What audio system do you have, or plan on getting?

[71 dB]

Nelson Pass famously argued the negative feedback, (at least more than a little), was bad because it caused high-order harmonics that sound bad.  In my observation higher order harmonics do, indeed, sound bad but using less feedback doesn't seem to follow.

Here is his famous article on the subject ... Audio distortion and feedback

I'm not an engineer but in his article Pass showed the following diagram, (attributed to John Linsley-Hood) ...



What I notice from that was that while more than say 10 dB of feedback produce higher order harmonics, but much more feedback reduce all distortion including higher order variety. That is, 4th order snuck in around 15-20 dB of feedback but ALL orders were reduced by 40 dB of feedback.

Bruno Putzeys argues "there is no such thing as too much feedback" and current class D's use a good deal more the 40 dB of feedback.  Or so to speak, while higher order harmonics may sound bad, they may be reduce by feedback to such a level as to unmeasurable and inaudible.

Good luck hearing those higher harmonics masked by the music! We can look at numbers 'til the cows come home, but do they matter and how do they matter? I have been listening to solid state amps all my life, and never have I felt higher order harmonics created by feedback are ruining my music enjoyment.

[Fëanor]

Good luck hearing those higher harmonics masked by the music! We can look at numbers 'til the cows come home, but do they matter and how do they matter? I have been listening to solid state amps all my life, and never have I felt higher order harmonics created by feedback are ruining my music enjoyment.

I've been listening to solid-state all my life too ... and that's a rather long time.  I had my first pretty good s/s amp in 1971, a Dynaco Stereo 80, (built from kit by me).

Above all, distortion detracts from detail and clarity of sound, "transparency"  as many call it.  Apart from the phenomenon some call "grain", one doesn't identify distortion per se.

My current Purifi 1ET400A-based, class D, very high feedback amp is the most transparent, grain-free amp with the the deepest, most articulate bass that I've ever own.  That includes my previous Pass Labs X150.5.

[71 dB]

I've been listening to solid-state all my life too ... and that's a rather long time.  I had my first pretty good s/s amp in 1971, a Dynaco Stereo 80, (built from kit by me).

Above all, distortion detracts from detail and clarity of sound, "transparency"  as many call it.  Apart from the phenomenon some call "grain", one doesn't identify distortion per se.

My current Purifi 1ET400A-based, class D, very high feedback amp is the most transparent, grain-free amp with the the deepest, most articulate bass that I've ever own.  That includes my previous Pass Labs X150.5.

My understanding is that the threshold* of harmonic distortion is about 1 % at bass and about 0.1 % at higher frequencies. This means in the graph you posted, only 2nd and 3rd harmonic can be audible while the 4th harmonic is maybe barely audible when the feedback is around 10 dB. When the feedback is at least 20 dB, all the harmonics should be inaudible.

* Depends on the type of distortion as odd harmonics are worse than even harmonics.

[AnotherSpin]

Good luck hearing those higher harmonics masked by the music! We can look at numbers 'til the cows come home, but do they matter and how do they matter? I have been listening to solid state amps all my life, and never have I felt higher order harmonics created by feedback are ruining my music enjoyment.

That's the point. We do something our whole lives and it seems normal to us. Then suddenly we come across something different, and all that "normality" crumbles to dust.

It's just an observation, I don't mean to shatter your illusion. If everything feels fine to you, then it is.

[71 dB]

That's the point. We do something our whole lives and it seems normal to us. Then suddenly we come across something different, and all that "normality" crumbles to dust.

Things have crumbled to dust for me, but the harmonics caused by amplifier feedback is no one of them. Yes, I have heard (at hifi expositions) tube amps and what not even if I have never owned one myself.

It's just an observation, I don't mean to shatter your illusion. If everything feels fine to you, then it is.

My illusion? What about your own illusion?

Everything certainly doesn't feel fine to me. For example I wish the first two albums by Carly Simon had better sound quality, but they don't. It is what it is.

[AnotherSpin]

Things have crumbled to dust for me, but the harmonics caused by amplifier feedback is no one of them. Yes, I have heard (at hifi expositions) tube amps and what not even if I have never owned one myself.

My illusion? What about your own illusion?

Everything certainly doesn't feel fine to me. For example I wish the first two albums by Carly Simon had better sound quality, but they don't. It is what it is.

I first listened to Carly Simon on vinyl in the seventies, and those LPs sounded fine. Later digital transfers rarely matched that warmth and fullness, which to me shows a regression in how popular music has been reproduced.

[71 dB]

I first listened to Carly Simon on vinyl in the seventies, and those LPs sounded fine. Later digital transfers rarely matched that warmth and fullness, which to me shows a regression in how popular music has been reproduced.

Wrong diagnose. Digital transfers are much closer to the original studio masters than the LPs you listened to. The studio masters lacked warmth (and other things related to good sound quality). Vinyl distortions are perceived warm and compensate. Nothing prevents from the studio masters to be warm sounding in which case the digital transfers have the exact same warmth.

