[drummermitchell]

Not to start a scrap,following the thread about tubes+solidstate,I'm going to put this to rest,
                                              FOR MY EARS AND THE MUSIC
As I have all highend bryston gear 28s,26,BCD-1,BDA-1 ect(which I like very,very much indeed).I decided to take a drive in the country.
For some reason I ended up in Edmonton Ab (3hr)drive round trip..
Reading about tubes,solidstate,the yays,nays.When it comes to MUSIC and MY ears,I figure I'll settle this for myself as I'm the one who has to listen to the music.
So ended up at Audioark,brought home a Audio Research REF-5(HOME AUDITION).
She's still in the box,and once I get situated and close proximity to the 26(so there is minimum)
physical exertion swapping the Xlrs around and moving a 100lb.revel 50a.
Even though I have a not so ideal room(but It's mine+paid for it)I know how my room is for music.
Anyway I have a couple of days so I thought I'd see what all the fuss is about.
I do know that it might not be a fair comparison the 26 or the Ref-5,
I want to hear for MYSELF,what I like better,tubes or solidstate,as far as preamps or the tube influence.
 ,taking a couple days off to do this audition and then take her back to Edmonton,
seems a bit EXTREME,a couple days off,six hour drive and gas.
 
                                                  I THINK I LIKE MY MUSIC
                                                               .

[Wind Chaser]

So ended up at Audioark,brought home a Audio Research REF-5(HOME AUDITION).

Don't be surprised if you like it, but you should have taken home a ARC preamp or line stage while you were there.  Anyhow...

[mcullinan]

Should be fun. Im a recent tube amp convert... they will tempt you! Always had a tube pre. Makes it all happen!

[Sasha]

I do not want to dismiss your effort and burst your bubble, but you will know nothing of that sort at the end of your exercise, the only conclusion you may come to is that you prefer specific AR model over specific Bryston model, or the other way, in your system, your room, but certainly not that tubes are better than SS or the other way, not even that you prefer one over the other in general.
There is only one reference and one “truth”, and that is the sound of live unamplified, unprocessed music, be that a voice or instrument(s). How close a component gets to this truth is the only measurement of its performance. Huge majority of so called audiophiles have no clue how live unamplified and unprocessed music sounds, their brains were wired with processed sounds as they grew up, they can only have preferences but cannot be judgmental as far as components’ ability to reproduce sound as close to the original as possible goes.
On top of having brains wired differently due to the influence of the environment, there are the inherited genetic differences in all the mechanical and electro-chemical processes that we call hearing.
Not everyone can produce a correct note with their larynx, and not everyone can hear what is there to be heard, thus cannot judge all the aspects of sound reproduction, as not everyone can be a good singer. We are way too different, such differences are evident in absolutely every sense we poses, not just hearing.
Take for example the sense of smell. Approximately 50% of population has no gene that allows them to sense the smell of digested asparagus in their urine. It smells something awful to those who possess the gene, the rest cannot sense it at all. To those who cannot, the rest of people look like some sort of mental patients, they talk about smell that does not exist in their world.
So my approach to this hobby is that I first and foremost look into the engineering aspects that can be quantified, and only those components that were product of sound engineering and have good measurements I would consider for auditioning, and from that pool I would make the choice.

[CABrystonOwner10]

This is fantastic! Please do post your reactions.

One question though, the Reference 5 is a Line-Stage Preamplifier and not an amplifier. Can you please clarify which ARC amplifier you are trying?   

We heard the old Reference 600 (replaced by the 610T) and it is a wonderful and  excellent amplifier.

[toobluvr]

No offense Sasha, but you are a bore.

Same old same old...measure this, measure that......live unamplified music......blah blah blah.  Same old blather.

If someone wants to say they prefer tubes, let them.  What is it with some of you guys....particulary the SS types.  So dogmatic...so unyielding.  Like you feel threatened when someone mentions the M word (musical) with respect to tubes.  Chill out.  Allow others to disagree.

I acknowledge that SS does speed and slam better than tubes.  But I think tubes do flow, liquidity, bloom, space, palpability,  and plain ol involvement better than SS.   These latter things float my boat, so in general I prefer tubes.  If you get off on speed and slam, then SS will do it for you.  There are no absolutes.   Just finding a sound that matches your priorities.

In general, I prefer tubes.  But does that mean they are always better?  No.  With a speaker that is a bear to drive and a tough load, SS will do better.  So what?  Give me a kinder load and I'll choose a good push pull or ultralinear tube amp over any SS.  And give me a really kind load and high efficiency and I'll wet my pants with a sweet SET Class A amp or OTL amp.

Give the dogma and the theory and the measurements a rest.  It is boring.

[drummermitchell]

What snuck into my van was a Audio Research Reference 5 PREAMP,ARs latest preamp.
I didn't bring any AR amps as I have my 28s .
The one truth is how each of us perceive it,there's always a sun behind those clouds even though we can't see it at times.
I think SS+tubes have have different qualities to offer(musically speaking)none is better,just different sound ect.
It comes down to which attracts me emotionally more to the music.
I know if I was braindamaged ,it wouldn't matter,if my hearing was out of wack,same thing.
Will definately find out which one will be the vehicle that takes me closer to the music.
Whichever one it is,the music is the one that wins,or I should say I win as I can enjoy the music more.Of course I enjoy my AM in the van too.We'll time to spin a few tonight ,tomorrow.

[Sasha]

No offense Sasha, but you are a bore.

Same old same old...measure this, measure that......live unamplified music......blah blah blah.  Same old blather.

If someone wants to say they prefer tubes, let them.  What is it with some of you guys....particulary the SS types.  So dogmatic...so unyielding.  Like you feel threatened when someone mentions the M word (musical) with respect to tubes.  Chill out.  Allow others to disagree.

I acknowledge that SS does speed and slam better than tubes.  But I think tubes do flow, liquidity, bloom, space, palpability,  and plain ol involvement better than SS.   These latter things float my boat, so in general I prefer tubes.  If you get off on speed and slam, then SS will do it for you.  There are no absolutes.   Just finding a sound that matches your priorities.

In general, I prefer tubes.  But does that mean they are always better?  No.  With a speaker that is a bear to drive and a tough load, SS will do better.  So what?  Give me a kinder load and I'll choose a good push pull or ultralinear tube amp over any SS.  And give me a really kind load and high efficiency and I'll wet my pants with a sweet SET Class A amp or OTL amp.

Give the dogma and the theory and the measurements a rest.  It is boring.

Where do you see in my post that I prefer SS over tubes?
Can you make an effort to read and understand what someone posts?
You simply cannot accept facts, science, and obviously have problem with people expressing their opinion.
There is only one dogma here, and it is this consistent drivel about liquidity, bloom, and what not about tubes.
There are absolutes, it is the live performance.
I enjoy live music more than anything, and there are absolutely quantifiable aspects of reproduction that can make it close resemblance of live performance.
Deviations from live performance can certainly be a preference for some, but such deviations could be called anything but musicality by definition of that word.

[ricko01]

I enjoy live music more than anything, and there are absolutely quantifiable aspects of reproduction that can make it close resemblance of live performance.
Deviations from live performance can certainly be a preference for some, but such deviations could be called anything but musicality by definition of that word.

In relation to Sasha’s posting,  in my view of the world, a set of components should bring you as close to what is on the recording...with the absolute understanding that what’s on the recording will not bear any close resemblance to live music.

To me, chasing the goal of reproducing a live performance is a fool’s errand, but chasing the goal of reproducing what is on the recording isn’t.

Microphones, the first part of the recording chain are not perfect in anyway, where they are placed and how many (i.e. do you multi-mike a drum kit or not?) all change the recorded acoustical space (relative to the live performance) etc etc etc, all the way down the recording chain. And then we have the playback chain.

Producers, recording engineers,  mixing engineers, cutting engineers all have their own fetishes about what they want to lay down, so any recording is firstly compromised due to technology limitations then further “distorted” by the artistic bents of those making the recording.

The recording is the absolute reference… not live music.

