Tube Vs. Solid State (1 Viewer)

[Lee Scoggins]

Of course if a studio chooses not to support DSD they don't have to incur the costs, and can deliver comparable product sonically without retooling their entire infrastructure.

I'm not so sure in the long run, because if Super Audio becomes the archiving standard, PCM-only studios are at a decided disadvantage.

 

[mike_decock]

record labels like Telarc, Chesky, Blue Note (soon!), APO, FIM, Groove Note, Universal, EMI

And they could just as easily make it impossible for these companies to use their patented technology simply by making the royalties prohibitively expensive.

It's simply a dangerous thing when any company assumes a monopolistic position over too many aspects of an industry. Look at Microsoft. One of the big reasons IT spending is down (which hurts an ENORMOUS amount of people) is because Microsoft redefined their licensing structure to be prohibitively expensive. When your Microsoft bill goes up by 100% to 300% and you have no choice to pay, you gotta cut other parts of the budget (which usually means jobs).

Anyway... We're way off topic so I'll try to leave it at that...

-Mike...

 

[mike_decock]

Brent,

I've been really fascinated by your posts. I'm becoming more and more interested in designing audio equipment. I did a few semesters of Electrical Engineering after which I got an Associates degree in Electronics (couldn't afford the University track).

I got diverted into doing IT work for several years but it's not where my heart is. First and foremost I'm a music lover but I also love electronics in general. Would you be willing to give me a few pointers on how to get started in the industry?

Thanks,

-Mike...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

It's simply a dangerous thing when any company assumes a monopolistic position over too many aspects of an industry. Look at Microsoft. One of the big reasons IT spending is down (which hurts an ENORMOUS amount of people) is because Microsoft redefined their licensing structure to be prohibitively expensive.

Mike, trying to blame Microsoft for the IT spending slowdown is simply ridiculous. This is due to all sorts of factors. Microsoft may behave badly in many ways, but it did not cause the general slump in IT spending. That was the result of a changing economic cycle, a difficult credit cycle which is making it harder to get expansion capital, a burst IPO bubble which is choking off private equity investment, etc.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

How convenient of you to overlook a major detail... namely that there are no royalty payouts to utilize PCM. Royalty payouts goto Meridian if the recording utilizes MLP, to Verance if the recording utilizes watermarking. I don't recall who gets royalty payments for CPPM, still the royalty is only payable if the recording uses CPPM.

John,
This make no sense. It seems like you are saying we should discriminate against patent holders because they will add cost whereas the expired(almost?) PCM patent does not add cost. That is patently unAmerican. People need to get credit and make profit from patents in order for their to be additional incentive for inventions and other technology advancement.
Why should Meridian get royalties and not Sony & Philips? becuase you like DVDA?
Clarify this a bit for us. It makes no real argument.

 

[mike_decock]

Mike, trying to blame Microsoft for the IT spending slowdown is simply ridiculous. This is due to all sorts of factors.

I'm not blaming Microsoft for the slowdown, but they are contributing to it. I have spoken to different IT Directors who have stated explicitly that the increased cost for MSFT licensing is forcing them to cut corners elsewhere.
Enough already... We just see things from different perspectives... There's nothing wrong with that but this isn't the proper thread in which to discuss them.
-Mike...

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I have spoken to different IT Directors who have stated explicitly that the increased cost for MSFT licensing is forcing them to cut corners elsewhere.

I have heard this as well but it makes me think that even more pressure to develop competing products like what Sun has tried to do will be in place. I can see how Lindows might take off in some fashion as an OS.
I guess I'm a bit sensitive to this topic because I run a software company and see almost every day how competitive the business is. I also hear a lot of the conventional wisdom about Microsoft without less than a fair helping of analytical content. Sort of content-lite, populist tirade at times.
Anyway, I really enjoyed listening to my tube amp today. I can't wait to hear how transparent and liquid the midrange of the new Stones albums will be.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

This make no sense. It seems like you are saying we should discriminate against patent holders because they will add cost whereas the expired(almost?) PCM patent does not add cost. That is patently unAmerican. People need to get credit and make profit from patents in order for their to be additional incentive for inventions and other technology advancement.

Why should Meridian get royalties and not Sony & Philips? becuase you like DVDA?

Clarify this a bit for us. It makes no real argument.

