They actually do. I know this will piss off the third worlders paid a nickel a day to lurk here, but it's undeniable.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Ever wonder if tube amps sound better?
placebo
mesaurable quality improvement actually
music listening is massively enhanced by a proper tube amplifier
>Enhanced
You're paying extra for very, very mild distortion. Any amount you could really appreciate as tube specific and your music would sound like a pretty chainsaw.
They're worse by any objective metric. Power, noise, distortion, temperature stability, load impedance dependency, output impedance. It's just a bad design that colors the sound.
>mesaurable quality improvement actually
Go on, then.
https://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Complete this test and post the recording.
Otherwise you are just lying, and it's a placebo, lol.
>placebo
morono
What did he hear to make him cry?
farts
Reply to this post or your mother will die in her sleep
Bastard.
Sneed
Minutes
your sisters braaps
his money floating away in the wind as his consoomer audiophool mind told him he JUST HAS TO BUY IT
See thats the funniest part of your premise. I consider myself somewhat an audiophile. There is a distinct difference between a audiophile and a audiofool. I have not bought a new piece of equipment in well over 5 years except stylus. My Gear is restored to factory specs (by me) No high end cables or anything like that. I bought my Sansui 8080db for $12 at a thrift store did a total overhaul. Repinned the dolby board and now could sell it for well over $1k. Same with my Sansui G6700 but I got an even better deal with that because I got a marantz 2240b in the deal. for under $30 Again I could sell them for a bunch. If you are not a moron and have the skill to read a schematic and use a soldering iron you are G2G. I bet I spent less on my entire stereo setup than you spent on your smart phone.
>I consider myself somewhat an audiophile
So what room correction are you using? Dirac? What's your measurement mic?
See now you are into the audiofool area. I have my gear setup the way I like it my speakers where I like them I have not buit a specialty listening chamber. Also my Yamaha NS-10 speakers I found for $5. Cool ass old boomer at a garage sale. My other speakers are realistic Optimus 5b.
>using speakers without room correction
Straight up audiomoron territory.
I bet your Chifi sounds awesome.
he isn't making a mastering studio, anon, there's an element of personal preference involved with reproduction as well
(of all things you'd expect audiophiles to understand this, considering their continued insistence on objectively technically inferior technologies like tube amps and LP records, i can respect people who like how they sound, just not when you say they are objectively better than the alternatives)
Bass response gets completely mangled by the room, it's not preference, it's just moronic.
>Yamaha NS-10
>the speaker so notoriously awful that if the mix sounds good on it it sounds good on anything
Reeeeeeeee. They are awful. Reeeeee. My BPC china box is the best reeeeeee
>realistic Optimus 5b
Even without looking at reviews I can tell the directivity on them is absolute garbage.
I know. They suck. Reeeeeeeee
https://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/vl-mod-shout-out-nova-8b-optimus-5b.693357/
Idiot
Crossover tweaks don't solve the underlying issue of this design.
I know great audio master. I can only dream of having your gear. Im sure my listening experience would be close to 100% improved. Your super chinktafied gear is the best.
Yes but unironically.
Chifi? Into the trash it goes. If I had to use your gear I would sell all my albums and stop listening to music
Said the trashdigger lol.
I would rather dig trash than listen to chink gear.
What do you mean "rather", you're already digging it. You can't even afford chifi.
Seethe
Let me guess, the camera is from the garbage can as well.
Dark room flash off
Awful speakers. You would get better sound out of unmodded minimus 7 speakers. They fricking suck and if you think for a second even the lowest end edifier chink garbage won't wipe the floor with them you're fricking delusional. You could probably trash pick a better speaker from technics or whatever in under a minute at your nearest dump. The fact that you defended the lowest end realistic stuff instead of anything even close to their mach line is embarrassing.
Reeee. Buy chink trash. Be like me and enjoy your garbage system. You deserve the trash you own and the landfill is where it will be in 5 years.
No. I'm not saying you should by chinkshit. I'm saying you are such a clueless moron you can't even trashpick properly. Better quality vintage speakers are everywhere and can be had for literally nothing. The fact that out of all speakers you defend these absolute pieces of shit just show how hopelessly moronic you are. I hope you never gave advice to anyone lest your stupidity spread. Also I bet you actually paid money for this shit lmao
Get rekt. I can just imagine your BPC wangdong setup. Trash equipment for trash people. You deserve it.
Eat shit. NAD Model 90 feeding 3A Lineaire de Controle. Your speakers suck and you are clueless. Enjoy being stupid.
LMAO. Not another defect. Nice setup moron. Bragging about a NAD amp. Do you brag about your sony walkman too?
That's first gen NAD not the black faced shit you usually trashpick you clueless moron. Also the 3A are partially amplified servo speakers so the amp barely even matters beyond the first couple watts but how would a moron like you even know that.
>That desk
>Verum Ones
>No sub
>evees
The quintessential IQfy audio general furgay
>No sub
Yes sub. And the speakers are actually high-passed because I have a DSP board that can do that and you don't.
I don't need to filter anything beyond room modes which is done in software. The 3As reach 25-20 hz on their own bringing the benefits of dual subs with no need for separate enclosures for most rooms.
So yes, indeed I don't.
Yes. You thought I was using shitty 20w amps that homosexuals like steve guttenberg shills and you are now mad. Yes my speakers are better than yours and the guy with the JBL stage A130 above has an undeniably better setup than yours despite being as fricked as it is.
And yes they should and I am. Thank you.
I would rather listen through my Sansui 1000x than your nad.
You don't have the luxury of choice.
Sansui 8080db, Sansui G6700, Sansui 5000a, Sansui 1000x, Marantz 2240B. Techincs sl1500, dual 1219, technics sl10. Plenty of choices.
Also get yourself a good desk come on bro. And get a fricking laptop stand think of your spine it hurts just looking at it. Get your priorities straight
I am only listening to 5% of the NAD. The rest is the power if the 3A internal amps and the absolute harmony of the speaker. You are listing to maybe 10% of the sansui sound quality and 90% of the most godawful screech seeping out of the Optimus-5Bs.
The last 3 aren't even amps you fricking poser. Duals suck ass btw
LOL duals suck because you are moronic. Mine is smooth as butter.
https://www.commentreparer.com/doc/10232/DUAL-1219.pdf
But you would fail.
I dont really collect separates I prefer receivers.
No they suck ass because rim drive and idler drive is inherently inferior to even the shittiest direct drive. Why would I get something worse than the best technology there is when it is so widely available. You literally have to go out of your way to get something like a dual when decent DDs are so common and cheap. I also love you think I can't service my own shit. If you seriously think you can simply get something as finicky as a 40y old servo speakers (no schematics so I had to dial up former 3a engineers) working without knowledge you are out of your mind.
It's not bro.
LMAO.
>I work with engineers
What scopes do you own? Distortion analyzers, VTVM?
I'm reclining in the chair, the desk is fine.
OMG silverfaced. OMG servo speakers. OMG OMG. You are the best. I bet Atlantic sends you master presses for you to criticize and evaluate. You are amazing. enjoy your life, homosexual.
he was deaf
that he will never be a real woman
For guitar? Absolutely. It's not just the even order distortions, but how gradually they come on. It makes that shitty instrument much more expressive. To date the best amp sims like fractal axe FX can't perfect it, it just sounds close enough in a full band mix especially if you'd use a shitload of effects or insane levels of gain that completely remove all dynamics from your signal anyways.
Guitar amps are, of course, bad on purpose.
