Power conditioning: how did you choose the best approach for your system?

[Kimo]

30 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

I don't want the amplification to add its 'colour' to the the sound - the goal is to hear the recording, and only the recording. And tube components when not up to the mark adulterate the sound too much - I have heard this happen plenty of times with less ambitious units; and then when you hear precision tube amplification, well, it sounds the same as high grade solid state amplification ... strange, that, .

 

If I want to experience lush tube sound, I just put on some recording from the late 50's, popular music category - I can smell the heat of the gear used in the recording; it just oozes honey richness. But this is conveyed to me via a highly neutral solid state replay chain; which just gets out of the way, and presents the signature of the recording technology - as it should be.

 

I don't believe in the notion of neutrality in audio.  You can say that an SET with gobs of 2nd order distortion, but not much else in way of crossover distortion, IMD, or high order distortion, is less neutral than a class AB solid state device that injects all of the above into the signal but to a lesser extent,  but you are just echoing your own view.  Lush tube sound may only be lush by comparison to dry solid state sound.   They are both audibly colored no matter what some yoke might state about a .05 threshold.   Not all distortion is created equally for the sake of human hearing.  

 

As to precision tube amplification sounding anything like solid state, it simply doesn't, not really.  The presence of the transformer alone wipes out that notion for me, or perhaps it is the inevitably high output impedance.  

 

I have been auditioning solid state amps quite a bit lately, and honestly they almost all annoy to an extent.    

 

You are welcome to stop by if you come to Cleveland and give a listen to a particularly powerful and overbuilt precision tube amp, but you may have to wait a bit while I swap out the powerful and overbuilt precision sand amp.  They certainly won't sound the same, but you may not necessarily have a favorite.  

 

 

[sandyk]

19 minutes ago, Kimo said:

I don't believe in the notion of neutrality in audio.  You can say that an SET with gobs of 2nd order distortion, but not much else in way of crossover distortion, IMD, or high order distortion, is less neutral than a class AB solid state device that injects all of the above into the signal but to a lesser extent,  but you are just echoing your own view.  Lush tube sound may only be lush by comparison to dry solid state sound.   They are both audibly colored no matter what some yoke might state about a .05 threshold.   Not all distortion is created equally for the sake of human hearing.  

 

A  S.E.T. can't come remotely close to a modern SS amplifier, which these days often have distortion figures of <.0006%, bandwidth to 200kHz or higher, and an Unweighted S/N of >115dB.  A S.E.T. is also limited by the transformers used, which introduce further distortion, phase changes, and HF rolloff.

 

You are still living in the last century if you believe that good quality solid state amplifiers sound dry or edgy.

A good SS amplifier, especially a Class A amplifier, has a NATURAL warmth to the sound, not governed by gobs of even order distortion products.

[Ralf11]

didn't Bob Carver build a SS amp that was indistinguishable from a high-end tube amp?

 

~30 years ago?

[fas42]

4 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

I don't believe in the notion of neutrality in audio.  You can say that an SET with gobs of 2nd order distortion, but not much else in way of crossover distortion, IMD, or high order distortion, is less neutral than a class AB solid state device that injects all of the above into the signal but to a lesser extent,  but you are just echoing your own view.  Lush tube sound may only be lush by comparison to dry solid state sound.   They are both audibly colored no matter what some yoke might state about a .05 threshold.   Not all distortion is created equally for the sake of human hearing.  

 

So you are quite certain it is impossible to hear the "sound of the recording"? Because that's what I'm chasing, and a clear sign of getting closer to that goal is that every recording you put on "changes everything" - the taint of the rig you're playing through becomes insignificant, and the particular recording always "sounds the same" - because its characteristics are locked in for time immemorial, with regard to a read only medium.

 

Yes, different types of distortion need to given different weighting in terms of the impact on presentation - I worry about the types that almost nobody else does ; because sorting those ones delivers me an experience far closer to what was captured by the microphones, etc - the "convincing sound" thing.

 

Quote

As to precision tube amplification sounding anything like solid state, it simply doesn't, not really.  The presence of the transformer alone wipes out that notion for me, or perhaps it is the inevitably high output impedance.  

