LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2007

ARSCLIST July 2007

Subject:

Re: Is The Record Shop Dead?

From:

"Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 2 Jul 2007 00:04:03 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

see [eventual :-)] end...
----- Original Message ----- 
> There's all sorts of mythology and BS about home hifi (presumably)
amplification. The big
> misinformation is broadcast by dubious claims of manufacturers peddling
super-priced stuff to the
> audiophool crowd, and the accompanying mags.
>
> The goal of a home audio amp should be NEUTRALITY. It should take source
material, from preamps or
> direct from sources like tuners, CD players and phono preamps, and amplify it
by several orders of
> magnitude so as to drive mechanical devices (speakers) to move air and thus
produce sound waves. The
> speakers themselves are actually the biggest sound-alterers in most systems,
interacting with the
> room and themselves to produce all sorts of effects. Some go to great lengths
to minimize these
> various distortions and effects, some choose closer-in monitoring, some listen
on headphones, some
> find a very pleasing match of room acoustics and a favorite pair of speakers.
>
> Now, when you get into the amplifier itself, I don't think some sort of frothy
"tubes vs.
> transistors" argument is even worth addressing. What is worth addressing is
what sorts of
> distortions and sound-alterations are likely under what circumstances. Most
but not all tube amps
> are of lesser watts into a given ohms of power than comparably-priced/built
solid-state amps. Most
> but not all tube amps use an output transformer between the output stage and
the speaker. The
> transformers can and do produce distortions, and peak-overdriving the tubes
can and do produce
> distortions. Tube distortion is generally in "musical" harmonics and can
sometimes manifest as a
> "warm" fuzz around an instrument's fundamental sound. Some people find this
very desireable, indeed
> many electric guitarists I know love it and force their amps into overdrive -- 
sometimes different
> overdrive levels in the first stage vs. the output stage and other stages
in-between -- and most
> "classic" electric guitar riffs and songs are fraught with what is mostly
classic tube overdrive
> distortion (and also "barking" speakers and overloaded output transformers,
and some even like and
> seek out power supply sagging). In the home hifi environment, I would submit
that accuracy is
> preferable but there are guys much richer than me proving me wrong with amps
designed to produce
> that "warm" fuzz for other guys richer than me willing to shell out mega-bucks
to hear it.
>
> With solid-state amps, first of all, an early bad reputation developed from
early bad designs. By
> the "golden age" of hifi, tube amps had undergone steady improvement and
development since the
> 1920's, ie about 30 years. Solid-state gear in the mid-60's was fraught with
bad designs (trying to
> copy tube topology for active devices that did not behave like tubes, for
example), infant
> technology (noise-prone and thermal-problem-prone transistors, for example),
and over-marketing
> (looking back on early solid-state advertising, there were some pretty hefty
claims made for pretty
> feeble equipment). As with tubes, things improved with time and I would submit
that there are many
> superb examples of solid-state amps on the market now and have been many good
choices for the past
> 20 years or more. The devices improved, new and better circuits were
discovered and since
> transistors are cheap and transistor overload distortion is just plain ugly to
most ears, output
> power overkill has been the norm (basic philosophy -- make it have such
available peak power as to
> never show the ugly clipping side of transistor power/distortion curves).
Things like rise-time and
> transient distortions were addressed with more modern designs and solid-state
devices.  Also,
> reputable modern amps have good fail-safe circuits to prevent burning up
speakers when a device
> blows up. The latest wrinkle is Class D amps, but I've never tried them and
don't fully understand
> them so I don't want to comment.
>
> In my systems, I have tube amps and transistor amps and I like them all. My
goal in each setup is to
> provide enough available power so as not to get into distortions, and to
provide maximum accuracy.
> The curse of this approach is that many recordings sound pretty darn bad when
cast under an accurate
> light but the blessing is to hear true professionalism at work with no
filtering or hype in the case
> of those rare recordings that just leap out of the speakers and take you to a
place and time. I
> would argue that in a studio environment, accuracy is paramount because you
can't do your job
> correctly if you can't correctly hear the good and bad and know what you have
to do when remedies
> are appropriate.
>
> Finally circling around to Steve's question about dynamic range -- no, tube
amps are not inherently
> able to produce greater dynamic range, but most folks notice when a
solid-state amp is underpowered
> a lot quicker than with a tube amp because transistor clipping/overload sounds
universally horrible
> except perhaps to people who love the harshest sounds produceable on an early
Moog. By the way, most
> factory car stereos are notoriously underpowered and use really cheap power
amp "block" chips, so if
> you want to hear how horrible solid-state overdrive distortion sounds, just
turn up your factory GM
> stereo, for example, especially with highly-compressed FM radio. Obviously
this is more the case
> with my Chevy truck with the stock dashboard radio/CD vs. someone's Caddy with
the deluxo GM/Bose
> system. Back to Steve's question, I would submit that for somewhere +/- $1K
you can get a very good
> 100-150W solid-state amp and maybe a 30W tube amp -- from good but not
hand-built/cult-priced
> manufacturers. I would further argue that the solid-state amp is much more
capable of reproducing
> musical peaks to the power level that your speakers will crap out first vs the
tube amp which may
> run into output-stage overload, output transformer overload or power supply
sagging and thus get
> "warm" in both temperature and distortion -- same volume level, same room,
same level of speaker
> efficiency. Whether or not the listener would find the "warm" more pleasing is
individual taste, but
> the simple fact is that it's not more accurate vs. the dynamic range of the
source material.
>
1) Thanxes muchly for answering my question!

2) As a (VERY) part-time harmonicist, endeavouring to recreate as nearly as
possible the sound of the first generation of electrically-amplified
harmonicists,
I will readily admit to intentionally driving my amps into the distortion
range...
in fact, I intentionally use low-power amps (single-ended if possible) which are
miked into the PA...so that I can reach distortion levels without blowing the
audience into the rear wall! This is, in fact, how I discovered the noticeable
difference between overdriving tube amps and solid-state amps...

3) Agreed...the ideal goal of a "high(est?)-fidelity" system is to reproduce
as nearly as possible the exact sound that was recorded (which, I suspect, is
not possible...especially when the "hi-fi" sound has to interface with our
ears through (electro-magnetic) speakers! I will agree that solid-state gear,
if not intentionally or accidentally overdriven, can produce sound of an
impressive degree of accuracy...I once owned a Heathkit receiver of renown
(forget the model data) which I hooked up to a set of "small Advent" speakers.
The result, which may have missed perfection by a small but identifiable
amount, certainly sounded quite impressive to MY ears! OTOH, my "listening
room was about 10' x 13', with 10'6" ceilings and very little other
furniture...!

4) Also, I suspect the bias toward "vintage tube equipment" is fed to a
certain degree by nostalgia...as well to an additional degree by the "one-
upmanship" inherent in the dominance hierarchy built into Homo Sapiens!
The harsh reality is that most of the "listenership" of this e-list have
reached an age when their hearing has started its inevitable decline
(though probably to the degree of the 78-L folks...?!)...and therefore
any comments in the way of "X sounds better than Y!" must be taken with
a grain of salt (and, in some cases, the specifications of the poster's
hearing aid [s]...!).

5) Finally...I would guess that the majority of the music listeners on
this e-list do NOT own state-of-the-art equipment...and comments can, for
that reason, NOT be accepted as 100% accurate! (Tom, I exempt you from
the above...right?!)...

Steven C. Barr

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager