Slashdot Mirror
Aural Heaven -- iPod And Analog
Ant writes This Wired News article says there is aural magic in the combination of the very old with the very new: iPod through an old radio or tube-driven amplifier gives it a special warmth and atmosphere. '50-year-old Takeyuki Ishii insists the antique equipment creates an atmosphere that has been forgotten. The softer tones ease listeners and make them feel warm and relaxed.'"
"The softer tones ease listeners and make them feel warm and relaxed."
Considering the heat put out. That's not an unexpected result. Throw in a big meal.
... I just finished watching a _movie_ entitled Aural Heaven.
Movie's tagline: If you're bored with the rear, try it in the ear.
I thought that was my Powerbook? :-)
Click HERE
It's the recordings that have gotten better in the past 50 years, not the speakers.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
..then it's true for him. Nothing is more subjective than audio quality.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I wonder if this desire for that "warm, soothing" sound will die when those that grew up with it do as well. Is the attraction anything more than conditioning and sentimentality? Sure, a lot modern digital music could be called cold and clinical, but as a perfect representation of what the artist intended to create, is there really anything missing?
iTubes?
I dream in binary.
Not that tubes ever went away in audio, but more and more manufacturers are putting them into equipment "because it's a tube / for the sake of it". Take the Korg Triton (one of the more popular music workstations), of which an updated model released around January had a tube built in (to add "warmth")...
were invented by the same people - everyone brace yourselves for their imminent onslaught
in communist russia, valves are counter revolutionary!
Why the heck is he using an FM transmitter to connect the iPod to his nice tube equipment. Its one thing to use nice tube amplifiers to get a warm analog sound from a digital source (even order harmonic distortion and all that jazz), but why limit the frequency responce to FM's 50-15,000 Hz?! Good sources (such as the iPod) and good output equipment (which would presumably be hooked up to quality tube amplifiers) would benefit greatly from a full 20-20,000 KHz frequency responce!!
"The softer tones ease listeners and make them feel warm and relaxed."
So, one can safely assume Mr. Ishii is not a fan of like say Slipknot?
- Victorian telephone (wireless version)
- Mac G5 embedded in an IBM S/36 case (to give that authentic Computer feel)
- email, delivered by the postman
- the LowCost cruise liner ($25 across the Atlantic)
- not rose-coloured glasses, but B&W glasses... gives you that good ol' monochrome feeling
- the e-Quill, looks like a quill, writes like a quill, drops ink like a quill, but runs Windows XP for Quills
- the iQuill (similar, but stores 150 hours of music)
- ye old Coffee Shoppe: double espresso machiatto served in antique copper cups, by surly wenches
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Although I am a fan of the iPod (and Apple Computer) there is nothing new here: Some years ago (about 16) I spent a couple of days at Stevie Wonders studio (Wonderland) and was stunned to see a couple of CD players that had been custom built to have tubes hooked up to them. It was explained to me that this "new fangled CD technology" sounded too "crisp" and that playing the signal back through tubes warmed things up considerably. I never would have been able to tell the difference until they hooked them up to some seriously high end speakers and lo and behold, you really could tell a difference. Unfortunately I do not remember who build these CD players, but I seem to recall a $20k price tag.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
So you are saying that an mp3 on an ipod played via FM out of my old dad's radio sounds better than the ipod on it's own. Or maybe you are just trying to sell old radios?
I don't think that nostalgic audiophiles who prefer the old analog equipment could reliably pass blind listening tests comparing high-end audio from a digital source to an older tube (or whatever) based high-end analog system. All the flowery language used to describe that equipment smacks of pseudo-science. The idea of digital music being too sharp or rough (i.e. whatever the opposites of smooth etc are) stem from visualizing what a quantized sine wave looks like at 8 bits.
Nowadays you can simulate, in software, the effects of analog tape saturation, even-order harmonic distortion caused by tube amplifiers, or an older microphone that distorted the sound in some desirable way.
I'm sorry but Phonographs and Jukeboxes are for Gramps....who wants to listen to inferior technology masquarading as nostalgia?
Ogg all the Way!
Maybe this is the new era of nostalgy fans?
They take old, nostalgic objects, and combine them with new technology to make the ULTIMATE ANTIQUE!
At the rate IBM is currently (not) making PowerPC 970 processors, Apple may just have to switch to tubes to power their machines.
(Don't think it'll be a good quarter for us shareholders, though the sharemarket yet doesn't seem to have noticed Apple can't supply a G5 Dual 2.5 / iMac / XServe for love or money.)
iGotMyTubesCut.
in oral heaven. It's called....
:)
oh, _aural_ heaven. Nope, don't know anything about that.
Except that CDs sound better when coated with a green highlighter.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
n/t
I think it should be possible to do the same change to the sound through a digital filter before converting it to analog. Or is there anything I'm missing?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I've always preferred playing my MP3s through my low-end tube amp (an Antique Sound Labs MG-SI15DT, which has two small 12AX7 preamp tubes and two KT88 power tubes, and my speakers are Mordaunt-Short Music Series)... it sort of smooths out the MP3s, and I don't notice the sampling rate even if it's bad... if I play MP3s through my Sony A/V receiver the sound is either too muddy or too tinny... but through the tube amp it sounds vibrant and lively. Sometimes pure digital audio sounds too sharp and isn't easy on the ears. Analog audio tends to flow.
Some people don't like tube amps for the reason that they "color" the audio too much and it's not a perfect reproduction (fidelity)... but lots of people have a soft spot for the "warmer" sound... lots of people even like the sound of old vinyl records (even though vinyl records have horrible fidelity, the studios have to mix the audio specially for vinyl records different from how they do for CDs, because there are certain audio ranges that vinyl is horrible at reproducing -- I think it's the high end).
But one thing can't be denied and that's that tube amps look damn cool, and are fascinating technology... the tubes are out in the open and you can see inside of them how intricate they are, and they usually glow orange in the middle and some tubes have a blue haze (I've noticed this particularly in Svetlana brand KT88's once they've worn in a bit).
ESPECIALLY better than any compressed audio format. Just because you listen to everything through a crappy system instead of good studio monitors doesn't mean there isn't a difference.
"I would like to see a "blindfold" test."
90 out of a 100 blindfolds say they can't hear a damn things. The other 10 are complaining about being stuffed in some guys ear.
Chuck's ipod
Shipped.../ colsa/p ://www.macminute.com/2004/09/13/imacg5/
http://www.apple.com/science/profiles
now shipping...
http://www.macnn.com/news/26226
htt
In Stock...
http://www.macmall.com
In response to...
(Don't think it'll be a good quarter for us shareholders, though the sharemarket yet doesn't seem to have noticed Apple can't supply a G5 Dual 2.5 / iMac / XServe for love or money.)
iZotope Ozone models a tube amp (along with a pile of other fun stuff), and works as a plugin for Winamp. I wouldn't know how to hook up an iPod to something running a program like this (especially since if you're on the computer you don't need an iPod to listen to), but the 'warmth' and overall enhancement of sound is still something to look into. It might be a cheaper alternative to getting piles of actual equipment. http://www.izotope.com/products/audio/media/ozone. html
...create an equalizer preset in iTunes (or Winamp or what have you) that mimics the distortion caused by tube amplifiers.
