Is it my speakers? I think I'm done with CD's. Are paid-for downloadable files any better? (...and, "Can it reach 60", a quality test for CDs)

[gene_stl]

Whether or not tube amps put out odd or even harmonic distortion depends on the circuit topology. And the same topologies can be built with transistors and FETs. I am not one to bother someone who is enjoying their hobby, the way they want to enjoy it. But tubes are in no way better than current integrated circuitry. Part of this is because they are discrete assembled circuitry. (ASR measured "discrete component op amps" and found them not nearly as meritorious (from objective circuit measurement parameters that actually count such as frequency response flatness, harmonic and IM distortion and noise content.) Part of it is because they are inherently noisier than opamps.

On my way to becoming an orthodox "meter reader" I had noticed the number of changes one could make to the parameters of an audio system without it really becoming audible or very audible. Such as completely removing the mid ranges in a four way system. Still sounded great. Crossover slopes and points and shelving could be moved around more than you would expect without it being noticeable or objectionable. Experiments done at length with the mighty Pioneer D23 crossover. (Mid ranges and mid bass coupler removed and the range still covered by moving the crossover to another driver. My system did have lots of headroom in all bands)

Nobody wants to bother with blind testing because it is a big pain. (of course Japanese audiophile clubs have been doing it since at least the nineteen seventies. When my late great stereo buddy and I helped a Japanese symphony musician set up his monster multiway stereo he brought back audiophile mags from Japan and we were impressed by the audiophiles in rows and columns of folding chairs each with a clip board on their lap. That is the only way to really determine if something is better. Better is not equal to "I like it better".

There used to be the concept of "a straight wire with gain" as a definition of an amplifier. I used to work at a repair shop with a guy who after he finished his engineering degree went on to design the OrangeKrate amps that were built and sold by St. Louis Music Supply. At that time reliable sourcing of tubes were getting difficult. So he characterized the tube sound and simulated it using solid state circuitry and the amps sold very well.
I do think it may be reasonable to include tubes in a guitar amp where added harmonic distortion might be desireable.

I have serviced a lot of scientific equipment that had very high gain input stages. One thing that surprised me was the lack of discrete component circuitry. The ICs ran over that probably thirty years ago.

Humans are EXTREMELY SUGGESTIBLE. If you go to someones house and listen to their stereo and you are supposed to be an audio expert and you say (or publish in a stupid magazine or web page) I think it sounds a little thin and raspy , others will hear it too even if nothing has changed and they were satisfied before. The ear is NOT a reliable meter. This was determined beyond any doubt in the 1960s and was why MacIntosh held their wildly successful MAC clinics. A more accurate statement would be "If it measures good, it IS good"

Finally it is my opinion that putting a tube stage onto an Oppo is like adding a fuzz box to a guitar. Chinese manufacturers are also selling various amps with tubes. You look at pictures of the circuit board and in front of the tube is a dual inline package op amp. They wouldn't make them and offer them for sale if people didn't buy them. But its the same thing. A fuzz box.

 

[jimfisheye]

There are blurred lines in mastering.

Before the technology matured to be able to deliver exact copies of audio in full original fidelity, some creative solutions were used. By blurred lines I mean sometimes it was the end consumer doing, let's call it "final mastering" with their home system. Pushing through some tube stage to focus the 'meat' of the signal where you wanted it might be an example.

Now we can listen to a reference quality copy. Some of us may still disagree on the final sound and prefer to do some final touch with a home system.

The visual analogy might be something like makeup use in black and white film. Someone was going for a shading or shadow effect to simulate more realistic visual appearance beyond what the technology could strictly deliver. Restoring that to see purple makeup would not be correct! You need to see the creative effect in the original format to make sense.

I'm just trying to be analytical in defining what might be going on.
The old school SOP was final mastering by the end consumer. And some of that was the aim with some of the preamp and tone controls and tube stages on some gear.

Maybe it still is! My SOP is to listen to something out of the box flat with 24 bit delivery and all now. At least for first listen. Then if I disagree with it I can always mess with it if that interests me.

