Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Captain Ned
Captain Ned wrote:I wonder if any of those very oddball AOpen P4 tube mobos are still in service?
just brew it! wrote:If you happen to prefer a touch of even-order harmonic distortion, OK fine... but don't claim it is somehow more "accurate" or "natural".
Captain Ned wrote:just brew it! wrote:If you happen to prefer a touch of even-order harmonic distortion, OK fine... but don't claim it is somehow more "accurate" or "natural".
A claim I would never make. To me, tubes belong in guitar amps due to the even-order distortion. That said, the amplification ideal of "straight wire with gain" just implies sterility and reminds me of just how bad the '70s-era receivers sold during the power/distortion wars actually sounded despite their near-perfect measurements.
Captain Ned wrote:Oh, and the only way to get repeatable frequency response curves from headphones is to use dummy heads with instrument-grade mics, but even these won't capture the full interaction of the soundwave with the ear's pinna (the outside bit we all think of when we hear "ear"). That, and they cost a fortune. The headphone/ear interface is just too chaotic and too individualised to predict how anyone will "like" what headphone X sounds like on their head.
just brew it! wrote:However, for reproduction of recorded content, there's something to be said for mathematically precise reproduction in the final power stage. If you need processing to compensate for room/venue acoustics, personal preference, etc., that should be done as a (controlled) pre-processing step.
Captain Ned wrote:just brew it! wrote:However, for reproduction of recorded content, there's something to be said for mathematically precise reproduction in the final power stage. If you need processing to compensate for room/venue acoustics, personal preference, etc., that should be done as a (controlled) pre-processing step.
I can get behind that, though "mathematically precise reproduction" without any listening tests is what gave us the '70s receiver wasteland.
Captain Ned wrote:In the Audiophilia Nervosa press there's a description of your ideal amp. It's an amp that finally lets you hear how crappy the upstream chain sounds.
just brew it! wrote:Entirely possible that the numbers being measured were not the ones that mattered most. Though I'm sure enough equipment of that vintage still survives that a really determined person with deep pockets and new theories about what needs to be tested could collect fresh data.
just brew it! wrote:IOW, it was analogous to "gaming the benchmarks" like I mentioned above.
just brew it! wrote:Yes, OTL tube amps are insane... special kind of craziness there. It's a spectacle I prefer to watch from afar (both because I think the participants are certifiable, and because I couldn't afford to participate even if I wanted to).
Captain Ned wrote:just brew it! wrote:Yes, OTL tube amps are insane... special kind of craziness there. It's a spectacle I prefer to watch from afar (both because I think the participants are certifiable, and because I couldn't afford to participate even if I wanted to).
Avoiding the inevitable shrapnel is another valid reason.
tanker27 wrote:Do they really fail that spectacularly? Or do they normally just pop like a lightbulb? Mind you I've never had anything tube but have always been intrigued by them.
Glorious wrote:JBI wrote:Whenever the TV stopped working
But it was a richer, warmer, kind of unreliability!
just brew it! wrote:We had tube-based TVs and phonographs when I was a kid. Whenever the TV stopped working dad and I would take a trip down to the local Rexall drugstore with a brown paper bag full of tubes, to use the tube tester. Yup, back in the day many drugstores had tube testers set up that you could just walk in and use, and you could even buy replacements for the more common types at the counter.
just brew it! wrote:We had tube-based TVs and phonographs when I was a kid. Whenever the TV stopped working dad and I would take a trip down to the local Rexall drugstore with a brown paper bag full of tubes, to use the tube tester. Yup, back in the day many drugstores had tube testers set up that you could just walk in and use, and you could even buy replacements for the more common types at the counter.
The tester had a bunch of tube sockets to fit all the various form factors, rotary switches to select the appropriate test parameters (which you had to read from a chart) for the model of tube being tested, and an analog meter. You set up the test, plugged in your tube, and read the results on the meter, which had "bad" and "good" ranges marked on it.
I remember being pretty impressed (and more than a little scared) by the high-voltage rectifier tube in our first color TV. Apparently those things got extremely hot and emitted non-trivial amounts of X-rays during normal operation. There was a special shielded metal compartment / containment vessel for it inside the TV, with some rather dire warnings on it... the message was essentially, "Don't open this compartment while the TV is powered up unless you want to DIE!"
tanker27 wrote:[I don't ever recall those tubes exploding.
Glorious wrote:But it was a richer, warmer, kind of unreliability!
Captain Ned wrote:Glorious wrote:But it was a richer, warmer, kind of unreliability!
Ah, so you have read Stereophile.
just brew it! wrote:Entirely possible that the numbers being measured were not the ones that mattered most. Though I'm sure enough equipment of that vintage still survives that a really determined person with deep pockets and new theories about what needs to be tested could collect fresh data.
ludi wrote:just brew it! wrote:Entirely possible that the numbers being measured were not the ones that mattered most. Though I'm sure enough equipment of that vintage still survives that a really determined person with deep pockets and new theories about what needs to be tested could collect fresh data.
The infamous THD @ 1kHz, perhaps? A fairly easy test for even a cheapky-built solid-state amp to pass, and not terribly relevant to full-spectrum audio reproduction, unless you spend your listening time playing back 1kHz sine tones.
ludi wrote:Then there was the fact that "true" complementary P-channel silicon devices didn't start to really go mainstream until sometime well into the 1970s...
just brew it! wrote:I generally just go with "tweak the EQ until it sounds about right". At the end of the day it's all very subjective anyway, and my gear isn't high-end, so it's mostly about compensating for the shortcomings of my speakers/headphones.
Speaking of subjective listening tests (and sorry for the tangent), I did notice some improvements in the punch of the bass and clarity of the highs when I switched from onboard Realtek to a Xonar DSX recently. Not a huge difference, mind you... but noticeable. Onboard has come a long way in the past decade and a half, but IMO when VIA faded from the scene and Realtek became the de facto standard we took a small step backwards. I still have a couple of Asus motherboards from the late '00s that have VIA onboard on them, and they sound better than the more recent Realtek ones... especially when directly driving headphones. Unfortunately they're old enough that they are now relegated to server duty, where the better onboard audio implementation goes to waste.
Acidicheartburn wrote:... and aside from iffy drivers (found some better custom drivers by a dude named Daniel_K who also makes drivers for Xonar cards), I've been very happy with it for my PC audio for years now.
just brew it! wrote:Weren't many designs still using BJTs into the '80s?