I speak some Russian, and I played two nights at the Jazz Cafe in Moscow. They
wouldn't let me in the front door without a guide (this was 1964....) but the
Cafe had a plate glass window, and when I gesticulated to the band that I was a
double bass player, they opened the back door. It's all front and back doors to
this day, just as in a Welsh home its best china in the front room and plates
flying through the air in the kitchen.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

In article ,
Stewart Pinkerton wrote:
The real resurgence of valves and vinyl here in the UK may well be
small in terms of overall market share, but one thing the bashers fail
to realise - it's almost 100% real 'audiophiles' that are driving it.
(I consider the DJ scene to be mostly unchanged.)

Nah, if they were *real* audiophiles.... oh, forget it!

More typical KG 'head-in-the-sand-I'm-speaking-for-the world' attitude.

If '100% real audiophiles' all thought valves were the holy grail, there'd
be no sales of expensive solid state equipment.

I'd be interested in the figures of amp sales at say 200 quid plus, or
wherever valve amps start at...

Of course, every religious nutter thinks the subject of their adoration is
the only true God.

--
*Don't use no double negatives *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28 Oct 2004 13:19:17 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Now, if you are using the word better in a purely subjective way, good
for you - but it makes for problems on Usenet, because that isn't the
common usage of the term.

You present this as an 'either or' which I think isn;t exactly the case. We
have IMHO, and using vinyl/valves as a rather uncomfortable diptych (I use
valves but rarely vinyl, others vinyl and ss):

a) I 'prefer' the sound of vinyl/valves
b) I think valves/vinyl are audibly closer to the analogue source, in
subjective terms and in terms of fidelity to known acoustical sounds
c) I think that the present state of engineering, or at least 'general purpose'
engineering (leaving out niche specialists) would claim that solid state and
digital audio has better technical measuremants

Which, of course throws us back into the lions den of 'this measures better'
and 'this sounds more like a piano to my ears'. While engineering is
indispensible to audio, just as mechanics is to driving a car, an amplifier
does nothing until you put sound through it and a car does nothing until it's
driven. Listening is as much part of the audio experience as driving is to
cars, and musicians have a case for relevance in audio just as Schumacher has a
case for relevance in motoring - whether he's handy with a spanner or not.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

We still have the basic problem here, which is that maybe genuinely -
someone feels that a valve system produces a more "lifelike" sound.
The problem is that it is hard to see this in terms other than a kind
of self-justification of a simple preference for the sound of valves.

The reasoning behind this is that it is (I hope you can agree) easily
demonstrable that CD and SS together produce an output which is -
objectively - far closer to what the pianist produced than vinyl and
valves can even hope to be.

So the problem as I see it is that we still have a situation where
purely subjective preferences are somehow, whether deliberately or
not, being translated into quasi-objective assertions of actual
superiority. Although I must say that the wording of the claims is
often not that blatant.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Keith G wrote:

"Tat Chan" wrote in message
...


Btw, I don't think that valves and vinyl are "ordinary hi-fi topics". More
like niche topics, actually ...

OK, make that 3.5 then.....


actually, I have had a rethink and I take that back. Valves and vinyl aren't
niche topics as they do appear in audio separates systems.

However, it would be interesting to know if the generation that grew up with CD
would embrace vinyl (DJs excluded, of course)?

The reasoning behind this is that it is (I hope you can agree) easily
demonstrable that CD and SS together produce an output which is -
objectively - far closer to what the pianist produced than vinyl and
valves can even hope to be.

I don't think this can be easily agreed - that's the point. Tony Faulkner, the
last time I spoke to him, was using a digital front end but valve amps to play
back master tapes. He supplies masters to the industry. Others claim they hear
nuances on vinyl they don't hear on CD. If by objective you mean measured
distortion, then there will be those (from Hiraga on) who will argue the
relevance of the measurement parameters. If by subjective we mean, for
instance, a pianist who plays a piano all day every day of his life and says
"this here sounds more like my piano" do we dismiss his expertise just because
we chuck it the bin labelled 'subjective'?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

On 28 Oct 2004 14:10:02 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

The reasoning behind this is that it is (I hope you can agree) easily
demonstrable that CD and SS together produce an output which is -
objectively - far closer to what the pianist produced than vinyl and
valves can even hope to be.

