Bashing...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike said:
All solid state amps sound the same? Huh? I love SET amps too, but I've owned more solid state amps than I can remember and they all sounded different.

FWIW - in the big amp blind shootout I conducted earlier this year, the McIntosh 601's were picked first and everyone swore they were the tube amps. The group thought the tube amps were the D'Agostino amps.

And my Pass XS150's sound more "SET" then my SET amps!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

The caveat from the flat earthers to the above statement is used within normal operating range eg. Not clipping.
 
I was actually really surprised to hear that the Bryston 28BSST² were very similar in sound to my McIntosh 2301's in the same system, same time. As for bashing, people have a right to like whatever they want, the bashers, imo, are less than desirable/intelligent/realistic!
 
Mike said:
All solid state amps sound the same? Huh? I love SET amps too, but I've owned more solid state amps than I can remember and they all sounded different.

FWIW - in the big amp blind shootout I conducted earlier this year, the McIntosh 601's were picked first and everyone swore they were the tube amps. The group thought the tube amps were the D'Agostino amps.

And my Pass XS150's sound more "SET" then my SET amps!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...
I have issues with blind tests - but to be fair - you're not the one supposed to be conducting the test. As a DBT guru would point out - a double blind level matched test should have person A - the person conducting the test who has ZERO contact with anyone who is the subject (the listeners). The volume of the amps are exactly the same. If an amplifier is a hair louder than the other it will be differentiated and often will also be the one deemed better. Music is played where A is say Krell and B is say Mark Levinson and the listener must be able to know when he is listening to the Krell. To date no one has been able to detect which SS amp is being played including guys who have owned the expensive amps for 10 years.

I have various issues with such tests - test stress, brain hemisphere issues, statistical significance etc. Nevertheless - it indicates that differences are not nearly as big as the difference between tube amps and SS amps. Though some tube amps sound very SS in nature and no doubt would also not be detected. Reviewer Martin Colloms (Stereophile's former measuring guru and founder of Monitor Audio) did such a test where he gathered up top SS designers and put in a ringer - a $100 low feedback tube amp. All the SS designers chose the tube amp in blind level matched conditions. You'd think they would be able to detect their own amp at least - none of them could.

I'm not saying you have to trust solely in these test because I do not. Still, there is plenty of bias out there and plenty of people looking to cash in on unsuspecting people. Religion has been doing it forever.
 
Gentlemen, may I add my $0.02?

The whole story depends on how one defines "better". For some, better means more pleasurable. For other, better means more faithful to the recorded event.
If one accepts the first definition there is no winner: some will prefer 3% of second harmonic over 0.001% of fifth (or the other way around), some will prefer a limited bandwidth to harshness (or the other way around) etc.
However, if we stick to the second definition then preferences become moot and there is a clear winning pair: CD & SS. And no, this is not me saying it but mastering engineers.

This is why I always like when someone says "I prefer X to Y" rather than "X is better than Y": the first statement is personal and as such cannot be disproved, the second needs arguments, and if said arguments are just "it sounds better to me" then it's as good as saying "I prefer".
 
iosiP said:
Gentlemen, may I add my $0.02?

The whole story depends on how one defines "better". For some, better means more pleasurable. For other, better means more faithful to the recorded event.
If one accepts the first definition there is no winner: some will prefer 3% of second harmonic over 0.001% of fifth (or the other way around), some will prefer a limited bandwidth to harshness (or the other way around) etc.
However, if we stick to the second definition then preferences become moot and there is a clear winning pair: CD & SS. And no, this is not me saying it but mastering engineers.

This is why I always like when someone says "I prefer X to Y" rather than "X is better than Y": the first statement is personal and as such cannot be disproved, the second needs arguments, and if said arguments are just "it sounds better to me" then it's as good as saying "I prefer".
Click to expand...

And I can give you examples of just as many recording and mastering engineers that disagree.

But what's the point? It's been beaten, no flogged to death ad nauseum.
 
iosiP said:
Gentlemen, may I add my $0.02?

The whole story depends on how one defines "better". For some, better means more pleasurable. For other, better means more faithful to the recorded event.
If one accepts the first definition there is no winner: some will prefer 3% of second harmonic over 0.001% of fifth (or the other way around), some will prefer a limited bandwidth to harshness (or the other way around) etc.
However, if we stick to the second definition then preferences become moot and there is a clear winning pair: CD & SS. And no, this is not me saying it but mastering engineers.

This is why I always like when someone says "I prefer X to Y" rather than "X is better than Y": the first statement is personal and as such cannot be disproved, the second needs arguments, and if said arguments are just "it sounds better to me" then it's as good as saying "I prefer".
Click to expand...

