What is "tube technology"?

[alpertfan]

Forgive me, I'm a young-in as our Southern friends say. Could anyone tell me what "tube technology" is? I know that this was the technique used to make the "Definitive Hits" CD. I gather that this is an old means of recording studio technology that is non-digital. How then, did "Definitive Hits" manage to be in Compact Disc format, since this is a medium of digital audio, perfected by computer memory. I've read about digital sound reproduction, and know that a digitally remastered analog recording is sonically "cleaned up", and transferred to digital tape by means of laser optic scanning, and when all is said and done, digital playback is done to hear the results. But how does one remaster old audio recordings with tube equipment and get superior results?

Just a question for all you recording studio technology buffs...

Thanks very much!

 

[Mike Blakesley]

Well, I'm about the most non-technical guy on the forums here, but from what I understand, the tube technology results in a "warmer" overall sound than solid-state technology. Audio purists still buy tube-based amplifiers because they say the sound is better, less harsh than with solid state.

But you are right, the music must still be digitized in order to be recorded and played back on a CD, so in the case of DEFINITIVE HITS, the "tube" thing was probably mostly a marketing ploy.

 

[alpertfan]

Thanks, Mr. Blakesley. I had never heard about this type of technology before. I know digital, and I know analog, but this was something I'd never heard of, and I just naturally assumed that it was an old means of sound reproduction in order to make the recordings sound truly as they were when they were first released. It just seemed weird to me that using that kind of technology allowed you to put something on Compact Disc format, but you're probably right. It was a marketing ploy.

 

[Rudy]

The big deal with tubes is that they sound warmer than transistorized electronics. In technical terms, 2nd and 4th order (even-order) harmonic distortion is a lot more desireable than 3rd or other odd-order harmonic distortion. Tubes are rich with 2nd-order, which gives them that warm sound.

Some claim that remastering through tubes makes the recording warmer and softens the sharp edges of digital sound. Not exactly the most accurate way of transfering a tape to digital, in my opinion!

The engineers' argument that if a tape was recorded on a tubed tape deck, it should be played back on one, for accuracy. (The original LP masters would also have been made on tubed recorders.) My argument is that running it back through electronics that add just a tiny bit more distortion is further degrading the sound. Sure, it sounds softer and warmer, but this also masks a tiny bit of the sound each time it is run through tubed electronics. My argument is also about running the tape through the best available modern tape deck in order to capture every bit of the sound to digital.

Another recent remastering was of the Miles Davis album Kind Of Blue. For the most recent version (the fourth CD version), they used an old Presto three-track tubed take deck to play back the master, which was recorded on the same brand of deck. It does sound quite good, but I do notice there is a bit of "flutter" on some of the high notes, meaning the deck mechanically wasn't as good as it could have been.

-= N =-

 

[alpertfan]

I will say one thing for DEFINITIVE HITS in terms of how it was recorded(and you may disagree) is that on "Tijuana Taxi", the marimbas are more defined, whereas if you hear the same song on the GREATEST HITS CD, they sound "flat" and somewhat buried. On DF, I get the feeling of someone actually in the recording studio, playing the marimba. As for the other instruments, to me, they just don't sound any different than on GREATEST HITS.

 

[Houckster]

I'm no expert by any means but I've always suspected that the root of the audiophiles complaint about digital music stemmed from the shortcomings of the CD format which is only 16-bit and therefore somewhat limited in its ability to define sound exactly. Essentially, the harmonics and depth of the music is distorted because there is no value in the 16-bit format to describe all the sound so frequently, the value assigned is just the closest one. On really high quality equipment and with a discerning ear, it can be noticable. This is why the DSD recording method may be able to give us the music the way it was supposed to be heard. If and when, reissues of TJB music become available, I'm hoping they come out on a hybrid SACD disc which will allow enjoyment on CD players and then on a decent SACD machine should one become available. Telarc is doing this with their recordings and they've also dropped the price to a point only a couple of dollars over a regular CD. They are on target with this policy.

I just wish firms like Sony would get their act together and make a SACD player for music fans that works like a CD player rather than a control center for a AV setup. There's a market for such a unit.

One thing I'm hoping does not occur is another compilation album. I want all the original albums. I'll make my own compilations for private listening.

 

[Rudy]

16-bit digital is surprisingly good, and a few engineers have made a point that it hasn't even been fully exploited yet. One of the original problems with digital was the filtering needed, a "brick wall" filter to cut off all frequencies above 22khz during recording (to avoid the anti-aliasing artifacts that would have caused a lot of distortion). This filter had a lot of 'ringing' at the crossover point and was the cause of a lot of early CD harshness. When they started experimenting with things like Sony's SBM (super bit mapping), it tweaked the sound a little.