 

I have been auditioning solid state amps quite a bit lately, and honestly they almost all annoy to an extent.    

 

If they annoy, then the rig is injecting disturbing types of distortion. I would react to these flaws just as strongly as you, but I don't reach for tube aspirin ; if I was allowed and able to modify the setup and its environment I would do so to the point where those anomalies vanish.

 

Quote

 

You are welcome to stop by if you come to Cleveland and give a listen to a particularly powerful and overbuilt precision tube amp, but you may have to wait a bit while I swap out the powerful and overbuilt precision sand amp.  They certainly won't sound the same, but you may not necessarily have a favorite.  

 

 

 

Thanks for the offer! I will have a favourite if it ever happens: the one that gets me closer to the sound of the recording - I have plenty of the latter here that cover a vast range of sound experiences; the unit that least disrupts me from connecting to each of these musical messages will be the winner ... .

[sandyk]

4 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

didn't Bob Carver build a SS amp that was indistinguishable from a high-end tube amp?

 

~30 years ago?

 

Several years ago, Aspen Audio from Melbourne designed an SS amplifier where they deliberately tailored the distortion products.

Hugh Dean reduced the odd order distortion products in proportion to the even order distortion products to produce a "Valve like" sound.

[Kimo]

7 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

didn't Bob Carver build a SS amp that was indistinguishable from a high-end tube amp?

 

~30 years ago?

 

I have seen plenty of descriptions of solid state amps that sound just like tube amps, but I have never heard one.   I have seen Audio Research amps described as sounding like solid state, but they never came across that way to me.

 

Since tube amps often sound very different from each other, I wonder which one he was able to mimic?

 

 

[Kimo]

8 hours ago, sandyk said:

 

A  S.E.T. can't come remotely close to a modern SS amplifier, which these days often have distortion figures of <.0006%, bandwidth to 200kHz or higher, and an Unweighted S/N of >115dB.  A S.E.T. is also limited by the transformers used, which introduce further distortion, phase changes, and HF rolloff.

 

You are still living in the last century if you believe that good quality solid state amplifiers sound dry or edgy.

A good SS amplifier, especially a Class A amplifier, has a NATURAL warmth to the sound, not governed by gobs of even order distortion products.

 

Class A helps a lot for solid state, but it still doesn't sound like a tube amp.

 

I have lived with good quality high end  class A amplifiers and good quality high end SETs.  My current set up includes an ultra high bandwidth solid state amp with an unweighted SNR of 120, which is rather rare, since most SS designs really don't come close to the 115 you mentioned.  Of course, your distortion figures are sort of like a big foot sighting, as well, since they are pretty rare at best in the real world of actually driving a speaker.  I actually have heard in my room a higher resolution set up that most people never hear at the dealer or shows, and am basing my observations on experience, and not what I think make sense.

 

If you think Bryston, Pass Labs, First Watt, Naim, Audio Research, and Linnenberg solid state gear all sucks and lacks warmth, I am open to suggestions.  

 

Please do so by way of a first hand comparison with a good 45 SET playing into a  proper speaker load, so I will have some reference point.

 

By the way, nothing wrong with the last century.  I was younger, faster, stronger, and most importantly pain free.

[semente]

On 6/27/2019 at 4:41 AM, PeterSt said:

It appears that mere electronic music is the most demanding. This is because it contains more "difficulty".

 

In what way?

 

Classical music recordings have both direct and venue sound. They also have a huge variety of instruments which can be playing simultaneously both solo or in a group of identical instruments. Or choirs. And you can listen to it live, so you are comparing reproduced with what you've listened to in loco. Can't make it any more difficult than that.

 

Violin Viola Cello Double-Bass Harp Bass-Drum Castanets Chimes Conga-Drum Cowbell Cymbals Glockenspiel Gong Guiro Snare-Drum Tambourine Tenor-Drum Timpani Triangle Wood-Block Xylophone Flute Piccolo Oboe English-Horn Clarinet Bass-Clarinet Saxophone Bassoon Contrabassoon French-Horn TrumpetT rombone Tuba Harpsichord Piano Organ ... What else?