PCM requires no royalties in and of itself. DSD does.
Redbook CD requires royalties, but those royalties have nothing to do with PCM. They have to do with content delivery. Surely a business strategy consultant such as yourself understands this distinction.

DVD-Audio royalties are not mandatory. If you choose not to use MLP, you're welcome to do so. It impedes your ability to deliver high bit rate multi-channel content but you can do this. CPPM, also is not mandatory. Verance watermarking is on a pay by the minute model, which means no watermarking no bill.

I outlined earlier where the royalties were for SACD, but I think I left off DST compression. I don't know what royalties are required for that, nor do I know what the royalties are for both PSP and visible watermarking are.

It has nothing to do with denying patent holders their rightful earnings. It's a matter of how much the royalties costs are for the various formats.

More royalties means other (A) lower profits for record labels if prices remain constant, which would reduce the amount of available content or (B) higher prices to maintain gross profit margin.

I have not addressed physical manufacturing costs over time. Realistically there will be a decrease in manufacturing costs for both formats as the product matures.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

I guess I'm a bit sensitive to this topic because I run a software company and see almost every day how competitive the business is. I also hear a lot of the conventional wisdom about Microsoft without less than a fair helping of analytical content. Sort of content-lite, populist tirade at times.

Please talk to me about the competition in these areas of the PC software business:
(1) Operating Systems
(2) Office Suites
(3) Web Browsers

That aside, my critiques of Microsoft are not populist. If you'd like to talk about them outside the context of this thread I'd be delighted to discuss the obstacles faced in large scale automation of server installations.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Please talk to me about the competition in these areas of the PC software business

There is competition in all of these areas as Sun has introduced an albeit crappy Office-like Suite and Lindows is getting some traction. A lot can happen in a year or two. And if people are upset enough about the new license arrangements, they will vote with their wallet and head elsewhere.

In the meantime, I use XP and Office XP and love it. It never crashes and all things considered reasonably priced.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

MLP is not required for Stereo PCM data up to 24bit/192k, or surround up to 24bit/48K. With 24/192K you have playback time limitations (somewhere around 70 minutes).

So if you wanted stereo only, 24/192K, no Verance, no CPPM, no MLP you wouldn't have royalties.

So, talk to me again about the argument.

Fine, but I trust the market to determine the costs better than someone biased against Sony/Philips like your self. If Super Audio drags in acceptance, Sony has the freedom to lower or eliminate royalties altogether. In the meantime, I can't blame them for recouping their investment as the format does well. I am sure the margins will skinny up as volume increases in any event and prices per disk come down.

Why? If SACD becomes the solution of choice, which you've already proclaimed it to be, there is no incentive to lower royalties.

Ahh, so we should just take all the SACD stuff as gospel from you or anyone else, because you're biased in their favor.

With respect to Sun's releasing an "Office-Like" Suite, it's called Star Office, they've had it for several years, it's been available for a few years before Sun owned it. It is not new by any stretch of the imagination.

Lindows has compatibility issues to be worked through. They might have a big legal tangle as well, and we know that Microsoft has the cash to afford really good legal counsel.

With respect to XP, it's a decent product, and better than its predecessors. My professional interest is not on the consumer side of things, which is where I devote the bulk of my "Computer Time" in terms of developing skills and solutions.

The new licensing scheme is an example of a company abusing its monopolistic market position.

Regards,

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So if you wanted stereo only, 24/192K, no Verance, no CPPM, no MLP you wouldn't have royalties.

Some fairly big exclusions here...
Why not let Sony and Philips control more of the stream? They invented this cool technology that is taking music to a higher level. Maybe their getting rich on it will prompt an even better format from the next group of companies and scientists. To complain about Sony and Philips making a nice crisp strategic move into a new area and getting paid for it just seems to me to be an argument for Sony and Philips shareholder value.
I think it is slightly similar to the upgrade path that many are on from VHS to DVD. You have to get new product but you get a whole new level of visual and sonic results, just like with Super Audio. Everyone makes money on the extra purchases and the royaltees ultimately get invested into product extensions and new technology. It is like a virtuous cycle that is continually improving our standard of consumer electronics. If DSD or DVDA take off, we will have much better recordings as music lovers as the sampling rate of redbook now sucks by everyone's definition.
And I really don't believe people like MP3 and its lossy compression. It doesn't sound like music but it is a convenient format for low bandwidth web downloads, but even that will change over time. And the labels have to make some money or else we will all just wind up listening to Eminem and Mariah Carey for newcomers won't get funded, or get funded a lot less. I am not saying the labels are without blame, they generally suck, but they have to earn some money or the economics will be detrimental to new artist development.
Perhaps the difficult copy nature of DSD will give labels a respite to figure out a better business model.