[Valentino]

That is also a rather small data set.

[AnotherSpin]

Wrong diagnose. Digital transfers are much closer to the original studio masters than the LPs you listened to. The studio masters lacked warmth (and other things related to good sound quality). Vinyl distortions are perceived warm and compensate. Nothing prevents from the studio masters to be warm sounding in which case the digital transfers have the exact same warmth.

Why wrong? You're the one saying Carly Simon's albums sound poor on CD, while I recall them sounding fine on LPs. That's precisely the point, let's not slip into sophistry .

[71 dB]

Why wrong? You're the one saying Carly Simon's albums sound poor on CD, while I recall them sounding fine on LPs. That's precisely the point, let's not slip into sophistry .

It would not sound poor if the master was good.

[AnotherSpin]

It would not sound poor if the master was good.

Not necessarily. The problem may have come from the way the original master tape was used. When many classic albums were transferred to digital formats, serious mistakes were made in handling the masters. Remastering often chased clarity and loudness at the expense of warmth and nuance. High frequencies were exaggerated, tape hiss erased, and dynamic range compressed, all in pursuit of a "clean" sound that stripped away the ambient depth and emotional texture of the original vinyl. The result was a flat and sterile version of recordings that once breathed with life. I could name endless examples of poorly sounding CDs of music from the 60s and 70s that had been so rich and convincing on their original vinyl pressings.

[StudioGuy]

If I may, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from commenting on my posts. I have no interest in your personal grievances and won't be engaging with them.

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't post false information which did not require me to comment on/refute. And I have no interest in your personal grievances/misunderstandings.
The solution is extremely simple, if you don't want me refuting your false claims/assertions, then don't post false assertions in the first place! For example:

Not necessarily. The problem may have come from the way the original master tape was used. When many classic albums were transferred to digital formats, serious mistakes were made in handling the masters. Remastering often chased clarity and loudness at the expense of warmth and nuance. High frequencies were exaggerated, tape hiss erased, and dynamic range compressed, all in pursuit of a "clean" sound that stripped away the ambient depth and emotional texture of the original vinyl. The result was a flat and sterile version of recordings that once breathed with life. I could name endless examples of poorly sounding CDs of music from the 60s and 70s that had been so rich and convincing on their original vinyl pressings.

While serious mistakes were made on occasion when transferring tapes, especially early on with old tapes, in general this is/was rare. On the contrary, enormous  "white glove" care is typically taken. The main issue is/was tape deterioration; reduced magnetism, bleed through and the actual tape surface formulation becoming soft/tacky. A "baking method" was developed to mitigate the latter but it was still commonly necessary to reduce the additional noise/hiss, bleed through or distortion resulting from the tape deterioration. It had nothing to do with "stripping away the ambient depth and emotional texture of the original vinyl" and if anyone had wanted vinyl distortion added to the digital re-releases it would have been trivial to add it!

I take it that you have no personal experience of the professional tape restoration process in commercial studios and you're just posting (false) assumptions you've come up with?

[AnotherSpin]

And I'd appreciate it if you didn't post false information which did not require me to comment on/refute. And I have no interest in your personal grievances/misunderstandings.
The solution is extremely simple, if you don't want me refuting your false claims/assertions, then don't post false assertions in the first place! For example:While serious mistakes were made on occasion when transferring tapes, especially early on with old tapes, in general this is/was rare. On the contrary, enormous  "white glove" care is typically taken. The main issue is/was tape deterioration; reduced magnetism, bleed through and the actual tape surface formulation becoming soft/tacky. A "baking method" was developed to mitigate the latter but it was still commonly necessary to reduce the additional noise/hiss, bleed through or distortion resulting from the tape deterioration. It had nothing to do with "stripping away the ambient depth and emotional texture of the original vinyl" and if anyone had wanted vinyl distortion added to the digital re-releases it would have been trivial to add it!

I take it that you have no personal experience of the professional tape restoration process in commercial studios and you're just posting (false) assumptions you've come up with?

What part of what I said is unclear? I will try once more: I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with you on any matter.

[71 dB]

Not necessarily. The problem may have come from the way the original master tape was used. When many classic albums were transferred to digital formats, serious mistakes were made in handling the masters. Remastering often chased clarity and loudness at the expense of warmth and nuance. High frequencies were exaggerated, tape hiss erased, and dynamic range compressed, all in pursuit of a "clean" sound that stripped away the ambient depth and emotional texture of the original vinyl. The result was a flat and sterile version of recordings that once breathed with life. I could name endless examples of poorly sounding CDs of music from the 60s and 70s that had been so rich and convincing on their original vinyl pressings.

If you tinker with a master you are creating a new master. I was also complaining about poor sounding CDs, but it is not the CD's fault. It is the master's fault. CD is a transparent format. It sounds exactly the same as the master it is based on. I wish the CDs sounded at least as good as the original vinyl pressings or better. That is possible if the record companies did things right, but they rather collect easy money...