[daverich4]

5 hours ago, Kimo said:

 

I have seen plenty of descriptions of solid state amps that sound just like tube amps, but I have never heard one.   I have seen Audio Research amps described as sounding like solid state, but they never came across that way to me.

 

Since tube amps often sound very different from each other, I wonder which one he was able to mimic?

 

 

 

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge

[One and a half]

The continued tube versus solid state discussions in a power conditioning thread is irrelevant surely, @Kimo can kindly take this to another thread. 

The point of not using power conditioning for tube based setup is noted. 

[STC]

5 hours ago, semente said:

 

On 6/27/2019 at 11:41 AM, PeterSt said:

It appears that mere electronic music is the most demanding. This is because it contains more "difficulty".

 

In what way

 

 

@PeterSt is right. 

 

[sandyk]

10 hours ago, Kimo said:

Class A helps a lot for solid state, but it still doesn't sound like a tube amp.

 Thank God for that !

 I don't want artificial colouration, I want to hear the recording as close as possible to the way the artists and Recording Engineer intended.

 Your own statement sums it up nicely.

Quote

Since tube amps often sound very different from each other,

 

[Kimo]

11 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 Thank God for that !

 I don't want artificial colouration, I want to hear the recording as close as possible to the way the artists and Recording Engineer intended.

 Your own statement sums it up nicely.

 

 

We shouldn't discuss further.  You will need to come to Cleveland to listen to the Rogers and Linnenberg for proof.  If you guys make it, I will provide the alcohol as well. 

[sandyk]

 I have no interest whatsoever in revisiting  SET amplifiers. .

BTW, my DIY Class A Preamp is only 3dB down at 1.5MHz, and <.0006% distortion  Is that ultra wide bandwidth enough for you ?

 

As one and a half said " kindly take this to another thread." 

[Kimo]

31 minutes ago, sandyk said:

 I have no interest whatsoever in revisiting  SET amplifiers. .

BTW, my DIY Class A Preamp is only 3dB down at 1.5MHz, and <.0006% distortion  Is that ultra wide bandwidth enough for you ?

 

As one and a half said " kindly take this to another thread." 

 

Well if you are going to be that way, I kindly rescind my offer.  Fas42 can have your beer. 

[PeterSt]

14 hours ago, semente said:

On 6/27/2019 at 5:41 AM, PeterSt said:

It appears that mere electronic music is the most demanding. This is because it contains more "difficulty".

 

In what way

 

Hey Ricardo - Did you just respond to a. your dislike of electronic music and b. your own idea of classical music's complexity, or did you include my explanation in the post you quoted from? 

I mean, strange question "in what way". 

 

Peter

[semente]

1 minute ago, PeterSt said:

 

Hey Ricardo - Did you just respond to a. your dislike of electronic music and b. your own idea of classical music's complexity, or did you include my explanation in the post you quoted from? 

I mean, strange question "in what way". 

 

Peter

 

🙃 I admit to disliking electronic music and electronic instruments.

 

And I also admit that I wasn't clear.

 

In what way audibly? These sounds don't exist without electricity or speakers, how do you evaluate accuracy in the reproduction without measuring equipment, as you do with square-waves?

A different speaker/amplifier is like using a different electric-guitar speaker/amplifier, a different presentation... Isn't there a big chance that one will create a system that will make these artificial sounds sound the way you think they should sound instead of one that accurately reproduces the recorded signal? In other words, one is creating an instrument, not reproduction equipment.

[PeterSt]

Ricardo, the short answer: it is relatively easy to hear the intention of the art. Or, how when things are hurtful, it can't be right. 

 

The long answer is longer than the time I have atm. 😶

[PeterSt]

Add to it that neutral really exists. But this also takes a mile more. 

 

Short answer here: try find someone describing the sound of our products (DAC would be easiest). You won't find them. So I focus on neutrality and use the "sophisticated" electronic music to get there. And indeed, it would be the only music of which we can't determine the original sound. A complex matter of its own. 

[semente]

57 minutes ago, PeterSt said:

Add to it that neutral really exists. But this also takes a mile more. 

