In a world awash with audiophile terms, I like to start from the opposite pole. No descriptor is necessary to define the original performance or the original recording master. One of those will be the real "source," and which one you are after depends on how frustrating you want this quest to be. The performance will not be available to you; the recording will be.
From the "source" on down, there is one fact set in stone.
The original signal can not be improved upon. Either a system component passes it along as transparently as possible or it degrades it to something inferior. That is obviously a red flag re: signal processing of any kind. The less the better. Instead of trying to discern how musical/detailed/airy/whatever a system sounds, I compare the result with frequent and necessary live performance listening. This is where the one valid term emerges, accuracy. Accuracy should not be reduced to a defined niche concept like it often is in audiophile speak. To whatever extent a system renders music like the source, it is accurate. Any deviation is less accurate.
While it is fun to break down the inevitable failure to be totally accurate into debatable categories, I do not think it helps much if at all in the quest to describe the failure - accurately!
What it does is cause much confusion. This thread from the first post is a nice demonstration of how and why this language does not serve its intended purpose.
How about practical answers based on the fact set in stone, the one true fact?
Amplifiers with two gain stages are much more likely to succeed than those with more. A wire with gain would be great, but good luck with that. Say no to EQ. More than one (or none) digital to analog conversion is really asking for trouble.
Surround systems with pre analog processing to tune the output to the room will never be truly high fidelity. Thank goodness headphones do not need listening space (room) acoustical treatment. They insist on a well engineered sweet spot that moves about with your head. A huge advantage over speakers. Likewise another reason why two channel rules the hifi realm.
I am not saying simplification is the answer to everything at all times. As a preemptive strike, this from Alan Kimmel:
Quote:
3. "The simpler the better."
This myth says that the simpler an audio circuit is, the better it will sound. Einstein once said something very relevant to high end audio: "Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler."
Many feel that the Single Ended way is the best way to make an amplifier because SE is the simplest. But even the simplest SE amplifier is not as simple as it really could be. To be as simple as possible, there should be only ONE tube in the amp-- the output tube. Next, to be as simple as possible, your magnetic phono cartridge should be replaced with a crystal or ceramic type, because these put out a high enough signal level as to be comparable to Line level. This obviates the need for a phono preamp. If you want to be even simpler, obtain a speaker with an impedance of several thousand ohms so you can connect it directly to the tube, in place of the output xfmr primary, eliminating your output xfmr.
You now have a sound system that is truly the world's simplest, but how would it sound (even if it had enough gain) ?
Obviously it will not sound as good as a sound system containing one of the better magnetic phono cartridges. Also it may or may not have enough gain since the power amp has only one tube-- the output tube. Besides the fact that the better speakers are not available in the several thousand ohm category, the continuous DC current through the voice coil would probably push the voice coil out of its gap.
The point is, the simplest way is not always the best way. Instead of striving for things to be as simple as possible, the best thing to strive for is THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE TO THE MUSIC. As shown above, the simplest path is not necessarily the best path. The simplest path is not always the path of least resistance to the music.
Now consider the human hearing system-- the ear, the eardrum, the middle ear, and the inner ear, etc. It's complex! But it was made just right. The Master Designer knew exactly what He was doing. Would you go to an ear surgeon and say, "Doctor, I think my hearing system is too complex. I want you to remove some of it so it will be as simple as possible." Even if the Dr. could do this without harming your hearing, who would actually go through with it? Obviously there is AN IDEAL LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY designed into your ear. If you get simpler than the ideal level of complexity you fall short. Or if you EXCEED the ideal level of complexity, again you fall short sonically.
To sum up my comments on this myth: Just as circuitry that's too simple can be a disadvantage, likewise circuitry that's too complex is also a disadvantage. There is, in any given situation, a happy medium-- an ideal level of complexity, which is dependent upon the topology and techniques used.
So I believe what Einstein said. I believe amplifiers should be as simple as possible, but not simpler, for the very best sound reproduction. |
Quoted from here:
Myths That Plague Tube Audio © 2001 Alan Kimmel
I will limit my answers to the question asked here to a few, and they reflect my experience and my prejudice.
Everything else being equal, good electrostatic phones will be more accurate. They are pleasing to my ears, lucky me. I like the Stax sound, and for thirty-four years now.
Again personally, I find
good tube gear to be closer to the performance than transistor units. Tube amps get a bad rap from listeners judging on the basis of amps that are too powerful, have inferior power supplies, and/or too many gain stages. Such amps sound "tubey." That signature sound is a failure of design, not a characteristic of tubes themselves.
I find the best designed tube amps (of those amps I have heard of course) to be those employing the Alan Kimmel Mu Stage designs. They are built with brains instead of relying on brute force, complexity and super expensive components. I have not heard Kevin Gilmore's designs. I am sure they sound superb.
If tube amps that sound like solid state without the bad parts are your thing, the higher line Rogue amps also fill the bill.
Nelson Pass does not use bipolar transistors in signal chains; MOSFETS and JFETS rule his world. He is much more dedicated to and interested in power amps than preamps. His products are in a class separate from anything else. His First Watt amps are DIY-able, sound better than even his commercial PassLabs products, and the F1 and F2 (possibly the most accurate amps in world) are designed to connect directly to single driver crossover-less transducers. Dynamic headphones qualify. Money much better spent, I think, than on boutique gear that costs as much as an automobile or a house.
Clark