At least for the past couple of decades, the 44.1kHz/16 bit CD has done remarkably well. But now that they can fit about seven times as much data on the same sized disc (about 660MB vs. 4.7GB), there's room for improvement.

I think my biggest worry is that maybe 5% of the population can actually hear this difference, and the other 95% don't see a need to replace all of their CD players with newer ones when, to them, it won't sound any different. With DVD, they could see the benefits, at least now that they've gotten over the fact that they can't record with it. (Unless they spring for one of those Panasonic recorders. )

Hybrid is the way to go--they really should do all new releases this way until a new format can take over. (Although that HDCD gimmick never caught on, did it?) I won't get into another audio CD (like SACD) format until I can buy CDs and players at the same price I can buy them for today. In other words, if I can buy a 300-CD changer today for $250, I would expect, in a few years' time, to buy an SACD changer for the same price. I used to be a critical listener awhile ago, but in my lifestyle and environment, I no longer have a use for it. Background noise around the house is too high, I listen at lower levels, and I don't listen in a fixed location. (Which also kills any need for surround sound.)

We'll also need SACD-level CD burners and software for the computer, too. I don't know if a DVD-RW drive can produce these CDs. (And they certainly can't make a hybrid either.)

But back to the main topic, regardless of whether we have 44.1kHz/16 bit today, 96kHz/24 bit tomorrow and 512kHz/128 bit (or whatever) in three decades from now, any transfers today should be stored in some format that won't quickly become obsolete. At least DSD seems to have a little room for growth, and is about the best thing going for now.

-= N =-

 

[Houckster]

Rudy!

I've got the same problem: a lot of background noise around the house PLUS lots of complaints if I play my system loud enough to drown it out.

FWIW, you might try headphones. I love mine and don't listen to anything else now. The Sennheiser HD600 is about $350 but sounds incredible. The only shortcoming they have is that you're tied down by a cord but in a few years quality digital transmission units will be available at a sane price (Bluetooth maybe?) and the cord problem won't be there any longer.

I wish the industry would follow Telarc's lead and simply switch to this format SACD hybrid format. DVD-Audio which makes people have to go out and buy a new machine is a ripoff. I'd pay a couple dollars more per disc if its a hybrid SACD. I agree with you entirely about CD though. It is still very good especially with the enhancements that have been developed. Its just that it can go only so far and I am reasonably sure I'd be able to hear the difference on my system. An SACD album of S.R.O. would be fantastic.

It might seem strange to some but I've converted over entirely to analog recording. When all the BS about copy protection started, I realized that the only way to protect my equipment investment was to develop my analog capabilities. Prior to that time, I made a lot of minidisc digital recordings but after I got all the enhancements installed, I liked the analog recordins betters and redid everything in analog. Yes, analog is slow and if the best quality is needed, it can't be hurried. The recording has got to be in real time but I found that when I do it right, it something I'll keep for years. I also get excellent results with metal cassette tape and Dolby S/HX-Pro.

 

[Rudy]

I've had a few headphones, but these days I can't wear them for more than a few minutes at a time. Most of mine go bad from lack of use (foam decomposes, rubber hardens, etc.).

One way around the copy protection is to spend a few extra dollars and get 'semi-pro' equipment. CD recorders that have defeatable SCMS switches, and let you record on computer-grade CD-R blanks (not the "taxed" music-only variety). DAT decks with the same. Digital audio cards for the computer that accept any format and ignore the protection...you name it. I miss some of the old days of recording on cassette, but I use it so rarely that I don't even have anything to play a cassette in anymore, other than on my main system (which I haven't even used in months). The CDs I make (all on computer) are playable just about anywhere in the house, and a blank only costs me 25 cents. Still amazes me how much I used to pay for good metal tapes! I got out of cassettes in the mid 80's just due to them being so inconvenient--I was buying a few CDs a week by then, and finding time to record them on cassette to play them in the car was nearly impossible, not to mention ordering tapes by the boxful. Solved that by buying Sony's first in-dash CD player, and haven't looked back since. And IMHO, for the same $100, you'll get a CD player that sounds a heck of a lot better than any of today's $100 cassette decks. (I shelled out $500 for my Harman Kardon around 1980.)

I still like to fire up the old reel-to-reel occasionally, though. There's still that "something" about reels (and vinyl for that matter) that digital will never replace.

-= N =-