A good article about the human ear and tubes (1 Viewer)

[Chu Gai]

Gee Brian, I didn't think it was my responsibility and job to start pointing all the alternatives. You have the ability, as do all of us, to run a google search on "phono tube preamp". That didn't seem like such a difficult task to undertake.

Hey Yogi, I'm not about to take the word of someone who's making a claim that flies in the face of what's known and has been replicated. 0.003 dB level differences are inaudible and that suggests their work was sloppy, known biases were introduced and not compensated for, their lying...the list goes on. It's the same when careful research established jitter levels at "X nanoseconds" and the boys over at StereoPhile say...nope, I can hear "Y picoseconds". While RIchard or myself could point to papers that establish thresholds of audibility with level differnces, you could consider contacting your choice of one of many universities that give degreed programs and simply call one of the professors. Most in fact, have their emails posted. I mean, why take my word? Ask one university, ask a half dozen.

Yogi, you ought to know, and I think you do, that I don't question your preferences. Your post was directed about a particular link. I pointed out one error. There are others. The problem for me, is if the errors don't get corrected, they propagate like roaches. To this day we've got people claiming they can make perpetual motion machines, that there are "N-Ray", and so forth.

As far as my interest in tubes, I happen to be quite fond of old tube radios...the floor standing types...about 4 feet tall...AM/FM/SW...brings back memories.

 

[Yogi]

The problem for me, is if the errors don't get corrected, they propagate like roaches.

Well I am pretty sure these roaches will stay in the homes of people like me that bask in tube glory and will never reach the homes of others like you and Richard.

Also I never question the results of DBTs in audio (I ignore them completely) that is if AmpX has a different sound from AmpY or if CapacitorX sounds different from CapacitorY. I never fear that the methodology will start influencing people and propagate like roaches. I have yet to see any real scientific testing of DBT in audio. Has anyone really done any statistical hypothesis testing? Established a confidence interval? or a significance level for these kinds of tests? For me they are completely Dumb Bogus Tests (DBTs) until someone can answer these questions. So what I am saying, Chu, is stop being so paranoid about things being propagated. As you and me well know it is very hard and almost impossible to change people's biases. Just as the guy believing in tube sound will never change his prejudices so will the guy believing in pro-audio sound never will change his. C'mon Chu you of all the people should know a thing or two about changing people's prejudices. So dont worry about something that will not happen and enjoy what ever it is that you enjoy. Beer drinking perhaps? How bout you post some good pictures of beer waitresses with or without beer in their trays and we call it a day.

Peace.

 

[Yogi]

I am product all evidince now you with test, sure cah subjectivt expiriment make need claim,,

Richard, I just realized but are you making fun of someone in this statement?

 

[RichardHOS]

Nah, just trying to respond in a manner consistent with a zero IQ, though I suppose even knowing a response was needed blows that whole attempt out of the water.

 

[Yogi]

Nah, just trying to respond in a manner consistent with a zero IQ, though I suppose even knowing a response was needed blows that whole attempt out of the water.

Now that's really low, even for you Richard, to make fun of someone's language. and of course a response was needed for making such bold scientifically unsubstantiated claims.

 

[RichardHOS]

In response to:

and of course a response was needed for making such bold scientifically unsubstantiated claims.

In your dreams.

 

[AaronBatiuk]

...with a very skeptical eye that I look at his claim of 3 millibels or 0.003dB

Careful, 0.2 dB (deciBels) is actually 20 milliBels (mB if you wish), and 3 millibels is 0.03 dB. You are off by an full order of magnitude.

1 Bel = 10 dB (deciBel) = 100 cB (centiBel) = 1000 mB (milliBel).

 

[Chu Gai]

I stand corrected!! however the author is still making a ridiculous claim.

Ummmmm...i got in twuble the last time i posted pics :frowning: However, if you're interested in some links that deal with statistical analysis of capacitor audibility claims, I might be able to dig some up.

