So another really deadly fault in the DBT test is that the units were not used in ways typical of actual guitar usage..... In the linear unclipped and un-distorted range, one SHOULD NOT be surprised that most people cannot distinguish any difference between tubes and transistors..... if the circuits are competently designed, there will BE little difference.
Good, so no difference as the paper concluded.
it is totally improper to attempt to spin the test as having relevance past what was actually done, what was actually tested...... Which seems to be that if you do your best to match two circuits in frequency response, and run both at levels which are virtually undistorted, the total audible difference between them is going to be small.
This agrees, no difference.
Only at extremes would there be differences. Old SS maybe became unstable at clipping. Not true anymore. Time moves on.
You have to keep the Coke and Pepsi at the same temperature during a taste test. This is what this paper did in the setup. It's what DBT's do.
Seamonkey apparently has somewhat of an agenda, evidently an unquestioning faith that any "methodologically valid" test is always golden as proof (or disproof) of a theory which it purports to test, and unfailing energy in promoting his beliefs.
We have to put some trust in science, or there is no progress. Electron theory and all.
Scientist write papers, do studies, and DBT's it how science progresses and corrects itself.
I'm fine with that.... it's really his problem, after all.....
It's not a problem for me. My world of Old School Sound to Modern alternatives is growing exponentially. New products from well established companies that have seen the light as well as brand new companies crawling out of the woodwork. It's a good time to be a musician.
Throughout history, companies either flow with technology developments or wither away.
Encyclopedia Britannica has modernized, they don't print encyclopedias anymore. They moved to modern information services and are very strong. They must read what they write.
Other companies host steadfast then some new graduate student or crazy person figures out there's a better way. And it takes off. Look at the worlds youngest billionairs to see why they come up with things others missed. This actually has happened time and time again in history. It's nothing new.
I do not share his apparent beliefs. Neither life not science is that simple. There are ALWAYS other considerations, unforseen issues, and things which the test didn't test.
In some sciences we know quite a bit, like pressure waves in air. Loudspeakers/motors have not changed much since invented.
Some sciences are stable and mature while others like we're doing at CERN we still have quite a bit to learn. It's flat out that all sciences are at the same state of maturity.
As in this case.
* The one exception is the devices which Kirkwood Rough had at NAMM many years ago. They were "solid state", of a somewhat obsolete type normally seen only in textbooks now, and were an essentially direct duplicate in performance of a generic 12AX7. They measured same, and sounded same..... because they BEHAVED the same... INHERENTLY.
No other solid state device I have any familiarity with has that sort of performance.
He seems to be a T.B. member, BTW.....
OK "one exception" that you know about.
This poor guy has no chance. No matter how many DBT's or hand on playing tests are done. It will be just this same thread repeated.
Designers of tube gear and all electronics are using computers to model tubes and circuits (for years). The real world measurements match. Nearly everything is designed on computers first. I'm sure you know.
Designs may be analog gear for the "perception" or digital for the flexibility.
Signal in to signal out - both can be the same no matter how they are derived.
By the way. Teemuk wrote an excellent book on the history of SS amplifiers. He details how things came about. It is a must read for those interested in the history of SS and Tube MI Amplifiers.
