5 ms·

The problem with having an amazingly transparent signal chain (although I doubt that valves are the way to achieve this but he seems to know what he's talking a

The problem with having an amazingly transparent signal chain (although I doubt that valves are the way to achieve this but he seems to know what he's talking about,) is that it pushes all the responsibility onto you the listener, to choose program material that is well engineered and artistically resonant enough to justify all that outlay. It's like having special eye surgery to visit galleries. It doesn't quite add up. Consider that the gear Miles Davis made all his music through sounded completely fucked by this guy's standards. For some reason, harmonic distortion produced before the 80s is art, and harmonic distortion produced after the 80s is an affront. Its like some kind of analog/digital existential nostalgia. I blame postmodernism. The more transparent the amplifier, the better the music has to be, or you really are wasting your time. If you just want to build high performance electronic equipment, there are much more interesting areas to work in than simply applying gain to a pair of AC signals while preserving their phase relationship. But yeah, each to his own I guess. I expect these questions are half the fun if you're into designing your own amplifiers.

melevittfl 12y ago
I think there is a difference between transparent amplifiers, etc in the recording stage vs transparent amplifiers in the playback stage. In other words, harmonic distortion is art if it was put there during the recording process and not art if it is put there during the playback process.
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  But presumably the average home listening gear in 1969 was truly awful too. Does that mean nobody had really appreciated In A Silent Way until decades later, when they were finally able to discern every detail of its noise floor in high resolution? When you abandon the traditional audiophile silliness of subjective judgements in favor of scientific measurement, you just enter an even deeper mire, and it becomes completely impossible to determine why you're doing what you're doing, or what you're looking for. The best thing about art, and especially music is that your soul/subconcious/whatever can tell you if its good or not, immediately, for free. Your brain does not need six sigma of certainty to decide if you should currently be weeping with joy.
  - peterfirefly 12y ago
    I was born in 1970 and I wasn't able to appreciate In a Silent Way until almost four decades later ;)
michaelgrafl 12y ago
"Kind of Blue" is one of the most transparent recordings I have ever heard. Doesn't sound completely fucked at all. Also, digital distortion is not harmonic distortion. That's why you preferably don't want to have it on a recording (unless you have a very specific taste or want your music to glitch or sound robotic or whatever). Anyway, most sources sound better through a superior playback system than through an inferior one. I have no problem listenings to the Wiper's "Youth of America" through a proper HiFi. There might be some odd exceptions that sound better through a Tivoli mono speaker, but those are far and few between. So I wouldn't let that be my concern while designing the best playback system I can. I definitely wouldn't call it a problem.
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  What do you mean by "digital distortion"? That term makes me think of high frequency intermodulation artifacts produced by the sample rate of an ADC (aka aliasing). This is not a concern with transistor amplifiers.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
pjc50 12y ago
The thing is, audiophilia was somewhat justified in the 60s when gear that wasn't "high-fidelity" was of objectively lower quality, and also much more variable between manufacturers and even individual units. When taking your valves to the the tube tester at Radio Shack was a viable business model. This built an entire sociology of competitive audio listening, like a much nerdier version of the car performance tinkering of the same time. People got very emotionally invested in this kind of quality one-upsmanship. In the 80s MOSFET amps became viable, cheap and widespread. The baseline quality was now so much better that non-experts stopped caring much - you could buy anything in the hifi shop and get reasonable results. But the culture lives on, lost in the jungle, worshipping at a shrine that almost all the population has abandoned. TVs and computer graphics are approaching this tipping point from "more money buys you noticeably more quality" to "actually I can't see the difference from the cheap baseline and neither can the people I want to show off to". Notice how 4k hasn't taken off dramatically.
- AlexandrB 12y ago
  It's funny that you mention TV and computer graphics, because TV and computer sound has not been a case of "buy anything in the hifi shop and get reasonable results". When using the audio chain built into modern motherboards I consistently hear noise from some bus or another polluting the actual audio output. Poorly-designed, poorly-shielded amps still happen and unlike modern video output it's not a digital signal that has error correction built in.
  - Qantourisc 12y ago
