[net.audio] Tubes/solid state, ob/sub jectivity

charles@sunybcs.UUCP (06/27/84)

If you do not know what 'flat' sound is, you should not
be wasting your money on Hi-Fi gear.  Spend your money on
a Sony Hissman portable stereo and you will never know what
music is like.
 
for one definition try:
 
  you are now listening to a flat (like a picture is flat) source of
music.  There is no depth to the stereo immage.  In even worse cases
there is no stereo immage what-so-ever.
 
For another definition try:
 
 there is no life in the music... flat and dull.
 
 
Context changes the usage of 'flat'.
 
Why no tyraids about 'soggy', 'thumpy', 'swangy', 'harsh', 'sweet',
'warm', 'air', 'ambiance', 'coloration(s)'....

pmr@drutx.UUCP (06/29/84)

Re: Charles description of flat sound

Also a very good description of digital reproduction.

		Yours for higher fidelity,
		Phil Rastocny
		AT&T-ISL
		..!drutx!pmr

rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) (07/02/84)

Various comments from Phil Rastocny - on the alleged superiority of tube
gear over transistor:

>Some people have mailed messages to me stating that I should prove my
>assertion that tubes extract more low-level signal information than
>transistors...  I'll paraphrase their one line defenses:
>"I don't believe they do."
>
>In reply to these overwhelmingly technical defenses, I assert that
>they're wrong.  I base my claims on my own and others subjectivity.

But this is all too easy to answer:  I assert that Phil is wrong.  I base
my claims on my own and others' subjectivity.  Stalemate!
That's why we measure, dammit!  If you think that ALL the people who can
really hear fine differences among top-end audio products prefer tube gear,
I'd like to know what you've been smoking (and where I can get some).
Seriously, there's nothing close to agreement that tube gear is all that
fine.  Some of the more technically-oriented postings taking the SS side of
the subject explain the objective and subjective reasons.

>For example, when solid state (SS) amps first hit the market they
>quickly made their way into the professional arena...
Phil goes on to explain that he held the SS position for a while, then went
back toward advocating tube gear - but in a fashion that sounds very much
like someone who's gone to hedonism and then been "born again".  I don't
mean to ridicule Phil, but I can't see from what he's written that there is
a convincing substantive advantage to tubes.

>Exactly why does a $300 Conrad
>Johnson tube preamp kit sound better than a $300 Hafler preamp kit?
>The Hafler has the spec advantage (0.01% THD, IM, FM, AC, PhD, MOS, BS),
>but the Hafler sounds flat, dry, unrevealing, and uninterresting...
Does the CJ really sound better?
	I've had "flat" beer, but not flat sound...
	I've had "dry" wine, but not dry sound...
	...
What do these mean?  I have a very strong suspicion that the terms that
Phil is using here are part of audio snobbery terminology.  I won't play
that game.  To convince me that it's not just snobbery, someone's going to
have to give me some definitions that are at least workable for exchanging
information.
-- 
Dick Dunn	{hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd		(303)444-5710 x3086
	...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.