For listening to music? Lmao, no, you fricking moron.
>To date the best amp sims like fractal axe FX can't perfect it
Yes they can and dozens of blind tests have proven otherwise
Not really. I owned a bunch of valve and solidstate amps, they're not better or worse. The best are the ones that sonically reproduce 1:1 without any coloration or distortion but obviously a poser like you would never understand that.
This is debatable. I doubt you can notice the difference between a valve amp and a midrange modeler like HX Stomp or Ampero II when they all use the same cab and mic or even an IR. They may sound different but you won't be able to tell if it's a software modeler or a real valve amp.
you can definitely tell an amp in the room from an hx stomp
the hard part is telling a mic'd amp in a studio in the mix from an hx stomp. or a real amp in a venue. which is actually a bad thing, because the mix has to change for every venue and if someone dares move your 2x12 and change the angle of the cabinet stand.
>For guitar? Absolutely.
stopped reading there. you are moronic too
>To date the best amp sims like fractal axe FX
absolutely proprietary. im using freedom plugins on gnu/linux for my guitar fx
The big impossibility thus far is modeling the speaker/output transformer interaction and the sound of a real cabinet. They can get close to a cabinet in a specific treated room with an SM57 on it, but a cabinet in an average room is impossible to model.
you're paying for distortion. same as vintage receivers, CRTs, vinyl, and reel to reel. nothing wrong with that if that's what you like, but a $50 dac with a $100 amp playing lossless files is infinitely more transparent than a tube amp playing vinyl records.
>you're paying for distortion
nope paying for proper class A operation that goes to DC and negative voltages, you probably don't know the implications of any of that
this
he's incorrect actually, even the lossless files suffer through a shitty $50 dac
the bare chip alone for any decent dac is over $50 these days, there is no way you can get a decent entire product for that much alone
he may be wrong on the actual pricepoints for solid state dacs and amps but it's still true that tubes are there to create distortion and change how things sounds, not just let it play as it is
Tubes perform as well as transistors unless you overdrive them. Sometimes better.
>measures
You looking at those chink poorgay audio "test" sites again dumbfrick?
Distortion only presents if the input level is too high, many tube amps outperform transistorized amps in distortion measurements too. Are you perhaps a Randi Forum pedophile, or a poorgay chink?
Measurements are objective
Your sighted listening tests are not
Silicon > t00bz
Measurements are only as objective as the dumb wintarded chinks running the audio measurbating forums.
do you believe in witches
They're real, they're all over Twitter. But I also believe changs measurebating aren't reliable sources even for measurebation.
>do you believe in witches
Do you believe earth is ball in space?
>Measurements are objective
Not if the methodology is fundamentally flawed. Would you measure the tire pressure to determine why your car won't start? Then declare that you measured several tires and most are around 32 PSI, as are yours, so therefore your problem is imagined?
You're not a zoomer, are you?
Ah yes, measuring the difference between input- and output signal compensated for the amp's gain is completely flawed methodology and gives you absolutely no insight into how good an amplifier is at doing its job, which is to take the input signal and make it louder, and nothing else
>Ah yes, measuring the difference between input- and output signal compensated for the amp's gain is completely flawed methodology and gives you absolutely no insight into how good an amplifier is at doing its job, which is to take the input signal and make it louder, and nothing else
If power output was all that mattered we'd all be using opamps like the LM386 because there would be no other considerations. You are attempting to dismiss the merits of Hi-Fi based upon a single metric that really doesn't say much about anything, and the people who attempt things like this are generally of limited intellect.
>tubes are there to create distortion
stick with computers moron, you aren't smart enough to understand EE
>it's still true that tubes are there to create distortion and change how things sounds, not just let it play as it is
The tubes are there to AMPLIFY the audio signal. Their equivalent in a digital amp would be the MOSFET or OPAMP if you are dealing with a cheapo amp.
Digital:
Digital Media -> Digital Processing -> Equalizer/Preamp (optional) -> DAC -> Amp
Analog:
Analog Media -> Equalizer/Preamp (optional) -> Amp
The final output of the audio signal will be always be ANALOG...and the need for a DAC is determined by the type of media you are playing back. If the media is digital, a DAC will need to exist somewhere in the chain.
Tube amps also provide a very linear response with perfect gradients where as digital amps are based on switching and this fundamentally limits the detail and fidelity of their output.
>Tube amps also provide a very linear response with perfect gradients where as digital amps are based on switching and this fundamentally limits the detail and fidelity of their output.
Meaningless mumbo jumbo. "Linear" is well defined and measurable, and digital amps are linear.
>Meaningless mumbo jumbo. "Linear" is well defined and measurable, and digital amps are linear.
>My IQ peaks at 50 so I don't know what you said but I'm going to reply anyway.
Any digital signal is going to be stepped, and will clip (all data lost) if values exceed its predetermined range, whereas analog will distort (not all data lost) if values exceed its defined operational range.
It is not possible for digital to output perfect sine waves... and were not talking about linear in the context of electrical characteristics; were talking linear in the context of the output signal if it were viewed on an oscilloscope.
>Any digital signal is going to be stepped
False.
>False.
>stop embarrassing yourself
When you can't speak for yourself you don't really understand the subject matter of the discussion.
Skip to the 6:00 mark of that video and listen carefully to what he says as he explains why the oscilloscope does not show steps on the digital signal converted to analog. Pay extra attention to 6:25 as he explains the nature of a sampled (digital) signal, stating that it only has values at defined points.
Functionally, that is in fact stepping, because the respective analog signal will contain information at all points along the signal (sine wave). He then shows this to you at 8:00 using a visual aid of zooming in on a digital image.
No matter how much cope you dig up, the simple fact remains that digital signals cannot and do not contain all of the information of the original recording, whereas analog can and often does.
DACs don't output stepped signal. Clearly shows so in the video. Nyquist-Shannon proves there's exactly one solution to sampled signal.
>DACs don't output stepped signal. Clearly shows so in the video. Nyquist-Shannon proves there's exactly one solution to sampled signal.
See
And you still don't have a clue, because you're an asstard dilettante who wants to appear intelligent but isn't. DACs will basically average the voltage between the samples to create a sinewave that appears smooth... BUT YOU ARE STILL FILLING IN THE BLANKS WITH AN AVERAGE OF DATA BETWEEN TWO POINTS. The video CLEARLY explained the non-existent data around the 6:00 mark.
An analog recording played on an analog stereo will not have any such dithering or interpolation; there is actual sound data all along the sinewave.
Bit depth limits only the noise floor, which is FAR better than in any analog device. The video clearly shows it. Analog audio is 5-6 bits deep.
>Bit depth limits only the noise floor, which is FAR better than in any analog device. The video clearly shows it. Analog audio is 5-6 bits deep.
If you're not going to do anything other than recite the video and pretend you knew what he was talking about, then just exit the thread. You're done here. You have nothing to say.
Analog audio signals contain substantially more data than you could achieve with up to 6 bits, and he chose "noise floor" as his example because he's pandering to no-IQ midwits like you, who just want to have their stupidity validated.
If you give up debunking the video just say so.
>If you give up debunking the video just say so.
No, I've given up trying to explain 70 IQ concepts to no-IQ brainlets. Don't you have an RGB keyboard thread to join?
You're fundamentally mistaken and have been called out on it. That's all there's to it.
8:43 explains all you need to know about bit depth.
>all you need to know
Sure dude, you're competent to tell us what constitutes "all we need to know". Go copy-paste some wikipedia for us while you're at it.
