Does "Tube Sound" Exist?

SolidSqual

Early B. wrote: »

I'm still not totally convinced. Generally speaking, I'll bet it would be hard to tell the difference between a good pure tube system and a good solid state one, and every combination in between.

Regarding Early B's previous post, his statements may be true, but it assumes that there is only one right sound. I just recently purchased my first tube preamp. (Rogue Audio Metis) The beauty of tubes is that you can change and manipulate sound readily and easily by simply swapping some tubes. I've begun developing an album guide labeling which tube pairs sound better for a given album I own. For the most part solid state equipment is well . . . solid . . . with few options to truly control the music (unless you add, subtract or change a component somewhere in the line.) Tube sound exists, some SS equipments may sound similar, but only Tubes let you make the sound your own.

cfrizz

In that case, it is no longer sounding the way that it was supposedly recorded. How many times have I read on here that this was the purpose of the equipment? To get it to sound as close to originally recorded?

Well if you are swapping tubes around to get it to sound how YOU want it to sound, then you are defeating the purpose. You want to be the engineer in the booth making up the sound.

SolidSqual wrote: »

Regarding Early B's previous post, his statements may be true, but it assumes that there is only one right sound. I just recently purchased my first tube preamp. (Rogue Audio Metis) The beauty of tubes is that you can change and manipulate sound readily and easily by simply swapping some tubes. I've begun developing an album guide labeling which tube pairs sound better for a given album I own. For the most part solid state equipment is well . . . solid . . . with few options to truly control the music (unless you add, subtract or change a component somewhere in the line.) Tube sound exists, some SS equipments may sound similar, but only Tubes let you make the sound your own.

Early B.

cfrizz wrote: »

In that case, it is no longer sounding the way that it was supposedly recorded. How many times have I read on here that this was the purpose of the equipment? To get it to sound as close to originally recorded?

Well if you are swapping tubes around to get it to sound how YOU want it to sound, then you are defeating the purpose. You want to be the engineer in the booth making up the sound.

Exactly.

hearingimpared

285exp wrote: »

"Tube sound" is often masked by other sources of distortion. Even premium cables are often undershielded. When I bought the last Dixie Chicks CD, I was shocked at how shrill and harpy-like they sounded. I made a little tent of aluminum foil to place over the interconnects, and there was an audible decrease in shrillness. Natalie Maines' voice still sounded a bit fat though.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

madmax

cfrizz wrote: »

In that case, it is no longer sounding the way that it was supposedly recorded.

We know we want it to sound like it was meant to sound by the recording engineer. Often we don't know exactly what it SHOULD sound like but we do know what it SHOULD NOT sound like. For example if it is way too bright or dull in our system we can figure that out and adjust for it. Also if it is thin or any other number of parameters we can figure those out as well.

hearingimpared

cfrizz wrote: »

In that case, it is no longer sounding the way that it was supposedly recorded. How many times have I read on here that this was the purpose of the equipment? To get it to sound as close to originally recorded?

Well if you are swapping tubes around to get it to sound how YOU want it to sound, then you are defeating the purpose. You want to be the engineer in the booth making up the sound.

As much as I love the challenge of reproducing the source as acurately as possible, I do find myself at times wishing I could boost or shape a sound in the music to suit my tastes. The problem is that when doing something like, for instance, boosting the bass sound, you tend to loose the REAL bass sound such as the groooowwwwwlllll or the slam, what you may end up with is louder bloated bass rather than the REAL bass sound. This is why I don't do tone controls or equalizers in my rig. When I find myself wishing I remember how great the trombones in Wagners, Ride of the Valkrye (sp) from Sheffield sounds it just brings me back to the reality that my rig is reproducing what is on the source and that is really all I want.

