Good read on "The Great Debate"

[basscooker]

GAWD!!!
don't you guys know that the difference is because tubes have essence of newt, unicorn horn and the blood of virgins in them? of course they sound better.

 

[JimmyM]

Why make things so difficult? Let's just have someone post a clip and have people guessing whether the amp heard in the clip is tube or solid-state. If the result is 100% accurate on all guessers then it's fair enough to say that amps made with those two different devices do have such striking differences that they can easily be distincted from each other...

Oh... but it fails to the fact it's been done over and over again and it's always a guessing game with 50-50 dividance in answers and pathetic excuses why the test can't be accurately performed...

Is there a "yawn" emoticon?

Don't congratulate yourself quite yet, bro

When people do recorded comparisons, the best that they can prove is that a recording done with a mic'ed SVT can be simulated very well by a recording done with a VT pedal or Micro VR or AxeFx or whatever else does SVT modeling well. None of those recorded tests should be considered as definitive proof that SS can mimic tube to the letter. Why? Because it's a whole different ballgame when you're listening to the amps live. Sure, an audience member neither knows or cares...it isn't their job to care..it's yours. But while modeling sure can cop the sound of a recording of an SVT (and that might be enough for some), when you're in the same room with them, especially if you're the one plugged into them, it's a different thing.

BTW, wasn't going to bring it up, but since he did, I would have zero problem with Seamonkey if he actually listened to people who have touched tube amps in their lives. Instead, there's always this agenda to get people who might be considering a tube amp to forget about it, accompanied by a load of misinformation based on reading books and never using a tube amp. I correct the misinformation, I ask him the question about whether he's ever plugged into a tube amp, and I'm the bad guy. OK.

 

[basscooker]

+1 jim
i cared not even a bit about tube vs ss until i started playing guitar. i had a tube amp (well kinda) for my first bass amp. when i killed it (prob an ohms thing i knew squat) i happily stayed with ss for 20 years. then as i picked up guitar, i noticed how much more responsive the tubes are. i still use ss with my bass, except for when i go three pc and CAN use my little tube. way more fun than the ss. it's really personal choice. but i do want to know the answer to that question--- so seamonkey, have you TRIED a tube amp? hey, you may still feel the way you do now, your decision, but have you?

 

[seamonkey]

so seamonkey, have you TRIED a tube amp? hey, you may still feel the way you do now, your decision, but have you?

Where's that yawn smile ?

This is from a myth propagated by a few individuals on this board.
Yes, I've use tubes.

And then you go on to ask which ones, and where, and under what circumstances, and what bass, and cabinet, and power cord, ...?
And then claim what I tried doesn't count. It goes on and on.

It doesn't matter what I hear, heard, or will hear, I'm not the subject here.

The subjects that tried Tube and Solid State in this DBT is the topic of this thread. And they couldn't tell a difference in 1981. the conclusion isn't popular, but it's what it is.

Put me or anyone in the same test and maybe I would hear a difference. But there's a curve. Statistically - no difference. Hard to believe in 1981, shouldn't be so hard now if the test was repeated.

 

[JimmyM]

Building a little tiny project tube amp in college is not exactly what I'd call a lot of experience. For learning how to build them it's good experience. And it probably sounded good if you did it well. Wouldn't base an agenda of tube hatred on it.

 

[aborgman]

Ultimately, does it really matter if it's tube or ss, if you like it and it meets your sonic goals?

It very well might... because I have goals which aren't sonic.

It has to meet my sonic goals, my aesthetic goals, and my size and weight goals.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

Again peer reviewed way back when.

Of course, all peer reviewed research is not created equal. The 1981 article would be a nice undergraduate research project, but I wouldn't even sign off on it as a thesis if I were a committee member. The possibility of type I or type II error is through the roof due to the obscenely low sample size. That's still a relatively low sample size for a qualitative research project let alone a quantitative research project. There aren't any actual tests of significance in the study. Why? Because the sample size is so low that, as I said earlier, any conclusions would be worth a pack of gum. Additionally, the fact that participants could switch back and forth between sources may be creating some funky internal validity issues.

