|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Then why do you prefer the less accurate SS gear? posted by Don T on July 22, 2003 at 08:54:47:
"Since 'good' is a statement of your preferences I can only assume in assigning the rating of good to both amps you prefer colorations or the sound of the SS amp."I am not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying I prefer the colorations of the "tube" amp to the sound of the solid-state amp. (The context could also mean "preferring colorations or sound of the SS amp over those of the tube amp.") Presuming my reading of this is correct, I guess I either perceive *less* colorations in the SET amp or am not as sensitive to colorations in the SET amp. I would like to think the prior case is the actual case, but I won't lose any sleep if it is the latter case.
"Accuracy is not a subjective evaluation"
It should not be, but I say it **is**... People tend to assign components with an "analytical" character as "accurate." (Or the pre-conceived notion that "accurate" *has* to be analytical in sonic character.) The problem is whenever a component is deemed to be "accurate," how do we really know it is truly the case? Great specs, possibly, but IMO established specifications have little correlation to real-world performance.
What is "accurate" to one person may be "sonically colored" to another. It all comes down the the adage, "Pick your poison."
Follow Ups:
> > I am not sure what you're saying here. I think you are saying I
> > prefer the colorations of the "tube" amp to the sound of the solid-
> > state amp. (The context could also mean "preferring colorations or
> > sound of the SS amp over those of the tube amp.") Presuming my
> > reading of this is correct, I guess I either perceive *less*
> > colorations in the SET amp or am not as sensitive to colorations
> > in the SET amp. I would like to think the prior case is the actual
> > case, but I won't lose any sleep if it is the latter case.No that's not what I'm saying. If you think both the SS and the tube amp are good - but the tube amp is more accurate it implies that the colorations (or lack of), as you percieve them with the SS amp are desirable, since you consider both amps as being "good" yet you feel the SS amp is not as accurate as the tube amp. Thus the colorations of the SS must make up for it's lack of nuetrality.
I believe accuracy is measureable and can be defined within some limits and two amps that measure the same into an identical load will sound identical in the same room - regardless of the technology. If this isn't true than the set of measurements is not complete.
So if someone can have a preference of SS or tubes than they must have a preference for the colorations or distortions (or even the appearance of) commonly associated with that technology - and trying to base that preference on "accuracy" seems somewhat misguided at best.
I understand that to be PC we have to say most equipment is good regardless of whether or not it suits our own subjective preferences or not, but then to turn around and redefine "accuracy" to justify a personal preference seems just a little disingenuous.
"but then to turn around and redefine 'accuracy' to justify a personal preference seems just a little disingenuous."
> > How is this, may I ask?Your comment -
> > And if you disagree with my assessment, that's perfectly fine. I'm
> > just stating my *personal* preference in amplifiers. And what I
> > *personally* consider "accurate" sound reproduction.
What you personally consider accuracy has nothing to do with what's real and measureable. Does it?Even you say
> > People tend to assign components with an "analytical" character
> > as "accurate."
Just like you assign the "45 SET" sound as being "accurate".Then you continue on to say
> > What is "accurate" to one person may be "sonically colored" to
> > another.
and
> > By the same token, I would consider good 45 SET amp more-
> > accurate than a good 200-watt solid-state amplifier.Back to the beginning - How could you possibly know? It seems to me that your premise is nothing more than stating the your belief that your own preferences are more accurate than the the preferences of others - who by your own words must appreciate the colorations and distortions of SS.
IMO - accuracy is a real and measureable quantity and has nothing to do with personal preferences. Why is it never good enough to just like something more - do we have to prove that our subjective preferences are somehow objectively superior as well!
"What you personally consider accuracy has nothing to do with what's real and measureable. Does it?"I'm not sure what you mean by real. I do hear characteristics that I would personally associate with "accuracy," but I've yet to see measurements that correlate to this. I'm referring to bass linearity, which I've described qualitatively, but have not seen a "measurement" that quantifies it. (I think it could be a form of intermodulation distortion.)
"Back to the beginning - How could you possibly know?"
I don't!! That's my point. Hence this is why I say "accuracy" is subjective.
"It seems to me that your premise is nothing more than stating the your belief that your own preferences are more accurate than the the preferences of others"
I apologize about the mis-perception- I did not intend to project such an impression. My definition of accuracy is no better or worse than someone else's, aside from being my personal preference. I just happen to believe that "bass linearity" is paramount for accurate reproduction. If you or anyone else think it's irrelevant to accuracy, no problem.
"who by your own words must appreciate the colorations and distortions of SS."
Where did I say or imply that?
"IMO - accuracy is a real and measureable quantity and has nothing to do with personal preferences."
I think you're confusing personal preferences with "accuracy" in an absolute sense, which I say has yet to exist. I also believe if measurable quantities *fully* described the characteristic of audio equipment, such "accuracy" *would* exist. But I think the current measurable specifications for audio equipment are not even close to defining *true* accuracy. Hence I have no problem with people "redefining" accuracy.
"Why is it never good enough to just like something more - do we have to prove that our subjective preferences are somehow objectively superior as well!"
From an unmeasurable but qualitative standpoint, yes. For the reason I stated above. I would not put "bass linearity" in the same "subjective" boat as things like "warmth", "graininess", "bloom", "PRAT", etc.. It is a technical term. And every system I've heard does it anywhere from awful to superb. And personally, I think it has a much bigger impact on accuracy than established, measurable objective specifications like THD, power ratings, HF bandwidth, slew rates, etc.
if you can argue that your preferences are based on your subjective perspective on what's accurate and what's not accurate how then can you consider both amps, "good" SS and 45 SET, as being "good", in the same breath as you reveal your preferences.Personally it would make much more sense to me if you claimed that you preferred the accuracy of reproduction due to bass linearity provided by 45 SET amps over solid state amps if at the same time you did not pay lip service to SS devotees by claiming both amps are "good".
Truthfully I think magazine reviewers have an obligation to realize that their subjective preferences aren't shared by everybody and the only fair thing they can do when they review a product is put it in the best light possible - and to do a negative review on a component really can't be justified except in the most extreme cases. But why individual audiophiles have to be so PC is beyond me.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: