[Bill Noble[_2_]]

regarding tubes being obsolete - that is just plain nonsense - in high end
audio equipment, tubes bring a very specific coloration to the sound - on
any "high end" preamp, you can tell transistor versus tube easily -- I can't
hear this difference in power amps, interestingly enough, but in a preamp it
is quite striking, and it seems consistant across brands and models.

Now, I don't like the "tube sound", to me it sounds "veiled". I have a Mark
Levison (transistorized) preamp that I really like - but that doesn't make
tubes obsolete - for those who like the sound, they are the only way we know
of at this time to make it.

"H Davis" wrote in message
...
"While the Eico was priced at $70 in 1962 (and the kit somewhat cheaper),
the
little Leben is a whopping THREE THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED 2009 US Dollars!
Now."

Eico product were not known for their quality, and even back in 1962, $70
was probably too much for that amp.
If anyone is charging as much as you quote above for a VACUUM TUBE based
amp
today - that is why the audiophile industry is failing. Such sellers are
thieves, and any buyers are fools.

Vacuum tube technology is obsolescent, if not obsolete - especially for
high-end audio. http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

The audiophile hobby seems to have largely fallen into the hands of
unscrupulous manufacturers and retailers, and is patronized mostly by
people
that have more money than common sense.

[Arny Krueger]

"Bill Noble" wrote in message

"Dick Pierce" wrote in message
...
Bill Noble wrote:
but that doesn't make tubes obsolete - for those who
like the sound, they are the only way we know of at
this time to make it.

If by "we", you mean the high-end audio industry, you're
probably right. But that's because so much of what
passes for technical "knowledge" in the high-end
industry is woefully behind the
or just plain wrong. One can't engage in a rational
discussion or debate with many of the high-end
luminaries simply because
of their appalling, entrenched technical ignorance. What
passes for real "state-of-the-art" knowledge is woefully
behind the times, one example being the concept of
jitter in data streams: the high-end business discovered
it DECADES after it was a
known and solved phenomenon elsewhere. And in the
meantime,
your treasured Mark Levinson produced a DAC that was so
badly designed from a view point of mixed signal and
clock recovery that, had that engineer worked in a real
company, he'd find himself in the unemployment queue
faster than he could think about it.

And, again, we can thank the high-end press for
encouraging these idiots.

I can see that this not a technical discussion, but an
emotional argument based on deeply held personal beliefs

Actually, its pretty easy to figure out whether the ML DAC is deeply flawed
or not.

Problems with mixed signal design and clock recovery show up on the test
bench pretty quickly.

- you claim, by implication, that I cannot hear a
consistent difference between tube and transistor amps,

This is in accordance with actual double blind amplifier tests done under
level-matched conditions.

It is possible with some nontrivial expense and inconvenience to build tubed
power amps that are low enough in coloration and distortion to pass
comparison with either a straight wire or a good cheap (or expensive) SS
power amp. I've heard it done.

and you choose to cast aspersions at a piece of equipment
none of us were talking about (by the way, I have a ML
DAC and find it vastly superior in sound quality to
anything else I tested).

Please share the unbiased nature of those tests.

I find that discussions
involving "idiots", "real company" and "treasured" in the
same thread are not intended to enlighten, only to anger.

It is not unusual for people who have devoted their lives to developing true
quality equipment that is as uncolored and undistorted as possible to become
emotional when people literally throw equipment together and trade on hype
and name-dropping to sell their low-performance gear for inflated prices to
a market that is willfully kept as ignorant as possible.

I have stated my position, I am not going to engage in a
debate based on rumor and innuendo.

Then you might offer your ML DAC up for some unbiased testing, and we will
get to the bottom of this controversy.

[JWV Miller]

On Aug 29, 2:55*pm, "Bill Noble" wrote:
snip
I can see that this not a technical discussion, but an emotional arguement
based on deeply held personal beliefs - you claim, by implicaiton, that I
cannot hear a consistant difference between tube and transistor amps, and
you choose to cast aspersions at a piece of equipment none of us were
talking about (by the way, I have a ML DAC and find it vastly superior in
sound quality to anything else I tested). *I find that discussions involving
"idiots", "real company" and "treasured" in the same thread are not intended
to enlighten, only to anger. *I have stated my position, I am not going to
engage in a debate based on rumor and inuendo.

There clearly can be sound differences between tube and solid-state
amplifiers, especially at the "high" end. However, competently
designed amplifiers will be indistinguishable one another but there is
no advantage to using a tube amplifier given the inherent
inefficiencies and expenses associated with them. The"emotional"
argument that Dick Pierce is advancing is based on solid engineering
principles and experience. There is no rumor or innuendo here. Dick is
simply pointing out the unsubstantiated and unverifiable claims of
high-end companies. As to your claims about the ML DAC, it may indeed
be very good. However, modern low-cost D/A chips have outstanding
specs so it is not obvious how your DAC could be so much better.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 12:58:17 -0700, Dick Pierce wrote
(in article ):

[quoted text deleted -- deb]

The real issue was, of course, that the ML DAC I was
testing had so much trouble trying to regenrate the
sample clock that is was extremely prone to any timing
skews whatsoever. Other DACs, ones that were far cheaper,
used proper mixed signal design and layout and provided
proper sample time buffering that they did not suffer
from the same problem.

Is jitter performance REALLY all that important? I know that JVC touts the
importance of their rubidium master clock as a major reason why their
re-mastered classical and jazz titles from the 1950's and 1960's sound so
good (and they do), but I'm skeptical to say the least. I suspect careful
analog to digital conversion and attention to detail in the entire CD
mastering process for this. But whatever they're doing, they're going a great
job because, at least with the old RCA red-seal titles, the JVC Redbook CDs
sound better than RCA/BMG's SACD remasters of the same titles!

[JWV Miller]

On Aug 31, 8:02*pm, "Bill Noble" wrote:

snip

2. changing analog cables between the CD player (any make/brand) and the
preamp was generally audible except on the very worst players. *The worst
cable was a homebrew twinax cable, most of the "good" cables were
acceptable, I liked a particular Cardas cable and a particular Hovland cable
the best. *I used balanced connections when possible, but not all players
had a balanced output (mysony, for example).

It is really unclear why there should be any difference between
competently made cables. Even the throw-away cables that are included
should provide the same audio performance as more expensive cables
although they may not be rugged or reliable. If a cable is changing
the sound it is either miserably engineered or broken.

snip

4. With the ML D/A, there was no audible difference between ANY cd player or
any cable used to carry the digital signal - from the cheapest thing I could
hook up (a 300 CD changer) to the $10,000 "amazingly wonderful" unit whose
name escapes me - no audible difference at all - I couldn't hear anything,
and the salesman couldn't hear anything.

This would be true of any modern competently-designed D/A converter,
even those that are inexpensive. The claim has been made by some here
that string soaked in sal****er can work well as a digital cable
although not really a great choice unless it can be kept wet. :-)

snip
note, I do have my complaints about ML of that vintage, particularly their
abysmal power management (off my stereo draws more power than the rest of
the house , so of course now it operates through a relay, so when I say
"off", it is really off). *I know the truth of the preceeding statement
because my average electrical usage was cut in half after adding the relay,
and the measured power draw was about 1/2 of my pre-relay average.


Dick Pierce's statements regarding abysmal high-end engineering design
are certainly well illustrated by your unit's power consumption when
it is turned off. A mediocre sophomore EE student could design a much
more efficient and intelligent power supply.


snip

so, you would like me to state that my position is based on inexperience and
personal opinion? * What kind of .....

ok, I'm not going to go there - suffice it to say that I *have clearly
stated that "I" heard this, or that, or the other thing. *I am not going to
engage in ad-hominem arguements over who has more of what kind of
experience - I don't get paid for these posts, my career does not depend on
what anyone thinks of my experience in the audio realm, and neither does my
self esteem. *

Well, it appears that Dick Pierce successfully makes his living in the
field and has considerable experience to boot. You might try goggling
his name and terms like audio engineering to see that he is widely
respected and has expertise in a variety of areas relating to the
field. He seems to be extremely credible. Do you have similar
technical qualifications?

You have made statements that are not borne out by my personal
experience, and I spent my own money to act on the basis thereof. *I
upgraded my system once in 30 years, I took due care in doing so. *I found
specific effects, some of which surprised me, that influenced my decision -
for example my reported distinct and striking audible difference between
tube and transistor preamps. *Perhaps it was only the specific 15 or 20
preamps I listened to that evidenced this effect, and a larger sample might
have produced different results. *

Making useful judgments by simply listening to a variety of different
hardware is extremely difficult. Assuming that all of the
preamplifiers were competently engineered, the differences in sound
would be small and possibly even inaudible under the most stringent
double-blind testing conditions.

[Rob Tweed]

On 1 Sep 2009 12:51:56 GMT, JWV Miller wrote:

It is really unclear why there should be any difference between
competently made cables. Even the throw-away cables that are included
should provide the same audio performance as more expensive cables
although they may not be rugged or reliable. If a cable is changing
the sound it is either miserably engineered or broken.


Although I'm not a qualified audio engineer I do have a scientific
background and understand the physics involved and have followed and
understood the many discussions where it's been pointed out that there
should be no reason for different cables to sound different at audio
frequencies. I'm therefore as sceptical as everyone else about cables
making a difference.

However, by way of a quick (and deeply unscientific) experiment, last
week I tried 3 different cables between the line output of my
Beresford DAC and line input of my Behringer power amp. 1 cable was
the cheapest and nastiest throw-away one I could find in my house,
whilst the other two were more expensive ones that I'd bought in the
past. [Don't worry, neither were in the stupid price category!]

I expected to hear no difference between the 3, and certainly I'd be
lying if I could say there was any difference between the more
expensive ones. However, I was quite surprised because it did seem as
if there was a difference when I used the cheap throw-away cable. I
won't get into any dubious subjective descriptions of how it sounded
different. Of course it may simply be due to some observer bias,
though, as I said, my ingoing expectation was to hear no difference at
all which is why I was surpised.

I guess the cheap cable may be miserably engineered as suggested - it
is extremely thin for sure. And of course I can't rule out the
possibility that I was just imagining the difference it seemed to
make.

I'm thinking of trying some follow-up experiments with a friend as the
observer. I know they'll not be fully double-blind tests, but I'm
going to see if he can distinguish any differences when I make cable
changes that he can't see and if people are interested I'll report
back the findings.

In the meantime, I don't quite know what to make of it...

---

Rob Tweed
Company: M/Gateway Developments Ltd
Registered in England: No 3220901
Registered Office: 58 Francis Road,Ashford, Kent TN23 7UR

Web-site: http://www.mgateway.com

[JWV Miller]

On Sep 2, 8:07*pm, Rob Tweed wrote:

snip

*However, I was quite surprised because it did seem as
if there was a difference when I used the cheap throw-away cable. *I
won't get into any dubious subjective descriptions of how it sounded
different. *Of course it may simply be due to some observer bias,
though, as I said, my ingoing expectation was to hear no difference at
all which is why I was surpised.

I guess the cheap cable may be miserably engineered as suggested - it
is extremely thin for sure. *And of course I can't rule out the
possibility that I was just imagining the difference it seemed to
make.

It is clearly possible to make a cable that sounds different as some
of the high-end companies have demonstrated on many occasions. Being
extremely thin, it may suffer from high capacitance or very poor
shielding. There is no guarantee that really cheap cables will work
properly given that their main attribute is low cost but most seem to
function as expected.


I'm thinking of trying some follow-up experiments with a friend as the
observer. *I know they'll not be fully double-blind tests, but I'm
going to see if he can distinguish any differences when I make cable
changes that he can't see and if people are interested I'll report
back the findings.