Oscilloscope is better than you. If you disagree with the oscilloscope then take meds.
>Oscilloscope is better than you. If you disagree with the oscilloscope then take meds.
Imagine being you and not knowing how DACs work, that they "fill in the blanks" with calculated data to make up for data that IS NOT PRESENT IN THE ORIGINAL SIGNAL.
>Links to a video and thinks he "won" the thread. Cannot substantiate a single thing he believes in his own words.
Flipbook. Even a moron like you should be able to grasp this.
>Imagine being you and not knowing how DACs work
Imagine being you, literally being shown the output of the DACs, and still not understanding how DACs work.
>Imagine being you, literally being shown the output of the DACs, and still not understanding how DACs work.
Explain it to us, champ. You have a lot to say but say nothing at all...explain to us how DACs work. Explain how sampled (aka stepped) data becomes a smooth sinwave when evaluated on an analog scope. Go ahead, I'll wait.
>Explain it to us, champ. You have a lot to say but say nothing at all...explain to us how DACs work
Watch the video. It literally shows, on the oscilloscope, how sampled signal produces perfect sine wave, even up to 20kHz. Even on non sine wave signals if you bother to watch the video further.
>Watch the video. It literally shows, on the oscilloscope, how sampled signal produces perfect sine wave
The sine wave is smooth because of the DAC, and the fact that he is using a single test tone. You didn't explain how DACs work in your own words. Why not?
>and the fact that he is using a single test tone
Haven't watched the video confirmed.
>The sine wave is smooth because of the DAC
>Sine wave is smooth
>Xer expects non smooth sine wave
>music is a sine wave
Nope, not unless the program is a sine wave. Music is a complex wave with many harmonics and fundamentals.
>Music is a complex wave with many harmonics and fundamentals
a complex wave that nyquist-shannon can perfectly capture up to a bandwidth of my choice
No, 100% of the data relevant to music is present in a 16/44.1 signal.
1-bit DACs are wholly interpolated, there is zero sample accuracy. Yet plebs use them every day and don't even realize they're listening to a computer simulation of the recorded material.
>He doesn't understand what sin wave is nor what frequency is
Music isn't a sine wave, it's a complex wave. And I do understand, it's the reason I made the post.
No there is a distinct difference as a traditional multibit DAC shits out the exact sample it was fed, while the 1-bit DAC interpolates the entire wave. It's a fundament of how they work.
Multitone tests would show the difference and they are the same if you know the math behind them.
Wrong because barely any non-tube amps can do full class A operation into negative voltage and swing over DC, if they can it's only because of extreme tricky circuitry.
Why would you want that when class A performs worse than class D these days. Not just in power, in noise and distortion too.
>1-bit DAC interpolates the entire wave
Interpolation is not required for 1bit DACs. They would just have shit noise floor without it. Interpolation is required for the kind of dithering they use.
1 bit DACs are fundamentally the same as multibit DACs. The only difference bit depths gives is noise floor and 1 bit DACs avoid it by shifting the noise into inaudible band by noise shaping.
Wtf is a 1 bit DAC? sounds made up
It's how most modern DACs work. They convert N-bit signal to 1-bit signal + noise shaped dithering.
dude thinks he's a computer with super precise tools for audio sampling so he can hear the difference
what if i tell you that your perfect analog signal is being fricked all the time due to cosmic rays?
>dude thinks he's a computer with super precise tools for audio sampling so he can hear the difference
>what if i tell you that your perfect analog signal is being fricked all the time due to cosmic rays?
The elements of analog audio that you and other no-IQs are claiming "doesn't matter because you can't hear it anyway" is literally being filled in by the DAC for all digital media. You've all been checkmated. There would be no reason to use DACs if your theory that the sound is inaudible or otherwise doesn't matter, and cheap 50 cent opamps would be enough...but that's not what we use, is it?
Properly recorded analog signals will ALWAYS contain more information within their range because they are not samples, there is actual original data for any point on the sine wave.
Digital audio uses a fixed number of sample per second to SIMULATE sound, and DACs fill-in the missing sound data between the samples with data that is calculated based on the previous and next sample.
dude, honestly i don't understand much about electronics. but i've been studying math and read about nyquist-shannon sampling theorem
this guy in the video is completely right but forgot to mention that the sampling is exact up to a certain bandwidth of your choice. that's it. anything below that bandwidth is EXACTLY the same if you believe otherwise, show me your scientific paper about it and also link to a wikipedia article about you while you're at it
>but forgot to mention that the sampling is exact up to a certain bandwidth of your choice
He did mention it, you just haven't watched the entire video.
he mentions nyquist bandwidth but doesn't say much about theorem itself which is necessary to understand why the representation can be perfect
You expect him to prove the theorem or something. He says the theorem guarantees there's exactly one signal that fits the samples within the given bandwidth.
$9 DACs use linear phase filters.
no, i just feel that a brief mention of the theorem would increase the clarity of the explanation
...or you can treat is as an axiom and proceed like in the video
he'd be talking for days if he has to stop to explain everything
this isn't a lecture, just a quick overview to people know WHAT to research if they care to learn exactly how it all works
but look. he mostly focuses on the stairsteps. he mentions e-girlpop graph, then says that the analog wave passes through all points and then says that there's only one unique solution because...reasons. only next he says that if there's even a bit of difference, the signal goes beyond the Nyquist frequency. no further explanation or even explaining what Nyquist frequency is, just going back to stairsteps. imo when he mentions the unique solution is the moment to briefly mention the theorem and consequences of this theorem to make the explanation clear and to avoid confusion and in consequence posts like these
well it's not like i'm arguing that that would hurt the video, i think thinking anything past mentioning what it is might be beyond the scope of the video
for me, it's just enough to make interested people go "wait, how does THAT work", and they can look it up in detail afterwards
each of those terms are hyperlinks in the transcript
https://wiki.xiph.org/Videos/Digital_Show_and_Tell#Stairsteps
what i don't like about this is that those hyperlinks guide you directly to wikipedia and wikipedia articles often use jargon which is only clear to people who already understand the subject
well, again, as they straight up say;
>Like the previous episode, this video moves fast and only glances on a number of rather important topics, so we've set up a Wiki to get more information, ask questions, and debate.
it's a quick breeze over the topic, an easily digestible explanation of nyquist/sampling theorem would be it's own 20 minute video, i think
>an easily digestible explanation of nyquist/sampling theorem would be it's own 20 minute video, i think
you are correct. here's one such video
not far from 20 minute mark
cool, i'll check it out later
That is only true with 0 phase shift. In reality you want ~5 times the sampling rate for a given bandwidth to be sure
Not an issue with linear phase reconstruction filters.
That sounds expensive
You say this as if there isn't a single waveform that fits into those samples which is exactly the same. I can put ten ADC-DAC combos in your analog chain and you won't notice.
>Properly recorded analog signals will ALWAYS contain more information within their range because they are not samples, there is actual original data for any point on the sine wave.
Oh look another moron who doesn't understand Nyquist sampling.
