• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Good read on "The Great Debate"

B

bryan.worley

Dec 29, 2005
41
0
45
Lowell, MA
#1
I live in an all artist building. Because I work on almost all of the musicians' gear, people toss things they come across my way. This paper was slid under my door last night. It's a good read on the tube vs. solid state topic. I enjoy the use of the scientific method throughout. Even though the testing was with guitars, I thought it a great read for all of us.
My intention isn't for an extension of the debate. Simply, to show what I thought to be a great example of double blind testing with regards to amps. Enjoy!

Invalid Link Removed
 
#3
Yeah, I realize that things can get heated when talking on the topic...if you are referencing that. However, I'm not so focused on the subject content as opposed to what I found to be a well written paper on a well executed test. I think blind tests are always fascinating to see when in a really controlled environment. Again, not looking to stoke any fires, just sharing a good read.
 
#4
From the same website, offered as an explanation of tube sound's vaunted superiority:

...While some people insist that physical differences are not audible, internally, tubes are mostly vacuum, with a "space charge" or electron cloud that is electro-statically controlled by a varying voltage on a metal grid. Transistors are mostly resistive silicon, purposefully contaminated with impurities to enable conductivity in their crystalline lattice that otherwise insulates.

...Tubes use a charged electron plasma cloud in vacuum, while transistors force audio signal current through something not unlike dirty sand--possibly why 'brittle, hard, sharp, gritty and scratchy' often describe "transistor sound." Whereas rather linear tube circuits are usually simple, most transistor circuits require high negative feedback and more complexity. The All American Five was for decades a popular and common radio, requiring only five tubes. "Transistorization" happened for economy, not better sound --in this case, cheaper was just cheaper. In terms of gracefulness, straightforward simplicity and perhaps ultimately sound quality, transistors fall short.
 
#6
I only had the paper in printed form, so I just found a link to it to post here. I did read what you posted on that site, though. Personally, I agree 100% I also feel that there are some very bass specific qualities that weren't discussed in this paper. Again, I do have my own opinions, I'm more focused on how well written this paper was in reference to a great test. It's hard, in my opinion, to really a/b amps blindly. They did a good job of setting & discussing parameters. I really enjoyed how they did the power section isolation tests & the same with the pre.
 
#8
B-string said:
Well written? Quote "This is due tot he musician's insistence that tubes". I stopped there, if I get bored sometime I may check out the rest. ;)
Click to expand...

A miss-placed space bar stroke makes it boring? Wow. Try reading a Beethoven Sketchbook sometime...:D :D :D
 
#9
bryan.worley said:
Yeah, I realize that things can get heated when talking on the topic...if you are referencing that. However, I'm not so focused on the subject content as opposed to what I found to be a well written paper on a well executed test. I think blind tests are always fascinating to see when in a really controlled environment. Again, not looking to stoke any fires, just sharing a good read.
Click to expand...

This particular blind test has been kicked around for decades now. Comparing a Twin Reverb to an early 80s vintage one-off preamp with 4558 opamps into a 31 band EQ into an unnamed power amp probably wouldn't qualify as "definitive" in any way meaningful to guitar players, eh? ;)
 
#10
bryan.worley said:
I'll apologize for the typos. I didn't write the paper. You're right. The term well written has a couple of meanings. Should've pointed that out at the get-go.
Click to expand...

You don't need to apologize if you didn't do the writing. ;) As a highly technical person if I see this from the opening, then I get the feeling I will need to auto correct while reading and make assumptions. That means, to me, the paper becomes a curiosity not a true reference piece. :) BTW the "dirty sand" is how the Japanese put American tube manufacturers out of business. Yes I will read it.....curious I [a m] ;)
 
#11
Jim Carr said:
A miss-placed space bar stroke makes it boring? Wow. Try reading a Beethoven Sketchbook sometime...:D :D :D
Click to expand...

B-string said:
You don't need to apologize if you didn't do the writing. ;) As a highly technical person if I see this from the opening, then I get the feeling I will need to auto correct while reading and make assumptions. That means, to me, the paper becomes a curiosity not a true reference piece. :) BTW the "dirty sand" is how the Japanese put American tube manufacturers out of business. Yes I will read it.....curious I [a m] ;)
Click to expand...

Not boring, just questionable. Proof reading before publishing is not an option IMHO :) YMMV :)
 
#12
B-string said:
You don't need to apologize if you didn't do the writing. ;) As a highly technical person if I see this from the opening, then I get the feeling I will need to auto correct while reading and make assumptions. That means, to me, the paper becomes a curiosity not a true reference piece. :) BTW the "dirty sand" is how the Japanese put American tube manufacturers out of business. Yes I will read it.....curious I [a m] ;)
Click to expand...