Then with the recording as the reference point, you are also allowed you own “artistic” license to use whatever playback technology you want to get out of these imperfect recordings whatever sound floats your boat (SET, Class A, Class A/B, Tubes, SS, Unipivot arms, copper cables, silver cables, dynamic speakers, planar speakers, super tweeters, bi-amp, tri-amp, vinyl, DVD-A, SACD, CD, cryo’ed tubes, special fuses, cable lifters, cones, acrylic supports, wood supports, composite supports, blah blah blah)

Me… I value dimensionality (image width, depth, height) over all else. If the middle ‘C’ of the reproduced piano is 99.57% that in pitch/tone of a live piano, that’s fine… what I crave is that my equipment places that middle ‘C’ into the best facsimile of the acoustical space that a real piano generates.


Peter

[1oldguy]

Rick has a valid point about the process of recorded music.I know just from trying to get an acoustic recorded properly can be very challenging.After factoring in all that goes  into the finished product it is usually very different than being there live.That can be a plus or minus depending on what the artist is trying to accomplish.

[toobluvr]

Where do you see in my post that I prefer SS over tubes?

Hmmmm....lessee now.    Maybe the fact that 84% of your total posts (230 of 268) are in the Bryston Circle gives me just a teeney weeney widdle clue?  Ya think?       Quite the Rennaissance man!   Perhaps just a wee bit uni-dimensional and closed minded, Sasha?  You need to get out more my friend.   

.......obviously have problem with people expressing their opinion.

That's pretty ironic considering you just previously said this in response to another member's opinion about what he was hearing when listening to a tube amp vs a SS amp:

I do not want to dismiss your effort and burst your bubble, but you will know nothing of that sort at the end of your exercise, the only conclusion you may come to is that you prefer specific AR model over specific Bryston model, or the other way, in your system, your room, but certainly not that tubes are better than SS or the other way, not even that you prefer one over the other in general.

You basically invalidate the guy's opinion and preference and  I'm the one who has a problem with other opinions?    Interesting, oh Almighty One.   

There is only one dogma here, and it is this consistent drivel about liquidity, bloom, and what not about tubes.

BTW....this sort of venemous attitude toward tubes also tells me that you prefer SS.  Don't lash out just because you can't hear it.  How angry some of you SS guys are!  Why the hostility?  You afraid that those in the tube camp are hearing and enjoying something you are not and you're missing the party?

There are absolutes, it is the live performance.
I enjoy live music more than anything, and there are absolutely quantifiable aspects of reproduction that can make it close resemblance of live performance.
Deviations from live performance can certainly be a preference for some, but such deviations could be called anything but musicality by definition of that word.

That's fine.  You can choose to calibrate and assess your system that way if you like.  I got past all that years ago.  I don't care about accurate, I don't care about quantifying or comparing anything.  All I care about is the absolute maximization of personal pleasure and extreme emotional connection to the music when I listen to my system.  This is my only yardstick.  If you are not striving for the same, you have missed the boat my friend.

Call what creates that satisfaction whatever you want, I could not care less.  I will not try to quantify it or label it.  And I sure will not tell someone else if they hear it or not.  I know what I like.  I know it when I hear it.   And through experience and listening to lots of different things I have learned that tubes bring me the most enjoyment.  Why that seems to upset you is beyond me. 

Meanwhile, I'll be sitting there with a face splitting grin wetting myself cause my system sounds so good and you will be analyzing  and measuring the "realness" of yours and trying to figure out why you barely wanna turn it on.

Enjoy!   

[ricko01]

All I care about is the absolute maximization of personal pleasure and extreme emotional connection to the music when I listen to my system.  This is my only yardstick

Amen Brother Toobluvr

[Ron D]

as other have noted its not really a fair comparison. A better match might have been a LS-26 at $6K Vs bringing home a $15K "reference" model.  I have owned both the BP-26 and the LS-26 and the ARC is still in my rack. I could have easily lived with the BP-26 but in the end I preferred the ARC but that's my system and ears.

And while I have not listened to the new Ref 5 I have listened to the Ref 3 at Audio Ark (where I acquired the LS-26) and I would not consider it to be a typical "tube" preamp having owned Lamm, Hovland and Rogue preamps. If the Ref 5 is still based on the 6H30 tube it could very well be quite a neutral presentation. Its design may not lend itself to tube rolling to alter the sonic presentation as many tube preamps allow.

