post #124 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post
 

Nope, consult Google and you will find 5.1 channel headphones.

yes, marketed as 5.1, but not 5.1 as 5.1 means 5 surround speakers with 1 woofer.  Obviously headphones is not that with it being stereo and also being on your ears.  The 5.1 is virtual, kinda like how speaker bar is done, but not exactly as it is still headphones.  

 

DSP can be used on binaural.  The 5.1 information can be processsed in software with algorithm to create timing differences and adjust the gain to simulate sound movement and location.

 

 


Edited by SilverEars - 6/21/14 at 3:52pm
post #125 of 366

The thing that sets 5:1 apart is the ability to create a 360 degree sound field... directionality. The DSP that I use expands the front soundstage and increases its size by utilizing the center speaker to fill in the phantom center in stereo, and creates a rear channel ambience that pulls the stage into the room a bit and opens up the size of the room considerably.

post #126 of 366

the only one I tried that wasn't only a software based surround, was some razer headset (don't remember the name but it had 8drivers!!!!!!!!! \o/ ). it sounded super fun on games, but clearly not good on music. even very cheap home systems in 5.1 have impressed me more than this. and in fact my headphones with surround software or binaural tracks have also impressed me more than this 8 drivers thing.

 

Tyll often talks about the advancement of surround headphones and for him the fact that the sound doesn't move when we move our head is a major problem in creating a credible system. so real 5.1 will probably be better than headphones for some times (maybe with some oculus kind of system? something with a gyroscope in the headphone... ^_^)

post #127 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by StanD View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

 deleted

It must have been a good one. :D


See how easy it is to revive a thread :ksc75smile:. 12 new posts.

 

In reality I was writing about the varieties of sound we get in concert halls and what that means, if we want to judge the sound of an amp and compare to what we hear in real life.

Then I realized it was a bit off topic concerning the original post (about audibility of low thd in tube amps) and also, redcarmoose has more or less mentioned my points. Although it was spread over a couple of his answers, it is already there.

 

So I don't have new points. That's why I deleted.

post #128 of 366

 

 

From deep in a vast open-pit coal mine in northern Colombia comes a tale of enormous pythons and a really warm climate in the tropics.

Scientists from Canada and the United States reported Feb. 4 that they have uncovered fossil evidence for the largest snake known to have slithered across the landscape.

The new species, dubbed Titanoboa cerrejonensis, stretched some 43 feet long. It tipped the scales at more than a ton, the international research team estimates.

 

 

 

 

Someday they will find all these stereos from our civilization and think, "They are so big!" I really think this audio equipment stuff is going to get smaller and smaller. Diamond like microscopic heat-sinks and inner-ear monitors. What this has to do with tubes and solid-state, I don't know.

 

 

post #129 of 366
Quote:

Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post
(...)

What this has to do with tubes and solid-state, I don't know.

I know, some people don't care that they pollute everyone with gibberish. I do - at least sometimes.

That's certainly why I have 55 posts/year and you 1100. Ha! :D 


Edited by mironathetin - 6/22/14 at 6:26am
post #130 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

I know, some people don't care that they pollute everyone with gibberish. I do.

That's certainly why I have 55 posts/year and you 1100. Ha! :D 

Well, this thread has gone all over the place for awhile. An interesting thread if you ask me. It actually made me think some. Especially about listening to the http://www.eddiecurrent.com/Zanadeux.html I loved hearing it. Just super clean and detailed. Plus tubes are not that expensive for it.

 

 

OK, tube amp mentioned, so back on topic. No fuzziness like you think your gona get from tubes, only a super clear, fast, exciting tube sound.

 

 

 

Edit:

 

 

 

OK, back off topic.

 

Thermal conductivity

Unlike most electrical insulators, pure diamond is a good conductor of heat because of the strong covalent bonding within the crystal. The thermal conductivity of pure diamond is the highest of any known solid. Single crystals of synthetic diamond enriched in 12C (99.9%), isotopically pure diamond, have the highest thermal conductivity of any material, 30 W/cm·K at room temperature, 7.5 times higher than copper. Natural diamond's conductivity is reduced by 1.1% by the 13C naturally present, which acts as an inhomogeneity in the lattice.[66]

Diamond's thermal conductivity is made use of by jewelers and gemologists who may employ an electronic thermal probe to separate diamonds from their imitations. These probes consist of a pair of battery-powered thermistors mounted in a fine copper tip. One thermistor functions as a heating device while the other measures the temperature of the copper tip: if the stone being tested is a diamond, it will conduct the tip's thermal energy rapidly enough to produce a measurable temperature drop. This test takes about 2–3 seconds.[67]


Edited by Redcarmoose - 6/22/14 at 6:38am
post #131 of 366

Adapted a Raytheon JAN 6832 from '57 into an octal adapter...

 

I just want to know how they squeeze all that luscious tube sound into such a small tube? :D

post #132 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post
 

Well, this thread has gone all over the place for awhile. An interesting thread if you ask me. It actually made me think some. Especially about listening to the http://www.eddiecurrent.com/Zanadeux.html I loved hearing it. Just super clean and detailed. Plus tubes are not that expensive for it.

