• 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 freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Good read on "The Great Debate"

JREF foundation hasn't had to give a Million dollars to anyone with supernatural powers. The supernatural power never seems to work when scientifically examined. And many who claim to have supernatural power will not even try for the million. Psychics to Dowsers somehow can't do it with skeptics watching.

Somebody - Do you own DBT. Lets see if the special properties do exist.

Reading through the above, the numbers, and what was tested is already being warped.

Regardless, This one is still valid from 1981. Just like Fletcher-Munson is still valid from decades earlier. Until another test shows otherwise.

Some results are not going to change no matter how much special pleading goes on. :(
 
+100000000.
again, extremely limited tests basically determine nothing. there's a much bigger picture involved than what the Fender paper demonstrates.

And that is often the problem with the DBT..... Not only is the methodology prescribed, and often distressingly "stilted"............ But also the "tested" factor must often be narrowed down so minutely that it is difficult to apply the results..... Even though the test is completely valid and proper from a methodology standpoint.

The DBT shines when you CAN narrow everything down to that sort of precision..... Unfortunately, with many of the "tube vs SS type investigations, you first have to decide WHAT to investigate..... and then in the process of limiting the investigation to that, you may cause even the single factor you want to investigate to be invalidated.

Sort of as if you wanted to see if people could distinguish a real Jackson Pollack painting from something done by apes......... by the time you eliminate all "extraneous" factors, you may have the test subjects looking at a small square inch of each painting, with colors as similar to each other as possible..... the only remaining factor is whose hand did it, and of course nobody can tell.... Does that mean a real J.P. is indistinguishable from something done by apes? Not in any way......... But you could have a perfectly "valid" test as far as methodology is concerned....

Methodology isn't a guarantee of validity outside of the small and rather myopic world of methodology......

ISO9000 has been considererd by many to be a quality control standard........ it is really a methodology standard.... Your wineglass factory can be certified ISO even if your output of glasses is 100% broken...... if you document the hammer and exact procedure used to break each glass before the box is closed, and follow that every time, you could be ISO9000.... and your product would be unusable trash....

Methodology only goes so far.....it is not concerned with actual usability of results.
 
Well said.
Can you talk about the SS patent from Ampeg that dealt with the dynamic emulation of tube amps, or would this cause a legal issue from being a former engineer / designer / employee.
 
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

Interesting article, but is it applicable to bass amps, which incorporate negative feedback -- and thus have high damping factors -- in both tube and solid state designs?
 
The amps were measured at the beginning of the test. And determined EQ as needed to degrade the SS amps output. That made them equal.

You'd do the same for bass amps.
This scales up and down.

i get the feeling that you're missing the big picture since you're oversimplifying the results.
 
The amps were measured at the beginning of the test. And determined EQ as needed to degrade the SS amps output. That made them equal.


Well, for SURE it did NOT in any way make them truly equal..... just in one way equal..... at one setting, etc. saying it made them equal is totally misunderstanding how that works, which I find surprising among engineers who ought to have known better.

response is a consequence of the actual characteristic that is responsible. I do not think it is possible to duplicate that with eq, we did it a very different way.

Just one misunderstanding notable in the paper. That one may actually not have made a big difference, but it show evidence of lack of understanding of what matters.
 
Well said.
Can you talk about the SS patent from Ampeg that dealt with the dynamic emulation of tube amps, or would this cause a legal issue from being a former engineer / designer / employee.

Patents are the most public of all public disclosures...... no possible way any IP is hidden when patented. And it has expired.

The essence was to emulate the shift of harmonic structure that occurs in a typical tube preamp as it is clipped harder, and /or longer. The voltages shift due to the capacitor coupling, shifting the clipping characteristics and harmonics.

It works.... It isn't the entire story, but it is a big part of the dynamics of actually playing the amp, the way the player, picking style, etc interact with the amp to get effects from "slightly dirty" all the way thru "heavy distortion".

I don't recall the number, but you can look it up at the USPTO. Either my name, or Thom Kieffer, put in as inventor should do it.
 
Well, for SURE it did NOT in any way make them truly equal..... just in one way equal..... at one setting, etc. saying it made them equal is totally misunderstanding how that works, which I find surprising among engineers who ought to have known better.

response is a consequence of the actual characteristic that is responsible. I do not think it is possible to duplicate that with eq, we did it a very different way.

Just one misunderstanding notable in the paper. That one may actually not have made a big difference, but it show evidence of lack of understanding of what matters.

The authors actual tooks the EQ difference out. They made sure both amps had the same frequency response to the speaker.