1. Make equalizer preset
2. Call it iTubes
3. ???
4. Profit.
For as long as there have been transistors there has been debate between solid-state supporters and tube supporters. The same two camps squared off years later in an analog versus digital debate. If you need to enjoy your music by looking at graphs created by test equipment, then solid state and digital will be the best solution for you. If you want to enjoy your music by looking at the pretty tubes glowing in your stereo rack and esoteric explanations to your friends as to your audio insanity, then tubes and Vinyl are all you. If you want to enjoy your music by LISTENING to it, grab your favorite CDs and Vinyl and head to a real audio shop. Any good (and I don't like this term, but its what most would call it) high-end audio shop will have good people to help you find equipment that will help you enjoy the music. Trust your ears.
...) they are not going to tell you that, because the Monks just signed on with the magazine for a $50k advertising deal over the next year.
Take what you read in magazines with a grain of salt. Magazines are there to sell adds, so when the new $10,000 amp that was built of unobtanium and blessed by Buddhist Monks sounds very similar to an amp made by a small but quality high end manufacturer in Buffalo (or Toronto, or LA, or London, or
Spend your money your speakers. You can invest a lot of money in source equipment, amplification, and cables, but if you have a $100 pair of speakers from Radio Shack you have a $100 system. There have been no breakthroughs in amplifier technology in about 30 years, but speaker materials and design have changed greatly.
Disclosure: I used to work in the high performance home audio industry (I've been out for about 6 years now). I got a chance to listen to a lot of great gear, and meet a lot on interesting audio engineers (some of which had there heads up the arses). I like tubes, but I agree they are not as accurate as solid state. I have often used a tube type CD player or pre amp, but prefer the better control offered by solid-state amplifiers. In my opinion this combination will get you the open and smooth soul of the tube with the slam and dynamics of a solid-state amp. I own about 1000 CDs, but if I really want to experience music, I listed to Vinyl. Digital music (weather a red book CD, audio stream, or I pod) takes the mechanical action of sound, cuts it up in to lots of little pieces, and puts it back together again. Vinyl is a direct mechanical representation of a mechanical process. Less is lost (even if it is a pain to deal with a record compared to a CD).
Trust your ears. They are the best test equipment money can't buy.
Seriously. Listen to some Myles Davis or Gatemouth Brown through an old RCA tabletop being fed a signal from an old single ended AM modulator/exciter stage (ie "three tube transmitter"). It's been so long that AM has been out of favor very few realize nowdays how very good it can sound with "honest" frequency response up into the top octave... if you have a decent AM radio.
...perfect representation of what the artist intended to create, is there really anything missing?
This is really a matter of personal preference. I am an artist (vocal and trumpet) and feel that music should be a representation of your emotion, feelings, etc. I personally do not like music that is created digitally. (Think drum machine, synthesizer, etc.) I don't mind digital recording as long as conservative compression or no compression is used.
I like tube amps because I feel that they add a certain imperfection that gives music character. The best way I can describe the difference is to compare a tube amp and a solid state amp with this example.
A tube amp is a concert hall. The seats closer to the stage hear a different sound when compared to people sitting in the back. The sound isn't perfect but you are hearing the music directly from the source.
A solid state amp is a concert hall where you are sitting in the "perfect" seat. The instruments/people blend perfectly. There is no emotion since the blending is perfect. You do not think about the music, you just listen.
Of course equipment made today can replicate sound almost exactly but for me that's not what always matters, IMHO.
both can be subjective.
....translating....
:-)
special warmth and atmosphere
fuzzy noise, crackles and scratchings
I just had an image of an ipod with built in turntable and mini 3" high resolution records
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Something like this? :)
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Being a closet audiophile myself, sound does indeed have qualities like that. In fact, for those of us who (are cheap headphone) audiophiles, when purchasing a headphone amp for our iPods, we can even select an opamp based on the type of sound we want. For some who'd want clear and clean sound, there is the TI opamp to use. For those who'd like the more traditional sounds with more "body" (like me), there is another brand, can't remember ATM.
Those who are keen can pop over to headfi.org, a community of headphone-philes!
Online backup with Mozy, sounds like Ozzie, but more!
Warm = distorted!
It may be that someone prefers a particular sound, but since everyone listens on different kit it's better for a recording artiste to assume flat frequency response.
-- BtB
I've had scads of people tell me how crappy directv looked on my system (when I had it) and boast about how great it looked on theirs. Then I'd show them how stupendous DVDs looked on the same rig (courtesy a high end Panasonic DVD deck with 10 bit convertors) and watch their faces as it dawned on them how very much of the picture they were missing from their $1000 "tv sets."
I tried listening to my iPod underwater. Well, it worked for a few seconds. Gave me that Aquaman type sound. ;-)
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
The best tube amplifiers sound exactly like the best transistor amps.
http://www.audionote.co.uk/lev3.htm
In my classes of Electronic Devices, I heard (in my dreams apparently) that tubes have a linear behavior that transistors don't, this makes the working region wider for tubes than operational amplifiers. I do believe that it sounds better... but I won't pay to hear the difference. (Besides.. who will repair my grandma's stereo?).
You can check at http://www.valveheart.com/Why_tubes.html
I found at http://www.milbert.com/tstxt.htm :
Vacuum-tube amplifiers differ from transistor and operational amplifiers because they can be operated in the overload region without adding objectionable distortion. The combination of the slow rising edge and the open harmonic structure of the overload characteristics form an almost ideal sound-recording compressor. Within the 15-20-dB "safe" overload range, the electrical output of the tube amplifier increases by only 2-4 dB, acting like a limiter. However, since the edge is increasing within this range. the subjective loudness remains uncompressed to the ear. This effect causes tube-amplified signals to have a high apparent level which is not indicated on a volume indicator (VU meter). Tubes sound louder and have a better signal-to-noise ratio because of this extra subjective head room that transistor amplifiers do not have. Tubes get punch from their naturally brassy overload characteristics. Since the loud signals can be recorded at higher levels, the softer signals are also louder, so they are not lost in tape hiss and they effectively give the tube sound greater clarity. The feeling of more bass response is directly related to the strong second and third harmonic components which reinforce the "natural"' bass with "synthetic" bass [5]. In the context of a limited dynamic range system like the phonograph, recordings made with vacuum tube preamplifiers will have more apparent level and a greater signal to system noise ratio than recordings made with transistors or operational amplifiers.
Running an audio source through a tube amp creates tube-amp like sound! WHAT A BREAKTHROUGH.
What's this got to do with an iPod?
Yes, tube amps have a distinctly different sound than solid state gear. Yes, many people find the colorations of a tube amp pleasant. Most people do, in fact. I know I do.