 

 

OK, tube amp mentioned, so back on topic. No fuzziness like you think your gona get from tubes, only a super clear, fast, exciting tube sound.

 

Yes, it has been an interesting thread so far. But most interesting and unanswered is the original question.

 

My tube amp perhaps does sound a bit tubey and I like it that way, because it emphasizes space and makes bass sound closer to what I hear in a concert. But, why indeed is this audible with 0.04%thd? One question is, how thd is measured. I am too lazy to look it up and most likely it would not help because I expect companies cherry pick their published results.

Is it a mean value of a selection of tested sine waves? Or only a 1khz measurement?

If it were so, that the mean value is around 1/100 of a percent (as I wrote before: 68 db), what does the brain make out of it? The ear can hear it, but does the brain filter it really out of the much higher main signal?

At these points, we usually start guessing (IMHO, IMO etc.). Most likely at this point science ends. We are not there nowadays.

 

Ok, released. Go off topic again, please.

post #133 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

Yes, it has been an interesting thread so far. But most interesting and unanswered is the original question.

 

My tube amp perhaps does sound a bit tubey and I like it that way, because it emphasizes space and makes bass sound closer to what I hear in a concert. But, why indeed is this audible with 0.04%thd? One question is, how thd is measured. I am too lazy to look it up and most likely it would not help because I expect companies cherry pick their published results.

Is it a mean value of a selection of tested sine waves? Or only a 1khz measurement?

If it were so, that the mean value is around 1/100 of a percent (as I wrote before: 68 db), what does the brain make out of it? The ear can hear it, but does the brain filter it really out of the much higher main signal?

At these points, we usually start guessing (IMHO, IMO etc.). Most likely at this point science ends. We are not there nowadays.

 

Ok, released. Go off topic again, please.

Or is it that when one listens to a quality tube amp that has inaudible distortion the mind fills in the blanks due to expectation bias.

post #134 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mironathetin View Post
 

Yes, it has been an interesting thread so far. But most interesting and unanswered is the original question.

 

My tube amp perhaps does sound a bit tubey and I like it that way, because it emphasizes space and makes bass sound closer to what I hear in a concert. But, why indeed is this audible with 0.04%thd? One question is, how thd is measured. I am too lazy to look it up and most likely it would not help because I expect companies cherry pick their published results.

Is it a mean value of a selection of tested sine waves? Or only a 1khz measurement?

If it were so, that the mean value is around 1/100 of a percent (as I wrote before: 68 db), what does the brain make out of it? The ear can hear it, but does the brain filter it really out of the much higher main signal?

At these points, we usually start guessing (IMHO, IMO etc.). Most likely at this point science ends. We are not there nowadays.

 

Ok, released. Go off topic again, please.


Well I don't know how your particular amp is spec'd.  Some will do 1 khz.  Properly done it will say something like .04% from 20-20khz at some specified output level and load indicating it will be .04% or less across that frequency spectrum.  And as a for instance it might be .04% at only 1 khz and higher at other frequencies.  The test in essence is simple.  Feed a signal with a filter to notch out the signal and read only harmonics that are present. 

 

As for hearing it under good conditions with sine waves people can discern a difference down to perhaps .1 % distortion which is about -60db from the main signal.  With variable music signals usually it will be at a higher level before the difference is perceived.  With music you would normally not hear it until 1% or more.  The hearing process occurs on more than one level.  Some limits are physical, some are limits are related to structure of the ear itself, and some is due to filtering by the brain. Quite a bit of that is well researched. 

 

Now it is also true what StanD said above.  Often a clean tube amp will have convinced you it sounds different because you know of the tubes, but you couldn't pick it out in a test.  Still you will be so sure it sounds nicer.  Whether such is the case with your amp I don't know. 

post #135 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by esldude View Post
 


Well I don't know how your particular amp is spec'd.  Some will do 1 khz.  Properly done it will say something like .04% from 20-20khz at some specified output level and load indicating it will be .04% or less across that frequency spectrum.  And as a for instance it might be .04% at only 1 khz and higher at other frequencies.  The test in essence is simple.  Feed a signal with a filter to notch out the signal and read only harmonics that are present. 

 

As for hearing it under good conditions with sine waves people can discern a difference down to perhaps .1 % distortion which is about -60db from the main signal.  With variable music signals usually it will be at a higher level before the difference is perceived.  With music you would normally not hear it until 1% or more.  The hearing process occurs on more than one level.  Some limits are physical, some are limits are related to structure of the ear itself, and some is due to filtering by the brain. Quite a bit of that is well researched. 

 

Now it is also true what StanD said above.  Often a clean tube amp will have convinced you it sounds different because you know of the tubes, but you couldn't pick it out in a test.  Still you will be so sure it sounds nicer.  Whether such is the case with your amp I don't know. 


Thanks, interesting.

I picked my amp because of the qualities I reported. I did not know what to expect from a tube amp compared to a solid state amp. So I guess, there is little possibility that the sound is imagined.

 

Do you have good links to research results?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Sound Science
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Sound Science › How is "tube sound" even audible in modern headphone amps?