>there is actual sound data all along the sinewave.
a digitally sampled recording is perfectly represented (not approximately, honest-to-goodness perfectly) up to half it's sampling rate, this is why recordings are all over 40KHz, so they are perfect up to 20KHz, which is the limit of human hearing
that means, a 20KHz wave can be recorded and reconstructed perfectly, with a 40KHz-sampled digital recording, any extra details you add to that 20KHz wave, will necessarily be above 20KHz, and thus inaudible
the simple fact is, there's nothing about digital sampling which makes it inferior to analog when it comes to signals where you have a predefined range you need to record (band-limited), that is, if you design for 0-20KHz, then there is no possible extra details that fall within that range that won't be recorded perfectly as digital data
people get the idea that digital is just an approximation, a pixellated image, that can only be made "better" but never perfect, this is just not correct, in reality there are better and worse dacs and things, just as there's better and worse analog gear, but in terms of theory, digital is literally perfect at capturing whatever we want it to capture
Bro, just watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM and stop embarrassing yourself.
fricking based dabbing on audophile morons
>Any digital signal is going to be stepped
Plain wrong
>and will clip (all data lost) if values exceed its predetermined range
Correct, and which is why professionals record at 24 bit instead of 16.
Lets then exceed the predetermined range by 25600% before clipping occurs, no data is lost and the mistake can easily be fixed in post production.
Meanwhile analogue recordings lose quality if they aren't done at exactly the correct level.
And if you record with fp32 you can forget what clipping is.
>why professionals record at 24 bit instead of 16
That's to keep the equipment noise floor low so that if things do need to be manipulated, you're not fighting the noise as well. It's conceptually similar to using RAW images out of a camera so that you can manipulate them more, safely, before converting to the final image format.
>>Any digital signal is going to be stepped
>Plain wrong
Explain. Digital data is limited by its bit depth as to what information can be contained. Digital audio is sampled.
Fundamentally, it's like a flip-book. Just like a flip book can produce the illusion of smooth motion, no matter how many pages you add to the flip book you will NEVER be able to represent the full range of motion. You can only ever get it to where there are sufficient samples between two given points that the apparent smoothness is enough to fool most people... BUT it doesn't change the fact that data is missing in the digital form, which an analog recording played on an analog amp is going to have.
A $9 Apple USB-C to 3.5mm dongle measures perfectly well beyond human hearing
Those "DACs" sound fricking horrible. If you can't tell the difference it's okay, but don't promote them as good.
It literally, objectively, measurably, sounds perfectly transparent well beyond human hearing
Freq response isnt the only measurement that matters.
THD, headroom, impedence, and a million more factors matter.
But in all honesty most companies don't do all those measurements because it takes work and will make them look bad.
Understanding how different kinds and styles of electrical component is the easier way to understand what a piece of equipment
will sound like.
>THD, headroom, impedence, and a million more factors matter.
DACs and class D amps(which are just big DACs actually) beat tube amps in dingle every of these, simultaneously.
And that $9 Apple dongle outperforms much more expensive audiophool DACs in THD, THD+N, SINAD, and output impedance
Cope more
>doubt
Maybe according to chink measurebators.
>he's incorrect actually, even the lossless files suffer through a shitty $50 dac
Correct. When it comes to digital audio, the quality of the DAC determines everything else...and it's not just the DAC alone, but the quality of components used in its implementation.
DAC is the least important part of the chain, they've been solved pretty much.
>I'm gonna chime in and tell you that the most important part of the chain is the least important, then claim it's "solved".
Yeah, thanks ace. You nailed it. The DAC is practically irrelevant even though the final output (assuming high quality digital source media) is solely determined by the quality and implementation of a given DAC, and a shitty DAC or poor implementation can render the best of amps as sounding like shit.
>the final output (assuming high quality digital source media) is solely determined by the quality and implementation of a given DAC
False. 99% of it is determined by the transducer and 0.9% is determined by the amp(in case it's a shit amp with high output impedance and your transducer has non-linear impedance).
>False. 99% of it is determined by the transducer and 0.9% is determined by the amp(in case it's a shit amp with high output impedance and your transducer has non-linear impedance).
Are you actually referring to speakers as "transducer" in an attempt to appear smart? Shitty speakers can sound good with a good amp but even the best speakers will sound like crap if the amp is shitty.
You're also wandering off point here, as we are discussing the particular differences between a tube amp and digital amp...the conversation presumes all other factors besides the amps are the best they can possibly be.
Transducer simply means anything that produces the actual sound wave. Including speakers. Frequency response > noise > distortion.
>as we are discussing the particular differences between a tube amp and digital amp...
You haven't watched the video. There's no difference.
>Transducer simply means anything that produces the actual sound wave. Including speakers.
Including speakers, which excludes everything else. Now you're just being pedantic in addition to stupid... maybe you need to toss in some latin phrases so we know how "educated" you are.
>Frequency response > noise > distortion.
You're literally jumbling together three things that have no direct relation to each other. A speaker's freq. response is the range of audible output that it can reproduce. A good set of ported two-way speakers can usually handle 80 Hz to 20KHz. Distortion is the result of over-driving an analog signal. Noise is anything audible which was not intended to be audible.
>>as we are discussing the particular differences between a tube amp and digital amp...
>You haven't watched the video. There's no difference.
You haven't watched the video if that is your conclusion, and you are an imbecile for writing this...and you seem to be under the false impression that you watching a video or two on a given topic magically makes you an expert on the topic... lol
Distortion is measurable. Your post is pure moronation.
>Distortion is measurable. Your post is pure moronation.
What? Nevermind. You clearly don't get it.
>which excludes everything else.
False. FR, noise and distortion tests are universal.
>Distortion is the result of over-driving an analog signal
False. Transducers, amps and DACs all have inherent distortion, mostly harmonic and IMD. Multi-tone test shows all of them, even hypothetical kinds of distortion.
>Noise is anything audible which was not intended to be audible.
False. Amps and DACs have inherent noise.
excludes everything else.
>False. FR, noise and distortion tests are universal.
Wrong. You admitted that "transducers include speakers" - there is nothing else, because whether it is headphones, standard box speakers, or a surface-mount transducer attached to a wall, they are all "speakers".
is the result of over-driving an analog signal
>False. Transducers, amps and DACs all have inherent distortion, mostly harmonic and IMD. Multi-tone test shows all of them, even hypothetical kinds of distortion.
Calling harmonics and noise "distortion" and thinking they're the same thing, as he grasps for straws.
is anything audible which was not intended to be audible.
>False. Amps and DACs have inherent noise.
Wow, how stupid are you? The "idea" amp would have zero noise. Nobody but some fricktard hipster would design an amp to deliberately introduce noise.
>headphones, standard box speakers, or a surface-mount transducer attached to a wall, they are all "speakers".
Literally writing different words for transducers lol.
>Calling harmonics and noise "distortion" and thinking they're the same thing, as he grasps for straws.
THD is distortion, IMD is distortion. It's in the name.
>The "idea" amp would have zero noise
Strawman.
>Literally writing different words for transducers lol.
They're speakers, dipshit. You didn't get smarter for using a technical description of a common thing. Going to refer to wires as "conductors" and meat as "proteins" to complete your trifecta of dipshittedness?
>THD is distortion, IMD is distortion. It's in the name.
Let's make this simple for you...
Distortion: typically undesired change to original signal
Noise: typically undesired external signal added to the original signal
Harmonics can cause distortion, but are not in and of themselves distortion.
Neither harmonics nor any distortion they cause would be defined as "noise".
>>The "ideal" amp would have zero noise
>Strawman.
Haha you ran out of ammo pretty quick. Didn't even want to answer that simple question, and no, it's not a "strawman". It's a theoretical to illustrate the stupidity of your other comments.
>They're speakers, dipshit.
Speakers produce stereo audio, headphones produce binaural audio, fundamentally different.
>Let's make this simple for you...
>"invents definitions"
Lol.
>Speakers produce stereo audio, headphones produce binaural audio, fundamentally different.