Which is exactly what you are saying when you declared SS and CD "the winner." Just because some mastering engineers say that doesn't mean it's gospel. Better specs doesn't always mean better sound. If better specs did mean better sound, the first CD players would have been perfect as advertised when they were released. Hopefully we all know we have come a long way since those dark digital days. I wrote a long treatise a few years ago on another forum that was titled "It's all a preference." And it is. Whatever you like and think is the 'truth' is your preference.
 
mep said:
Which is exactly what you are saying when you declared SS and CD "the winner." Just because some mastering engineers say that doesn't mean it's gospel. Better specs doesn't always mean better sound. If better specs did mean better sound, the first CD players would have been perfect as advertised when they were released. Hopefully we all know we have come a long way since those dark digital days. I wrote a long treatise a few years ago on another forum that was titled "It's all a preference." And it is. Whatever you like and think is the 'truth' is your preference.
Click to expand...

Whew! Because sometimes I like SET amps and DACS from the 1980s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'd like to know if iosiP has actually ever done listening tests between master tapes and the digital copy? No not preferences but for the differences? I know I'm continually doing them and will be doing 4X DSD vs. the original 15 ips tape. The rest is shoulda, coulda, woulda. Otherwise, we'd still be listening to a Sony CDP101, arguably one of the worst audio components ever produced. Does make one wonder what the engineers at Sony were listening to when they released that abomination.
 
No Myles, I didn't (not possible in my neck of the woods). However, I understand that the inner grooves of an LP cannot handle anything above 15 kHz (or was it 12 kHz?) and that strong bass has to be "centered" during mastering to prevent mistracking. If I am wrong, please correct me... meanwhile I'll try to look for the article stating those (it was posted on a "pro" site).

P.S. I never questioned the master tapes but only the limitations of mechanical tracking on vinyl. Therefore, both your question and the statement about the CDP101 are strawman arguments.
 
Bashing is more basic. People like to bash each other in general, especially in an anonymous environment like web interest forums. It's the ugly truth of human nature. You see it in politics, media, sports...the list goes on.
 
iosiP said:
No Myles, I didn't (not possible in my neck of the woods). However, I understand that the inner grooves of an LP cannot handle anything above 15 kHz (or was it 12 kHz?) and that strong bass has to be "centered" during mastering to prevent mistracking. If I am wrong, please correct me... meanwhile I'll try to look for the article stating those (it was posted on a "pro" site).

P.S. I never questioned the master tapes but only the limitations of mechanical tracking on vinyl. Therefore, both your question and the statement about the CDP101 are strawman arguments.
Click to expand...

No you said:

we stick to the second definition then preferences become moot and there is a clear winning pair: CD & SS. And no, this is not me saying it but mastering engineers.
Click to expand...

And RBCD is what? 22 kHZ?

Not to mention what you said about recording engineers.

And not to mention other papers that discuss the sensitivity and how our ears perceive district. Not all distortion are created equal. I think Ralph Karsten has done a good job summarizing that research ad nauseum..
 
It should be noted that the term Recording or Mastering engineer is a bit of a stretch - these individuals are NOT real engineers as having gone to an intensive mathematics based university 120 credit degree program. I always thought arguments over CD and vinyl were pointless. First it is far more about the recording on each format than the format itself. Even if people concede that the CD format is technically better (or SACD) as a format - that doesn't actually mean the music will sound more real or "better" than the LP. There are plenty of examples where the CD version (perhaps via remastering) sounds much superior to the LP - but plenty of LPs were badly transferred to CD, if they were transferred at all. Therefore, why not buy both formats? Then play the album on whichever medium sounds better. You win either way and then the inane arguments of CD versus vinyl go away.

Vinyl may bring some people a more rewarding listening experience from tertiary factors - which can enhance their experience making it seem very much that vinyl is a lot better. Many things influence perceptions. Vinyl is a more tactile medium and it requires the user to pay more attention to things. Just playing the album requires more effort, there is larger cover art. Owners spend more time taking care of the vinyl, cleaning them tweaking cartridges, perhaps taking a log of how many hours they have put on their stylus, and fidgeting with tone arms, zero-stat guns, cleaning machines, levelers, dusting them, buying special sleeves or mats or clamps etc. The CD player is push the open button, drop cd in, push close or play - and that's it. Computer downloaded music is even less hands on and I would suggest focus the listener less. These may be additive reasons why Vinyl often seems to sound better. One's attention is held more to it.
 
I can honestly say any type of digital does not sound "better" than vinyl. I've owned quite a few dacs, had many more in my system at one time or the other & as of 1 month ago have bought my last cd or digital file. vinyl has everything I am listening for & am absolutely happy with my choice.
 
bzr: That is a matter of "opinion" of course.... I have been down the vinyl road, CDs and Digital downloads, for me its how well the recording is done. So you can honestly say "For You" digital doesn't sound better than vinyl... ;)

Richard: Good post!
 
