Skip to main content
Topic: [CLUELESS TROLL] Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article (Read 1381 times) previous topic - next topic - Topic derived from "Why tubes sound bett...
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #25
No, it is the reconstruction filter of a DAC that smoothes it out. That's its job. If this reconstruction filter is implemented correctly, there's nothing a tube can do to improve it. There's half a century of experience doing this for audio. You are the wrong man to dismiss that out of hand.

It still has to sample and quantify what it gets, more harmonics, more content so sorry Sir but you are wrong.

Your ears are far more complex and superior to any scientific equipment. If you have to trust the gear to tell you, what does that say about your ability to discern? After all, it's not all about accuracy. No system is accurate and certainly not most of the audience who purchase the music. Quincy Jones sold 52 million copies of Thriller on this principal. He didn't use a spectrum analyser to tell him but trusted his ears and and his team of engineers as to what they were hearing on as many systems as they could. They were listening to the music coming from the speakers first and foremost and, how it translated from the control room because that wasn't accurate either. Have you ever listened to a set of Yamaha NS10s, lovely and accurate aren't they? Seriously, they sound terrible. So how do u suppose producers create a flat sound? They don't and there is no point. If you truly got your systems flat, you would chunder. It would sound terrible. So how do u enjoy music? You don't, you listen to the gear, whatever that sounds like.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #26

Is that your best?

EMP producers who produce in the box spend hours passing their tracks through analogue outboard gear including tubes to add harmonic distortion and rid the production of a gritty fatiguing sound. But at some point it has to be converted to 1s and 0s for digital storage and distribution ETC. The waveform is sampled at intervals and quantified. This process is not perfect and quantization errors occur which is audible an unpleasant. That is because not exactly all of the waveform can be reproduced, hence, lacking musicality.
Bullshit.
Quote


Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #27
Tubes don't sound better, they make the music sound better. I'm a music producer / Audio engineer. Tubes are used throughout the signal chain during production and Mastering. From the microphone to the pre amp to the outboard gear in the tracking chain, right through to outboard gear used to mix and mastering. Also the market is saturated with plugins that emulate tube distortion for those who can't afford the the hardware. In the industry, countless producers / engineers try to add harmonic distortion into the production because it is pleasing to the ear.
You are talking about one particular segment of the music production market that rides the tube wave. You may think that is the whole market, but you are gravely mistaken. I know a number of professionals who wouldn't touch tube gear with a barge pole.

Listen, if you like tubes, you may say so, and you would at least be honest, even though you would be in conflict with TOS8 here. But don't pretend you are stating facts, because that makes you look dishonest and clueless at the same time.

Quote
You would cringe if you heard some tracks I mastered using 'high quality recorded samples" being produced totally digitally.
That may well be the case, but I would blame you for it, not the digital production method.

Quote
EMP producers who produce in the box spend hours passing their tracks through analogue outboard gear including tubes to add harmonic distortion and rid the production of a gritty fatiguing sound. But at some point it has to be converted to 1s and 0s for digital storage and distribution ETC. The waveform is sampled at intervals and quantified. This process is not perfect and quantization errors occur which is audible an unpleasant. That is because not exactly all of the waveform can be reproduced, hence, lacking musicality.
Bullshit.

Quote
Tubes during playback is pleasant because it takes the content and smooths it out and can harmonise instruments for e.g, drum cymbals upper harmonics mesh with guitar upper harmonics giving a more musical realistic pleasing sound.
No, it is the reconstruction filter of a DAC that smoothes it out. That's its job. If this reconstruction filter is implemented correctly, there's nothing a tube can do to improve it. There's half a century of experience doing this for audio. You are the wrong man to dismiss that out of hand.

Quote
This is why even order and odd 'harmonic distortion" produced by tubes is desirable for a lot of people including myself and a large part of the music production community. Stop wasting your time and money trying to faithfully reproduce the production because it's all about system translation not accuracy. A good system is one that sounds musical if u know what that is? That can also be solid state gear. The goal of the producer is to make the song pop in as many playback systems as possible. 'Even yours" If you want to know what the producer hears, good luck because unless you were present during the mastering of 'Thriller' or "Nevermind" ETC, you will never know, not even close.
You are contradicting yourself here, and don't even realize it. Your only chance as a producer to make your production sound good on as many playback system as possible, is to have those playback systems playing back neutrally. That means no additional distortion. If you advocate distortion in playback (whether through tubes or not), you throw your own control as a producer out of the window.

You can use whatever tube-based or non-tube-based gear you want during your production. I don't care, since it is primarily you who needs to be happy with your product. If I don't agree, I don't buy it, and I probably won't bother to tell you why I don't like it. But don't extend your unwelcome wisdom to my playback system. I know much better than you what I want and like, and I certainly have no interest in your tube crap in my system.

Quote
If you want to recreate the production as accurately as possible, go play it in an anechoic chamber with your precious accurate solid state gear and enjoy the misery of listening to the gear and not the harmonious music.
It is you who apparently puts the gear before the music, why else would you bother to bring up the tube discussion again?

Your comment about the anechoic chamber, btw., shows your ignorance/arrogance in full glory.
Quote
BTW the Loudness war is over! We now have LUFS standards.
Sure, but who enforces them? Do you see any authority that could prevent you from releasing a record that violates those standards?

Quote
Documented scientific tests tell you nothing. Your ears are what you aim to please, not your P.C and you should trust your ears not data.
I usually trust my ears, but I would never trust anybody who tells me to trust my ears.