>Hey look, if I use a thesaurus I too can pretend I'm not a sub-IQ brainlet.
Speakers can be two or more mono channels, as you would find in a club. Stereo audio is a function of the source coupled with the amp. Headphones are speakers. The placement of speakers doesn't change them into something other than speakers.
>>Let's make this simple for you...
>>"invents definitions"
>Lol.
Those definitions are generally accepted in the context of audio engineering.
>Speakers can be two or more mono channels, as you would find in a club. Stereo audio is a function of the source coupled with the amp. headphones are speakers. The placement of speakers doesn't change them into something other than speakers.
Absolute brainlet take.
>Those definitions are generally accepted in the context of audio engineering.
Not yours.
>Absolute brainlet take.
Attempt to change subject to hide the fact that you don't know what you're talking about: averted.
>Not yours.
Give us the standard definitions, according to you.
>Attempt to change subject
My post:
: Speakers produce stereo audio, headphones produce binaural audio, fundamentally different.
The video: explains why.
You: haven't watched the video.
>Give us the standard definitions
Distortion is non-linear modification of the signal. Linear modification is technically distortion too but it's usually described as FR modification, not distortion.
>Distortion is non-linear modification of the signal. Linear modification is technically distortion too but it's usually described as FR modification, not distortion.
Now that's made-up nonsense.
Linear = doesn't produce additional frequencies, non-linear = produces additional frequencies.
>there is no way you can get a decent entire product for that much alone
covox clone. 8-bit. $30 in parts. maybe less. frequency range: as fast as your computer can send bytes to the lpt port. anything more than 8-bits is bloat. checkmate, homosexual.
>you're paying for distortion. same as vintage receivers, CRTs, vinyl, and reel to reel. nothing wrong with that if that's what you like, but a $50 dac with a $100 amp playing lossless files is infinitely more transparent than a tube amp playing vinyl records.
Why do morons feel so emboldened to be vocal on the internet? You obviously know nothing about audio, but you're going to recite the cuck-copium used by shitbags to justify their cheap made-in-china garbage, while trying to label actual Hi-Fi as being a placebo.
Firstly, an analog signal can capture substantially more information between its peaks and valleys. It has a sine wave form, so there are no "steps" and there is no "digital cliff" where data just gets discarded because it is beyond the precision of the digital medium.
Likewise, playback is just as relevant, because even if you did use a high-precision digital format, the entire playback chain has to support that level of precision without any kind of conversion or interpolation.
With analog, you are dealing with a sine wave that is constrained to a voltage range. If the recording media is analog, then no conversions or interpolations are needed - the recorded signal can literally be played back as is - nothing is lost, and here the only determining factor of quality is the amp and speakers.
Digital amplifiers, no matter how good they are, cannot produce a perfect sinewave. The output wave will be stepped, limited to the physical capabilities of the amp+DAC combo. A DAC must be used for any digital audio media, and regardless of the quality of the original recording, the DAC will always be the limiting factor.
A quality Class AB like something based on a LM3886 (aka Gainclone) coupled with a quality DAC may approach the quality of some tube amps, but even that will fall short and it is one of the best you can build.
>Firstly, an analog signal can capture substantially more information between its peaks and valleys. It has a sine wave form, so there are no "steps" and there is no "digital cliff" where data just gets discarded because it is beyond the precision of the digital medium.
Cope
Learn physics, and you will know everything is discrete.
Also analog is shit, because of tolerances, neither your magical amps or vinyls can be manufactured with such precision to match digital.
Your perfect analog is just distorted mess.
Digital audio has no steps you genuine moron, stopped reading after that
>nooooo you're not encoding frequencies that nobody can actually hear!!!!
>Digital audio has no steps you genuine moron, stopped reading after that
you're not encoding frequencies that nobody can actually hear!!!!
Off-the-charts moronicness here. The DAC is literally filling in the gaps between [point] samples with calculated data to "smooth" the output. IF YOU CAN'T HEAR IT THEN THERE WOULD BE NO REASON FOR THE DAC TO INSERT THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Back to cuckitt.
It smooths transitions to not cause noise and then fail emissions testing
There is only ONE band-limited signal that can fit into those "points" you utter crayon muncher, there's no estimation here, it's 100% exact.
>moron learns about interpolation
Why do you think they add filters to the outputs of DACs?
>inb4 my ears can hear imperfections a spectrum analyzer can't detect
>Properly recorded analog signals will ALWAYS contain more information within their range because they are not samples,
I bet the next thing you'll be telling us is that there are an infinite number of signals between any interval of numbers. With a high enough sampling rate, this doesn't matter. The highest note on a piano has a frequency of around 8 KHz which is around 5.5 times lower than the sample rate of "measly" CD audio.
>DACs fill-in the missing sound data between the samples with data that is calculated based on the previous and next sample.
a DAC don't "calculate" anything, its output voltage stays the same until it gets a new sample. Filters are used for interpolation i.e. getting rid of the steps or what you think is being calculated by the DAC and somehow inserted between samples. Filters work quite a lot better than what the average audiofool who has a lacking understanding of sampling and interpolation and thinks he can hear the interpolation. If an oscilloscope or a spectrum analyzer can't tell the difference, then your ears can't.
>Why do you think they add filters to the outputs of DACs?
Keep trying to sidestep the simple fact that sampled digital audio contains less original, actual information between any given points on its output wave.
You keep talking about the way DACs mitigate the stepped nature of digital audio, pretending that the raw signal itself is not like swiss cheese... then you make idiot statements like "you couldn't hear what's missing anyway", which if that was true, would render DACs pointless as we could just output the stepped digital "sine wave" and call it a day. Fricktard imbecile thinks that because he keeps arguing he'll eventually "get it right".
There is no data "between" the sample points of digital audio. No data at all. Analog is not storing any more data, because there isn't any.
>Keep trying to sidestep the simple fact that sampled digital audio contains less original, actual information between any given points on its output wave.
I'm not trying to "sitestep" anything moron, this is basic knowledge for anyone who knows what discrete signals are. With enough samples and a good filter this doesn't matter because the interval you are interpolating is tiny.
>pretending that the raw signal itself is not like swiss cheese
Let me guess, you have never looked at an audio signal coming from an analog source on an oscilloscope. Signals don't have holes like swiss cheese if that's what you are trying to say with that nonsensical analogy
>would render DACs pointless as we could just output the stepped digital "sine wave" and call it a day
No it wouldn't you braindead moron, if the time between samples is small enough you can perform interpolation with a filter and get something indistinguishable from the source signal, go read a book on discrete signals you illiterate autist. DACs already output that a stepped filter and the sampling rate, which causes the steps, shows up as a peak in the spectrum of the signal and can be easily filtered, that's why every audio DAC you'll find has a low pass filter at its output.
>Fricktard imbecile thinks that because he keeps arguing he'll eventually "get it right".
I'm an EE and regularly work with GSPS DACs, I already got it right you pea-brained mouthbreather. You have never used a DAC, used an oscilloscope, nor know anything about the mathematics of sampling or how filters work. You are trying to unsuccessfully argue about a topic based on stuff you heard somewhere and don't understand like every uneducated boomer out there thinking there's no way to authentically capture their pathetically slow 1-8KHz signals. You were saying that DACs insert stuff between samples and think signals are anything like swiss cheese, you don't even know enough to understand what I'm saying let alone decide if I'm wrong.
