CDs and tube amps

[toxcrusadr]

Amazing that thousands of different audio engineers working on digital audio for what, a third of a century at least, were deluding themselves into thinking it sounds good the way they're doing it, when it can't possibly be. It's like a mass hallucination! The horror.

 

[House de Kris]

The

Kind of the question I am addressing is why people like tube verses transistor amp and why a tube stage in line with transistor amp ,thanks for trying

 

[House de Kris]

Hey there, you're welcome for me trying. Do I get any points for trying? Or, are you just going to dismiss me altogether?

 

[House de Kris]

If you are really trying to sing the praises of hollow state logic over sand, then why even drag us though your delusion of CD audio? Per your logic, vinyl is only good to 1.5 to 1.6kHz, cassettes can reach only 500Hz at 0VU. What is your point then? I don't see how this relates to vacuum being preferred.

 

[House de Kris]

And, getting back to the point of this thread, should the OP even consider using a tube amp with a CD player?

 

[House de Kris]

The

 

[House de Kris]

I know several well ,they think I am weird too but they pay attention to what I say

I'd pay attention to you too, if there are any sharp instruments in the room. Otherwise,...

 

[House de Kris]

Oops, I forgot:



"The"

 

[House de Kris]

I have no delusions of digital format this.

Right on! I was just confused a bit when you wrote this:

The sampling rate used by cds is 44.1 kHz this is for both channels so 22khz each so cds are good to only 2.2 kHz per Chanel

I must have made to the mistake to interpret this to mean that you believe CD sampling rate is 44.1kHz for both channels and that on a per channel basis, it is only sampling at a 22kHz rate. Which gives rise to your conclusion that CDs are only good for 2.2kHz per channel based on your belief that 10 samples are needed. Really, I did the best I could at interpreting what you wrote, but I must have gone astray somewhere. If you would be so kind, could you clarify what you meant to say in that statement I quoted in the box?

No need to rush, I'm going home now and won't be back on this forum until Monday.

 

[Ken Boyd]

I wouldn't be surprised if we have reached the useful end to this thread.

 

[darkblue94]

I wouldn't be surprised if we have reached the useful end to this thread.

Was there a useful beginning?

 

[markn2wae]

Everyone makes it so difficult, just turn on a system you like put a record, CD, or stream, I really don't care which method and enjoy the outcome.

I fully agree!
If "rousing discussion" helps us all to better enjoy our music reproduction, GO FOR IT!

But if this "discussion" leads to argument, someones pride being hurt, a "battle of ivory towers" as it were, lets not let this thread be closed, as the end result is the betterment of pleasing our ears with our favorite music and how to do it best with the equipment we have (and can afford).

My experience in the past with tube and SS equipment is varied and educational at a mostly "non scientific" level (no CD's at that time).

Now that I have the skills to restore and modify equipment (my Sansui 1000A for instance) I have never been more satisfied with the sound be it with FM, CD, Records, Tape, RR, almost any source.

For years I have sought out a sound free of "listener fatigue" that thinking of "I'm not really enjoying the music and really don't know why, there too many distracting thoughts in my head", even with the thoughts of "tubes are OLD, SS is better" never really "cut it" for me even my father scolded me for collecting tubes".

Tube amplifiers just "work" for me (In my main system as suggested by members of AK), even though I still use mostly SS for other "smaller" systems.

To my ears, a properly working tube amp. sounds good (no matter what I play through it, taking into account the capabilities of the source) all the way back to when I first took a single ended stereo amp. from an old console (and found out that telephone wire for speaker wire does NOT make for the best sound) .

Beating ourselves over the heads and not getting any "improvement" in the results is just a waste of time and enjoyment!

Mark T.

 

[Ken Boyd]

Please!

 

[DaveVoorhis]

yes my spelling is poor electronics knowledge is very good digital conversation from analogue is a appropriation of the signal .

I think you mean "approximation", which it is, but as part of a process that replicates the original signal up to half the Nyquist frequency. Difference between the original and replicated signal is by a noise level typically below that of the analog noise floor.

See https://xiph.org/video/

 

[DaveVoorhis]

Yes approximate is what I mean but I am not aware of how this relates to a noise figiure

Any difference between an original signal and the original signal which has undergone analog-to-digital conversion followed by analog-to-digital reconstruction -- assuming a properly working system -- appears as low level noise. The noise level is generally lower than what would be present in a (roughly) equivalent purely analog system.

 

[sKiZo]

Thread seems to have developed a tic ...

Would this be an example of analgal or digilog distortion?

Oh.

The.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

This would depend on your definition of properly working granted that after the filtering of the sampleing frequency has been removed there would be no trace but the point was to the methodology of how the samples were taken

Sorry, after "properly working" -- by which I mean "working as intended by the designer and manufacturer" -- the rest doesn't make sense. What do you mean by "that after the filtering of the sampling frequency has been removed there would be no trace..."?

What is being removed? What is there no trace of?

 

[tonyk]

I just read the entire thread, I'm still not exactly sure what it's about.

 

[sqlsavior]

Fuff-bay!

apologies to Kurt Vonnegut...

 

[toxcrusadr]

The

Now you're just post-whoring!

No but what I'm sayin',...