Again peer reviewed way back when.

What matters, is that in the test the test subjects couldn't tell. That's a simple conclusion. Let see a new test with different results.

No need to break down the validity of DBT's. They work, and measurements correlate their results.
 
So basically, no one wants to have test subject #1 critiquing their sound. He is sure to tell you about things he can hear, that you can't.

Focusing on artifacts that are not part of the intended sound is common. Another DBT audiophiles listen to vinyl and CDs. They audiophiles has a preference for the vinyl. Then vinyl was recorded to CDs. The audiophiles could not hear a difference between the vinyl and CDs recorded from the vinyl. A partial summary was audiophiles like snap, crackle, pop, of vinyl.

And take Coke and Pepsi, they'd be clear without food coloring. The color has nothing to do with the taste when it's in your mouth. Yet "clear" does not taste the same if you see it first.

In any case, techniques to reproduce any amp sound includes all the artifacts these days. Nothing is left out. Though you usually can tweak how much of unnatural artifacts you want in the sound.

Watch the youtube on audio myths. If you focus on the artifacts, you are not listening to other parts of the sound. That's how we work, we focus and miss other details.
 
Hey, he can critique till his butt falls off. It just doesn't mean anything to me. Test subject #1 can go buy his own stuff and have fun with it. I will do the same.

:D.


+1


Science is beautiful, but if there was one "best way" because that's what all the charts and graphs say, and we all agreed it sounded the best, we would all be playing the same stuff, and sounding the same...and that would be excruciatingly boring.
 
Jerrold, your posts in this thread are golden, and come closest to explaining (I think) what the appeal of playing through some tube amps has for me and probably many others. It seems like these aspects of the amps' performance are being taken into account more now when designing amps and pedals designed to emulate the feel and tonalities of various classic tube amps.

In practical terms, it's it's probably why so many tubeheads like the VT pedal, the Streamliner, and the Mesa Walkabout, and why some all tube Mesa amps aren't very popular, because they sound too 'solid state'!

I'm glad Seamonkey made that point about vinyl for two reasons. One is that people can tell the source is vinyl even if reproduced digitally, and the other is that people may prefer tubes and vinyl for the artifacts and distortion they produce.

100% fidelity in amplification of an instrument's or an audio source is of ZERO importance to me, and obviously to many others. We seek a pleasant listening experience, and that may be because certain types of distortion, etc, are inherently pleasing to us as humans, and also obviously because we prefer what we are used to hearing.

By focusing on the hiss and pops, he is missing the point that maybe much subtler distortion is present that knocks the harsh edges off the highs, that seems to separate instruments more, or make voices appear more like when someone is singing in a room rather than through a sound system, etc, etc.

And of course when we are talking about amplifying instruments, fidelity is only important to a point, because we are generating sound rather than reproducing it. Everyone has their own idea about how much 'fidelity' they want from their rig, because nobody really knows what their instrument actually sounds like, though we talk as if it's a given. Since no one has heard their own electric bass loud enough acoustically, we all to an extent like a certain amount of colour, i.e. distortion, EQ, etc.

Some of us have heard our instruments through very flat rigs, and want that, some want masses of colouration and baked in EQ, and some varying amounts in between, but when you think of it, electric instruments are designed more often as not as part of a system that includes the characteristics of amplification traditionally used, and recording techniques and their various methods of storage and reproduction.

Excuse my rambling here, lack of intellectual rigour, and not addressing the actual topic, but I think they are relevant when discussing testing, as they affect what is tested and to what purpose those tests are used for, how they are framed and what they intend to reveal.
 
One Drop, great ideas! Thanks for the post!

I agree about Jerrold's posts in this thread, too. Such insight is hard to find anywhere but here.

& again, a big thanks to everyone for tossing so much knowledge & solid opinions out there. I've had so much to chew on, my jaw is sore!
 
Joe Louvar said:
What is baked in EQ?

Poppin' fresh tones straight from the oven!

More seriously, an emphasis on certain frequencies in the voicing of an amp, that you can't adjust out, or at least without making such radical adjustments that the amp no longer works well in different rooms and stages, or up and down the neck.
 
Poppin' fresh tones straight from the oven!

More seriously, an emphasis on certain frequencies in the voicing of an amp, that you can't adjust out, or at least without making such radical adjustments that the amp no longer works well in different rooms and stages, or up and down the neck.

Hmm, at first I thought you might be referring to the signature sound of some amps - IE, the Ampeg SVT has a signature sound - but your not. I think your “baked in EQ” may be more of a problem with the cabinet than the amp. Anyway, thanks.