10 Biggest Lies in Audio (PDF Article)

I stumbled across this interesting magazine article at another site, I'll echo it here:

http://www.theaudiocritic.com/downloads/article_1.pdf

Comments?

The essence of it is correct - but as with most things, simple statements about complex issues are very unlikely to reveal the entire truth, and that's what has happened here. Cheap cables with relatively high resistance = poor bass damping, and you can hear that quite clearly on some systems. The tubes v. transistors thing is sort-of right, but the arguments about distortion aren't that simple at all. The digital myth is also not so simple - but he hasn't gone into any detail about that, and there are some clearly audible differences between converters, whether he likes it or not. The feedback thing isn't simple either - Avoiding Transient Intermodulation Distortion (quite measurable and audible) does depend on getting the feedback regime correct - but he didn't say that it didn't, in fairness - he just didn't go into any detail at all.

But it's true that Audiophiles talk rot - they always have done, and probably always will. Trouble is, that rubbishing all of their cherished beliefs in one article without any real detail to back it up is almost as much of a sin - despite the fact that in essence, it's correct.

OTOH, since they won't believe him anyway, you could argue that there wasn't much point in putting the details in. But this isn't for Audiophiles to read, is it? - it's for people who don't know what to believe at all. And I don't actually think that glossing over the detail is doing the intelligent, but uninformed, reader any favours at all, and is likely to cause them to think that the author is just as bad, only in the other direction... despite the fact that he isn't.

I've always thought Speaker cable was getting silly, but there is definate proof that cable quality is an important consideration up to a point.

but there is definate proof that cable quality is an important consideration up to a point.

Yes, up to a point. And so it is with his other points. Once your cable is correct for the application, it is correct. Adding anything "over" it doesn't change the situation. Like Steve said, a too thin cable may hurt.

And I don't actually think that glossing over the detail is doing the intelligent, but uninformed, reader any favours at all, and is likely to cause them to think that the author is just as bad, only in the other direction... despite the fact that he isn't.

No, but it can people set to think. I never saw any article in the popular press that went to any depth. It just isn't useful either.

I stopped reading after this statement:

"Whatever tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better."

Now, any guitar player knows that's just goofy.

Chris

I stopped reading after this statement:

"Whatever tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better."

Now, any guitar player knows that's just goofy.

Chris

Well, I'll have you know I'm a guitarist and I dig my Carvin solid state amp and my Yamaha digital modeler.  No tubes need apply.  

But you're right.  Tubes can heat the room, go microphonic, sound different over time, break, and loosen much better than any transistor or IC.  

It's not a matter of "better" - that's the silliest part about the above quote from the article. The point is not that solid state cannot produce great sounds. The point is simply that it cannot sound like a tube amp.

Articles like this one seem to forget that when it comes to music (and especially rock/pop) accuracy is not the objective. It is the pleasing inaccuracies of tube amps, analog tape, etc. - and their inherant distortion/compression etc. that make them desirable for music.

Chris

It's not a matter of "better" - that's the silliest part about the above quote from the article. The point is not that solid state cannot produce great sounds. The point is simply that it cannot sound like a tube amp.

Articles like this one seem to forget that when it comes to music (and especially rock/pop) accuracy is not the objective. It is the pleasing inaccuracies of tube amps, analog tape, etc. - and their inherant distortion/compression etc. that make them desirable for music.

Chris

IMO there's a big difference between sound production and sound reproduction.  Though I don't have a tube guitar rig, I'll admit that's a convenience issue; I liked the sound of several tube amps I've tried, and may have one again someday.

But I don't want that kind of coloration in my reproduction chain (stereo system, PA, etc.)  Well, not unless I can switch it off, anyway.  That should be as accurate as possible.  If the music is supposed to be "warm & fuzzy", then it should have been recorded that way.

Also, although tube & solid state guitar gear usually sounds different (though modeling is pretty close IMO, and has been since the SansAmp came out in 1990) that's largely because the amps are pushed into their non linear range, where the sonic behavior is most dissimilar.  In the linear range as typical in home amps the differences are much smaller.  Maybe vanishingly smaller.  Like "can't tell the difference in a double blind ABX test" small.

