Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 10:39:31 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a017ee2.19235296@localhost...
On Sat, 02 May 2009 17:10:09 GMT, Rob
wrote:
d
Which is a similar sensation I'd experience when valves are in the
amplification chain. I know (before you start!) that that doesn't
compute. It gives me a very believable notion of instruments (etc) and
spatial perspective.

Rob
Not sure what you mean. It's only voltage signals going through the
valves, so what they do to one, they must do to all. So do you mean
that everything sounds a bit further away with valves?

I'm going to make myself unpopular for saying it, but what I suspect Rob
really means is that he gets a similar sensation when he knows (or believes)
there are valves in the amplification chain.


But a similar sensation to what? My clip has five versions, all with
different proportions of reverb. Do you think he is saying the effect
is similar to the first, the last, or one in between. It can't just be
"similar".


I could have been clearer. The sensation is similar to reverb, albeit
very light, and much more pleasant.

Rob

On Sun, 03 May 2009 10:21:10 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 3 May 2009 10:39:31 +0100, "David Looser"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
news:4a017ee2.19235296@localhost...
On Sat, 02 May 2009 17:10:09 GMT, Rob
wrote:
d
Which is a similar sensation I'd experience when valves are in the
amplification chain. I know (before you start!) that that doesn't
compute. It gives me a very believable notion of instruments (etc) and
spatial perspective.

Rob
Not sure what you mean. It's only voltage signals going through the
valves, so what they do to one, they must do to all. So do you mean
that everything sounds a bit further away with valves?

I'm going to make myself unpopular for saying it, but what I suspect Rob
really means is that he gets a similar sensation when he knows (or believes)
there are valves in the amplification chain.


But a similar sensation to what? My clip has five versions, all with
different proportions of reverb. Do you think he is saying the effect
is similar to the first, the last, or one in between. It can't just be
"similar".


I could have been clearer. The sensation is similar to reverb, albeit
very light, and much more pleasant.

Well, that would be an "effect", that might or might not make things
sound better, depending. If I had an amplifier that did that to
everything, it would be on ebay faster than I could say "rubbish".

d

On Sun, 03 May 2009 10:18:19 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don't know why. No reason why that should happen, I'm sure. But while it
does/I think it does, all's well :-)

I think that in the interest of sanity, we'll stick with the second of
those choices.

d

"Don Pearce" wrote


snip the **** boys - it's killing the planet


Well, that would be an "effect", that might or might not make things
sound better, depending. If I had an amplifier that did that to
everything, it would be on ebay faster than I could say "rubbish".


The old 'It may be ****e, but at least it's accurate!' argument, eh? :-)

"Rob" wrote


Could well be. If you get the opportunity, though, I recommend you give it
a try.


Valves? Don't look at me - I don't do freebie valve demos any more, the ****
can dig into his own pockets if he wants to try them.

"Rob" wrote


Music played with valve amplification has depth - that is, some
instruments sound further forward, some further back.


Yes, of course and it also has *vastness* with the right speakers, but you
won't convince the nodding Old Ladies here - they don't dare stray away from
stern **** they read in *respected* magazines half a century ago! ;-)

And tone....

And warmth....

And *realism*....


When I first
listened to a valve amplifier at home the first thing that came to mind
was 'home cinema'; that sort of 5:1 thing.


I don't use valves for 5.1 'surround sound' as the heat would be too
oppressive for a start, but I have a valve and horns setup for my
recorded/projected TV progs atm (it's usually an SS amp) and I never
*notice* the sound, other than it's always very pleasant and it always comes
straight from the mouths, but steam engines, vehicles, any other noise sound
so *natural* the sound disappears into the experience!


Don't know why. No reason why that should happen, I'm sure. But while it
does/I think it does, all's well :-)


Distortion, Rob - lashings of lovely 2H I'm led to believe! :-)

Don Pearce wrote:
On Sun, 03 May 2009 10:18:19 GMT, Rob
wrote:

Don't know why. No reason why that should happen, I'm sure. But while it
does/I think it does, all's well :-)

I think that in the interest of sanity, we'll stick with the second of
those choices.

d

We hear what we want to hear? Works both ways ;-)

Rob

Keith G wrote:

"Rob" wrote


Music played with valve amplification has depth - that is, some
instruments sound further forward, some further back.


Yes, of course and it also has *vastness* with the right speakers, but
you won't convince the nodding Old Ladies here - they don't dare stray
away from stern **** they read in *respected* magazines half a century
ago! ;-)

And tone....

And warmth....

And *realism*....


Yep. Hard enough trying to explain 'depth'


When I first
listened to a valve amplifier at home the first thing that came to
mind was 'home cinema'; that sort of 5:1 thing.


I don't use valves for 5.1 'surround sound' as the heat would be too
oppressive for a start, but I have a valve and horns setup for my
recorded/projected TV progs atm (it's usually an SS amp) and I never
*notice* the sound, other than it's always very pleasant and it always
comes straight from the mouths, but steam engines, vehicles, any other
noise sound so *natural* the sound disappears into the experience!


No no, I wouldn't bother with valves for proper surround sound. I'm
happy enough with stereo and a sub.


Don't know why. No reason why that should happen, I'm sure. But while
it does/I think it does, all's well :-)


Distortion, Rob - lashings of lovely 2H I'm led to believe! :-)


:-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Rob" wrote


Could well be. If you get the opportunity, though, I recommend you give
it a try.


Valves? Don't look at me - I don't do freebie valve demos any more, the
**** can dig into his own pockets if he wants to try them.

I thought you said a while back something to the effect that you weren't
offensive to those who weren't offensive to you first? You have been using
offensive language like that to me almost from the start.

David.

On 2009-05-02, Don Pearce wrote:
On Sat, 02 May 2009 13:42:31 GMT, (Don Pearce) wrote:
The big depth cue in recordings, and which can be adjusted fairly
realistically even in close-miked multitrack, is the ratio of direct
to reverberant sound. ...

Here's how it works. Quick speech recording, played against a constant
reverb impulse (a local church, in fact), repeated five times with the
ratio of direct and reverberant sound changed each time - final one is
reverberant only.

Obviously greatly exaggerated for illustration.

http://81.174.169.10/odds/depth.mp3

OK, thanks. I see I have to add reflections to the list of things
(timbre, amplitude and image width) which yield depth information.

So the listening room will indeed impose its own imprint on depth
perception (as will things like equipment microphony).

--
John Phillips