 

[Howard_S]

So for the consumer who doesn't want to understand the specifics would you actually buy tube amps to power your HT? Who actually has tube amps powering their HT?

 

[mike_decock]

would you actually buy tube amps to power your HT?

I would. When funds allow, I'll build myself a 5x8W tube power amp and a set of good speakers.

-Mike...

 

[Scott Oliver]

I have tubes powering my HT, that Art Audio mentioned earlier, of course it is only a 2.1 HT system but it works wonderfully.
Mike we should of popped in a DVD while you were over here.
Have you put your Wave-8's into your HT system before?
Howard personally for me when the day comes that I go back to a 5.1 system, I will probably stick with solidstate for the other three channels just because it is easier to mess with and I want stick all HT stuff in a closet somewhere, but I am tube for life in the front 2.

 

[mike_decock]

Mike we should of popped in a DVD while you were over here.
Have you put your Wave-8's into your HT system before?

I didn't even think of that. Maybe we were enjoying the music too much .
I briefly had the Wave-8s hooked up with my 2.0 HT (Is that proper HT-speak for 2 channels with NO sub?). It didn't sound terribly different from running it through the Cambridge integrated but I think the dialogue was a little easier to follow at lower levels.
-Mike...

 

[Yogi]

I want to use a tube pre for the front L/R but thats about how much tube I would put in my HT. Maybe if I can find a one channel tube pre I would also use it for center channel for natural sounding vocals. But I would still use SS amplification all around.

 

[mike_decock]

Maybe if I can find a one channel tube pre I would also use it for center channel for natural sounding vocals.

You could always pick up a bridgable two channel amp.

-Mike...

 

[Larry B]

Remember patents expire in 17 years and technology moves very fast

Whereas U.S. Patents used to expire 17 years after their date of issuance, under the new law (enacted ca. 1995) they now expire 20 years after their filing date.

Larry

 

[Manuel Delaflor]

Yesterday I witnessed what all the buzz about Tube amplifiers is, I went to the only Hi-End Manufacturer in my country and fall in love with his equipments. I spent almost three hours listening and talking with the owner and designer, Julian Margules.
Margules Audio
The equipment I listened was the lovely U280-SC amplifier and SF220 preamplifier, the ACRH-1 Hybrid Integrated, the "black box" ADE-24, and their Orpheus speakers.
First a bit of history. I have Klipsch Heritage Heresy speakers, the first model with the same drivers for mids and highs than the Klipschorns, and I drive them with an old SS Technics pure class A amplifier. Now, I certainly love my gear, but yesterday I found that his non horn speakers can sound as great as my old horns both in micro and macro-dynamics! Of course this fact leave wondering why.
His answer: The amplifiers. The Tubes and their "magic".
He also have a fairly good SS Harman Kardon amplifier in order to make quick comparisons. After listening to the U280-SC for a while he connected the HK and all the magic was gone! The sound-stage was greatly reduced, the intimacy of the violins and human voices was gone, generally speaking the sound was less pleasant and in particular the bass of the contrabass and the cello was a complete mess, I couldn't hear the detailed resonance of the intruments anymore. It was a revelation.
Then he connected another amplifier, this time his Hybrid design the ACRH-1 and the magic came back (this integrated uses tube preamplifiers and SS amplifiers), the detail this gear is able to draw is comparable to the one I listened from the U280-SC, far away from the ugly sound of the pure SS HK, and its price is really really good comparing it to the price of the U280-SC and the SF220 (no wonder why this will be my next acquisition).
Yesterday I fall in love. Im convinced now. No matter how well the SS's can measure, no matter how convincing is the speech behind them (about the "accuracy" or whatever else comes to your minds), the sound they can make is far away from the richness and completeness of Tube amplifiers.
If you are an SS lover don't believe me. Try for yourself. You might be surprised by what you find.
Oh, I almost forgot. If you are one of the guys who feels that CD sound is awful compared to the vinyl, you need to listen again, this time using the Margules ADE-24. This little box really do miracles to the cold sound of CD's.