No worries! I agree on the proofreading. It always frustrates me.

As for the "dirty sand" transistors, I'll say that at the end of the quote, they say that "and perhaps" quality of sound line. It doesn't offer proof to me either way. They talk about construction & then concede that it's relatively impossible to prove because of tests & user opinion. That's why I found the paper I presented fascinating. It was a double blind test & in that situation, with those parameters, it was difficult to tell the "sand from the glass", so to speak.
 
#13
Passinwind said:
This particular blind test has been kicked around for decades now. Comparing a Twin Reverb to an early 80s vintage one-off preamp with 4558 opamps into a 31 band EQ into an unnamed power amp probably wouldn't qualify as "definitive" in any way meaningful to guitar players, eh? ;)
Click to expand...

Absolutely not definitive. Just a great example of a well executed test. I'm not going to tell anybody that this is gospel. Or, for that matter, that any test results are. Any test, and the tailoring of the report, can be skewed in any direction to be used as evidence in an argument. No, just saying that it's a great example of a blind/blind test for amps.

As an aside, Passinwind, your DIY projects that I've seen here & elsewhere are one of the biggest reasons that I started down this path awhile back. You have some pretty great ideas & executions!
 
#14
bryan.worley said:
No worries! I agree on the proofreading. It always frustrates me.

As for the "dirty sand" transistors, I'll say that at the end of the quote, they say that "and perhaps" quality of sound line. It doesn't offer proof to me either way. They talk about construction & then concede that it's relatively impossible to prove because of tests & user opinion. That's why I found the paper I presented fascinating. It was a double blind test & in that situation, with those parameters, it was difficult to tell the "sand from the glass", so to speak.
Click to expand...

Nicely done! :D :cool: Okay time for me to get over the anal garbage and go read. ;)

That didn't take long......quote "This effect is caused by the resistive speaker impedance" and goes down hill from there. 4558s really? EQ out the effects....what??? Thanks for sharing though. [Meant sincerely] :)
 
#15
So what I'm getting out of this... Please tell me if this sounds reasonable.

1. In an application where the only signal modification desired is frequency response, the differences between tube and SS are so minimal that only very few professional musicians can hear them.

2. We don't have time to test distortion qualities.

Then I'll add my little twists...

Guitar amps (lesser degree bass amps) are just about the only place where distortion is utilized musically.
Tubes make prettier distortion.
Bass amps go tube or SS based on how much a player wants to color their tone.

So, if a bass player really knows what they want from their tone, and they can actually listen with their ears instead of their eyes, then they will make a good decision for themselves. But we already knew that. This paper doesn't seem to address the part of the debate that we all get so hot and bothered over.

I do however find it curious that 1 specific person was able to reliably find the tubes by listening for some little artifact that was present.
 
#19
JimWasHere said:
So what I'm getting out of this... Please tell me if this sounds reasonable.

1. In an application where the only signal modification desired is frequency response, the differences between tube and SS are so minimal that only very few professional musicians can hear them.

2. We don't have time to test distortion qualities.

Then I'll add my little twists...

Guitar amps (lesser degree bass amps) are just about the only place where distortion is utilized musically.
Tubes make prettier distortion.
Bass amps go tube or SS based on how much a player wants to color their tone.

So, if a bass player really knows what they want from their tone, and they can actually listen with their ears instead of their eyes, then they will make a good decision for themselves. But we already knew that. This paper doesn't seem to address the part of the debate that we all get so hot and bothered over.

I do however find it curious that 1 specific person was able to reliably find the tubes by listening for some little artifact that was present.
Click to expand...

Same here about that one person. They did say that the buzzing could be heard easier if you knew how to bring it out by playing. I found myself asking if I'd want to be that guy.


& no, this paper stays pretty far away from the distortion topic. Which, is why I felt a little safer posting it here ;) That is also what made me laugh hard when I read it. I wondered who would try to be this PC about amps. Then I saw the CBS musical instruments header. I thought that here was a test that could've gone further. (My guess is that it did & they left that out of the paper) But, they took the safe road. Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

I think it is a great test & a paper written well enough, to be interesting to us. As it has been said, this paper has been kicking around awhile now. Don't take it definitively either way. Laugh a little at the big company sidestepping a hot issue & use the paper as food for thought as to what really is objective testing & with our artform, can it truly be achieved?
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back