Does that mean tubes are more accurate at reproducing sound? Not at all. But when it comes to the natural harmonics introduced by the amplifiers... tubes are much more pleasing than solid state gear.
An amp based on either technology can be engineered very thoroughly to give a flat, neutral uncolored response... but guess what.. that doens't necessary sound BETTER to the listener.
Remember, accuracy can be measured, but what sounds GOOD is *purely* subjective.
Perfect example: I have 128kbps mp3s that sound much better on my little ipod headphones than my $800 reference headphones. I know the reference cans are more accurate, and that they are letting me hear how crappy the mp3 truly is.. but the overall effect is that the shitty headphones make it sound better.
It's comparatively easy to make a low gain stage with decent linearity from either tubes or transistors. It's not so easy to make a stable tube amp with 120db open loop gain as it is a transistor amp, which means a very good tube amp might have an order of magnitude more THD (ie .02% at 1khz vs .002%) - meaningless unless you spend your time listening for sine harmonics. However, where it counts, it's relatively easy to make a tube amp with 20db or so open loop gain that, with just a tiny bit of feedback (maybe even just a db or two) will be very stable and have very good power response... and low THD (as if that was what mattered).
The seventies and eighties saw a home hifi market flooded with crap gear from japan (Manufacturers like Sansui and Sony and Kenwood and Pioneer) that boasted incredibly low THD... and provided its owners incredibly bad sound.
In general with audio, "warm" means stronger low frequencies in the sound and "bright" means stronger highs.
/.) that digital amps tend to reproduce even harmonics and acoustic (tube) tends to reproduce odd harmonics.
I've read somewhere (probably on
Can anyone confirm or deny this?
Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
Cue the audiophile wars.
/. editors.
The only thing worse than an Apple/Linux vs. MS zealot discussion (a good thing IMHO) is an audiophile thread. They make beligerent Microsoft hating uber-geeks look like mongoloids when they start going at it. I swear, if audiophiles were allowed to talk in person, someone would lose an arm over whether ultra high sample rate digital is better than analog, or whether vacuum tubes should be used in amplifiers or whatever...damn, I have already read too much.
Please...Spare me oh great
Sometimes I think that they throw certain stories up on the site on purpose, just to get a rise out of some people and and to get everyone else to come and watch the train wreck.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
If someone could play some tunes through their Ipod on an old radio, record it for me, and send over the MP3's, that would be awesome!
Thanks in advance!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
I have an old magnavox console stereo. I used to do this all the time with my ipod or whatever music playback device. The only thing was, that I had to open the back of it and look inside.
:)
TO my surprise I found aux line inputs. So with the proper cable, I was able to listen to all sorts of music through that thing. IT was great in the evening times.
Sadly, it finally blew and now just houses some old records, and is waiting for me to tear it apart and attempt to fix it.
It is SFV (stupid fashion victim) syndrome wrapped in pseudo-science language. No more, no less.
And the pseudo-science it comes wrapped in, invariably shows massive ignorance of the real science. It invariably boils down to "uh, you can't see it on any osciloscope or signal analyzer, but transistors do this and that evil thing to your signal." Well, guess what? If it's some mystical thing that can't be measured or detected in any way, it's no more than some poor man's religion.
And it's still ignoring that nowadays it's usually paired with transistors nevertheless. E.g., that signal went first through the transistors in the iPod. Whatever evil satanistic marks those transistors put on the signal, it's already there before it even reached the tubes.
And you talk about 8 bit or 16 bit or 24 bit quantization, which is a good topic to bring up, since they're still playing music from an iPod. It's still quantized, and it still has the artefacts from lossy MPEG or AAC encoding.
Or I've seen at least one mobo which paired an el-cheapo crap on-board sound chip with a tube, and suddenly it was audiophile equipment. As if there was some _magic_ in the tube that goes back on the causality line and also stops the sound chip from doing a crappy noisy job.
The whole bullshit is that passing _any_ signal through a tube magically makes it better. Suddenly it no longer matters that it's quantized at 8 bits, _and_ lost a ton of harmonics and gained new ones due to lossy encoding. The magical +5 tube knew what the sound should have been like, and erased all those artefacts. Basically turning lossy compression into lossless compression.
That's high magic, folks. ('Cause science and technology it sure ain't.) Don't try it at home. Only high elves certified by the Mages' Guild can infuse tubes with that kind of arcane power.
Which is all that this is. People wanting real hard to believe in basically magic. Magical tallismans which solve this or that by magic. Just because they're there.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"antique equipment creates an atmosphere that has been forgotten"
it has been used in the music industry for years, there are many companies that produce amps with valves.
The secret to the sound is the entropy introduced, that sort of non-linear noise
I was under the impression that the plasma tweeters use helium, a noble gas, because they would produce dangerous levels of ozone if use with air.
Actually, you know, it's even better than the Emperor's New Clothes story. In the story, people only _pretend_ to see the clothes, for peer pressure. (And I'd guess also not to end up explaining stuff to the Emperor's guards, in the comfort of the Emperor's dungeon.)
In reality, people actually lie to themselves.
Tell some poor idiot often enough that he's somehow inferior if he can't hear how it sounds better through granddad's old crap radio... and the poor idiot starts actually convincing _himself_ that he too can hear the difference. 'Cause otherwise he'd be inferior, and that's bad.
If the Emperor's New Clothes story happened IRL, people wouldn't just pretend to others that they too see the clothes. They'd squint and lie to themselves until they're convinced they too can see the fine clothes. Just look at all those fabulous colours.
Kinda sad.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
In other words, Ishii combines audiophile pretentiousness with arty Japanese guy pretentiousness -- a powerful and deadly blend!
I bet he has a short, neat beard and a black polo neck.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
...the antique equipment creates an atmosphere that has been forgotten.
No way this atmosphere has been forgotten. Holy wars are still fought over this tube vs FET etc. I don't want to take an opinion in this discussion, but fail to understand why this is news.
Z
average 128kbps mp3 on ipod headphones: sounds allright
same mp3 played back through Grado RS-1 headphones: sounds like ass. I can hear just how crappy the recording is.
well mastered CD on ipod headphones: sounds like crap compared to...
well mastered CD on Grado RS-1 headphones: i hear subtle details that I didn't know existed in the recording.. things that I absolutely can't hear on cheap headphones. Music sounds just awesome. If I go back and try the ipod headphones again, they sound incrediby constrained and muted.. the sound is just completely wrong.
... I've a 40 year old braun tube amplifier which I used in combination with a slimp3 player. Tubes tend to softer the somewhat sterile sound of mp3's. However, tube amplifiers are also beasts: it needs to be on all the time because it takes about 3-6 hours to get to a nice operating warmth, in which time the casing of the amp is too hot to touch with bare hands. I don't currently use it anymore, as I'm too scared for the thing to burst into flames if I'm not home ...
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
Well, perhaps what we really need is a tube amped iPod and battery belt to power it!
This would be great opportunity to make a combined product. Apple's Macintosh line could team up with the audiofile gear maker McIntosh and make iPodTube! But, of course, you can only import gold reflector CDs...
Remember, it is vitally important that your playback gear cost more than the equipment used to make the recording! If it doesn't, you'll never hear the end of it (well, the high end of it, maybe)
To heck with the stupid website, just go out and buy your own damn iPod!
So....you take lossy, encoded audio and run it through some outdated amplifier technology, and you get good sound? Does this mean that my burnt food will taste good with a diguisting sauce? ...Or that windows will run just fine on faulty hardware? ...Or that ugly geeks get more chicks than people that are just geeks or ugly?
Can someone explain to me what is meant when sound is described as "warm"?
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
Perhaps the story should have been when Apple released Apple Lossless Encoder. That's the recent iPod news that makes the iPod better for audiophiles.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
Good sources (such as the iPod)
I'm not trolling, but I don't think anybody's holding up the iPod to be a good audio source. It regularly gets poor ratings for sound quality in the MP3 player comparative reviews.
analog baby.
Yeah... like my tube preamp really appeals to my soft, fluffy, feminine side and empathised with me when my dog got run over by my ex-girlfriend... my solid state amp merely told me to get on with life or hang myself. There's no "emotion" in either of these things just different filtering characteristics... SSSHHHEEESSSHH!!!
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
..more particularly, it's the spectrum of the distortion. Tube amps usually display quite large amounts of added 2nd harmonic, which is euphonic, or 'warming' and musically concordant. However tube amps usually show far, far less odd harmonics than solid-state amps, and have a distortion spectrum that rarely extends beyond the 5th/6th harmonic at all. In contrast, solid state amps, esp. those with high negative feedback, can produce harmonics a lot further out, even though the total summed is less than the tube amp, the result has a different sound and many people can tell the two apart on this basis. BTW it is *not* due to simple differences in signal:noise ratio and the like. It appears the ear/brain hearing mechanism has a FFT component - check how the ear works, and look closely at what the cilia do. The bottom line really is that there's a *lot* the ear/brain hearing mechanism does that bald figures like 'hearing response' and 'THD' are inadequate to describe.
Tubes don't just sound subjectively differentm we can objectively measure the differences. Tubes distory the sound more than transistors, and in different ways. It gives a sound that is generally described as "warmer" and "smoother" and such. It's not as accurate, as least as compared to good transistor equipment, but that doesn't mean it's unplesant.
There is actually a DIY design for SoundBlaster Audigys (or maybe Audigy 2s, can't remember) to do a tube output stage. It is said (I've never heard it) to help smooth out harsh sound and mask some unplesantness like MP3 artifacts. Doesn't mean it makes teh sound objictevly more accurate, just subjectively more plesant.
Tubes DO sound different than transistors. Doesn't mean they are more accurate, the opposite in fact but it isn't an unplesant sound, at least not to most people. Also before the advent of delta-sigma DACs, CD players were pretty harsh. The way the output stage worked, it was a bitch to control accurately so the sound they produced really wasn't as good as it could or should be. Later converters ixed that but I'm not sure if they were around 16 years ago, or in widespread use back then.
Even now I could see someone wanting to do this. Tubes just kind of warm sound up and take the edge off. This means they are less objectively accurate and add more distorion, but that's not necessiarly a bad thing, so do equalisers. If you are listening for pleasure you are concerned about pleasing sound, not accurate sound.
Speaker design used to be as much art and voodoo as science. A company would ifnd something worked well, but not be able to explain WHY. That's really changed. Laser infermetroy was a big development, it gave the ability to analyze the dsitortion and refraction pattern on a driver, and witht hat optimise the material, crossover, etc. Better sources also allow for more accurate testing.
The advances in speakers are really quite striking taken in a 50 year timescale. New speakers sound significantly better than older ones, espically at a give price and size point.
The simplest way is just through impulse convolution. You measure the impulse response of your desired tube system, and convolute the audio with that. Sound just like it was being played through it (if you did everything right). You can also go for more complex simulations if oyu like. Take a look at Native Instruments' Guitar Rig. It does amazing virtual simulations of tube guitar amsp (and other things).
:)
Four reasons not to:
1) You need lots of power to do it. It's not trivial to do something like this accurately digitally. Unless you got an ASIC made, you'd be talking a fairly powerful CPU in the upper P3/G4 range probably.
2) You either need a specialy designed system (expensive) or a normal computer running software. Inconvienet and also not cheap, these pro audio programs cost a fair bit.
3) In such a system you get the distortion of your convolution plus the distortion of your actual output phase. TRansistor amps are good, they aren't perfect, they do distort sound a little. That perhaps undersiable effect if added to the modified signal.
4) Tube equipment just looks cool
But yes, anything convolution an analogue device and perform, a digital device can do likewise, with proper power and programming.
That's Oral.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
Check out this site for some sound samples of high quality tube amps all hand wired and no printed circuit boards just scroll along and select sounds, I bought the harlequin not long ago it might be only 6 watts but it's a hell of a lot louder than the 20 watt Marshall hybrid (combination of tube and solid state) it replaced.
Saying Apple is better than MS is like saying Botulism is better than rabies.
While I like the concept of what this guy is doing, the music will be missing some of its dynamic range by using the iTrip.
I have an iTrip. While it is a great device, the sound quality is much poorer using the iTrip than just using good head phones (not the crap that comes with the iPod).
I can only believe that the 'softness' of the old radios is masking the muted dynamic range of the iTrip.
Is it just me, or would this be a total non-story were it not for the inclusion of the word 'iPod' in the original article?
As far as I can see, there would be absolutely no difference if this guy had hooked up an iPod, a CD player, digital radio, a minidisc player, a PC, or basically any digital music source to his old hi-fi, except that a CD player would undoubtedly have given superior sound when combined with the nice old speakers. Essentially the only interesting angle in this story is that some people think it sounds better to use older equipment to play music from newer, digital sources.
Content is apparently no longer a prerequisite for being 'news for nerds' or 'stuff that matters.' All you need to do is include an Apple lifestyle product being used in an exciting and hip way and you could WIN! If you happen to be an ancient Japanese guy, all the better, you already have iKarma +5 for being so damn minimalist and stylish.
But seriously... what is the relevance of the iPod to this story? Why is this posted under 'Apple'?
Read Pynchon.
As a kid, I remember reading a Reader's Digest article [mid-'80s] heralding the CD's arrival, and Stevie Wonder's fondness for digital was prominent -- memories are hazy, but I believe he bought one of the very first compact disc players by Sony. And the USD 20000 tag was mentioned, too.
Brings back memories -- thanks
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
I don't understand - surely dual channel mono can be stereo (or not) depending on what's going through it?
If it's two independant mono signals, it'll be just be two channels of mono, but if it's the left and right side of a stereo signal being sent to left and right speakers... it's stereo?
Great, you can get 50 KHz bandwidth that doesn't have any effect on what you can hear (that's why Quad worked, after all, you couldn't hear the high frequency carrier) from vinyl, but what does that have to do with feeding an iPod's compressed digital sound through a tube amp?