Also, although tube & solid state guitar gear usually sounds different (though modeling is pretty close IMO, and has been since the SansAmp came out in 1990)

I've heard some modelers I've liked okay (well, one) but I wouldn't say they're close to a real amp quite yet. Well, maybe I'd say they're close, but not real close...

that's largely because the amps are pushed into their non linear range, where the sonic behavior is most dissimilar. In the linear range as typical in home amps the differences are much smaller.

Forgive my ignorance, but I've never heard the term "non-linear" used when talking about amps - I'm assuming you mean loud right? This may be a standard amp term for all I know - I'm not much of a gearhead.

But yeah, the whole point of tubes is what they do when you push them.

I just got a Fender Blues Junior recently, and the reason I was so excited by it is that it was one of the few amps I tried that sounded awesomely "tubeish" even at very low volumes (which I frequently have to play at late at night).

And let me just take a moment to say the Blues Jr freakin' rules! All my modelers just went in the trash can.

Chris

Forgive my ignorance, but I've never heard the term "non-linear" used when talking about amps - I'm assuming you mean loud right? This may be a standard amp term for all I know - I'm not much of a gearhead.

But yeah, the whole point of tubes is what they do when you push them.
Chris

Yeah, that's what I mean.  The part of their operating range where they're distorting.  That's mostly the point with guitar amps, whether in the "just breaking up" stage or the Soldano "way past broken up and totally smooshed" stage.  But in home stereo or PA amps, you avoid this behavior, and don't WANT added coloration.  Again, you may want some small amount of added warmth - an aural "soft filter" if you will.  But IMO that should be switchable like any other effect.

Personally, I see it as a matter of preference and the target sound that benefits the type music being played.  Fortunately (or unfortunately, however you see it)  I own several of both and have owned a butt-load over the years.  FWIW, I've had some solid state rigs (namely a Sunn Beta Lead and a Galien Krueger) that sounded better than a couple of the Marshall 100w tube amps that I've owned.  I presently have a Line 6 Spider 1x12 that is a solid state modeling amp.  Whilst the majority of the sounds suck and definitely are very convincing..... it does reproduce a fairly acurate Vox AC30 sound.  I know this from experiece because I've owned 2 Vox's thus far.  Now....  that said, the Vox's that I've owned were used, (which was the only way that I could afford to have them) and weren't in the best of condition.  I have a 76' Fender Twin that I've had for years and it sounds, well.... like a Fender should.  Ironically, the tubes have been replaced with Groove Tubes.  On top of this, I presently own another tube amp (an old National) and 2 other solid state amps, not to mention a fairly large rack system with a Digitech processor (with a 12ax7 tube in it).  My point...  most amps (if in good working condition) have one or two particular sounds that are useful contingent upon what your target is.  I don't necessarily think "better" is an apt description.

 

The original article seemed to focus on reproduction chain, though.  Guitar amps ARE audio gear, but I don't think that's what he meant.  And though I'll concede that "better" wasn't a good word choice, "more accurately" might have been, and would reflect my position better WRT sound reproduction.

Amps.  Yeah.  Would that a modeler really COULD do a great plexi, AC30, Twin, and JC120.  But the ones I've tried (POD, V-Amp2, J-Station) fell short - though they are fun to play with and fine for practice.  I bought a V-Amp for this.

I wonder if that's not just a case of biting off more than can be chewed.  My fave modelers can come "kinda sorta close" to certain specific amps, but aren't really set up that way.  They are their own amps, with their own personalities, and don't try to emulate 32 different classic amps with specific labels.  They are the digital Yamaha DG Stomp (with only 8 amp models), and the previously mentioned analog Sansamp.  And though they don't have a "Fender Twin" knob selection, they DO sound and feel the tubiest of those I've tried - especially in that "slight breakup" sound.

I can't really do meaningful comparisons, but I do like the simulations on the Adrenalinn II, even if they aren't absolutely perfect (which they might be, of course...   ). This was something that Roger said that he'd improved on the new version.

I've heard some modelers I've liked okay (well, one) but I wouldn't say they're close to a real amp quite yet.

I dissagree.  I have a VOX Tonelab that sits right on the money in most instances.  I think they might have been able to do a little better with it's direct tones, but through a good clean amp (I'm using a JC80) I find id to be pretty solid.  Though, at that price it had better be...

Also, for software check these out:
http://www.simulanalog.org/