Honestly, I don't know how they effed it up that badly. It's pretty simple:

-Get a sample size larger than what can be fit in a conversion van
-Randomly assign participants into two groups - one that is exposed to a tube amp, one that is exposed to a SS amp
-Have participants indicate what type of amp they think they're hearing
-Run a Chi-square
-?????
-Profit

Of course, if you really want to get fancy, you can take multiple observations as each amp gets pushed harder towards clipping and graph the results. My guess is you'd probably find that accuracy increases as each amp reaches its respective limit.

 

[Joe Louvar]

Which tube amp, versus which solid state amp would one use in this theoretical DBT?

There are tube amps that are very clean and hi-fi, and there are ss amps that are very warm and round, and furthermore, those that incorporate sampled/modeled tube "tones"...

How would you have the tone controls on either test amp set?

How would you have gain structures set?

Ultimately, does it really matter if it's tube or ss, if you like it and it meets your sonic goals?

nope, not for me. and after reading this thread I feel lucky I like Tubes, SS, Hybrids, software/hardware, modeling, effects, pick, fingers, thumb, big/little amps, and etc - if it sounds good, it is good.

 

[froghat]

@LiquidMidnight - I was struck by the small size of the sample, but why would you change their methodology rather than just increasing the number of participants? Hearing an amp by itself and declaring it tube or SS is not nearly as compelling as hearing two back-to-back sounds and trying to compare them. I think 'internal validity' concerns get filtered out by having the possibility of A and B being the same.

 

[Downunderwonder]

You're pointing your guns in the wrong direction. I didn't write the paper, I didn't peer review it. I read it, I read the conclusion. I'll be glad to read another DBT and it's conclusion.

It's not my subjective hearing versus anybody's hearing. Anonymous test subjects listen and report. I could participate, but that would be anonymous.

I would expect any new DBT to follow appropriate protocols, which would be taking know scientific data, and measuring the amps under test to be sure the testing process is valid. In this papers case 1 subject was able to hear distortion that the authors failed to measure. They were able to measure it, after "1" trained listener pointed it out. This was clearly disclosed in the conclusion.

As far as getting me to shut up, which seems to be your goal - get or find some scientific study, DBT, etc. that is conclusive in proving otherwise. It does amaze me that since 1981 there is no counter study following any protocol.

This paper here was only a simple SS versus Tube. 1981. Time has moved on and many Manufacturers like, Ampeg, Markbass, Fender, Orange, Peavey, even SS makers like GK have put their names on modeling products. Peavey's musebox may be a game changer here. Therefore I don't believe a new DBT using new products would result in a different conclusion.

I will continue to point out alternatives. At this point in time there are more than one way to achieve this, without compromise.

Somebody coming to this board for information should be able to find and consider alternatives.

BTW, I don't read JimmyM's posts and others. I found that some posts often focused on me and not the topic of discussion. I don't read or answer these to avoid flame wars. Myself being guilty of flaming. This does have the side effect that one of these folks has shut me up with their point when actually I haven't even read it. I have been PM'd about this, but the flame wars help nobody, including the moderators.

Best of luck on your DBT idea. I hope it pans out.

So you're willing to take part in the great DBT SS model vs SVT live test? As far as I know the SS SVT doesn't exist yet, that's why I'm proposing a two year window to come up with it and asking Jimmy to specify some settings to give you a fighting chance. If you reckon there's a suitable amp out there already, well let's have at it!

I nominate Bass Gear Magazine to conduct the testing. They'll need a better office power supply so Jimmy doesn't twig the lights are dimming when he lays into the SVT.

A lot of the complaints from the tube guys about DBT are to do with knobling the output so the tube amp can't be differentiated through its "defects". Do you think that's a valid complaint?

As far as I'm concerned if the SS model can't copy amp sag it's not worthy. Can it be done?