Without scientific tests, how do you know whether your potential customers hear the same way you are hearing? Whether they are pleased by the same things that please you? You may of course produce records so that they please yourself, but to assume that they will then automatically please others is arrogant at best. You are using a moronic argument to justify your own ignorance. With that, you will please nobody here.

Go play elsewhere, troll.

LA2a Compressor or a clone of, legendary since the 50s. On just about every production. WHy don't you watch "Sound City" and make a list of the gear you see? Drule

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #28
"That may well be the case, but I would blame you for it, not the digital production method"

Yeh, for not at least passing it through some analogue gear for saturation and harmonic content.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #29
BTW the Loudness war is over! We now have LUFS standards.

"Sure, but who enforces them? Do you see any authority that could prevent you from releasing a record that violates those standards?"

Its an ethical choice for the producer but by the way Metallica fans reacted to "Death Magnetic" do u think they would listen to that or a version with a standard of - 11 to - 13 LUFS for digital distro and - 16 for C.D? What do u think? That's what we are aiming for set by the AES EBU.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #30
"Documented scientific tests tell you nothing. Your ears are what you aim to please, not your P.C and you should trust your ears not data.
I usually trust my ears, but I would never trust anybody who tells me to trust my ears.

Without scientific tests, how do you know whether your potential customers hear the same way you are hearing? Whether they are pleased by the same things that please you? You may of course produce records so that they please yourself, but to assume that they will then automatically please others is arrogant at best. You are using a moronic argument to justify your own ignorance. With that, you will please nobody here".

I would never trust gear to tell me during production & I would never trust gear to tell me what I'm hearing after reproduction. A digital representation of a waveform can tell you if it's clipped but if you can't hear it with your ears, you are screwed. That is why at SAE institute for E.G, you can't see the protools rig while you track. That is how they teach their Audio Engineering students. It's away from the Neve Console. And, before you bag the crap out of them, Some of the most successful and multi award winning producers lecture there and stake their reputations on graduating those who achieve a high standard and body of work. So go ahead!
For heaven's sake, are we going to use technology to tell us how something tastes? You probably would. You don't trust or enjoy your senses. How boring that would be? While taste is also subjective, most of us can sensibly tell if something is sweet or sour, your taste in what music should sound like... or who cares.. That brand of cable might make it more palatable, right. Oh hang on, is it accurate? How would you ever know what the producer created in the first place? That is done by judging the aesthetic of the instruments, Tambre, tone and harmonics put there by the producer using his gear as a tool and also your ear and brain's interpretation. In reproduction, your ear is the tool. Assembling the system is the science and an art, the paint if you like to make a representation of an image. What is your reference? Who cares, if it sounds good to you, it is good but I ain't spending dollars and dollars and scientific equipment and or software to tell me it is justified. Let me tell you, If i took you to a mastering suite and you adjusted the bass and top end to your taste, it would probably translate like crap on your system due to lack of experience and musical knowledge. No offense. All novice sound guys go through it. That taste, discernment and judgement in aesthetic is cultural and semiotic in nature via its evolution to date, not a technicality or measurement. "ART" If you can't interpret the art, the gear can't tell you! BTW the GML 9500 mastering EQs HF band goes all the way up to 26k with a maximum of 12db boost. Why? We can't hear it right? Wrong. Harmonics and, it will translate in anything, even when you're on hold on the phone! I'm curious, are you going to say that George Massenburg is wrong? BTW, when someone says tubes sound better, that is an opinion based on a judgement and experience agreed by many, semiotically, culturally and evolutionary to date, whatever your favorite genre or taste by musicians and producers who have had the ultimate say on what you hear on your own systems.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #31

********************warning misattributed post******************

Is that your best?

EMP producers who produce in the box spend hours passing their tracks through analogue outboard gear including tubes to add harmonic distortion and rid the production of a gritty fatiguing sound. But at some point it has to be converted to 1s and 0s for digital storage and distribution ETC. The waveform is sampled at intervals and quantified. This process is not perfect and quantization errors occur which is audible an unpleasant. That is because not exactly all of the waveform can be reproduced, hence, lacking musicality.
Bullshit.

Is that your best?

EMP producers who produce in the box spend hours passing their tracks through analogue outboard gear including tubes to add harmonic distortion and rid the production of a gritty fatiguing sound. But at some point it has to be converted to 1s and 0s for digital storage and distribution ETC. The waveform is sampled at intervals and quantified. This process is not perfect and quantization errors occur which is audible an unpleasant. That is because not exactly all of the waveform can be reproduced, hence, lacking musicality.
Bullshit.

Re: Re: "Why tubes sound better" nonsense article

Reply #32
I would never trust gear to tell me during production & I would never trust gear to tell me what I'm hearing after reproduction. A digital representation of a waveform can tell you if it's clipped but if you can't hear it with your ears, you are screwed. That is why at SAE institute for E.G, you can't see the protools rig while you track. That is how they teach their Audio Engineering students. It's away from the Neve Console. And, before you bag the crap out of them, Some of the most successful and multi award winning producers lecture there and stake their reputations on graduating those who achieve a high standard and body of work. So go ahead!

Analyzing the sound quality of music by means of technical analysis is possible and helpful, but I doubt that many so-called recording engineers take the time to develop the skills to do it. I wouldn't try to teach it to beginners or dedicated Luddites.

Quote
For heaven's sake, are we going to use technology to tell us how something tastes?

You obviously know nothing about the production techniques that are commonly used in the food industry. For example:

Role_of_Chemistry_in_Food_Processing_and_preservation

 
SimplePortal 1.0.0 RC1 © 2008-2019