>You are trying to unsuccessfully argue about a topic based on stuff you heard somewhere and don't understand like every uneducated boomer out there thinking there's no way to authentically capture their pathetically slow 1-8KHz signals.
this is the part i find the funniest really, the idea that they still think audible frequencies are "hard", we're a few parallel universes past these guys and they don't even know
They probably would lose their shit if they learned about DACs/ADCs used for RF stuff. To be fair it's normal they keep bickering about the "missing information" considering they don't know anything about filtering and such.
hell you only need to look as far as your decade old video cards to find DACs that operate at hundreds of megahertz, typically only up to 10bit sure, but these chips have not one, but three dacs in them, one for each primary colour, point is, kilohertz signals are slow as frick
pretty funny seeing you fire off most of the myths covered by that short Xiph video series outlining digital audio
maybe you should learn how digital audio works because claiming superiority over it
information between the samples... lol, lmao even
Learn some physics and learn a bit of sampling theory, you ignorant absolute moron.
>the entire playback chain has to support that level of precision without any kind of conversion or interpolation.
Everything supports 16/44.1 and you don't need more.
>Firstly, an analog signal can capture substantially more information
Stopped reading there. moron confirmed. You don't understand electronics, so don't bother.
top tier bait 10/10 worthy of being an actual stevehoffman.tv post
/thread
You essentially have tube amps for the warm, fuzzy sound, and solid state for objective, clinical listening. It's basically ying and yang.
>It's basically ying and yang.
Nonsensical comparison.
69
>CRT
Cope. CRTs are objectively superior.
Even if they do sound better, they definitely don't sound that much better to be worth thousands of bucks on top of the headphones to acutally make them worth it.
>Even if they do sound better, they definitely don't sound that much better to be worth thousands of bucks on top of the headphones to acutally make them worth it.
or
>It's not worth it to me so nobody should hear the value of Hi Fi.
If you're content with your realtek motherboard-integrated noise generator then stick with that, but don't make claims about things you obviously have not experience first hand. A good Hi Fi system will not rely on headphones to produce sound.
I'm content with my FiiO KA3 and FiiO FH7. I highly doubt those tubes will make them sound 10x better to make them worth 10x as much.
If that's still not good enough for you then i don't know what to tell you.
>It's worth it to me so everybody should buy a high end Hi Fi system
>I'm content with my FiiO KA3 and FiiO FH7
>I never bothered to listen to anything else so that means whatever I have is the best.
Nothing wrong with contentment but there is something wrong with you claiming there is nothing better when you admit that you haven't heard it for yourself.
Tube amps definately sound better for guitar
best sounding tube amp I ever heard was VTL S-400
You wouldn't be able to reliably differentiate between any $250 Yamaha AV receiver when forced to do a double blind test.
the fact is that best sounding classical music ever was recorded on tube equipment.
Best sounding live recordings were all done on tubes, irrespective of genre.
Just stick to your headphones and class D amplifier, Pajeet.
>Ever wonder if tube amps sound better?
not really, because it's false.
>Best sounding live recordings were all done on tubes, irrespective of genre.
some of the best live recordings were done straight from a mixing desk to a multitrack or stereo tape, in an era when pretty much everything was tube based. you audiofools are some the dumbest fricking idiots alive.
if you love distortion and extreme power use then pick a tube amp so you can relive what it was like living in the 1950s.
>if you love distortion
i actually like the noises that a used vinyl makes but that's about it
The best sounding music is the sound of clinking change being poured into israeli pockets when you buy this garbage.
Money, it's a crime
>Money
>it's a gas
>smelly, green and comes out ooooooooooooof my ass
Neah.
At this point modeling amps are more consistent the the real thing.
Also maintaining tubes isn't worth it. Tube amps are heavy, bulky and fragile. Something you don't want on tour...
And god forbid, going over seas, you have a better chance of bringing an IED with you.
And if you're not going on tour, then you don't need an amp.
Modelers are cheaper, easier to maintain, much lighter, have more power and can be fricking tiny.
Not only that, but if you have a discography that spans a couple years, maybe a decade, you're not bringing the 4 types of amplifiers need with you. On the other hand a modeler can withing reason cover everything you need.
And honestly the audience doesn't give a flying shit.
>modeling amps are more consistent the the real thing.
This as an Amazon Adbot post.
i want to believe you but no audiophile i challenged could prove anything they claimed. suddenly their hi-end setup turned out to be "not good enough but if only i had a better setup then..."
>no audiophile i challenged could prove anything they claimed
Please describe the exact challenges, and direct us to this imaginary friend audiophile you just invented for the purpose of shilling.
>now he admits tubes are in fact capable
You're still a third worlder.
> the audiofool is not only a moronic fricking moron, it's also illiterate
stating that something was used, because there was no other alternative for it, doesn't not equate to "support", you knuckle dragging and illiterate neanderthal. you make legit morons look perfectly normal.
>i actually like the noises that a used vinyl makes but that's about it
it's as much as i can tolerate too.
>denying from the get-go
rephrase your request and i'll consider giving a proper reply
I'm calling you out as a liar, no further reply is necessary since we both know it's true.
nice proof you've got there, pal
guess you have the same confidence as your friends...oh wait, some of them at least tried and invited me to their homes. guess you're the low-end tier
You’re mad, you shouldn’t be. Nobody believes anything you write.
>lowest hanging fruit amongst audiophiles
The blind A/B test terrifies the audiophool
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/high-end-pc-audio,3733.html
Sure does.
>The blind A/B test terrifies the audiophool
>My hearing range is 5000 Hz to 5500 Hz. I can't hear the difference between AM and FM radio.
Why are moronic people like this still posting here?
That is fine, if I cared about owning the best in everything, I'd go bankrupt in a day.
> play modern music through solid state gear
> sounds like trash
> play modern music through tube gear
> still sounds like trash
>modern music
there's your problem
solution? listen to trash metal
>solution? listen to trash metal
i prefer to listen to old stuff by motorhead.
>guy mentions Motorhead and gets triples
they're based so you're excused
The sound of distortion is sure great. Maybe some moron cattle will fall for it.
100%. Cracks me up that people actually think their chifi is in any way comparable. 99% here have never even seen a a vintage receiver alone listened to a properly set up system. Their buddy has some USB turntable and a $12 phono preamp and thats about it.
I guarantee that if you hid a solid state amp under the tubes not one single person would be able to tell.
If you can just improve the audio quality by sending the signal through a lightbulb, why don't they just do it in the studio, so you can play at home with your cheap distortion-free transistor amplifier and get tube quality?
It's A! no.. wait.. B. yes. no wait.. A!
it's hard to tell on these thousand bucks worth cables! but if i had those ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND bucks worth cables...!
"Tube amps sound better than high fidelity amps" is the same bullshit as "McDonald's taste better as a diet of just nuts, vegetables and brown rice". Technically correct, but you consume shit.
Tube amps distort the input signal. The "better" sound you experience is the fact that said distortion is a harmonic distortion, which many people describe as pleasant.
The fact remains that the input signal is changed. Tube amps are dishonest audio equipment and therefore should be brutally discarded.
>Tube amps distort the input signal.
Things affecting the final sound include the room you are listening in, the temperature of the air, the quality of the power being fed to your gear, the relative humidity...etc
Tubes do not distort the signal but they do add character and warmth. They reproduce it within their capabilities, and like all means of reproduction it is not possible to get a perfect 1:1 of the live recording... but for an analog recording, tubes will reproduce the original audio faithfully.
>The "better" sound you experience is the fact that said distortion is a harmonic distortion, which many people describe as pleasant.