Maybe this helps for anyone trying to determine what "right" is. It's still subjective. If it sounds right, it is right, still holds. Just that some gear isn't trying to deliver flat 1:1 but more juiced up.

 

[gene_stl]

But to continue with the visual analogy , nobody says a Zeiss Tessar f/3.5 is better than a modern lens, with better glass, better coatings and computer optimized elements. The photographers of yore and also the mastering engineers were skilled and did the best they could with what they had.

And just for the record I rejected my first two preamps which were solid state Dyna PAT-4 which I built from Dynakits. I didnt' like the way they sounded. They were harsh. I replaced them with a McIntosh C20 tube preamp. At the time most power amps still had tubes. I got rid of my MC75 amps when there were no KT88 MP available. (1970 -73ish) It took until the mid seventies for power amps to sound better. But I wonder how a proper ABX test would have come out.

I do think there are a lot of audio hobbyists who don't want to or have never heard, high frequencies.

 

[jimfisheye]

I was trying to describe using a creative approach (ie technically altering) vs clinical. And an example of aiming for realism in the output that wasn't technically possible in a perfect clinical way.

Hope that makes sense!

The lines blur all over the place with tech. Your lens example. Microphones and speakers have examples. Some tube circuits were pristine. The maintenance just sucks.

And then we have the examples of older tech that maybe the average user experience was just OK but the experts knew how to work it for better results. And maybe now we can go back with a couple modern pieces and recover more data than anyone could do on the best day back then. I'm thinking about some of the tape and vinyl transfers people have put best efforts into. There was audio tech from the 60s and 70s right up in quality with some of the best modern stuff.

I think the biggest changes are delivery and infinite recording.
Delivering perfect full studio quality audio to the consumer. (When someone wants to anyway. Mastering faux pas aside.) Including multi channel surround.
And then infinite recording to hard drive. Tape was hideously expensive. 2" could be $80/minute and up just for the tape. And you couldn't just record raw audio because of the hiss. Audio had to be produced to a certain hotness. There was noise reduction but that had issues too.

 

[Sal1950]

I put the cd into the Oppo and the copy of the same cd ( ie two of the same cd )then monitor through the same amplification and just switching inputs after level matching ( admittedly by ear)

Not near close enough.
Levels need to be matched to under .1 db for critical evaluations.

 

[Sal1950]

Before the technology matured to be able to deliver exact copies of audio in full original fidelity, some creative solutions were used. By blurred lines I mean sometimes it was the end consumer doing, let's call it "final mastering" with their home system. Pushing through some tube stage to focus the 'meat' of the signal where you wanted it might be an example.

All true and perfectly acceptable.
But then the line becomes listening to the source as the musician & engineers intended it to be heard. Or modified to suit your personal tastes.
I've spent a lot of time making measurements and using digital room correction, etc; to make my speakers/room interface as transparent as possible. I've always felt the results when done that way come out best.
YMMV

 

[jimfisheye]

...
But then the line becomes listening to the source as the musician & engineers intended it to be heard. Or modified to suit your personal tastes.
I've spent a lot of time making measurements and using digital room correction, etc; to make my speakers/room interface as transparent as possible. I've always felt the results when done that way come out best.
YMMV

I'm with ya there! And I at least want to hear something how it was intended (for good or bad) initially.

Just trying to help anyone connect some of the dots if they went down a different path. I'm not so much being dismissive of creative solutions as pursuing transparency.

 

[gene_stl]

The aforementioned audio buddy once let his second Marantz 7C tube preamp sit on my living room floor for a year. Finally he wanted to turn it into cash and had a fish on the line. He said if you want to try it and play with it get on with it because I will be coming to get it soon. So I did. I was expecting it to be very noisy. My test was to turn the volume all the way up. It was dead quiet and if there was any signal would have been thunderously loud. It also sounded great (for whatever that is worth, 1978) But I had a preamp I liked better and was even quieter. (Pioneer C21) So I didn't make an offer on it. I should have because these things sell for gazillions of dollars now.

But my observation was that most tube gear is not as good as a Schmarantz 7C.

If you want to have tubes fine. My main point is, PLEASE, PLEASE, don't send your Oppo out to get a tube stage. Just my opinion.