 

[Greg_R]

Is anyone claiming that tubes are accurate? This is quickly disproved by measurements (they clearly alter the frequency response of the system). Do they provide a pleasurable listening experience? For some people they do.

A more interesting paper might report on why listeners prefer an inaccurate system (i.e. X increase in a certain frequency band causes a certain brain response, etc.).

 

[Yogi]

Is anyone claiming that tubes are accurate?

Not at all. I have maintained time and again that for me tubes put the soul back into music and accuracy be damned. Life is too short to worry about something as trivial as accuracy in music.

Chu yes I would be interested in statistical analysis of cap audibility claims. You can send that in PM if you dont want to here.

Richard, I am not sure what the point was in your last post. I just wanted evidence of validated scientific experiments conducted to prove that someone could drop IQ by reading something. I dont know what were you trying to say.

 

[Chu Gai]

don menshun eet

 

[alan halvorson]

Yogi: How does an engineer go about designing in "soul"? The "soul" is in the recording. It will come through on my cheap junk car radio, my mother's boombox, but it comes through best on my very accurate and tubeless main system. That's the one with enough power so that I don't have to worry about overdriving anything.

You realize that in arguing for a distorted representation of an input makes your opinion of that input worthless.

 

[RichardHOS]

Richard, I am not sure what the point was in your last post. I just wanted evidence of validated scientific experiments conducted to prove that someone could drop IQ by reading something. I dont know what were you trying to say.

Hmm... the joke got lost somewhere. My initial statement about IQ dropping was obviously tounge in cheek. I never intended to offer evidence - you joked about my IQ being zero now, and I responded with a post as if that might be true. Bad joke I suppose... ??

 

[Brett DiMichele]

GregR,

Is anyone claiming Tubes are accurate? We aren't... But if
Lee Scoggins steps in, He will....

Rich hey be why you picking some on peopeles english?

 

[Chu Gai]

Reminds of the ebonics scene on 'Airplane'. How're those speakers coming out Brett?

 

[Brett DiMichele]

Hey Chu,

John Janowitz from Stryke is doing all of the design work
and measurements.. Right now he is in the measuring stage
and is encountering some issues (as to be expected) that
will need to be addressed with the XO Design.. They are
Close to done.. Once he is done and I see the measurements
are acceptable to me I just need to send over the truck load
of money for the 300 pounds worth of drivers and CNC Routed
Baffels

 

[Yogi]

How does an engineer go about designing in "soul"?

By putting in as much second order harmonics into the signal as possible

All jokes aside, I meant that tubes make my music more involving. I am listening to light jazz and vocals most of the time and the relatively simple instrument layout in jazz and the human vocals come out sounding alive with tubes. It could be the midband bloom or the even harmonics that do it. I never argued that tubes are more accurate by any means. If your car radio makes your music involving then perhaps you should junk your tubeless system at home and go listen to music in the car. What ever floats your boat Alan.

Also you claim about accuracy of your system when your speakers/room acoustics are the most inaccurate link in the reproduction chain. They are distorting the orignal recording more than any of my tube gear is doing. So I dont understand why we are arguing about accuracy. Does your system have the same FR as the recording system? The same phase response? A mic is a point receiver but is your speaker a point source? Does your room have the same acoustics as the recording room? Then tell me what is your point?

Again, life is too short to worry about trivial things and musical accuracy just like truth is just a perspective.

I rest my (invalid and distorted)case

 

[Chu Gai]

Let's have a pitcher or two shall we?

 

[Yogi]

Yes Chu the pitcher with wings sounds good. Too bad there isn't a waitress to serve em. Hey Chu thanks for the various links. Quite interesting. Still going through some of them. Thanks again.

 

[Chu Gai]

I didn't want all of them to be one sided Yogi, so a couple of those links as you see, did have some rock-em sock-em to and fro. Myself, I like it when it's not too sanitized.