    Indeed, still using a separate sound-card so I don't have to worry about this when I buy a new motherboard.
  - pjc50 12y ago
    Very true. PCs ship with lowest-common-denominator powered speakers and noisy headphone outs. The average customer and even the gaming customer doesn't seem to care much. People who do get USB output devices or send SPDIF to their existing surround system. Maybe Macbooks are less bad at this?
rthomas6 12y ago
It's not like having special eye surgery to visit galleries. It's more like creating special lighting in a gallery for viewing art. The difference being you don't have to use the amplifier all the time, for everything. What your complaint about having to select well-engineered and artistic music doesn't spell out is that this material does exist, and I imagine the setup would absolutely be worth it if you care enough. I'm not saying that all the modern audiophile stuff is true, but if you want to sit in a room and hear as close as possible recreations of your favorite symphony conducted by your favorite long-dead composer, why not try to get the signal as clear as possible?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- JonnieCache 12y ago
  I suppose my point is that transparency for artistic/entertainment purposes was achieved long ago. The fact that we need to involve lab equipment to decide on the superior signal chain is testimony to this. Now, people seem to be trying to get better fidelity than that of the original recording medium, which is obviously insane. You're listening past the art to examine details of the noise floor of 20th century equipment that weren't even detectable at the time. What on earth is the point of that? I mean it's one thing to do that to a Stockhausen record, but I don't think Miles would be terribly impressed. There's a law of diminishing returns for this stuff, and after a very small amount of time and money you're going to be better off contemplating the music and not the sound, even if the sound still aint great. You can be sure that's what the composer was doing. Beethoven was deaf for christ's sake!
  - agumonkey 12y ago
    I rarely read this. At which point do we shift the focus to the medium and not the message ? And even worse, when we optimize production toward the medium (3D 60fps movies).
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
TheOtherHobbes 12y ago
>For some reason, harmonic distortion produced before the 80s is art, and harmonic distortion produced after the 80s is an affront. You're comparing apples to quantum dots. Tape recording/mixing didn't add distortion in the same way that a bad amp adds distortiion. There certainly is such a thing as cheap transistor sound, and it's both measurable and audible. There's also such a thing as a high-end studio equipment sound. It's why a good proportion of professional recording and mixing engineers prefer expensive outboard over plugins - even though some of the plug-ins are older than they are now. There's also such a thing as amplifier sound. Pretty much anyone can hear the difference between a selection of affordable amps on a straight A/B comparison. There's also such a thing as hifi wankery and outright scamming, especially in the accessories market and at the very high end. But most people build/buy systems that help them enjoy the music more. If you can't hear the musical differences between - say - music played on a crappy cassette player from the 1980s and music played on a Nakamichi player from the same period, that's fine. A lot of people could - including all my friends, in various store demos when I was helping them buy music hardware. Quite a few of them had the same reaction I did. Which was 'Wow, I had no idea.' >If you just want to build high performance electronic equipment, there are much more interesting areas to work in than simply applying gain to a pair of AC signals while preserving their phase relationship. But audio is completely fascinating because such tiny, subtle changes have such a big effect on the result, and often no one is exactly sure why. Digital dither is such a small signal it should be completely inaudible. If you play a dither signal on its own, there's nothing to hear. But the effects are very, very obvious. Audio is like that all over. Tiny, supposedly trivial distortions change the quality of sound perception in unpredictable ways. Some make the music sound more enjoyable, some make it sound worse. That's partly why people take an interest. Competitive consumption is also a thing, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot up-to-mid-price buyers want something they can afford and enjoy. They're not seriously interested in showing it off to their friends or writing about it in hifi magazines.
- mark-r 12y ago
  Funny you should mention Nakamichi. I had one of their cassette recorders from about 1980, and a Panasonic receiver of the same vintage. I was under the impression that solid-state amplification had progressed to the point where you didn't need to worry about it anymore - until I unplugged my headphones from the receiver and plugged them into the recorder. What a revelation! From that point forward I had the hi-fi bug, although I never went overboard with it.
antihero 12y ago
I guess it's striving not for "good" but "authentic", ie as close to it's "supposed" to sound. Which is also deeply flawed, of course.