People use analogue filters to make their music sound more seventies?
I don't know where you get this idea from...
Practically ALL electronic music uses analogue, or analogue style filters. It's a major part of the sound - in particular, the Acid House movement was practically built on the Roland TB303 'Bassline', an analogue synthesiser with big fat resonant filters. That 'Josh Wink' filter scream is all analogue, baby.
And where would HipHop be without the sound of Vinyl cracks & pops? It's an integral part of the sound (less so now, but definitely part of the Golden Age of artists like Tribe Called Quest).
In the last few years the Big Thing in synthesisers has been virtual modelling of classic equipment & sounds, but before that there was a big resurgance in new Analogue equipment - MIDI compatible keyboards that used real analogue circuitry to generate the sound (I myself own a Novation Bass Station, a MIDI-ed up clone of the TB303).
The idea that modern music is created on all-modern equipment is a fallacy - just go to the Sound On Sound forums and check out how heated the recent debates on Digital vs Analogue have been... even people who make full-on Techno are using tape-to-tape reels and claiming they sound better.
As for Tube technology - nearly every major pro-audio company has brought out a tube-based pre-amplifier in the last three years. I don't feel the need to listen back to music using tube amplifiers, but as any producer will tell you, digital modelling of Tube Distortion / hot amplification is nowhere near as good as the real thing.
one might come close to nirvana by howing to ones self or banging on a hollow log with a stick.
Personally, I find the sounds which emanate from a well and truly squeezed cat to be the most refreshing.
Thank you, God, for giving me ears of clay :)
Tube audio ... let the jihad begin.
You CAN make a solid state amplifier sound as poor as a tube amplifier, if that's your goal. Apply current limiting to the transistors (to get that soft overhead someone talked about), run it through an iron core transformer (to limit the high and low frequency response), add some low-level 50/60 Hz to simulate the filiment hum, add a chassis mounted microphone fed to the input to simulate the microphonics tube amplifiers exhibit. Then, lets slow the response time down to round over those fast rise-time signals. Oops, forgot the random shot noise ... better add a pink-noise generator. Almost forgot the frequency-dependent distortion ... gotta have that now, don't we? Want that gassy, old-tube sound? Guess we'll have to shunt the output transistors with a high power resistor to carry some of the load. Don't forget to add a 300 watt halogen lamp inside to provide the glow, and more importantly, to bake the varnish out of the transformers, the wax out of the capacitors, and to fry any dust that gets in ... for that authentic odor. Probably ought to put the entire thing inside a cheap wooden box as well; you'll have to decide on shellac or varnish as the finish of choice (it DOES matter, you know). Add a heavy steel chassis, weigh the entire thing down with some paving bricks (cheaper and easier to get than granite slabs), and you've pretty much gone back in time to the pre-transistor era. Oh, almost forgot ... you have to overload the transistors severely so they fail after 100-200 hours to regain that thrill of yesteryear ... changing out bad tubes.
*****
I keep threatening to build a signal conditioner that will emulate all but the smell of tube audio, and add it into a simple Class-D amplifier. Want the "Fender" sound? Select from the menu and press enter. I'm sure the number of amplifier/speaker combinations will be unlimited ... so for a small fee, and some lab time with the audio setup of your choice, you'll get a non-exclusive rights to the sound of your own.
The problem is, I really hate engineering something so horrid to prove a point. It's probably much better to allow the existing marketplace to continue providing the cure for MMTB Syndrome (More Money Than Brains). That's it ... spend for the cure.
When people use optical descriptions to describe aural characteristics, you must suspect they're already part way to the cure for MMTB ... in that they recognized that they spent money foolishly, but want to have company so as to not look TOO silly.
Back to the anvil factory.
I personally do not like music that is created digitally
Well, it's a different instrument. I mean, you can tell the difference between two pianos, even of the same type, just from the sound. A digitized piano is a different instrument than a physical piano, even if you digitized the sound of every key individually at every combination of force and pedal that you're ever going to play back, the real piano is going to produce a different chord than the sum of the digitized sounds of the three separate notes played together: the interference patterns between the strings and in the body of the piano are going to be different.
So, there's a large and, until we're capable of building synths that simulate the physical response of a physical piano or trumpet in real time, unavoidable difference between analog and digital *instruments*.
But if you put your microphones in the concert hall in that seat at the front, you can record and play back the same sound, as far as you're capable of hearing, as you would have heard if you were sitting there. And we *are* capable of simulating the effect of tubes in real time... so the difference in recording and playback technology is a matter of what you choose to apply.
And similarly, whether you think about the music or just listen to it is your own choice. It's not inherent in the technology. It's the artists and instruments (and recording engineer: whether he's using a mouse or a razor blade is going to have much more effect on the music than whether you're listening to it on a CD player, a phonograph, or an iPod) that matter.
There's a whole world of "swapping fidelity for secondary emotional enhancement" we could go for.
Don't get me wrong. I agree with most of your post. Just running a signal through tubes doesn't make it better.
But...
You go way too far when you ridicule people who say they hear differences that can't be seen on instruments.
It's just wrong to couch this in terms of "If it's some mystical thing that can't be measured or detected in any way, it's no more than some poor man's religion." Fact is, when someone says they hear a difference, the "thing" IS being detected. The difference IS being measured. It's being detected by the listener's ears. It's being measured on a scale defined by that listener.
The problem is that human ears are not calibrated against any objective standard. In the best cases, they are the finest detectors of subtle differences in sound available to us, far surpassing the sensitivity of the best mikes and racks of measuring equipment. They are also, unfortunately, completely non-standard in their reaction to input, subject to variation depending on a host of external and internal factors, and their results are not repeatable from instrument to instrument. That doesn't mean they are insensitive. That doesn't mean they don't actually hear a difference. It just means that the difference may or may not be obvious to another listener and may or may not be meaningful to anyone except the person listening at that moment.
I have no doubt that if you have good hearing and a love of music, you could listen to a particular orchestra play a particular piece in a particular venue many times over the course of years. That piece could then be recorded by that orchestra in that venue. As a fully-qualified judge, then, you could listen to the recordings through tubes and solid-state, planar and box speakers, etc., and be able to tell not only which ones were different and which you prefer, but which recordings and playback setups are more accurate. Just using your ears. And your results may not track in any meaningful way with the measurements produced by that bench full of instruments.
In that case, I'd consider the conclusions of the qualified listener to be far more authoritative than those of the technician who simply looks at the output of test instruments.
To translate to a more general case: By far, when everything is right, you'll be better guided in your choices of audio gear if you use your ears rather than just look at specs.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here in Boston, I love moving day. My friends and I rent a uhaul, and blast reggae music through the most horribly worn speakers you can imagine. I swear, certain music just sounds so incredible when it's breaking up like this. I'm not sure if it helps that I already know what the bass 'should' sound like on these recordings (being an audio engineer...I do own a pair of studio monitors).