SolidSqual

As much as I respect and admire the words of a Polk Expert (really, honestly, no youthful sarcasm), I am nonetheless compelled to disagree with your founding premise. The long-standing tenant that the ultimate goal of any system should be to faithfully replicate the intentions of the original recording, merely defines a particular audiophile philosophy. I find this philosophy contradictory and inherently self-defeating. You can find endless accounts of audiophiles on this forum trying to recreate that which they have never heard.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument. Your premise suggests you know what that true recording sounds like. Were you there when the recording was produced? Is your listening room of the same dimensions and materials as the room where the recording took place? Do you share the exact same climate and equipment present when the singer sang her first note? The variables are endless. Many people in this forum appear almost masochistic in the level of futility they choose to exercise.

I like most people share almost no similarities with the engineers who record music, so what point is there to try and replicate it?

It’s all about faith my friend. If the music stirs my emotions and plays on my soul, then I think I’ve faithfully captured the intentions of both the engineers and musicians. It’s all about the music.

cfrizz wrote: »

In that case, it is no longer sounding the way that it was supposedly recorded. How many times have I read on here that this was the purpose of the equipment? To get it to sound as close to originally recorded?

Well if you are swapping tubes around to get it to sound how YOU want it to sound, then you are defeating the purpose. You want to be the engineer in the booth making up the sound.

zombie boy 2000

Excellent post Solid....
and one I'll stand behind point for point.

Though hopefully I believe we are ultimately all rowing the same boat. Very few (if any) of us treat this hobby as nothing more than a prolonged science experiment -- as musical satisfaction is the ultimate goal.

SolidSqual

Let me also say, I know this guy. I won't mention any names. But, he is a freak. A true audio ****. He has the aboslute best stereosound I have ever heard! Unfortunately, he is also divorced and shares an agreement with his wife's attorney that stipulates he can't buy any audio equipment before her alimony check each month.

mhardy6647

Listen? To sex?

What, you've never heard of aural sex?

When I bought the last Dixie Chicks CD, I was shocked at how shrill and harpy-like they sounded. I made a little tent of aluminum foil to place over the interconnects, and there was an audible decrease in shrillness. Natalie Maines' voice still sounded a bit fat though.

Yeah, I know what you mean... on my system, their CD's are always a little unbalanced -- shifted to the left.

;-)

Frank Z

mhardy6647 wrote: »

What, you've never heard of aural sex?




;-)

Yeah, you can get Hearing AIDS from listening to dirty ****.:eek:

SolidSqual

Ohh haha, now I get it AIDS, dirty **** . . . sorry mind is fried from work. Good one.

reeltrouble1

I believe in truth for recordings. My reference is live performance, meaning how well do all the parts of the system reproduce the sound of a live performance. Of course this means you have to go live performances so you have a reference of what the instruments are supposed to sound like. Further, each artist can play an insturment differently, however, they are close enough in timbre to know what they sound like. A really poor system will not even distinguish well between different instruments. In my world the recording is just a part of the overall system, afterall, it is my world.

RT1

madmax

In the end a neutral system is where you want to end up. How can you tell what was intended? Tweak one recording until it sounds its best and most realistic. How can you tell your system is neutral? Tweak 100 recordings until each one sounds within tolerance of what it should be without changing anything. What if its still too far off? There is something wrong with your acoustics or your system.
madmax

pearsall001

John K. wrote: »

EB, there can be a "tube sound", and as some of the previous replies have mentioned it can result from the higher amount of second harmonic distortion in some tube designs together with a high output impedance causing a less flat frequency response. There can, however, be tube designs which are competitive in quality with solid state equipment and achieve their high fidelity , and as a result don't have a "tube sound". One of the classic examples is the well-designed $12,000 pair of tube amps which were indistinguishable from the $220 Pioneer receiver in the Stereo Review amplifier blind listening tests , which still stand unchallenged by solid evidence to the contrary.

Looks like someone from Audioholics is invading our ranks. Lets not open up this can of worms again!!

Early B.

