2. amps-preamps
  3. 1246844363

Audio advancement - why?

I was reading a thread in which the OP asked when SS lost to tubes. I completely understand that the OP's question was in good faith and what he/she wanted to know was when SS was a commercial success. I am not at all into tubes. But this does not mean I hate tubes. It is my choice not to go for tubes.Another poster in the same thread pointed out correctly that 99% electronic devices use SS.
What I always failed to understand is - how did humans achieve so many things is other fields except audio? I mean the original "computers" used tubes and were the size of a town house. Over the years science made progress and we now have "notebooks" and "netbooks". And these machines are more reliable and better than their tube counterparts. So what makes tubes better in mid-range and "other areas" that SS cannot achieve, when it comes to audio? Is it because people like the tube distortions over SS? Is it because companies want people to buy gear that have wear/tear and the maintenance keeps these companies going? I am sure there are some answers there. Please DO NOT misunderstand this thread as a SS VS Tubes. Please share your thoughts on this area.
128x128milpai
markphd
667 posts
 
You state: "Is it because people like the tube distortions over SS?". Yes, that's probably it. The characteristics of tubes are pleasing to the ear. However, I would suggest that it is only some people who like tubes over solid state, or else everybody would use tubes. Aromatic hydrocarbons are pleasing to the nose, but I don't suggest you sniff gasoline. Fat is pleasing to taste, but I don't suggest you live only on jelly filled donuts. Tubes sound good, but I wouldn't suggest you listen only to tubes. It won't kill you like the gas or the fat, but like the gas or the fat, it has disadvantages as well as advantages. So choose the one you like and enjoy the music.
audiofeil
4,011 posts
 
I just finished a terrific book dealing with the human brain and music called "This is Your Brain on Music" by Dr. Daniel J. Levitin.

A bit technical in spots but highly recommended reading nonetheless.

Available in paperback.
maineiac
649 posts
 
I guess we have developed hearing into a finely refined sense and listening into a finely refined hobby where we are willing to compromise certain performance attributes for the sake of enjoyment. In the other applications you mention, like computing, the attributes we value can be delivered more quickly and cost effectively using ss. I personally love the sound of tubes, the sound is more natural and beautiful to my ears.
atmasphere's avatar
atmasphere
7,068 posts
 
In case it was not clear, the point of my prior post is the fact that tubes happen to obey the rules of human hearing to a much greater degree than transistors do, hence the reason why it is so much easier to make a musical sounding tube amplifier than it is to do the same with solid state.

If you look at it from the perspective of rules of human hearing vs the use of global negative feedback, it becomes much clearer. See

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
for more information.
frogman
4,637 posts
 
At it's most basic, the answer to you question is that audio deals with music, and music is art. Comparisons to things like computers, which are devices that are required to perform functions that have nothing to do with emotional content are, for the most part, irrelevant. There is a great deal of art that goes into the design of a truly great audio component. That is why many feel that as audio design "advanced", in many cases something was lost. As designers (and sound engineers) rely more and more on test measurements, and less on their ears, more and more of the human element gets lost: less art The trick is to use these "advances" in technology to serve the art, not to define it.
More to discover