Since JimmyM has been at the forefront of defending the idea of tube realism only coming from real tubes I think it's only fair to give him the rights of nominating the settings to be tested. We need a few more Tube nuts who would like to put their listening to the test for a statistically valid test result.

 

[seamonkey]

Ampeg SVX has been out for years. Look at the IK site.
Ampeg engineers were involved.

Sag has been modeled, but not all amps would have this to the same extent. Old caps wear out. Many people upgrade their caps anyhow. Sag would change.

What will make this test different than the hundreds of other listen and pick the clip sound tests done here and on other forums? Although they did not follow strict DBT testing guidelines they all end up with the same results. You can search this board for past tests. Even people who pulled the wave files into soundforge and audacity to look at them got it wrong. Visually they look like the same waveform

I think somebody famous said - if they sound the same they measure the same, or some variant

 

[Jim C]

BTW, wasn't going to bring it up, but since he did, I would have zero problem with Seamonkey if he actually listened to people who have touched tube amps in their lives. Instead, there's always this agenda to get people who might be considering a tube amp to forget about it, accompanied by a load of misinformation based on reading books and never using a tube amp. I correct the misinformation, I ask him the question about whether he's ever plugged into a tube amp, and I'm the bad guy. OK.

Jimmy,
S Monkey is indeed agenda driven as proof by his comment based on my statement that different brands of recording consoles sound differently even though the EQ response was flat.
The transformer vs. transformer comment was the clue that transient response can be very different let alone the sag / tocuh sensitivity of amps. BTW, I have well over 10,000 hours of recording and mixing on the above mentioned equipment from 24 track studios in the DC area, to twin 24 track mobile trucks to sessions at the old Power Station.
Using a Bill F quote on an out of context statement does not show anything other than ones' lack of knowldege on the subject; your opinions above also demonstrate this.
These types of behavior made me leave TB for months until my return a few weeks ago. Always appreciate the different view points when they are not the same as my own but have no room for those that want to stir it up without respect and then use a smiley face to hide behind.

 

[JimmyM]

Since JimmyM has been at the forefront of defending the idea of tube realism only coming from real tubes I think it's only fair to give him the rights of nominating the settings to be tested.

Whoa now! I don't know what gave you that idea. I use a Micro VR, a PF350, a couple different Tech 21 Character pedals and Guitar Rig. They're all killer and do a really good and realistic sounding imitation. All I'm saying is that I hear the sound when I plug into an SVT or B-15 as being superior and quite easily identifiable if you know what you're listening for. And so can other people. I'm not going to participate in a double blind test to defend my POV. Not only does it matter to anyone who else has strong beliefs, but nobody else in the world even gives a rat's ass.

 

[Downunderwonder]

Ampeg SVX has been out for years. Look at the IK site.
Ampeg engineers were involved.

Sag has been modeled, but not all amps would have this to the same extent. Old caps wear out. Many people upgrade their caps anyhow. Sag would change.

What will make this test different than the hundreds of other listen and pick the clip sound tests done here and on other forums? Although they did not follow strict DBT testing guidelines they all end up with the same results. You can search this board for past tests. Even people who pulled the wave files into soundforge and audacity to look at them got it wrong. Visually they look like the same waveform

I think somebody famous said - if they sound the same they measure the same, or some variant

You can't hide behind not being able to model sag or capacitors in a live playing test all the while making out Jimmy is delusional for saying he can pick the difference with his eyes shut.

 

[Downunderwonder]

Whoa now! I don't know what gave you that idea. I use a Micro VR, a PF350, a couple different Tech 21 Character pedals and Guitar Rig. They're all killer and do a really good and realistic sounding imitation. All I'm saying is that I hear the sound when I plug into an SVT or B-15 as being superior and quite easily identifiable if you know what you're listening for. And so can other people. I'm not going to participate in a double blind test to defend my POV. Not only does it matter to anyone who else has strong beliefs, but nobody else in the world even gives a rat's ass.

