• 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"

#21
billfitzmaurice said:
The 'Tube/SS switch' in this video is equally enlightening:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

That was hilarious!! I loved how the EEs all voted for SS & the audiophiles went Tube. Thanks for that Bill! The argument is always so hot. But, my observations never stay on the topic. Rather, the arguers evidence. & how they came upon that evidence. I have loads of amps. Love 'em all for one reason or another. But, those are my reasons. How can another person hear those same exact reasons without being slanted at all? This is why the tests fascinate me. Blind tests are valuable. Instrument tests are valuable. Are there tests that bounce the measuring instrument results against the human blind tests?
 
#23
Get a copy of the real paper for AES. The Milbert site has a manual typed copy of it. The mistakes are from the person who typed it in.

This paper is an AES Peer reviewed and presented paper. The conclusion is valid. Using the EQ and matching the amps ahead of test is valid.

Let's see somebody do their own double blind study that refutes it. It hasn't happened in all these years. Instead we'll forever see repeated anecdotal lore.

People's non belief of double blind tests is common. Sited tests really do influence the test subject. Recently a test on violins was done with the participants wearing welding glasses to obscure the instruments. Perfumed used to disguise smells. These musicians could not tell a Stradivarius from a modern violin. Listening or playing it.

It doesn't really matter anymore. Tube sound, and sound from any head - pre-amp and amp is archived with modeling. Even analog modeling has it down. And you can turn it off when you don't want it. Micro heads are flooding the market and nobody is compromising their tone.

As always - IMHO ... YMMV
 
#24
seamonkey said:
Get a copy of the real paper for AES. The Milbert site has a manual typed copy of it. The mistakes are from the person who typed it in.

This paper is an AES Peer reviewed and presented paper. The conclusion is valid. Using the EQ and matching the amps ahead of test is valid.

Let's see somebody do their own double blind study that refutes it. It hasn't happened in all these years. Instead we'll forever see repeated anecdotal lore.

People's non belief of double blind tests is common. Sited tests really do influence the test subject. Recently a test on violins was done with the participants wearing welding glasses to obscure the instruments. Perfumed used to disguise smells. These musicians could not tell a Stradivarius from a modern violin. Listening or playing it.

It doesn't really matter anymore. Tube sound, and sound from any head - pre-amp and amp is archived with modeling. Even analog modeling has it down. And you can turn it off when you don't want it. Micro heads are flooding the market and nobody is compromising their tone.

As always - IMHO ... YMMV
Click to expand...

I'll have to dig around for that full copy!

I completely agree on the influencing of test subjects. I also agree wholeheartedly that blind tests are really useful & that their results will be argued eternally.

One of my goals in posting the paper here was to see if, in fact, there were any more tests out there like this that offered opposing results. My curiosity was if the results would be so far off from each other or if it the report would present similar results in a different light to support opposing arguments.
 
#25
billfitzmaurice said:
All the time. But unlike human testing measuring gear always gets the same result, as it's not influenced by preconception.
Click to expand...

I wonder what that swing would be. Meaning, if the amount of preconception could be measured between the two types of testing.

Mind you, this is all for discussion & I don't ever see a practical reason for doing something like that. In discussion, I learn a great many things. Which, is why I come here.

Bill, I thank you for popping in. I've studied your designs at length.
 
#26
All I know is I have heard good sounds from both, tube or solid state. Personally, I play solid state for the light weight and small size. Sounds great to me.

Something I run into sometimes is the person who brags about playing tubes and puts down solid state. I hate that. To each their own, and no need to put the other down.
 
#27
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...

I didn’t even get that far - I didn’t even click on the link because I think the whole SS verse Tubes for bass debate is old, worn out and boring. ;)

Russell L said:
All I know is I have heard good sounds from both, tube or solid state. Personally, I play solid state for the light weight and small size. Sounds great to me.

Something I run into sometimes is the person who brags about playing tubes and puts down solid state. I hate that. To each their own, and no need to put the other down.
Click to expand...

+1, me too - well, for bass anyway. However, many times I like tubes better for guitar - but, I’ve heard some good sounding transistor guitar amp too - so +1.

But there will always the people who just can’t seem to stop with the “my dog is bigger or better than yours” nonsense - oh well.
 
#28
Joe Louvar said:
I didn't even get that far - I didn't even click on the link because I think the whole SS verse Tubes for bass debate is old, worn out and boring. ;)

+1, me too - well, for bass anyway. However, many times I like tubes better for guitar - but, I've heard some good sounding transistor guitar amp too - so +1.

But there will always the people who just can't seem to stop with the "my dog is bigger or better than yours" nonsense - oh well.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input! I think everyone has an opinion one way or the other. I was posting more to discuss the testing procedures & applications, as well as to pickup some knowledge about those things. As I said in my initial post, I wasn't looking for an extension of the debate. More for just posting a paper that I stumbled upon that was an interesting read to me because of the method applied & talking about that.
 
#29
Russell L said:
All I know is I have heard good sounds from both, tube or solid state. Personally, I play solid state for the light weight and small size. Sounds great to me.

Something I run into sometimes is the person who brags about playing tubes and puts down solid state. I hate that. To each their own, and no need to put the other down.
Click to expand...

I'm not really trying to argue either way with that discussion. More so about the paper & the method of testing they used. As well as the omission of certain things & also the value of blind testing.
 