[AnotherSpin]

If you tinker with a master you are creating a new master. I was also complaining about poor sounding CDs, but it is not the CD's fault. It is the master's fault. CD is a transparent format. It sounds exactly the same as the master it is based on. I wish the CDs sounded at least as good as the original vinyl pressings or better. That is possible if the record companies did things right, but they rather collect easy money...

I see it differently, or rather, I hear it differently.

Early digital audio transfers, and I emphasise the early ones, often sounded harsh, brittle, or lifeless. This was not because digital itself was inherently inferior, but because of a mixture of technical limitations and poor transfers. As I have said before, there are plenty of CD editions that serve as examples: the early Led Zeppelin albums, Aqualung by Jethro Tull, Miles Davis's Get Up with It, practically the entire ECM Records catalogue from the 1970s. I could continue listing examples for quite some time, more and more.

As far as I understand, the early converters were often quite basic. I am not an engineer and cannot claim to grasp the finer technical details, but after looking around online I quickly found confirmation from experts of what I have heard with my own ears for many years. To quote the renowned specialist Bob Ludwig: "Digital equalisation was initially so horrible and brittle; no one would use it." The full article can be found here: https://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig. This is not the only example, and I invite you to search for the same as I did. Look for more from Doug Sax ("Digital finishes what the transistor started"), Bernie Grundman ("When digital came in, it was a step back in terms of musicality. It was clean, but it didn't have the emotion"), Steve Hoffman ("Nowadays a 'mastering engineer' is someone who mangles the sound to the lowest common denominator... compress the hell out of everything"). All of them have spoken about the shortcomings of early digital audio.

If the CD had been a flawless medium from the very beginning, why do we still encounter reissue after reissue of celebrated albums from the past?

It is often said that record companies are simply looking to profit repeatedly. There may be some truth in that, yet I believe another motive is more important. Engineers and sound specialists are still striving to recapture the legendary audio character of the first vinyl pressings. At times they succeed with genuinely impressive results. Steven Wilson, for example, has accomplished remarkable work. His recent treatment of Relayer by Yes left me astonished, as if I had been carried back fifty years and was hearing anew the album I first cherished half a century ago.

[71 dB]

I see it differently, or rather, I hear it differently.

Early digital audio transfers, and I emphasise the early ones, often sounded harsh, brittle, or lifeless. This was not because digital itself was inherently inferior, but because of a mixture of technical limitations and poor transfers. As I have said before, there are plenty of CD editions that serve as examples: the early Led Zeppelin albums, Aqualung by Jethro Tull, Miles Davis's Get Up with It, practically the entire ECM Records catalogue from the 1970s. I could continue listing examples for quite some time, more and more.

As far as I understand, the early converters were often quite basic. I am not an engineer and cannot claim to grasp the finer technical details, but after looking around online I quickly found confirmation from experts of what I have heard with my own ears for many years. To quote the renowned specialist Bob Ludwig: "Digital equalisation was initially so horrible and brittle; no one would use it." The full article can be found here: https://tapeop.com/interviews/105/bob-ludwig. This is not the only example, and I invite you to search for the same as I did. Look for more from Doug Sax ("Digital finishes what the transistor started"), Bernie Grundman ("When digital came in, it was a step back in terms of musicality. It was clean, but it didn't have the emotion"), Steve Hoffman ("Nowadays a 'mastering engineer' is someone who mangles the sound to the lowest common denominator... compress the hell out of everything"). All of them have spoken about the shortcomings of early digital audio.

If the CD had been a flawless medium from the very beginning, why do we still encounter reissue after reissue of celebrated albums from the past?

It is often said that record companies are simply looking to profit repeatedly. There may be some truth in that, yet I believe another motive is more important. Engineers and sound specialists are still striving to recapture the legendary audio character of the first vinyl pressings. At times they succeed with genuinely impressive results. Steven Wilson, for example, has accomplished remarkable work. His recent treatment of Relayer by Yes left me astonished, as if I had been carried back fifty years and was hearing anew the album I first cherished half a century ago.

I don't disagree much with this, but this only applies to early digital audio. The Carly Simon CDs I am complaining about where released in 2011.

Another aspect is that those early albums didn't have that good sonics to begin with. Analog studio tape machines reached their maturity in the latter part of 70's (and indeed, the later Carly Simon CDs have much better sound). Vinyl was able to smear the problems "under the carpet", while even early digital audio was too transparent to "hide" problems. The elliptic filtering needed in cutting vinyl alone can "fix" problems related to hard panned sounds that can especially with headphones sound harsh. Add to that how vinyl makes treble "diffuse." Masters that are distributed digitally need to have on point spatiality and top end. 

[AnotherSpin]

I don't disagree much with this, but this only applies to early digital audio. The Carly Simon CDs I am complaining about where released in 2011.

Another aspect is that those early albums didn't have that good sonics to begin with. Analog studio tape machines reached their maturity in the latter part of 70's (and indeed, the later Carly Simon CDs have much better sound). