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 15

post #211 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post

Bruce Coppola did that, but the results weren't what the site hosting his review wanted to hear, so they deleted it.



I'm going to read this if this is what you are referring to. And this is a perfect example of what I was saying in regards to folks holding onto a belief system and not seeing truth for what it is. I will look for what was omitted in this test. Lol

http://hddaudio.net/viewtopic.php?id=1158
post #212 of 366

Lets pretend I am a true objectivist and I am having a discussion with an admirer of the history of audio...meaning a tube amp lover.  So I tell the tube lover that a DBT was done and no one could reliable pick a difference between a low THD tube amp and a low THD SS amp.  The defence would obviously be in the, I told you so tube amps are just as transparent as a solid state.

 

OTOH if a difference is discernible...the logical defence is that the THD is what makes the tube amp special...because its a special kinda THD.

 

Surely one must eventually realise when one is banging ones head on a brick wall.  I just don't understand why one would continually bang ones head against a brick wall.

 

The only logical conclusion then, is that there will always be ones that will always prefer an outdated technology, nostalgia or a longing to be a part of something that once was will always be there, be it record players, tube amps or vintage automobiles.  In which case the best course of action is to just let it go and stop banging on to a lost cause, and a lost cause is what I truly am.

 

Did yez like that one? hey? hey? Wasn't that a good one? hey? 

Did I broker a peace deal? I was good there wasn't I?

 

:bigsmile_face:

 

No?  Oh shucks...OK carry on then...

 

:(

post #213 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by SP Wild View Post
 

Surely one must eventually realize when one is banging ones head on a brick wall.  I just don't understand why one would continually bang ones head against a brick wall.


well if you're a scientist, you can't be satisfied with banging your head only once. how do you know that it will also hurt the second time if you don't control for repeatability? ^_^

then you ask a number of friends to try, to know if it hurts just you or everybody.

 

but yeah after a few years, it's kind of bothering to keep seeing people tell you that the orange painted walls have a more natural impact.

 

 

if 2 amps really measure the same at audible levels for all sort of measurements on the output signal, then they will sound the same. that's the obvious fact the last 50years of work on sound and humans have all agreed upon.

but when a person is subjected to some external biases, then he will respond to the biases and believe the music to be different.

think of the girl getting prettier the more you drink, the girl didn't actually change.

yet some people are debating exactly that while really knowing nothing about it. and mostly because they are unable to fathom the remote possibility of being wrong on a subject.

ego: it bends sound!

post #214 of 366
This would be fun....at least to me. smily_headphones1.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redcarmoose View Post

The best audible test I could think of would be at a meet where the members put their amps behind a curtain and other members just took turns listening to headphones and writing their thought down on a note pad next to the headphones. This way the equipment is not owned by the listener and the audio set up can not be viewed for preconceived placebo of superiority.


That said it is hard for any owner to admit his trophy amp is not as great as he once thought it was. I say this but have also heard fantastic rigs that were both expensive and set-up right.
post #215 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by castleofargh View Post
 

 

ego: it bends sound!

 

Which explains the outdated philosophy of hi end audiophiles displeasure with an equaliser, their egos do a much better job!  But for me an equaliser is more effective than my imagination heheh.

post #216 of 366
Thread Starter 

I'm personally not a big fan of tone controls and EQ. I prefer more pure approach...

post #217 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by madwolfa View Post
 

I'm personally not a big fan of tone controls and EQ. I prefer more pure approach...

How is EQ to correct for a transducer's inherent imperfections somehow "less pure" than living with the imperfections in the first place?

post #218 of 366
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post

How is EQ to correct for a transducer's inherent imperfections somehow "less pure" than living with the imperfections in the first place?

I'm not bothered by my transducers imperfections, my speakers and headphones are perceptually flat enough for my taste. And if the recording is bad by itself, well, I either live with it or skip to another one.
post #219 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by madwolfa View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by cjl View Post

How is EQ to correct for a transducer's inherent imperfections somehow "less pure" than living with the imperfections in the first place?

I'm not bothered by my transducers imperfections, my speakers and headphones are perceptually flat enough for my taste. And if the recording is bad by itself, well, I either live with it or skip to another one.

 how can we all be so obsessed over inaudible stuff, and pretend as if several DB variations in frequency response was no big deal?

not changing the errors we hear by fear for the errors we actually don't hear, that's the strangest concept of fidelity.

 

 on headfi I often see people being against EQ(the vast majority in fact), but later on I will see them write about how that amp/dac/cable/vinyl/headphone/mod/firmware/etc changed the sound for the better, making it warmer, or getting rid of the rolled off trebles or whatever. but always some part about sound signature.

isn't it strange that people would look for any available way to EQ as long as it's not called EQ? why not use the one tool that was made and optimized to EQ, instead of some random stuff we have no control upon and might bring unknown counter effects?

I really don't get it. it's not like any headphone was neutral, or any speakers were pre-calibrated to our room.

 

hey that's it, let's use an EQ but call it "recalibrator" and instead of sliders I could put knobs.  I'm sure that it would be all good then. "we're not changing the sound, we're setting it back in track!!!"

problem solved. why try to make people understand an idea when we can mislead them into it!

/me is becoming a great audiophile, I might go pro on that one.

post #220 of 366
Thread Starter 

Oh well, that's another topic altogether. I appreciate my SS amps not messing with the sound and I'm not tossing another variable into EQuation...

post #221 of 366

Equalization corrects for frequency response imbalances inherent in all transducers. Without EQ, you aren't hearing the "pure" sound. You're hearing the sound colored through the compromises of your headphones or speakers. EQ corrects that imbalance, returning sound to its "pure" state.

 

EQ doesn't "change" sound or "distort" it. It CORRECTS it.

post #222 of 366
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Equalization corrects for frequency response imbalances inherent in all transducers. Without EQ, you aren't hearing the "pure" sound. You're hearing the sound colored through the compromises of your headphones or speakers. EQ corrects that imbalance, returning sound to its "pure" state.

 

EQ doesn't "change" sound or "distort" it. It CORRECTS it.


hey! don't try to get a piece of the pie. the recalibrator(© 2014 castleofargh) is mine! you greedy person.

:beerchug:

post #223 of 366
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

Equalization corrects for frequency response imbalances inherent in all transducers. Without EQ, you aren't hearing the "pure" sound. You're hearing the sound colored through the compromises of your headphones or speakers. EQ corrects that imbalance, returning sound to its "pure" state.

 

EQ doesn't "change" sound or "distort" it. It CORRECTS it.

 

OK, I guess I need to rephrase it...

I don't find myself proficient enough to perform the "required" corrections. So for me the purest approach is to just let it be as it is.

Most people are in the same boat.

 

But again, that's the topic for another discussion. :rolleyes: 


Edited by madwolfa - 6/30/14 at 8:11pm
post #224 of 366

That's fair.

 

However, equalization is the most effective way to improve the sound of any home audio system. EQ helps cheap stereos and expensive stereos alike. It's well worth learning.

post #225 of 366
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigshot View Post
 

However, equalization is the most effective way to improve the sound of any home audio system. EQ helps cheap stereos and expensive stereos alike. It's well worth learning.

 

As with many other things, it's not something magical, but rather a tool, which is most effective in the right hands.

Most people, including me, are not capable of using it right, but probably worth learning, indeed...

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?