Maybe uhaul should get collaborate with this guy.
Once the mainstream went to transistors, even with analog sources, something was lost.. Sure its a matter of distortion, but to a human ear its more appealing then the raw accuracy of a transistor... Even went and built a class A tube amp myself years ago just because of this ( and my fisher tuner/amp died ). I have heard several 'simulated tubes', but they never quite sound right, prolly since its an abstract 'feel', that is impossible to completely identify..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I just bundle my iPod in a little cozy for warmth! Take a look here at 3 seconds of fame for my iPod!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Ishii insists the antique equipment creates an atmosphere that has been forgotten. The softer tones ease listeners and make them feel warm and relaxed.
"Listening to their sounds, I can recall scenes from my childhood," he said.
He's not saying it "sounds better" he's saying it reminds him of happier times. It's a novelty.
For pete's sake you people will take any excuse to start throwing your dicks at each other.
vk.
the bright sound sounded very warm but had a crisp to them that made them feel wholesomely round throughout the range but had the quality of a lively reproduction that is indistinct from wooden sound.
--- widget evolution: enhanced, plus, super, ultra, extreme, exxxtreme, ultra-extreme,
Further to getting that sound quality (based around colouration and distortion characteristics, guitar players choose speakers that colour the sound and depending on the music or the nature of guitar tone they seek will choose a speaker that breaks up earlier. The whole guitar rig is chosen with the intent of a desirable sound. You're not after a hi-fi reproduction of what comes from the amp. It's not pretty.
I choose different tubes for my guitar amp depending on the EQ and break up characteristics that I want. A change in tubes changes my sound. An EL-34 has a different sound than a 6CA7 or a 6550 or a 6L6. One step further, there's a variance between the manufacturers of the "same" tube. Many guitar players (some referred to as "cork sniffers") seek out NOS (New Old Stock) tubes for the specific sounds they are after.
Through the guitar, effects, amp and speaker cabinet combination, I seek a desirable tone. Each element a piece that impacts my sound in a way that is desirable to me. Once I have that, I depend on the PA system (solid state) for an accurate reproduction of that tone
flat earth is the opposite of round earth. flat earth audio manufacturers are british companies such as naim and linn. tubes are round earth. calculate your Flat Earth Points (FEP or your [tongue and check] Round Earth Points (REP
Try putting one of these between the digital out of your computer/cd player/what-have-you and your amplification system. Aha!
And yes, I'm a tube guy when it comes to instrument amps. My crackling, hissing 1961 blackface Fender Showman-Amp makes any speaker sound like a whole 'nother ball game. No master volume on this so it won't distort without making your ears bleed.
" And that's why musicians (guitarists, anyways) INSIST on tube amps."
No, they like tubes because they produce distortion in a very musical way.
But make no mistake, these tube amps are designed to distort, not accurately reproduce sound.
Something old (tubes), something new (iPod), something "borrowed" (music) ... now we just need something blue.
But I use an AM transmitter and a 1940s Zenith set to listen to recordings of the 1930s-40s.
"inferometry"
If anybody makes a digital gadget that'll make a little toy solid state amp sound like my Fender Twin (wheels on the bottom, responsive to humidity, damn near outweighs me), I'll be all over it.
But it hasn't happened yet. The Twin sounds better.
Of course, we're not talking here about stereos; they're designed to reproduce exactly what goes in, the "straight wire" (or whatever they call it) ideal. A guitar amplifier is part of the instrument. It's supposed to alter the sound. That's its job.
That having been said, CDs have a shitty low sampling rate. Still more convenient than vinyl, though, and I find that surface noise bothers me now.
Audiophiles will buy anything.
Proverbs 21:19
The difference in sound between tube and transistor amps is easily observable on a spectrum analyzer.
Put simply, in deference to you, Moraelin, tube circuits emphasize some of the harmonics and transistor circuits emphasize a different set of harmonics.
It turns out the harmonics emphasized by tube circuits are perceived as more pleasing.
Of course, audiophiles can be pretty gullible sometimes.
Vacuum tubes do sound different from solid state. The difference increases as you overdrive them a bit: Solid state amplifiers respond very differently when you push them too hard. Vacuum tubes are still the technology of choice for guitar amplifiers because it turns out that when you overdrive a good tube amp a bit, it does wonders for an electric guitar. It sounds good. The signal straight off the pickup of an electric guitar doesn't sound all that great by itself. The amp is a big part of the sound.
Solid state is popular for low-end cheap junk amps for kids (e.g. Crate), and there are a few respectable pro solid state amps out there, but they hardly own the market. (Solid state has done much better with bass amps, because most of what's going on with an electric bass is in a frequency range where the difference isn't all that apparent). There's no One True Technology that solves all problems; digital was hyped that way for a while, but that was bullshit (of course). Like XML, or any other silver bullet, it turned out to be just one more handy tool to have around.
Your problem is that you're out of your depth here. Imagine your 60-year-old aunt telling you you're stupid to use Linux because Win95 works just the same. You'd smile politely and ignore her, because she doesn't know what the fuck she's talking about. Same deal here: You know almost as much about music as she does about operating systems. Get it?
And yes, audiophiles do quite a bit of blind testing. Or at least scientist audiophiles do. Unfortunately, this is not true. Far too few people do blind testing, and when they do, they are often unable to tell the difference between electronics. There is a guy named Richard Clark who will give anyone $10,000 if they can tell the difference between two car audio amplifiers that have their levels and distortion matched exactly. I think you have to guess correctly 9 out of 10 times, and you can compare anything -- tube vs. solid state, $8,000 McIntosh vs. $29 WalMart, etc. Thousands have tried, and no one has succeeded yet. Stereophile magazine did a similar study several years ago, and their participants could only tell the difference between two amps 52% of the time, well within a margin of error. The Tice Clock (http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&i e=UTF-8&q=%22tice+clock%22) is a $10 Radio Shack wall clock that was sold for $500 because it was modified to control the quantum behavior of electricity and thereby improve sound. Seriously. Plug it into the room with your stereo, and your music instantly becomes more open and your soundstage gains depth. Of course, the inventors have no scientific explanation of how they control the quantum behavior of electrons. Nonetheless, thousands of listeners and professionals heard a difference. Psychoacoustics are a powerful force.
This is not to say that source units (like an iPod) and amplifiers make no difference. Tube amps provide a degree of euphonic distortion that give them their "warmth". But cables, power cords, etc -- I'd appreciate it if you could link to one blind test that shows a noticable difference between these.
- Turn the amplifier on and let it warm up for a good 30 to 60 minutes (especially if you're using a tube amp).
- Turn amp off and plug in cable A. (The amp doesn't cool down much during the 30 seconds it takes to change cables.)
- Listen to cable A
- Turn amp off and plug in cable B.
- Listen to cable B
- Go back to cable A (which you always do, to confirm whether you heard a real difference).
- Repeat 10,000 times.
- ????
- Profit!
Blind testing works the same way, except that each cycle involves a random choice between cables A and B.You control for the "thermal characteristics of the AMPLIFIER" by designing the test carefully. No problem.
And, yes, you can hear the difference between cables in blind tests. And it is very easy to do... if the cables are sufficiently different. I went from plugging in my speakers with lamp cord (don't ask) to some whiz-bang audiophile speaker cable and I fell out of my chair.
I won't get into the "scientific basis" here... except to say that, if you were to watch an apple fall from a tree, you might well conclude that there's no "scientific basis" for quantum mechanics. After all, doesn't Newtonian mechanics explain apples perfectly?
- - - -
As for the idea of selling "special" cool-looking plastic parts and claiming they improve the sound... that business already exists, and it's called "Bose". :)
Actually, that's not fair. Audiophiles love making Bose jokes (bitter jealousy, you know) but I believe that Bose has a quality product. The product is composed of (a) a box that audiophiles laugh at, but which can produce better sound then any random boom box, and (b) amazingly great marketing, such that the customers truly believe that they are hearing great sound. And so, therefore, they are.
Audio is psychology, and reproducing audio is as much magic as it is science. I've heard it said that the customers who brought the first hand-cranked record players were amazed by the realistic quality of the sound, and were often unable to tell the difference between a live band and a Victrola in blind tests.
Nobody has made a solid state amp that behaves like tubes. There's plenty of decent overdriven pre-amp sounds, but nobody has gotten creamy overdriven poweramp down. To get that sound, I use a traynor ycv40 with a THD-Hotplate attenuator so I can drive the poweramp section of the amp into delicious overdrive while futzing with the pre-amp to get the sound I want. The benefit of the Hotplate being that I don't have to deal with authority figures knocking on my door to get good poweramp overdrive. I'm quite fond of mullard tubes, but they are pretty expensive. Lately I've been very impressed with the JJ/Tesla tubes. Speakers make a huge difference in "getting that sounds" also. Most people automatically identify with a 4x12 closed back cab loaded with Celestion greenbacks, but once again they are pretty expensive. I'm very fond of 2x12 cabs with one greenback and one Vintage 30. The 70/80 speaker that comes stock with the YCV40 is great in an extension cab, but I'll stick with V30's in the amp because they sounds better in a halfback cab than closed back. The 70/80 is the exact opposite. Ones you have the right tubes, cabs, and speakers, it becomes a careful balancing act to get everything to "break" when you want it to simply by playing with your guitar volume controls. I'm happy enough with my setup that I have sharpied lines on my control plate in case the knobs get bumped. The way things are now, if I put the volume knob on my guitar at about 5, I get awesome mellow clean sounds. If I hit the strings really hard, it just starts to break up in the preamp. Turn it up to 7 and the pre/power amps both start breaking (and sounding incredible) unless I'm VERY light on the strings. Anything past 7 starts sounding like a vintage PLEXI in full blown overdrive. You simply can't do this with solid state amps. They can mimic a piece of it, but not the whole enchilada.
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
The ipod sounds ok when you use the earpods, but once you hook it up to a good stereo, it kind of blows, even with the uncompressed audio format. I think that apple put a lousy D/A converter in the iPod, and compensated with changes in the earpods to make it sound good. You are much better off taking the digital output of a G5 mac, running it to an external D/A converter, and then to a tube based stereo. The toslink output will need to be converted to AES/EBU or something if you want a digital run over 1 meter.
Valves or Tubes do have a different sound than Transistors. Audiophiles and Rock Guitarists are generally very loyal to the valve sound. Guitarists are not only looking for the "warmth" that the tubes have, but also the distortion characteristics (as well as the natural compression that results from a valve based rectifier). One of the things in recent years that has truly been an advancement has been high quality digital modeling of valve based guitar amps. The proof of this is the popularity of the Line 6 Pod and the AmpFarm plugin for ProTools. Basically, if AmpFarm can take a raw signal and add the character of a valve amp - then a plugin for iTunes should not be out of the realm of possibility. Then again - in the end it's all just a matter of taste.
when you play an electrified instrument, (guitar, bass, B3 etc.) you are really playing the amplifier. it is part of the instrument, not just a way to amplify the sound.
the sound of thte tube amp, the square wave of high volume clipping softened by the slow response of the tube transistor, fed back into the instrument, (though not the b3 obviously) to increase sustain.
the amp is as much the instrument as the bit with strings in your hand. And like people's beliefs about things like stradivarii and the like, everyone picks out the instrument that sounds right to them.
there's a difference between a P.A. system, that is supposed to amplify sound while leaving it otherwise unaltered, and a guitar amp, which is supposed to let you shape the sound, and deliberately affect(~degrade) the signal. which is another thing to remember, electric guitars and the like technically do not make any sound. they generate an electrical signal.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Tubes generate even numbered harmonics which the ear finds more 'pleasant' than transistors which generate odd numbered harmonics. Ask a good electrical engineer and he'll tell you the same thing.
I've heard Western Digital has improved, but I'm still wary. Have you ever actually had a DeskStar crash? Mine has run smoothly ever since I got it. Were there certain lots that were especially prone to failure?
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
when I play pacman on my 2.8ghz laptop :)
The perversity of the Universe tends towards a maximum. - O'Toole's Corollary
OK, it may be cheaper to use real tubes, but not for long.
In principle, pretty much any sound humans can hear can be produced digitally to the point even the best human ear can't tell the difference.
There is no reason except "we don't have the technology yet" or "it's too expensive" why a given tube-amplifier can't be carefully analyzed and sampled and a digital substitute created.
Of course, each tube amplifier is different - my vintage 1959 ACME model 243 amplifier will be slightly different than YOUR 1959 ACME model 243. Even worse, the characteristics change based on the operating temperature and other environmental conditions of the various parts of the tube amplifier, and you'd need to model each "environmental state" that you cared to re-create. Typically, you'd only bother to model the "fully warmed up/steady-state, playing in a room with x% humidity and y-degrees Celcius" environment. I'm sure I'm just touching on the surface of the complexity of the task at hand.
I don't have any info, but I remember seeing an article about a "warming effects" program for the Mac that "warmed" sound to make it sound like it was done through tubes. Maybe some audophile remembers this and can post a reply.
Someday, making a almost-perfect "fake-analog" amplifier will be practical and low-cost, much like someday - I'm guessing by the end of the decade - we'll have $100 digital cameras that, with a good lens, have the same raw resolution as a good film camera - roughly 150 megapixel x 36+ bits-per-pixel give or take.
On a related note, at least one company sampled an pipe-organ in New York City for the purpose of creating a digital copy. It was a very ambitious task at the time, in or about 1999 or 2000. By coincidence, the organ in question was heavily damanged by 9/11. I think I read about this in a mass-market science magazine after 9/11, possibly Discover magazine.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
I know :-) I was trying to be witty [and miserably failing, apparently].
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
What does "noiseless processing" mean? I don't recognise that term.