Your comments and observations will be very interesting and I look forward to them.

[Sasha]

Hmmmm....lessee now.    Maybe the fact that 84% of your total posts (230 of 268) are in the Bryston Circle gives me just a teeney weeney widdle clue?  Ya think?       Quite the Rennaissance man!   Perhaps just a wee bit uni-dimensional and closed minded, Sasha?  You need to get out more my friend.   

That's pretty ironic considering you just previously said this in response to another member's opinion about what he was hearing when listening to a tube amp vs a SS amp:

You basically invalidate the guy's opinion and preference and  I'm the one who has a problem with other opinions?    Interesting, oh Almighty One.   

BTW....this sort of venemous attitude toward tubes also tells me that you prefer SS.  Don't lash out just because you can't hear it.  How angry some of you SS guys are!  Why the hostility?  You afraid that those in the tube camp are hearing and enjoying something you are not and you're missing the party?

That's fine.  You can choose to calibrate and assess your system that way if you like.  I got past all that years ago.  I don't care about accurate, I don't care about quantifying or comparing anything.  All I care about is the absolute maximization of personal pleasure and extreme emotional connection to the music when I listen to my system.  This is my only yardstick.  If you are not striving for the same, you have missed the boat my friend.

Call what creates that satisfaction whatever you want, I could not care less.  I will not try to quantify it or label it.  And I sure will not tell someone else if they hear it or not.  I know what I like.  I know it when I hear it.   And through experience and listening to lots of different things I have learned that tubes bring me the most enjoyment.  Why that seems to upset you is beyond me. 

Meanwhile, I'll be sitting there with a face splitting grin wetting myself cause my system sounds so good and you will be analyzing  and measuring the "realness" of yours and trying to figure out why you barely wanna turn it on.

Enjoy!   

Again, make an effort to read and understand posts.
It is impossible to determine what is “better”, SS or tube amplification, based on comparison of only two specimens, you cannot even determine what you prefer based on two specimens only, let alone what is closer to the live sound.
That is the message of my post in response to the original poster.
Is it so hard to comprehend?
Where is any dismissal or invalidation of someone’s opinion in such statement?
Quit trolling.

[Niteshade]

All anybody can do is go with what works well for them. I know Bryston makes great equipment.People forget that amps, preamps, speakers, etc... should be thought of as tools or building blocks. There are going to be times when a SS amp is better suited than a tube amp for some applications and vice-versa. A sound system has to be thought of as a whole, as one circuit instead of many. That means there has to be synergy between all components and that includes the room too.

To me the argument is irrelevant. It should be a discussion on how to get the sound you want or need for a specific application.

[toobluvr]

Again, make an effort to read and understand posts.
It is impossible to determine what is “better”, SS or tube amplification, based on comparison of only two specimens, you cannot even determine what you prefer based on two specimens only, let alone what is closer to the live sound.
That is the message of my post in response to the original poster.
Is it so hard to comprehend?
Where is any dismissal or invalidation of someone’s opinion in such statement?
Quit trolling.

I read and comprehend very well, thank you very much.  Sometimes I can even breathe at the same time.   

When he compares things, he can have whatever opinion and preference he chooses.  Who are you to say otherwise?

Maybe he doesn't give two craps about live sound.  Maybe that is not his reference or how he chooses to voice his system.  Who are you to lecture otherwise?

You come across as rigid and arrogant.

[toobluvr]

To me the argument is irrelevant. It should be a discussion on how to get the sound you want or need for a specific application.

Bingo!   I think I've been saying this all along...or trying to!   

I don't know why some people feel the need to inject themselves into the conversation with comments like: "it's not real"  "it's not accurate"  "it's not neutal" "it's not live sounding"  "it doesn't measure well"   "it's not what the engineeer intended"   blah...blah...blah.

That's just lame.  Who cares about any of these?  None should be the true yardstick of a killer listening system.  The only measure of any system that truely matters is the level of pure listening pleasure it brings.  Not how well it measures up to some "ideal" that folks can't even agree on.  When one maximizes listening enjoyment --  for his own personal tastes, no one elses --  he has built a great system.  End of story.  Everything else is BS.  After all, isn't maximum enjoyment the objective?

