[bigshot]

I think there are two kinds of people interested in home audio... those who are interested in equipment, and those who are interested in music. You can pretty easily tell which one you are by comparing the cost of your stereo system to the cost of your music collection.
 
Me? I want calibrated accuracy. Once I get that, the components can go hide in a cupboard. I don't even need to look at them again. If I want a nice warm glow when I listen to music, I won't do it with tubes. I'll string up Christmas lights.

 

[castleofargh]

me I just want something I enjoy TBH. my ears don't really care or even recognize fidelity. seriously, several times in my life I would pick something bad but euphonic instead of the high fidelity stuff, that tells something about my real ability to evaluate hifi...
 
it's just that I would not feel great knowing that I paid more on a tube amp(because good tube amps aren't cheap) to actually get lower fidelity than what an SS amp could do. it's a psychological thing, I would feel bad getting less by paying more.
it's a little like getting a new TV, even if I do enjoy some overly saturated colors in movies, I wouldn't feel right if I paid more for a TV that can only do oversaturated stuff. I guess it's some case of reverse subjectivism where objective quality affects how I perceive quality ^_^.

 

[bigshot]

I've found that to me, listening to music performed with acoustic instruments, accurate sounds better. Luckily, accurate is also pretty inexpensive.

 

[Gr8Desire]

... it's just that I would not feel great knowing that I paid more on a tube amp(because good tube amps aren't cheap) to actually get lower fidelity than what an SS amp could do.
...

Dollar for dollar, an SS amp is significantly more accurate.  

It would appear many audiophiles prefer less accurate for more dollars.

 

[OddE]

Dollar for dollar, an SS amp is significantly more accurate.  


It would appear many audiophiles prefer less accurate for more dollars.

-But of course. If it is accurate, it sounds just like anything else.

If you want those mellowy mids, that silky-smooth treble and tight bass, you need inaccuracies.

 

[ProtegeManiac]

-But of course. If it is accurate, it sounds just like anything else.

If you want those mellowy mids, that silky-smooth treble and tight bass, you need inaccuracies.

 

What? Tight bass is all about accurate bass. If there isn't any excess response anywhere then it's as "tight" as it will ever be, with no boomy flab to how the note fades out. A headphone or speaker may have some boost in there but that's not necessarily "tight," it just makes it more pronounced; an amplifier then just shouldn't distort and neither should the cone when those bass notes hit, but basically a clean and powerful enough amp (meaning you don't always need the biggest, meanest, baddest amp, especially with headphones) will be able to handle sane levels of boost on most of the transducers they're driving in order to remain "tight." 

 

And if by "silky smooth treble" you just mean "no annoying ear scratching peaks" then that technically is also all about accurate treble reproduction. The problem is that people started calling transducers like the K701 "accurate" when you can take one look at the graph and see that the sharp treble isn't because it's representing the recording "accurately," but because it actually has a plateau with the highest points between 6khz and 8khz. A headphone with a smoother graph, even if it's rolling off the treble, is arguably more natural but of course people tend to say "if it's not clinical it's not accurate."

 

 

 

[OddE]

What? Tight bass is all about accurate bass. If there isn't any excess response anywhere then it's as "tight" as it will ever be, with no boomy flab to how the note fades out. A headphone or speaker may have some boost in there but that's not necessarily "tight," it just makes it more pronounced; an amplifier then just shouldn't distort and neither should the cone when those bass notes hit, but basically a clean and powerful enough amp (meaning you don't always need the biggest, meanest, baddest amp, especially with headphones) will be able to handle sane levels of boost on most of the transducers they're driving in order to remain "tight." 

And if by "silky smooth treble" you just mean "no annoying ear scratching peaks" then that technically is also all about accurate treble reproduction. The problem is that people started calling transducers like the K701 "accurate" when you can take one look at the graph and see that the sharp treble isn't because it's representing the recording "accurately," but because it actually has a plateau with the highest points between 6khz and 8khz. A headphone with a smoother graph, even if it's rolling off the treble, is arguably more natural but of course people tend to say "if it's not clinical it's not accurate."

-Mea culpa. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make was that competently designed gear sounds the same, and that if you want something which sounds demonstrably different, leading to audiophiles waxing lyrical over it, you'll need inaccuracies.

I'll admit my choice of words didn't make it easy to understand my intent, though. Communication is difficult. :-/

 

[Gr8Desire]

-Mea culpa. The point I was trying (unsuccessfully) to make was that competently designed gear sounds the same, and that if you want something which sounds demonstrably different, leading to audiophiles waxing lyrical over it, you'll need inaccuracies.

I'll admit my choice of words didn't make it easy to understand my intent, though. Communication is difficult. :-/

 
I think you have eloquently described some audiophile ironies:
 

• Accurate sound is essential, until it's inconvenient. 
• Quantifying improvements is inconvenient, so qualifying expenses is essential. 