I don't think this can be easily agreed - that's the point. Tony Faulkner, the
last time I spoke to him, was using a digital front end but valve amps to play
back master tapes. He supplies masters to the industry. Others claim they hear
nuances on vinyl they don't hear on CD. If by objective you mean measured
distortion, then there will be those (from Hiraga on) who will argue the
relevance of the measurement parameters. If by subjective we mean, for
instance, a pianist who plays a piano all day every day of his life and says
"this here sounds more like my piano" do we dismiss his expertise just because
we chuck it the bin labelled 'subjective'?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

Of course you hear nuances on vinyl that you won't hear on CD - or
rather you would hear on CD if you ran it through a compressor the way
it has been for the vinyl version. But what do you say to the artist
and producer who have striven to make their sound as perfect as they
can on CD? We are still here in the land of the subjective "prefer"
masquerading as the objective "better", you see.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Of course you hear nuances on vinyl that you won't hear on CD - or
rather you would hear on CD if you ran it through a compressor the way
it has been for the vinyl version.

that's a good point

But what do you say to the artist and producer who have striven to make their
sound as perfect as they can on CD? We are still here in the land of the
subjective "prefer" masquerading as the objective "better", you see.

I'm not following you here. I think we can assume that artists and producers
strive for perfection in broad terms. But valve equipment is used in the shape
of mics, 19" rackmount gear and even mastering and playback amps (rarely, but
Tim de P is one). Wouldn't it be more correct to say "producers use whatever
gear they find gives them the "best" sound they can get". Can't we leave this
choice to the producers in question without second guessing what they 'ought'
to use?

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

On 28 Oct 2004 14:32:08 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Of course you hear nuances on vinyl that you won't hear on CD - or
rather you would hear on CD if you ran it through a compressor the way
it has been for the vinyl version.

that's a good point

But what do you say to the artist and producer who have striven to make their
sound as perfect as they can on CD? We are still here in the land of the
subjective "prefer" masquerading as the objective "better", you see.

I'm not following you here. I think we can assume that artists and producers
strive for perfection in broad terms. But valve equipment is used in the shape
of mics, 19" rackmount gear and even mastering and playback amps (rarely, but
Tim de P is one). Wouldn't it be more correct to say "producers use whatever
gear they find gives them the "best" sound they can get". Can't we leave this
choice to the producers in question without second guessing what they 'ought'
to use?

=== Andy Evans ===

Of course we can - I am all for letting the artists and producer be
the final arbiter of what is the "correct" sound, or the most
aesthetically pleasing, if you like. Whatever they choose to do with
reverb, valves, passes through a tape machine etc are fine with me.
Although generally they will be the first to admit that the version
that they produce for vinyl (sorry to harp on about it) is necessarily
a compromise between the desirable and the possible.

But is that not the point at which we can say that this is what it is
meant to sound like and strive to achieve that in playback?

Again, I'm not saying there is anything actually wrong with adding
what amounts to effects with a valve amp. I'm sure it can sound nice,
although I would get very bored with exactly the same effect being
applied to everything I listened to.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

Again, I'm not saying there is anything actually wrong with adding what amounts
to effects with a valve amp

I'm not defending vinyl, we can leave that out of the equation. But again, I
just don't see that a valve amp is 'adding effects'. This theory produced some
ridiculous 'valve sound' effects boxes for the MI industry, none of which
sounded like good valve gear, and musicians weren't fooled. I know this is only
one maybe crude example, but I'm pretty convinced that modern high end valve
users are equally likely to believe that ss 'adds greyness' or however they put
it. Here I'm making a comment about the weight of arguments on the valve side
of the fence, not what DBTs or other methods of comparison 'prove'.

=== Andy Evans ===
Visit our Website:- http://www.artsandmedia.com
Audio, music and health pages and interesting links.

On 28 Oct 2004 14:58:28 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Again, I'm not saying there is anything actually wrong with adding what amounts
to effects with a valve amp

I'm not defending vinyl, we can leave that out of the equation. But again, I
just don't see that a valve amp is 'adding effects'. This theory produced some
ridiculous 'valve sound' effects boxes for the MI industry, none of which
sounded like good valve gear, and musicians weren't fooled. I know this is only
one maybe crude example, but I'm pretty convinced that modern high end valve
users are equally likely to believe that ss 'adds greyness' or however they put
it. Here I'm making a comment about the weight of arguments on the valve side
of the fence, not what DBTs or other methods of comparison 'prove'.


OK as a comment - but it really is just hand-waving, not a
supportable, defensible position.

I can't advance any more arguments against such a position, I'm
afraid.

d
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com