"real tube realism" then what a mouthful. I know you use the modeling gear but you can't say you aren't the champion of defending the real thing as the only thing that sounds like the real thing.

 

[JimmyM]

Nah, I'm not a champion...I'm just being honest about what I hear. If I thought SS technology was surpassing tube amp technology, I'd say it. It's definitely getting there but still just misses.

 

[LiquidMidnight]

@LiquidMidnight - I was struck by the small size of the sample, but why would you change their methodology rather than just increasing the number of participants? Hearing an amp by itself and declaring it tube or SS is not nearly as compelling as hearing two back-to-back sounds and trying to compare them. I think 'internal validity' concerns get filtered out by having the possibility of A and B being the same.

I was thinking that there may be a possibility of a spurious variable (i.e., hearing fatigue from constantly going back between the two amps) affecting participants' perceptions. Constantly being exposed to the various levels of the independent variable an irregular amount of times per participant doesn't sit well with me. The groups, in essence, aren't equivalent due to the testing procedure.

You could expose each participant to each level of the IV, but you'd have to counter-balance the order in which participants heard each sample, code for order with each participant's data, and then run a statistical test to see if amp order has a relationship with participants' responses. I was going to mention that, but it would have added another bullet point and I would have had to discuss within-subjects versus between-subjects designs.

Of course, if you really wanted to have some very defendable results, you'd control for participants' experience with audio equipment. Are a bedroom guitarist and a Nashville recording engineer going to have equally discerning ears?

 

[Jerrold Tiers]

Ampeg SVX has been out for years. Look at the IK site.
Ampeg engineers were involved.

Not so's you'd notice.... seems that we did get to try it at some point many years ago, but if there was any real engineering input to it then , it didn't make much noise...... wasn't any big deal.

As far as I know it is basically something marketing did a deal on with a third party, starting back with SLM . Maybe they got someone to mess with it and say something.... But, a "project" it was not at that time.... I was fairly busy, but you'd think I'd have heard something about it other than "we got this stuff in from marketing"....

Presumably the "Ampeg engineers" involved must be the new guys up at Loud.....

 

[seamonkey]

Jimmy,
S Monkey is indeed agenda driven as proof by his comment based on my statement that different brands of recording consoles sound differently even though the EQ response was flat.
The transformer vs. transformer comment was the clue that transient response can be very different let alone the sag / tocuh sensitivity of amps. BTW, I have well over 10,000 hours of recording and mixing on the above mentioned equipment from 24 track studios in the DC area, to twin 24 track mobile trucks to sessions at the old Power Station.
Using a Bill F quote on an out of context statement does not show anything other than ones' lack of knowldege on the subject; your opinions above also demonstrate this.
These types of behavior made me leave TB for months until my return a few weeks ago. Always appreciate the different view points when they are not the same as my own but have no room for those that want to stir it up without respect and then use a smiley face to hide behind.

Jerold corrected me

"If they measure the same, then they sound the same.
If they sound different then something is (measured) with the wrong measurement."

Maybe ask him for clarification.

 

[seamonkey]

Not so's you'd notice.... seems that we did get to try it at some point many years ago, but if there was any real engineering input to it then , it didn't make much noise...... wasn't any big deal.

As far as I know it is basically something marketing did a deal on with a third party, starting back with SLM . Maybe they got someone to mess with it and say something.... But, a "project" it was not at that time.... I was fairly busy, but you'd think I'd have heard something about it other than "we got this stuff in from marketing"....

Presumably the "Ampeg engineers" involved must be the new guys up at Loud.....

I recently asked "Brian" at IK on another forum, here, and he confirmed that "Ampeg" engineers were involved. He didn't say if they were Ampeg Ampeg, SLM Ampeg, or LOUD Ampeg.

Orange, Fender also had their engineers for their amps. Soldano for himself.

Maybe I'll look for his post.

This doesn't have much to do with the subject paper. But it would be good to see a new official blind tests around amplifiers both tube and solid state with cabinets versus modelers.