In article ,
Andy Evans wrote:
Well, yes and no. I believe that a large chunk of valve sales is to the
MI sector (musical instruments),

This would certainly make sense. The overload characteristics of valves
have long been known and loved for things like electric guitars. And if
they produce the sound the musician is looking for, then that is great.
Same as adding any FX unit, etc.

However, not many true audiophiles would add an FX unit to their home
system - although of course many AV amps do have this facility in the form
of reverb.

If the characteristic valve sound is just what's needed in the recording
studio, *adding* more of the same at home seems not what a genuine
audiophile would countenance.

--
*Money isn't everything, but it sure keeps the kids in touch *

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

In article ,
Andy Evans wrote:
b) I think valves/vinyl are audibly closer to the analogue source, in
subjective terms and in terms of fidelity to known acoustical sounds

This would be very easily proved by careful blind A/B testing.

I'll say all this just once more.

I've been present at many analogue recording sessions in various
capacities. These have usually used state of the art analogue gear - Neve
desks, Studer tape machines, all maintained impeccably.
Now with all decent tape machines there is the ability to monitor off tape
- a fraction of a second after the 'live'. And on 99% of programme
material, you can easily tell the difference. Not at all difficult to
realise why, when you understand the parameters of the very best analogue
tape machine.

After one pass of analogue tape, the difference becomes less marked.

Now send that tape off for mastering to disc. Get the trial acetate back
and run that in sync with the master tape, carefully matching levels.
Again, there will be a noticeable difference.

Do all the same checks with a good digital recorder and then the final CD.
I can't tell the difference. (Unless the CD has been re-mastered in some
way, but in the things I do it wouldn't be - it will be a 'straight' copy.

--
*The more I learn about women, the more I love my car

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

b) I think valves/vinyl are audibly closer to the analogue source, in
subjective terms and in terms of fidelity to known acoustical sounds

I was including vinyl here as 'a statement that could be made' and I did
qualify that by saying that I personally think digital reproduction is
preferable. I'm agreeing with you here - I don't use my vinyl much and I'm
trying to sell it off. I've preferred CD for years, for various reasons not
least ease of use and - exactly as you say - generations of reproduction.

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

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

No, I realise that Don. I'm sticking to my argument that in my case if I know
the sound of a jazz trio very well and I find that "system A" sounds like it in
more major respects in my terms (not all respects necessarily) then I will
prefer "system A". Now, I'm quite open to the idea that "system A" in the
fullness of time might be a digital amp, a ss amp, a valve amp, a hybrid amp or
a bunch of pink geese connected to a cucumber - so whenever "system A" is not a
valve amp I would have no reasons for using one (other than peripheral ones
like nostalgia, heating the flat etc). But, to my ears I've heard nothing more
faithful to the sound I know - in terms that I consider important like
instrumental timbre - than valve amps. I'm quite willing to move from this
position when I hear something that sounds more faithful to my ears. Andy

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

Would it help here if I used the following analogy. We make two recordings of a
Tony Blair speech:
a) A full fidelity recording of Alastair McGowan identical in sound quality to
the original.
b) A diabolical cassette recording of Tony Blair himself.

It would be quite possible for the first recording to be considered 'closer to
the original'. But in terms of psychoacoustical RECOGNITION, those personally
familiar with our dear Tony are likely to say "b) is the original"
I'm using this analogy to show that a valve amp may give listeners certain cues
of 'recognition' which make them say "that sounds more like a piano etc"

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

In fact, let me use a better analogy. We take two recordings of a vintage piano
artist - Schnabel, Edwin Fischer or whatever. We can chose between the
following
a) A Pearl transfer which retains some of the hiss of 78s but is closer to the
tone of the piano
b) A Naxos transfer Cedared to remove most of the hiss but leave a more plummy
piano sound.
If you asked a bunch of listeners what was more faithful, non musicians are
likely to say 'b - it hasn't got any hiss, and live piano recitals don't have
hiss, do they?'. Fair enough. A pianist may say 'a - the piano tone is more
realistic'. Fair enough. What is different is:
a) the primary focus - instrumental timbre or general lifelike factors
b) the recognition cues - the pianist is using timbre, the casual listener is
using general acoustic parameters.
I'm saying that valve users may be using different kinds of primary focus
(liquid midrange or whatever) and different recognition cues.

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

On 28 Oct 2004 16:06:59 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

Would it help here if I used the following analogy. We make two recordings of a
Tony Blair speech:
a) A full fidelity recording of Alastair McGowan identical in sound quality to
the original.
b) A diabolical cassette recording of Tony Blair himself.

It would be quite possible for the first recording to be considered 'closer to
the original'. But in terms of psychoacoustical RECOGNITION, those personally
familiar with our dear Tony are likely to say "b) is the original"
I'm using this analogy to show that a valve amp may give listeners certain cues
of 'recognition' which make them say "that sounds more like a piano etc"

Not an analogy that even begins to work on any level I can discern.

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

On 28 Oct 2004 16:21:06 GMT, ohawker (Andy
Evans) wrote:

In fact, let me use a better analogy. We take two recordings of a vintage piano
artist - Schnabel, Edwin Fischer or whatever. We can chose between the
following
a) A Pearl transfer which retains some of the hiss of 78s but is closer to the
tone of the piano
b) A Naxos transfer Cedared to remove most of the hiss but leave a more plummy
piano sound.
If you asked a bunch of listeners what was more faithful, non musicians are
likely to say 'b - it hasn't got any hiss, and live piano recitals don't have
hiss, do they?'. Fair enough. A pianist may say 'a - the piano tone is more
realistic'. Fair enough. What is different is:
a) the primary focus - instrumental timbre or general lifelike factors
b) the recognition cues - the pianist is using timbre, the casual listener is
using general acoustic parameters.
I'm saying that valve users may be using different kinds of primary focus
(liquid midrange or whatever) and different recognition cues.

Interesting - but still not even close to an analogy. BTW, I'd go for
the Pearl.

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

Andy Evans wrote:
I prefer vinyl because I think it's *better*
and I prefer/use valves because I think they are *better*, if that's out of
order in the group just say the word and I'll haul arse....

I don't know why it is out of order to state opinions and preferences - this is
a recreational group. We can talk about cheese, clogged drains, frogs or
whatever - we run the group.

Well those topics would be off topic here, it is an AUDIO newsgroup
after all...

but anyway, PREFERNCES are just that - no-one has an issue with them.

its ok to write 'I *think* xxx is better', but if asked WHY, you need to
either show it really IS better in some definable way, or just admit it
is a personal preference - and there is nothing wrong with that.

Andy Evans wrote:
Others claim they hear
nuances on vinyl they don't hear on CD.

Because they exist. which is not the same as saying that they are
*supposed* to be there...

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'?

Yes. Unless you can honestly deny to me that the majority of people
arent surprised to hear how their own voice sounds when played back to them.

Humans have a REALLY poor memory for audio - if you let someone make a
noise and then play it back with 'extra warmth' I'll bet you they go for
the doctored playback well over 50% of the time - so how can we trust
ourselves to judge the correctness of playback?