melevittfl 12y ago

I think there is a difference between transparent amplifiers, etc in the recording stage vs transparent amplifiers in the playback stage. In other words, harmonic distortion is art if it was put there during the recording process and not art if it is put there during the playback process.

JonnieCache 12y ago
But presumably the average home listening gear in 1969 was truly awful too. Does that mean nobody had really appreciated In A Silent Way until decades later, when they were finally able to discern every detail of its noise floor in high resolution? When you abandon the traditional audiophile silliness of subjective judgements in favor of scientific measurement, you just enter an even deeper mire, and it becomes completely impossible to determine why you're doing what you're doing, or what you're looking for. The best thing about art, and especially music is that your soul/subconcious/whatever can tell you if its good or not, immediately, for free. Your brain does not need six sigma of certainty to decide if you should currently be weeping with joy.
- peterfirefly 12y ago
  I was born in 1970 and I wasn't able to appreciate In a Silent Way until almost four decades later ;)

michaelgrafl 12y ago

"Kind of Blue" is one of the most transparent recordings I have ever heard. Doesn't sound completely fucked at all. Also, digital distortion is not harmonic distortion. That's why you preferably don't want to have it on a recording (unless you have a very specific taste or want your music to glitch or sound robotic or whatever). Anyway, most sources sound better through a superior playback system than through an inferior one. I have no problem listenings to the Wiper's "Youth of America" through a proper HiFi. There might be some odd exceptions that sound better through a Tivoli mono speaker, but those are far and few between. So I wouldn't let that be my concern while designing the best playback system I can. I definitely wouldn't call it a problem.

JonnieCache 12y ago
What do you mean by "digital distortion"? That term makes me think of high frequency intermodulation artifacts produced by the sample rate of an ADC (aka aliasing). This is not a concern with transistor amplifiers.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

pjc50 12y ago

The thing is, audiophilia was somewhat justified in the 60s when gear that wasn't "high-fidelity" was of objectively lower quality, and also much more variable between manufacturers and even individual units. When taking your valves to the the tube tester at Radio Shack was a viable business model. This built an entire sociology of competitive audio listening, like a much nerdier version of the car performance tinkering of the same time. People got very emotionally invested in this kind of quality one-upsmanship. In the 80s MOSFET amps became viable, cheap and widespread. The baseline quality was now so much better that non-experts stopped caring much - you could buy anything in the hifi shop and get reasonable results. But the culture lives on, lost in the jungle, worshipping at a shrine that almost all the population has abandoned. TVs and computer graphics are approaching this tipping point from "more money buys you noticeably more quality" to "actually I can't see the difference from the cheap baseline and neither can the people I want to show off to". Notice how 4k hasn't taken off dramatically.

AlexandrB 12y ago
It's funny that you mention TV and computer graphics, because TV and computer sound has not been a case of "buy anything in the hifi shop and get reasonable results". When using the audio chain built into modern motherboards I consistently hear noise from some bus or another polluting the actual audio output. Poorly-designed, poorly-shielded amps still happen and unlike modern video output it's not a digital signal that has error correction built in.
- Qantourisc 12y ago
  Indeed, still using a separate sound-card so I don't have to worry about this when I buy a new motherboard.
- pjc50 12y ago
  Very true. PCs ship with lowest-common-denominator powered speakers and noisy headphone outs. The average customer and even the gaming customer doesn't seem to care much. People who do get USB output devices or send SPDIF to their existing surround system. Maybe Macbooks are less bad at this?