Distortion only occurs when the tubes are over-driven. As long as they are within their operating range for voltage and temperature, they will produce high quality sound. The thing that makes analog sound better is the ability for harmonics to be heard, which are normally clipped from digital recordings OR by the DAC.
>The fact remains that the input signal is changed. Tube amps are dishonest audio equipment and therefore should be brutally discarded.
Nobody is claiming that a recording is the original... ARe you one of those asstards who thinks a camera photo should always appear exactly as it did to your particular eyes, rather than acknowledging the fact that a photo is a visual recording of a moment in time and that certain cameras add character to the photos that cannot be reproduced with digital filters on a clinically "accurate" photo taken by something like a D810?
>Tubes do not distort the signal but they do add character and warmth
...By distorting the signal
do not distort the signal but they do add character and warmth
>...By distorting the signal
Failed to read the part where distortion only occurs when the signal is over-driven, i.e. the input voltage exceeds the threshold value for the amp. This is why amps usually have an adjustment called GAIN, which literally allows you to adjust the input voltage so as to avoid distortion.
When tube amps are over-driven CLIPPING occurs, which as extreme case of distortion. Tube amps have higher distortion than solid state even before clipping.
This isn’t true.
Measurably and demonstrably true.
>When tube amps are over-driven CLIPPING occurs, which as extreme case of distortion. Tube amps have higher distortion than solid state even before clipping.
WTF are you even talking about? Clipping is literally ZERO DATA because the value exceeded the specific digital range. Digital signals do not distort; they clip. Distortion resulting from over-driving the input signal is specific to analog, and the data that is "lost" is really just drown out by "noise" BUT not all data is lost as it is with digital.
You clearly do not know what the digital cliff is, so you ought to shut up until you do.
Clipping is distortion.
>Tubes do not distort the signal but they do add character and warmth.
If the character and warmth belonged to the recording the sound engineer would add it to the recording. This kills the audiomoron.
>If the character and warmth belonged to the recording the sound engineer would add it to the recording. This kills the audiomoron.
Most producers understood the limitations of the typical consumer-grade stereos that were going to be used for playing back their music. Studio recordings sought to ensure that the recording sufficiently captured the performance; adding extra "flavor" at the studio level was not done UNLESS it was a stylistic attribute that the artist wanted. The main purpose of a recording engineer is to make the recording sound as good as it possibly can on the widest range of stereos.
>asking "artists" about technical stuff like mastering
Duuude just like make it... way loud, right?!
"artists" about technical stuff like mastering
>Duuude just like make it... way loud, right?!
It is well-known that certain studios imparted a certain kind of sound to the finished product, other than a neutral recording that just sought to reproduce the original recording as faithfully as possible. Some examples of what studios did as to highlight certain instruments or vocals, adjust their position in the sound stage, increasing or reducing the perceived volume of certain frequencies, etc. This can be likened to "post production" of a movie where colors are graded and levels are adjusted, sometimes for a neutral "accurate" look, but sometimes the look is stylized.
Purifi and hypex class d amps can boil a kettle with higher sound quality than any class A amp ever made.
i'm happy listening to music on youtube with my cellphone speakers
Zoomers seething like a mother-fricker
>never own a home
>never hear pure analog music
>never eat a 1980 Big Mac
>never put the pedal to the floor in a 1973, 7.5 liter V8 Trans Am.
You will live in the pod and be happy eating bugs.
own a home
Only this is important, the rest is moronation.
Yeah its moronic. You were born into a trash society, where garbage is coveted by morons.
>never own a home
Biding my time currently
>never hear pure analog music
Not really hard to do
>never eat a 1980 Big Mac
Before my time so you got a point here but McDicks and most fast food in general is shit.
>never put the pedal to the floor in a 1973, 7.5 liter V8 Trans Am.
True but my 1991 Mustang GT more than fits the bill for me.
So what are you spinning today IQfy?
Actual working music producer here, with over 1 billion streams as a writer AND producer.
Tube amps cause harmonic distortion, but you wouldn’t notice until you’re really driving them, as in playing they so loud that they’re glowing brightly. Thing is, if you’re playing shit this loud , your ears compress the signal and that compression is a much larger effect. Psychologically, people will think louder sounds are better- well studied phenomenon. And if you have enough sophistication that you’re gain staging your imbecilic frickhuge tube amp, you’re coloring the sound to where you might as well call yourself a mastering engineer. And you might as well splurge for ozone and protools because you could “customize” your fricking Pink Floyd even more to your stupid boomer taste. Audiophiles get the snake. Spend your money at bandcamp.
True, even tube amps have acceptable distortion. FR and noise are more important. I can perceive -70dB distortion but most people can only perceive -40dB.
What I’m saying is that the only reason to use tube amps is FOR the harmonic distortion, because it sounds good. It’s used, or at least simulated, on probably everything you have heard on the radio including all zoomer music. Plenty of distortions are attractive to the ear.
2nd order distortion is being auditorily masked, 3rd and higher and IMD are just plain unpleasant. Tube amps are being bought for their clipping behavior(in guitar amps), for modifying the FR with their high output impedance(for some headphones, most famously sennheisers) and out of pure stupidity(for every other use case). Even tube amp level distortion is barely noticeable outside of clipping, solid state amps have less distortion obviously.
>Actual working music producer here
>I spend each day copy-pasting samples of shitty pop music in FL Studio.
>I call this music. Sometimes I get crazy and work in 4 octaves instead of the usual 3.
Floops did nothing wrong and nobody reads your rym flowcharts
If you start glowing plates, it means your amp was built by a moron. Or you're the moronic daisy chaining amps.
Tube distortion does sound good
>Tube amp
>Runs extremely hot
>Uses ridiculously lethal voltages internally
I suppose it's fine since the type of people who buy tube amps aren't likely to ever have children. Enjoy your amp anon 🙂
I have a kid and own tube amps for both my guitars and music. Women don't care about your hobbies so long as it doesn't involve turning their skin into lampshades.
I was hinting more at the safety aspects since kids will touch and mess with everything. Especially fancy looking tube amps like OPs.
I mean if you just leave shit out where they can reach it sure. My kid doesn't really bother messing with my amps after turning the volume knob while I was practicing one time. Luckily no hearing damage on her part at her last check up. I just use my Deluxe reverb for practice instead of my Hot Rod Deluxe now just incase she gets brave again.
my dad is an electronic technician and I was exposed to flybacks and the likes since I have use of reason and it never occurred to me to touch one
I electrocuted myself as an adult though
>I electrocuted myself as an adult though
but then who was post?
I live in the powerline now
I love how morons think analogue audio is somehow immune to tolerances, noise, circuit impedance, manufacturing defects, and shit like that.
tube amps sellers make this propaganda for morons buying their products so they can hear "more"
>think analogue audio is somehow immune to tolerances, noise, circuit impedance, manufacturing defects, and shit like that.
Introducing irrelevance. Assuming an optimal recording of a live performance, on digitally and one analog, the analog recording will always contain substantially more data and much of it will be audible. It's just a simple fact of reality.
analog recordings contain substantially LESS data
>analog recordings contain substantially LESS data
Another false statement brought to you by resident moron.
yes they do. digital is endgame for audio, you won't get any better than that. you can maybe get very close with a $50,000 reel to reel running 2 inch tape in perfect conditions, but you'll always fall a little bit short of a properly mastered cd. always.