Digital recording and playback doesn't magically remove the "noise" in the music. Whether the reproduction is analog or digital, if it's accurate at reconstructing the original music it will reproduce the original noise.
What are you getting at?
I had a decent home system. Integra driving B&W 602s, and recently I switched. I went to Totem Arros and a Jolida 302a. The difference is night and day. The equipment is all around the same cost, but the sound from the tubes is gorgeous. I am working on setting up an old G3 as a music server. But there is no way in hell that I would use FM. I am using an M-Audio 24/96 as the source and keeping everything in Loseless AAC.
A lot of what comes out from good music is the D/AC. This can greatly change the sound of music. Anyways, IMO this article was dumb. Yes, I love tubes, but this guys approach with FM and iPod as the transport, terrible. I love the iPOD, but it is not the the end-all device that many try to make it.
What happen to the days when Wired was respectable. Is this all it takes to get an article?
I think this is the same reason that Black Sabbath sounded better on casette tape on an old junker stereo with the volume turned up past the 'acceptable' distortion levels.
using Mosfet or Tube equipment?
Place some headphones in a metal pot or bucket and it creates a very cool tinny old radio sound too.
Why does it have to be an iPod?
This is somewhat offtopic, but did anyone notice the last name of someone from Kill Bill? (ie, O-ren Ishii)
Your ad here.
you mean they didn't have ipods in the days of yore...
All the torrents you could want.
i have records here that still play fine from the 1930's -- that's
about 70 years, and the quality hasn't significantly changed for
that amount of time -- i would like to see an ipod hard drive
that is still spining in 70 years.
you will say that you should transfer your data
from the one hard drive to another before that --
but then we were talking about the record lasting longer
than your ipod...
btw -- i did play some stereolab through the old
Kuba Tube FM Stereo console using an iPod and
a small FM transmitter -- works great!
it was a wonderful moment of nostalgia for me,
since i remember listening to that radio when i was
four years old (back in 1971), and it was already
an antique then. this brought the old and the new together!
best regards,
j
My Jolida CD player has tubes in the output stage. It does color the sound, but not in a way I find annoying. In fact, crappy recordings tend to sound better with a little tube "smoothing." Good records sound... well, good.
My preamp and amp are both solid state, FWIW.
Oh yeah, if memory serves it was only about $1000, not $20K.
--jmike
(Who also has a tube headphone amp in the mail, which will hopefully open up his Grado headphones. Err... which are often hooked up to an iPod, to tie this back to the long-lost thread.)
Unfortunately you speak of "in design parameter performance"; Tube amps are superior to transistor circuitry in only one area: specific response to transients and signals outside of their designed dynamic range. The real difference lies in why tube amps are used in the best studios as mike preamps. When you get a peak signal from a cymbal hit, a transistor amp does a hard clip. The wave form has a flat top. Analyzed in a spectrum analyzer, you'll see 3rd and 5th order harmonics predominate. In stark and harsh contrast, a tube amp tends to have a rounded top on a clip. On the spectrum analyzer, you get 2nd and 4th order harmonics. For those who are musicians, you'll note that 3rd and 5th order harmonics are not musically related, while 2nd and 4th are the octave and the 2nd octave. The octave distortion is more pleasant to the ear. There might truly be more distortion in the tube amp, oh sure, but it doesn't SOUND as bad.
-- Perl Hack, Web Hack, SQL Hack, Guitar Hack
Transistor pre-amps clip when overdriven ... period. Tube amps clip when overdriven, though due to power supply limitations, tube impedance, and other circuitry limiting factors this clipping resembles a softened, almost "sine" wave. It is distortion, no matter how many pretty visually inclined words you throw at it.
... be it hollow state or solid state ... state so in the design criteria. It's not hard to build clean, linear amplifiers out of tubes or transistors ... it just requires the appropriate specifications to deliver the expected results (well it also requires a bit of expertise in implementing the design specifications).
... push-pull amplifiers tend to quash the even harmonics. Transistor amplifiers tend to be push-pull design. Tube amplifiers on the other hand tend to be (but aren't always) single-ended. And single ended amplifiers don't have the same ability to quash even harmonics.
... the light comes on. Because transistor amplifiers tend to quash the even harmonics, the listener will hear the odd harmonics all the better (especially if the volume gets cranked up to get those even harmonic levels back to tube-amplifier levels).
... in terms everyone can agree upon. My statement about using visual descriptors for audio (literally) amplifies my point. What you consider "warm" is nothing more than even (octave) harmonics that tend to blend into the music. Got it.
... we _DO_ need everyone in the lifeboat!
... then technical points aside ... you want that. You ignore the odd harmonic content mostly because the 3rd harmonic will be a bit lower than the second (in most cases) and the 5th will be lower than the 4th (again in most cases). Crank the volume up until the even harmonics "sound" right, and you'll have horrid odd harmonic levels.
If you want an amplifier that won't clip on peaks
Funny thing
Ahh
It's all about specifying what you need
Thanks for that little piece of information that I "knew" but didn't apply with regard to even harmonics being octaves. See
I think you'll agree that there IS a lot more harmonic content in a single-ended amplifier, and if significant amounts of that harmonic content can be hidden in the music
Guess it would be better to say "I prefer the single-ended sound that includes a fair amount of even harmonic energy" would get you the amplifier of your dreams much quicker than the tube-vs-transistor debate.
Thanks for your input!
I guess the hundreds of new releases each week available ONLY on vinyl are just a figment of my imagination. Have you ever heard of electronic music? You know, House, Techno, Drum 'n Bass, Hardcore, Downtempo, Hardstyle, Speed Garage, etc? There's a reason it's only available on vinyl... for one thing there is no way to manipulate, mix, and perform various turntablism techniques with CDs (the new Technics CD decks come close, but...). Second, CDs just don't sound as good over a 50,000 watt sound system. The inadequacies of CDs are amplified, especially with genres of music where the lead instrument or synth is often in the bass range, or can transition all the way through the audible spectrum. And don't give me that, "records sound all scratchy and poppy", because that's bull. I have records that I've owned for 6 years, that I've played hundreds of times, and even played them in the middle of the desert. A very modest investment in effort to keep your records clean pays off well. You never even need to wash them if you make sure to always put them back in their sleeves and store them properly.
So you admit that you can tell the difference between the warmth of a tube and a solid state amplifier? You win $10,000 from Richard Clarke, right? It is possible to tell the difference between $8,000 equipment and $29 equipment. Anyone call tell the difference--especially if they're told what to listen for.
On a related but tangential note, A few years ago I was getting terrible lines on my TV whenever I used the VCR to play movies. My roommates and I covered the outside of the coaxial cable with electrical tape to insulate it, and the lines went away. Buying a better cable would've fixed the problem, too. Disputes about visual quality are indisputable, since they can be easily documented and compared side-by-side. Audio quality can't be as easily compared, and some shysters are out there, but that doesn't mean that you can't improve your audio quality with elements like cables, power sources, and definitely amplifiers.
Even though there are some people who sell snake-oil, real medicine does exist. Trust me.