 
Personally, I think EQ and dynamic expansion solve many sound problems like you describe - but that's professional recording studio technology that doesn't interest audiophiles much.  

Roll 'em if you got 'em.

 

[Steve Eddy]

Personally, I think EQ and dynamic expansion solve many sound problems like you describe - but that's professional recording studio technology that doesn't interest audiophiles much.

I have a friend who was a dyed in the wool audiophile for years. Then he took a serious look at professional solutions. He hasn't looked back since.

se

 

[goobicii]

  I must say, I am a bit confused.
 
Many audiophiles love tubes but will never consider a graphical equalizer. Isn't this a fundamental contradiction?  
 
Tubes only do basic two things: change frequency response and add distortion*.  

*distortion includes errors in the time dimension. It also includes errors in the frequency dimension (i.e., measured frequency response)  but distortion in this direction  is generally considered less destructive. 
 
A graphic equalizer does exactly the same thing: it changes frequency response and adds distortion. When applied in the digital data stream, before being processed by a DAC, the amount of distortion created by a graphic equalizer has to be many times lower than with tubes that apply their errors to the analog stage. As a bonus, frequency response can be modified as needed. 

If there are pleasing harmonic distortions that you prefer, wouldn't a graphic distortion equalizer (once again applied in the digital data stream) do everything that every tube can do?

A long-time computer geek wants to know...

 
you have no idea whats going on,dont worry I will teach you padawan
 
ok,why EQ is horrible and should be avoided at all costs = pre/post ringing and phase shift,not just little but we are talking audible ringing and the amount of phase shift is just depressing.Phase shift and ringing are two worst types of distortion there is,ok except solid state/digital PCM clipping
 
ringing isnt harmonic distortion,whats worst with linear phase filters theres not only post ringing but pre ringing,its cancer of sound.It corrupts whole transient not only that its even before the transient hits,it destroy music rhythm and critical timing
 
tubes dont have ringing or phase shift,audio spectrum is coherent synchronized,solid,a natural pleasant,the original timing is left untouched.Tubes have noise whitch is audible only in super quiet parts,its rarely a problem and its just kind of soft noise not like hard clipping.........  tubes cant hardclip they soft clip.Also the tube distortion is harmonic,second order especialy its very pleasant,its soft and euphonic,people love it.
 
 
currently there is no technology that can do what tube does,becose there isnt EQ with zero phase shift AND zero ringing

 

[Steve Eddy]

tubes dont have ringing or phase shift...

Can you say the same about the output transformers they're typically hitched to?

se

 

[goobicii]

Can you say the same about the output transformers they're typically hitched to?

se

OTL

 

[Steve Eddy]

OTL

But it wasn't OTLs that gave rise to the phrase "the tube sound." It was amps with output transformers, which were a significant contributing factor to their sound.

So I ask again, can you say the same about those output transformers?

se

 

[goobicii]

ok I agree transformer coupled tube amps are majority,so when OP says tube you are right to argue to compare EQ to transformerized valve amps not OTL.I give you that
 
I dont agree I should be forced to compare only non OTL here becose its majority,it misses the point,a question that OP is asking.Ok transformer coupled amps were first and are more widespread,that does not mean EQ is better or equal to tubes,..... OTL is popular these days many models from little bottlehead crack to Teton,Zana Deux,WA 3 & 2 etc......   you can achieve the desired effect of coloration without phase shift and ringing with OTL,you cant do that with EQ even if you had billion dollars to spare,no human can,the technology simply doesnt exist.

 

[Joe Bloggs]

ok I agree transformer coupled tube amps are majority,so when OP says tube you are right to argue to compare EQ to transformerized valve amps not OTL.I give you that

I dont agree I should be forced to compare only non OTL here becose its majority,it misses the point,a question that OP is asking.Ok transformer coupled amps were first and are more widespread,that does not mean EQ is better or equal to tubes,..... OTL is popular these days many models from little bottlehead crack to Teton,Zana Deux,WA 3 & 2 etc......   you can achieve the desired effect of coloration without phase shift and ringing with OTL,you cant do that with EQ even if you had billion dollars to spare,no human can,the technology simply doesnt exist.

All common analog means of colorizing the sound is "minimum phase", which does not mean not shifting the phase, but actually shifting the phase in a known, predictable manner in comparison to the frequency response change.

Digital filters can also be minimum phase, many are.

"No phase shift" is properly associated with "linear phase" filters, which are only possible in digital filters.

If you change the frequency response sharply enough, a dirac impulse input will "ring" at the output end, no matter what was used to cause the frequency response colorization, digital or analog, or what phase the EQ or OTL amp has.