 

Short answer here: try find someone describing the sound of our products (DAC would be easiest). You won't find them. So I focus on neutrality and use the "sophisticated" electronic music to get there. And indeed, it would be the only music of which we can't determine the original sound. A complex matter of its own. 

 

I wasn't commenting on the performance/sound of your equipment, which I've unfortunately never had a chance to listen to, but on how certain types of music may or may not be more or less effective when used to evaluate "neutrality".

 

In fact I am quite sure, from what you say/write here, that they would suit me like a glove.

[fas42]

3 hours ago, semente said:

 

In what way audibly? These sounds don't exist without electricity or speakers, how do you evaluate accuracy in the reproduction without measuring equipment, as you do with square-waves?

A different speaker/amplifier is like using a different electric-guitar speaker/amplifier, a different presentation... Isn't there a big chance that one will create a system that will make these artificial sounds sound the way you think they should sound instead of one that accurately reproduces the recorded signal? In other words, one is creating an instrument, not reproduction equipment.

 

In part that's why it works so well for evaluating - there is no 'natural' counterpoint to these created sounds, so they live or die, as a satisfying musical experience, on how well the ear/brain can pick up all the structure that occurs within the manufactured sound - we have no long term memory of how it's "supposed to sound," to help adjust what we hear.

 

IME these totally artificial sound elements become ever more satisfying the better the rig has evolved - they truly become 'magical'. Just today we heard Shania Twain's "Man! I Feel Like a Women" on the car radio - the synthesizer riff in that is superbly enjoyable, and is so much richer and fuller with greater competence of the playback.

 

In electronically created sounds the sky's the limit in terms of how sophisticated the structures of these sounds can be, and that's what emerges to delight the ear/brain when replay is good enough.

 

 

[semente]

2 minutes ago, fas42 said:

 

In part that's why it works so well for evaluating - there is no 'natural' counterpoint to these created sounds, so they live or die, as a satisfying musical experience, on how well the ear/brain can pick up all the structure that occurs within the manufactured sound - we have no long term memory of how it's "supposed to sound," to help adjust what we hear.

 

IME these totally artificial sound elements become ever more satisfying the better the rig has evolved - they truly become 'magical'. Just today we heard Shania Twain's "Man! I Feel Like a Women" on the car radio - the synthesizer riff in that is superbly enjoyable, and is so much richer and fuller with greater competence of the playback.

 

In electronically created sounds the sky's the limit in terms of how sophisticated the structures of these sounds can be, and that's what emerges to delight the ear/brain when replay is good enough.

 

 

 

I disagree. A non-neutral system may produce "satisfying musical experience" with say Jarre as much as a neutral one, but will sound like rubbish when playing acoustic instruments or vocals. I've experienced this several times at shows.

 

It's like evaluating the fidelity of a video reproduction system using Finding Nemo or some other computer-animated film...

[Summit]

17 hours ago, STC said:

 

@PeterSt is right. 

 

 

No, I would not say that electronic music is the most demanding. Then it comes to bass punch and dynamic, electronic music* can be very challenging for many audiophile systems**. All other things are harder to get right with acoustic instruments played live on a real stage.

 

* Sampled acoustic instruments is often used in electronic music however.

 

** Many audiophile speakers seems to been made sole for chamber music, easy jazz and hiss music, IMO.

[McNulty]

After the solid-state / SET debate, the discussion regarding electronic music is also getting a bit off-topic IMHO. So please open a new thread if you would like to further discuss on music types to evaluate HiFi.

[Summit]

16 hours ago, sandyk said:

 Thank God for that !

 I don't want artificial colouration, I want to hear the recording as close as possible to the way the artists and Recording Engineer intended.

 Your own statement sums it up nicely.

 

 

Many many records has been made there they used tube amps. Think Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan etc etc.

 

It’s not that simple, as one type of design has colouration and the others none. It is more like you have to choose your poison, because one way or the other all amps will imprint its own specific sound. Some think the coloration tube amp imposes sounds better and less artificial, while many others think the opposite. We also have a third group that’s believe it’s all about implementation and the used speakers which sounds best. Am in the third group.

 

BTW I use two power conditioning in my audio system.