#30
bryan.worley said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is better than most I've seen, although my training in the fisheries game often demanded a much more rigorous set of protocols. Someone on ProSoundWeb did an amp shootout several years ago that basically amounted to everyone throwing up their hands and saying "this is too much hassle." I borrowed the QSC A/B/X widget for a while and could never get anyone to play. Frankly, not all that many people really seem to care.


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!
Click to expand...

Thanks man. I'm getting old and I'd like to think I can pass along something useful once in a while.;)
 
#31
bryan.worley said:
Thanks for the input! I think everyone has an opinion one way or the other. I was posting more to discuss the testing procedures & applications, as well as to pickup some knowledge about those things. As I said in my initial post, I wasn't looking for an extension of the debate. More for just posting a paper that I stumbled upon that was an interesting read to me because of the method applied & talking about that.
Click to expand...

That‘s good, because they’re just opinions and the method’s have been debated to death too so I sincerely doubt anyone really has anything new to add to what has already been said about the SS verses Tube topic over and over again over the years - but who knows, maybe I’m wrong - it wouldn’t be the first time ;) so good luck and have fun finding whatever it is you're looking for. :bassist:
 
#32
I've had moments where I've sounded brilliant on the worst equipment known to man, and bad nights on the highest priced gear you can get. Usually it was related to my playing.
 
#33
I must have read a different paper.....

It looked to me a bit as if they were looking in the wrong places, for the wrong thing.

I won't try to determine which is "better", but there are things which are "different" between the usual SS and the usual tube circuit, and guitar amps are the very MOST likely to bring them out.

I have NEVER been involved in the "clinical" double blind test routine.... it was never of the slightest importance to what we as designers did.

The most important thing has always been; "Which of these do you like best, and WHY do you like it better that the other one?". We would get a bunch of musicians in and have them deo their rigs, and try our new stuff. No sterile, clinical, regimented double-blind, we wanted the raw "like or dislike" info, along with the "why".

What we found was that in general, players who cared (guitar players in this case) would usually go for the tube units, and were always able to point out what they liked, or disliked, and demonstrate it.

I should mention that right at the beginning of my involvement with amps, I had all the SS amps changed to have a high output impedance (created electronically), which naturally made a big difference. So that wasn't the issue.

And I have seen what happened when we made changes that brought the SS units closer to the tube characteristics. People would play the amps longer, and seemed to enjoy doing it more.

At that point, it didn't matter what they said, we already knew what they thought from their behavior.

Double-blind testing has its place. It works well in medicine, for therapeutic drug testing, etc.

For a more subjective test, a listening test, etc, I think it often gets in the way so that the test procedure becomes a factor in the test itself. Many good musicians get frustrated and irritated at the procedure and precautions in some DB tests, their performance, and therefore test results, are not good as a result.
 
#34
Jerrold Tiers said:
It looked to me a bit as if they were looking in the wrong places, for the wrong thing.

For a more subjective test, a listening test, etc, I think it often gets in the way so that the test procedure becomes a factor in the test itself. Many good musicians get frustrated and irritated at the procedure and precautions in some DB tests, their performance, and therefore test results, are not good as a result.
Click to expand...

Two great points! Thanks!

The last one was something I felt as soon as I read about it. Something akin to performance anxiety. There are just too many variables for a double blind test to be used as a foundation to build upon. One of the things I took away from this paper was that they seemed to be chasing their tails a bit. The individual group results had no consistency whatsoever. Again, this paper just caught my attention & interest. Where better to explore this than here in discussion?

I think it was a great thing to point out that you were looking for real world "I like this & this is why" answers during your research. That, in my mind, is the most valuable input for R&D. So, for discussion, what situations would double blind testing be useful musically? Or, is it just more of an "I told you so" kind of thing?

I also still feel that this test had a lot of influence from the company that appears on the letter head. Seems to me they had a stake in either argument, and they took the safest route to protect that. It's a funny paper.

Thanks for dropping an opinion! Some days I am really glad I lurk around TB! There's always great insight!
 
#35
bryan.worley said:
I also still feel that this test had a lot of influence from the company that appears on the letter head. Seems to me they had a stake in either argument, and they took the safest route to protect that. It's a funny paper.
Click to expand...

Take a look at the cast of characters at Fender in 1981 and then a couple of years later. Many of their designs from that era were very short-lived, and not all that much fun to work on for that matter.
 
#36
Double blind tests prove to me that I can't tell the difference in a recording so much and it'll work fine for live work. They also tell me that with one or two bumps of a knob, I can change my mind about the sound of any amp, no matter what the topology. But I can darn sure tell the difference between tube and SS when I'm plugged into it, and so can everyone in my band and the crews on our gigs. So I'm with Jerrold...double blind testing is irrelevant.
 
#37
JimmyM said:
I've had moments where I've sounded brilliant on the worst equipment known to man, and bad nights on the highest priced gear you can get. Usually it was related to my playing.
Click to expand...

Same here! When you're on, you're on. Working on my consistency as a player is one of my favorite battles. And, you know, as much of a gear head as I am, my #1 rule is if it sounds good it is good. I completely respect individual subjectivity. I think that's why I came here to discuss this. How far are we willing to go to prove that what good means to me, it doesn't mean to you. Earlier, I thought I had a grasp on the value of blind tests with regards to any musical gear. Now, not so much. I am curious as to why a test like this was done to such depths (although they could've gone further) for no real result. Ha, maybe that's why no one has done one with this much effort since!
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back