[Prosoundman1000]

This post is in response to Peter's remarks regarding the recording process.  It is blatantly obvious you have never been present during an actual recording session in a bona fida
professional recording facility.  Your comments about microphones' imperfections, producers, mixing engineers and lathe cutters of vinyl masters are frankly jaded musings and anything but the truth.  I assure you that if any of the personnel you mentioned served their own egocentric proclivities before that of the artist working with his or her producer they would not be in business for long.  It is indeed the goal of every engineer to produce a recording or reformatted copy of same as close to the original performance that the technology will afford. This is their art; their craft and they all respect the process.
    Music is art and recording music is an art form and musicians are artists. The recording equipment found in recording studios today is capable of reproducing an astounding replica of the original performance.  Playback is so good in fact that I would wager it could fool
99% of the so called 'audiophiles' that post on this and other forums.  By fool I mean in a blind test the subjects were seated in the control room or better still a room without a view
and presented live vs recorded music through studio monitors. The technology exists and in the right hands can produce recordings so real and life-like in every way that the experience is eerie.  If the ball is being dropped at all it is with the analog to digital conversion of old analog recordings and some digital to digital at the end of the food chain feeding the masses.  That would be us, the consumer.
    Unfortunately what we buy in the way of digital or analog copies are merely facsimiles which are many generations from the original master.  This is why direct to master recordings are potentially far superior.  Likewise, recordings going direct to tape or hard-drive from as few mics as possible can produce astounding recordings which when played back on a great system can place all instrumentation and voices accurately within the sound-stage, in scale to the original performance.
    When you experience this, your jaw WILL drop and your toes may curl.









Peter
[/quote]

[95Dyna]

This post is in response to Peter's remarks regarding the recording process.  It is blatantly obvious you have never been present during an actual recording session in a bona fida
professional recording facility.  Your comments about microphones' imperfections, producers, mixing engineers and lathe cutters of vinyl masters are frankly jaded musings and anything but the truth.  I assure you that if any of the personnel you mentioned served their own egocentric proclivities before that of the artist working with his or her producer they would not be in business for long.  It is indeed the goal of every engineer to produce a recording or reformatted copy of same as close to the original performance that the technology will afford. This is their art; their craft and they all respect the process.
    Music is art and recording music is an art form and musicians are artists. The recording equipment found in recording studios today is capable of reproducing an astounding replica of the original performance.  Playback is so good in fact that I would wager it could fool
99% of the so called 'audiophiles' that post on this and other forums.  By fool I mean in a blind test the subjects were seated in the control room or better still a room without a view
and presented live vs recorded music through studio monitors. The technology exists and in the right hands can produce recordings so real and life-like in every way that the experience is eerie.  If the ball is being dropped at all it is with the analog to digital conversion of old analog recordings and some digital to digital at the end of the food chain feeding the masses.  That would be us, the consumer.
    Unfortunately what we buy in the way of digital or analog copies are merely facsimiles which are many generations from the original master.  This is why direct to master recordings are potentially far superior.  Likewise, recordings going direct to tape or hard-drive from as few mics as possible can produce astounding recordings which when played back on a great system can place all instrumentation and voices accurately within the sound-stage, in scale to the original performance.
    When you experience this, your jaw WILL drop and your toes may curl.









Peter

Hi prosoundman,

I know little to nothing about the recording business compared to you but alot about what good music sounds like and in my experience you are absolutely spot on in your discussion about how jaw dropping recordings done properly using as few mics as possible can be.  I recently received several SACD's from Chesky records all of which were recorded using just one mic and the imaging and placement of the instruments and voices in space was so engaging I completely forgot about whether the amps were ARCs or Brystons (just for the record they are 7B SST2's).  I'm finding that the recording is the most overlooked component in most of these forum discussions.  I can make my system sound from bad to breathtaking by the software I load into the sources by a wider margin than I could by swapping out tube for SS and vice versa.

Regards,

Bill

[drummermitchell]

Very true,if the final recording is not good,you'll mirror that thru your gear.
Highend gear might help somethings, but will still be not up to snuff.