SolidSqual wrote: »

As much as I respect and admire the words of a Polk Expert (really, honestly, no youthful sarcasm), I am nonetheless compelled to disagree with your founding premise. The long-standing tenant that the ultimate goal of any system should be to faithfully replicate the intentions of the original recording, merely defines a particular audiophile philosophy. I find this philosophy contradictory and inherently self-defeating. You can find endless accounts of audiophiles on this forum trying to recreate that which they have never heard.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument. Your premise suggests you know what that true recording sounds like. Were you there when the recording was produced? Is your listening room of the same dimensions and materials as the room where the recording took place? Do you share the exact same climate and equipment present when the singer sang her first note? The variables are endless. Many people in this forum appear almost masochistic in the level of futility they choose to exercise.

I like most people share almost no similarities with the engineers who record music, so what point is there to try and replicate it?

It’s all about faith my friend. If the music stirs my emotions and plays on my soul, then I think I’ve faithfully captured the intentions of both the engineers and musicians. It’s all about the music.

Faithfully reproducing the sound of real music as much as possible is the main goal of an audiophile. We want to hear the sound of real instruments within the limitations of our environment, budget, speaker position, etc. That's why we constantly tweak, buy new components, change out interconnects, etc.

Faithful reproduction is when a cymbal sounds like a cymbal, when a kick drum sounds like a kick drum, etc., and when all of the parts come together to form a cohesive whole. In order to do that, we don't have to be in the recording room along with the engineer and musicians to understand their intent. Most musicians aren't audiophiles, and many of them wouldn't know good music if it kicked them in the stomach!:eek:

Here's an analogy -- do you have to be on the movie set to understand the intentions of the writer and director? Of course not. And if you study the art of directing and script writing, you probably could find flaws in movies. And as in audio, if you could change out a tube or interconnect to make some of the scenes better, you would do that.

cfrizz

Fair enough. One point though, it is NOT MY founding premise. It is simply what I have heard people say over & over & over again.

Me, I just sit back and listen to music that I enjoy. I don't analyze it to within an inch of its life, or change this that & the other, or tweak it to death. I simply sit back & enjoy!:D

SolidSqual wrote: »

As much as I respect and admire the words of a Polk Expert (really, honestly, no youthful sarcasm), I am nonetheless compelled to disagree with your founding premise. The long-standing tenant that the ultimate goal of any system should be to faithfully replicate the intentions of the original recording, merely defines a particular audiophile philosophy. I find this philosophy contradictory and inherently self-defeating. You can find endless accounts of audiophiles on this forum trying to recreate that which they have never heard.

Therein lies the flaw in your argument. Your premise suggests you know what that true recording sounds like. Were you there when the recording was produced? Is your listening room of the same dimensions and materials as the room where the recording took place? Do you share the exact same climate and equipment present when the singer sang her first note? The variables are endless. Many people in this forum appear almost masochistic in the level of futility they choose to exercise.

I like most people share almost no similarities with the engineers who record music, so what point is there to try and replicate it?

It’s all about faith my friend. If the music stirs my emotions and plays on my soul, then I think I’ve faithfully captured the intentions of both the engineers and musicians. It’s all about the music.

tonyb

Very well put girlfriend...:) ...Too much time tweeking,not enough enjoying.

SolidSqual

Early B. I really appreciate your post. I agree that an audiophile should pursue realism, but realism is subjective. Your post was quite thought provoking. . . nonetheless; I'm going to disagree with you.

You are assuming instruments of a given kind have one sound. The same instrument, be it a cymbal or a kick drum may exhibit significant differences depending upon the metal from which they are crafted, the skins with which they are stretched, or even the grain of the tree from which they are struck. For that matter, even the musician leaves a unique sonic affect upon the sound created. The voice of any instrument responds differently in, thereby changing with, the venue in which it is played. Each unique instrument, combined with the reflected sound of the acoustic space in which it is played, exhibits a distinct voice in every different space in which its voice is excited into play. So how can you claim a cymbal has one voice? Your argument reminds me of the global warming debate; essentially your argument falls apart unless there is a consensus.

