Date:         Sun, 1 Jul 2007 19:56:26 -0400
Reply-To:     Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List
              <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Steven C. Barr(x)" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Is The Record Shop Dead?
Comments: To: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bob Olhsson" <[log in to unmask]>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From Steven C. Barr: "... As I understand it, the 44.1KHz sample frequency
> is supposed to produce an adequate version of the actual analog signal
> such that our human ears and mind can't hear any identifiable
> difference...?!
> 
> On the other hand, there DOES exist an identifiable and demonstrable
> difference between vacuum-tube and solid-state audio equipment! Oddly
> enough, this difference exists because most audio amplifiers operate
> with audible/identifiable distortion. Tube amplification simply decreases
> in efficiency is limits are approached...producing a distorted signal
> waveform, but one without any "sharp corners"...! Solid-state amplification,
> OTOH, simply reaches its limit and quits amplifying any further...leading
> to "sharp corners" in the waveform..."
> 
> I'd like to correct a couple common misunderstandings.
> 
> First off, we got 44.1 because it was the highest sample rate that off the
> shelf video equipment could edit and off the shelf video disk technology
> could replicate. It was well known at the time that 44.1 would be a
> compromise in any real-world implementation. This was why 48kHz was chosen
> for professional applications and most theorists believed sample rate needed
> to be pushed as high as 60kHz. to actually eliminate all artifacts within
> the audible range.
> 
> While tube equipment shows different distortion characteristics, the real
> reason people preferred it was that it had a significantly wider useable
> dynamic range as opposed to the "pleasing distortion" claimed by the
> salespeople. Solid state offered huge profit margins leading manufacturers
> to choose specs that made it look better but if you measured how the
> equipment was actually being used, the spread between audible noise and
> audible distortion of tube gear could be as much as 25 dB. better.
> Unfortunately the dynamic range of most contemporary tube gear is worse than
> most contemporary solid state gear and people are bragging about the
> pleasing "warm" distortion. Misleading advertising from 40 years ago is now
> passing for truth.
> 
Nevertheless, since virtually all home-use audio equipment does have SOME
distortion, the "warmth" of tube-amp distortion DOES exist...and is easily
audible. This is why many guitar amps still use tubes (although, admittedly,
the users of such amps often deliberately SEEK distortion...!)...

Also, I'm curious...does the average home tube amp have the increased
dynamic range...?

Steven C. Barr