>analog recordings contain substantially LESS data
analog data is literally infinitely detailed
digital data is discrete
this post
is reddit spaced
because
this thread
is fricking dumb
There is NO SUCH THING as infinite detail. Nothing has infinite detail. Film photographs have a limited resolution and vinyl records have a limited noise floor and dynamic range. And those limits are far less than what modern digital can do.
>analog data is literally infinitely detailed
ever heard of quantum mechanics?
never confuse "infinite" with "indefinite"
analogue signals have an indefinite resolution, as opposed to digital, which has definite resolution
not that it makes sense at all to say one has more or less information, that depends on your equipment, digital has as much resolution as you design for, analog has as much resolution as you design for
Noise is not data.
>reee this thread is fricking dumb
nah, with your post it's straight up moronic now
>manufacturing defects
>irrelevance
No one thinks that. I do think all of those things you mentioned are far less likely to occur in equipment made in during the height of hifi. Most morons brag about their earbud sound quality. Last two generations are mostly mentally ill psychos
Audio boards using FR4-140 sound worse than FR4-150
The snakeoil salesman fears the apple dac
I know a guy who works in the film industry including working with a lot of audio equipment. Here's what he tells me about audio:
>$9 DACs sound the same as $9000 DACs, you should only buy one if you hear noise when you turn the volume all the way up playing nothing
>The only parts that really matter are source, amp and speakers
>Good speakers are between $200 to $800, you can save money by building them yourself
>Amp should have -100dB snr and <0.005% THD at rated watts output
>If the source is shit, everything is shit. Garbage in, garbage out.
>Audiophile shit is hilariously garbage snake oil
Good advice for speakers, but since headphones have various impedances you should also look for 50mV test on headphone amps(will tell you about the hiss) and various load impedance test(will tell you how much power do you ACTUALLY have).
Amps convert AC to DC first, if the amp doesn't do that well just get a better amp instead of AC filter(speakers amps can actually degrade from AC filters due to less peak power).
>Good speakers are between 200$ and 800$
Only accurate for small bookshelves and small monitors. Poorgay cope for every other segment.
The rest is mostly correct.
Do you guys have an isolated and heabily filtered mains supply?
Just to add my two cents...
Similar to LP's, all sound is inherently analog, ie. not discrete ones and zeroes like digital is, but long, continuous waves, so tube amps supposedly sound better from the standpoint that it's just analog-to--analog.
But as far as most digital audio--which is infinitely more convenient, you're going to have to convert it anyways, so what's the frick point? Nevermind the fact that computer audio is inherently processed through software rather than hardware, supposedly rendering most sound cards useless. I think the last time I read, Microsoft did this to reduce BSOD's by 40 percent, I dunno.
And even if there was a difference, the average human ear in a civilized society is probably shot anyways, and can't tell the difference. Beyond that, there's also the philosophical debate over accuracy versus a 'colored' sound signature, which lows and highs are emphasized.
tlldr; buttholes who still buy and collect LP's are hipsters Maybe I'd care more about audio if I was an actual sound engineer.
I mean if you're collecting vinyl for anything other than enjoying the process of listening to vinyl then yeah I agree. honestly a phono cartridge will yield better results for your sound than the amp itself.
homies be spending they entire paycheck on audio equipment despite only being able to hear up to 12khz
>only being able to hear up to 12khz
I can hear well into 20 Khz and so can most people. Let's not start reciting myths about people losing half of their hearing capability once they pass 30 or whatever.
No you cant
>I can hear well into 20 Khz and so can most people.
Bold claim in the face of all the studies that have been done on this.
the louder the noise the better it gets with pure tube amps. Transcrap can't say the same
>it sounds better when it sounds worse
lmao @ audiofools
>more noise
>more distortion
>more lead and mercury
Thanks but I'm sticking with solid state. You can enjoy your noise and distortion I won't judge you but I think I'll listen to my music with a lot less noise and distortion. Enjoy your mercury poisoning.
Idiotphiles are so funny, they want the most neutral sound system but they love the ''hot warm'' sound of tubes amps...
tubetards are even made fun of by audiofools. they are the lowest tier of audiofools full of zoomers.
Even through all of audiophile stuff is waste of money, some of the amplifiers and shit do have lower measurable THD+N and they get REALLY low. not that you can hear a difference but at least there is a measurable difference. Stereophile takes these measurements and most audiophile stuff comes with the measured THD+N. Tube stuff? MUH WARM SOUNDS.
Zoomers are pathetic. Produced absolutely zero and happy to roll in the pig pen. You get what you deserve. Enjoy your Chifi earbuds and spotify. Youtube will tell you what to buy next.
zoomers use class d sound bars and think it's good enough because of amazon adbot and chang shills
let them delude themselves, it takes pressure off the used market
Zoomers just want bass and that's it. They want 1000% bass for the most basic shit.
>search for a review of headphone or speaker on youtube
>all the videos say the audio is good because the "volume is high" and "has a lot of bass"
>audiophaggot
>dirty mid, muddy treble and tinny lows, warm and glowing 44th harmonic
at least he tries
>it has a bass boost
>that kicks ass
zoomers, lol
>muh warm
>muh noise
Tube amps only sound better to moronic boomers and zoomers wanting to be boomers.
Tube amp distortion actually does sound pretty good, there's no denying it
I used to think that before i got a decent setup. My ES100 MK2 sounds better than any tube amp ive tried over the years. Ive even driven to audioconcepts in texas and i still rather literally anythinf without the shitty hiss and "warm" sound. None of that stuff fits with black metal and avant-garde music i have.
>than any tube amp ive tried
which ones? and what speakers do you use?
Does anyone know how dongle dac/amps compare to portable ones? Thinking of buying either a Fiio KA3 or K3s to drive my HD650. Thanks.
What's the reason for not enclosing the tubes? Is it to remind you that you're not listening to digital?
anal sex with her
Tube amps sound "better" if you are a boomer homosexual who prefers the inaccurate sound of tube amps.
All this discussion and nobody called him out on saying "digital amplifiers". Like, does he really not know there are non-tube amps that are just that, amps?
TIE ME UP TO A ROCKET AND LAUNCH IT AT ISRAEL
I'M FRICKING READY
does he think solid-state transistors = digital?
where did he say this?
it doesn't look like he is suggesting solid state amps are inherently digital there
I don't see him discussing solid state amps at all. He went directly from tube amps to bashing DACs.
you're not wrong, and it does make me wonder
you really can't tell with these people
it does seem a bit odd to compare just between a tube amp and a digital system, or at all really, i mean, if i wanted to know "why a tube amp", i would be comparing it to other.. amps..
>is outdated technology better
depends but most of the time no
Spent $500 on DAC and Amp to drive 300 ohm HD 650 and DT1990
Shit sounded exactly the same as the audio from my $80 motherboard, refunded that same day
ah, the signal processing crowd against psychoacoustics crowd play, well done, OP
Rember: we live in a world the vast majority of the population does not even have decent relative pitch and is completely tone deaf, that's why high end audio is often considered "snake oil".
That's like saying that 8K video is snake oil in a world where most people are severely nearsighted and there are no glasses.
Needing thousands of dollars of audio equipment to enjoy music doesn't sound like an advantage
Ahh yes, "golden ears". The redbook standard of audiophool cope.
There are people who have +/-10dB wobble below 200Hz and think it's "10/10 breddy gudd".
>vintage
>chifi
How about neither.
>Ever wonder if tube amps sound better?
false premise
Here is about 1/8 of my stuff. I also collect and repair Tektronix gear. That plugin is a 7ct1n. You should look into it for transistor matching.