I believe in the end the listener is still the final arbiter who decides how a cymbal should sound. It is a reflection of how your ear interprets its voice.

“Faithful reproduction is when a cymbal sounds like a cymbal,” I agree, but you can never capture all the voices a cymbal may have in one tweak. Do not try and make a cymbal out of an “Lsi15”. That’s impossible. Instead realize the Lsi15 is just wires, rubber and wood, then you'll see, that it is not the speaker that allows you to hear a perfect note, only your idea of what that sound is.

Early B. wrote: »

Faithfully reproducing the sound of real music as much as possible is the main goal of an audiophile. We want to hear the sound of real instruments within the limitations of our environment, budget, speaker position, etc. That's why we constantly tweak, buy new components, change out interconnects, etc.

Faithful reproduction is when a cymbal sounds like a cymbal, when a kick drum sounds like a kick drum, etc., and when all of the parts come together to form a cohesive whole. In order to do that, we don't have to be in the recording room along with the engineer and musicians to understand their intent. Most musicians aren't audiophiles, and many of them wouldn't know good music if it kicked them in the stomach!:eek:

Here's an analogy -- do you have to be on the movie set to understand the intentions of the writer and director? Of course not. And if you study the art of directing and script writing, you probably could find flaws in movies. And as in audio, if you could change out a tube or interconnect to make some of the scenes better, you would do that.

hearingimpared

SolidSqual wrote: »

Early B. I really appreciate your post. I agree that an audiophile should pursue realism, but realism is subjective. Your post was quite thought provoking. . . nonetheless; I'm going to disagree with you.

You are assuming instruments of a given kind have one sound. The same instrument, be it a cymbal or a kick drum may exhibit significant differences depending upon the metal from which they are crafted, the skins with which they are stretched, or even the grain of the tree from which they are struck. For that matter, even the musician leaves a unique sonic affect upon the sound created. The voice of any instrument responds differently in, thereby changing with, the venue in which it is played. Each unique instrument, combined with the reflected sound of the acoustic space in which it is played, exhibits a distinct voice in every different space in which its voice is excited into play. So how can you claim a cymbal has one voice? Your argument reminds me of the global warming debate; essentially your argument falls apart unless there is a consensus.

I believe in the end the listener is still the final arbiter who decides how a cymbal should sound. It is a reflection of how your ear interprets its voice.

“Faithful reproduction is when a cymbal sounds like a cymbal,” I agree, but you can never capture all the voices a cymbal may have in one tweak. Do not try and make a cymbal out of an “Lsi15”. That’s impossible. Instead realize the Lsi15 is just wires, rubber and wood, then you'll see, that it is not the speaker that allows you to hear a perfect note, only your idea of what that sound is.

As I said in my earlier thread, when I think things are off in my system, I get out my reference recordings and listen to the instruments that I am familiar with, if they are on, then my system is reproducing the source and that's all I need to sit back and enjoy what I have.

As far as a cymbal sounding like a cymbal and all the other stuff. . . I've heard enough live unamplified music in my life to appreciate that NOTHING but sitting in front of the band is going to sound like sitting in front of a band, period. I still want my rig to reproduce the original source as closely as possible and know ways to make it do that and madmax phrased it perfectly. I know what I like and I'll do what I must to get it. It doesn't matter whether I was in the recording studio when the engineer did his work.

Besides if I hit audio nirvana last year, this past year would have been a big boring year, get my drift???

cfrizz

YUP!:D

tonyb wrote: »

Very well put girlfriend...:) ...Too much time tweeking,not enough enjoying.

RuSsMaN

Classic Club Polk over-thinking.

Cheers,
Russ

TroyD

If you like it and it sounds good to you.....does anything else really matter?

It would appear some folks are trying to nail down absolutes in a VERY subjective hobby.

BDT

SolidSqual

Thank you Troy. That's all I am saying. UNCLE!!!

candyliquor35m

You can cheat and just play analog (tape, vinyl).