RichardAusten said:
It should be noted that the term Recording or Mastering engineer is a bit of a stretch - these individuals are NOT real engineers as having gone to an intensive mathematics based university 120 credit degree program. I always thought arguments over CD and vinyl were pointless. First it is far more about the recording on each format than the format itself. Even if people concede that the CD format is technically better (or SACD) as a format - that doesn't actually mean the music will sound more real or "better" than the LP. There are plenty of examples where the CD version (perhaps via remastering) sounds much superior to the LP - but plenty of LPs were badly transferred to CD, if they were transferred at all. Therefore, why not buy both formats? Then play the album on whichever medium sounds better. You win either way and then the inane arguments of CD versus vinyl go away.

Vinyl may bring some people a more rewarding listening experience from tertiary factors - which can enhance their experience making it seem very much that vinyl is a lot better. Many things influence perceptions. Vinyl is a more tactile medium and it requires the user to pay more attention to things. Just playing the album requires more effort, there is larger cover art. Owners spend more time taking care of the vinyl, cleaning them tweaking cartridges, perhaps taking a log of how many hours they have put on their stylus, and fidgeting with tone arms, zero-stat guns, cleaning machines, levelers, dusting them, buying special sleeves or mats or clamps etc. The CD player is push the open button, drop cd in, push close or play - and that's it. Computer downloaded music is even less hands on and I would suggest focus the listener less. These may be additive reasons why Vinyl often seems to sound better. One's attention is held more to it.
Click to expand...

Thing is that people want to do to analog what solid-state proponents did to tubes. In other words, use a set of measurements developed for one technology and misapply them to another. In other words, ss was wonderful because it didn't have the distortions of tubes. You betcha! It had it's own set of issues! Same goes for digital. Sure it "measures" better by analog standards but digital has its own set of unique distortions and issues. We can debate over whether one set of distortions is more pleasant to the ear or not. That is if don't think it perfect from the get-go.

On the topic of engineers. There is one important distinction to be made. The recording and mastering engineers (not to mention Producers) from the Golden Age of Stereo and recording were almost all former musicians and had a real appreciation for the music. By contrast today, the vast majority of engineers are simply knob twiddlers who went to one or another recording school.
 
Myles, looks like you try to distort what I'm saying. Let me put it clearly, you can define "better" or "superior" in two different ways:
A. More pleasant.
B. More faithful to the original event.

Now, is you opt for A then I agree that tubes & vinyl might sound "better" than SS and CD. However, if you opt for B you must admit that SS and CD sound "better" than tubes and vinyl.
So what I said is that SS and CD are better if we stick to the second definition (i.e. accuracy).

Now since the master tape is supposed to capture the live event as faithfully as possible, please try a null test between it and the output of your analog and digital rigs, and come back with conclusions.

P.S. I wrote
I understand that the inner grooves of an LP cannot handle anything above 15 kHz (or was it 12 kHz?) and that strong bass has to be "centered" during mastering to prevent mistracking. If I am wrong, please correct me...
Click to expand...
Still waiting to be corrected (and no, the fact that the CD is limited to 22 kHz is not a correction, it's proof that it's the superior format, at least when talking about frequency extension)!
 
iosiP said:
Myles, looks like you try to distort what I'm saying. Let me put it clearly, you can define "better" or "superior" in two different ways:
A. More pleasant.
B. More faithful to the original event.

Now, is you opt for A then I agree that tubes & vinyl might sound "better" than SS and CD. However, if you opt for B you must admit that SS and CD sound "better" than tubes and vinyl.
So what I said is that SS and CD are better if we stick to the second definition (i.e. accuracy).

Now since the master tape is supposed to capture the live event as faithfully as possible, please try a null test between it and the output of your analog and digital rigs, and come back with conclusions.

P.S. I wrote Still waiting to be corrected (and no, the fact that the CD is limited to 22 kHz is not a correction, it's proof that it's the superior format, at least when talking about frequency extension)!
Click to expand...

I in my own opinion of course since it is a free society I live in the US, what sounds better CD or vinyl digital to me well it depends on the quality of the recording. I've heard horrid digital, poor vinyl and plain old messy CD but I have also heard good from each. If the music is made like crap it will sound like crap regardless of the format or how expensive your gear costs. Hell on some hi-end costly gear it could actually sound worst that crap. :D

People can argue till the sun explodes, and there will still be disagreements. It's a no win.
 
Analog vs. digital and/or tubes vs. SS food fight threads never end well. I should know as I have started a few of them over the years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top