rthomas6 12y ago

It's not like having special eye surgery to visit galleries. It's more like creating special lighting in a gallery for viewing art. The difference being you don't have to use the amplifier all the time, for everything. What your complaint about having to select well-engineered and artistic music doesn't spell out is that this material does exist, and I imagine the setup would absolutely be worth it if you care enough. I'm not saying that all the modern audiophile stuff is true, but if you want to sit in a room and hear as close as possible recreations of your favorite symphony conducted by your favorite long-dead composer, why not try to get the signal as clear as possible?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
JonnieCache 12y ago
I suppose my point is that transparency for artistic/entertainment purposes was achieved long ago. The fact that we need to involve lab equipment to decide on the superior signal chain is testimony to this. Now, people seem to be trying to get better fidelity than that of the original recording medium, which is obviously insane. You're listening past the art to examine details of the noise floor of 20th century equipment that weren't even detectable at the time. What on earth is the point of that? I mean it's one thing to do that to a Stockhausen record, but I don't think Miles would be terribly impressed. There's a law of diminishing returns for this stuff, and after a very small amount of time and money you're going to be better off contemplating the music and not the sound, even if the sound still aint great. You can be sure that's what the composer was doing. Beethoven was deaf for christ's sake!
- agumonkey 12y ago
  I rarely read this. At which point do we shift the focus to the medium and not the message ? And even worse, when we optimize production toward the medium (3D 60fps movies).
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

TheOtherHobbes 12y ago

>For some reason, harmonic distortion produced before the 80s is art, and harmonic distortion produced after the 80s is an affront. You're comparing apples to quantum dots. Tape recording/mixing didn't add distortion in the same way that a bad amp adds distortiion. There certainly is such a thing as cheap transistor sound, and it's both measurable and audible. There's also such a thing as a high-end studio equipment sound. It's why a good proportion of professional recording and mixing engineers prefer expensive outboard over plugins - even though some of the plug-ins are older than they are now. There's also such a thing as amplifier sound. Pretty much anyone can hear the difference between a selection of affordable amps on a straight A/B comparison. There's also such a thing as hifi wankery and outright scamming, especially in the accessories market and at the very high end. But most people build/buy systems that help them enjoy the music more. If you can't hear the musical differences between - say - music played on a crappy cassette player from the 1980s and music played on a Nakamichi player from the same period, that's fine. A lot of people could - including all my friends, in various store demos when I was helping them buy music hardware. Quite a few of them had the same reaction I did. Which was 'Wow, I had no idea.' >If you just want to build high performance electronic equipment, there are much more interesting areas to work in than simply applying gain to a pair of AC signals while preserving their phase relationship. But audio is completely fascinating because such tiny, subtle changes have such a big effect on the result, and often no one is exactly sure why. Digital dither is such a small signal it should be completely inaudible. If you play a dither signal on its own, there's nothing to hear. But the effects are very, very obvious. Audio is like that all over. Tiny, supposedly trivial distortions change the quality of sound perception in unpredictable ways. Some make the music sound more enjoyable, some make it sound worse. That's partly why people take an interest. Competitive consumption is also a thing, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot up-to-mid-price buyers want something they can afford and enjoy. They're not seriously interested in showing it off to their friends or writing about it in hifi magazines.

mark-r 12y ago
Funny you should mention Nakamichi. I had one of their cassette recorders from about 1980, and a Panasonic receiver of the same vintage. I was under the impression that solid-state amplification had progressed to the point where you didn't need to worry about it anymore - until I unplugged my headphones from the receiver and plugged them into the recorder. What a revelation! From that point forward I had the hi-fi bug, although I never went overboard with it.

antihero 12y ago

I guess it's striving not for "good" but "authentic", ie as close to it's "supposed" to sound. Which is also deeply flawed, of course.