That sounds like an interesting experiment. If your friend is correct
a high percentage of the time, then the cable is very likely to have
poor audio characteristics.


In the meantime, I don't quite know what to make of it...


Perhaps you have found a cable that is so cheap that it is not
transparent! :-)

[Sonnova]

On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 17:07:13 -0700, Rob Tweed wrote
(in article ):

On 1 Sep 2009 12:51:56 GMT, JWV Miller wrote:

It is really unclear why there should be any difference between
competently made cables. Even the throw-away cables that are included
should provide the same audio performance as more expensive cables
although they may not be rugged or reliable. If a cable is changing
the sound it is either miserably engineered or broken.


Although I'm not a qualified audio engineer I do have a scientific
background and understand the physics involved and have followed and
understood the many discussions where it's been pointed out that there
should be no reason for different cables to sound different at audio
frequencies. I'm therefore as sceptical as everyone else about cables
making a difference.

However, by way of a quick (and deeply unscientific) experiment, last
week I tried 3 different cables between the line output of my
Beresford DAC and line input of my Behringer power amp. 1 cable was
the cheapest and nastiest throw-away one I could find in my house,
whilst the other two were more expensive ones that I'd bought in the
past. [Don't worry, neither were in the stupid price category!]

I expected to hear no difference between the 3, and certainly I'd be
lying if I could say there was any difference between the more
expensive ones. However, I was quite surprised because it did seem as
if there was a difference when I used the cheap throw-away cable. I
won't get into any dubious subjective descriptions of how it sounded
different. Of course it may simply be due to some observer bias,
though, as I said, my ingoing expectation was to hear no difference at
all which is why I was surpised.

I guess the cheap cable may be miserably engineered as suggested - it
is extremely thin for sure. And of course I can't rule out the
possibility that I was just imagining the difference it seemed to
make.

I'm thinking of trying some follow-up experiments with a friend as the
observer. I know they'll not be fully double-blind tests, but I'm
going to see if he can distinguish any differences when I make cable
changes that he can't see and if people are interested I'll report
back the findings.

In the meantime, I don't quite know what to make of it...

I'm not suggesting that this is your answer, because I have no way of knowing
this, BUT cheap cables often have tin-plated connectors. These can get a thin
film of tin oxide on them causing them to make poor connection. Sometimes an
oxide layer between two metal mating surfaces forms a diode and this can
introduce distortion. To be sure that this is not what's happened here, I'd
suggest that you clean the cheap cable's connectors and try again to see if
the differences are still there. It just HAS to be something like that.

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 3 Sep 2009 05:46:13 -0700, JWV Miller wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 2, 8:07*pm, Rob Tweed wrote:

snip

*However, I was quite surprised because it did seem as
if there was a difference when I used the cheap throw-away cable. *I
won't get into any dubious subjective descriptions of how it sounded
different. *Of course it may simply be due to some observer bias,
though, as I said, my ingoing expectation was to hear no difference at
all which is why I was surpised.

I guess the cheap cable may be miserably engineered as suggested - it
is extremely thin for sure. *And of course I can't rule out the
possibility that I was just imagining the difference it seemed to
make.

It is clearly possible to make a cable that sounds different as some
of the high-end companies have demonstrated on many occasions. Being
extremely thin, it may suffer from high capacitance or very poor
shielding. There is no guarantee that really cheap cables will work
properly given that their main attribute is low cost but most seem to
function as expected.

All I can say is while it's "possible" its not bloody likely! All of this
talk about high capacitance in thin or cheap cables evaporates into
nothingness when you see what the actual capacitance per foot is on any
coaxial cable likely to be used for audio and actually do the math. In any
reasonable length for interconnects (.5 to 3.0 meters) even the highest
capacitance cables have so little capacitive reactance at 20 KHz, or even at
50 KHz that it couldn't possibly affect the audio waveform passing through
it in any way.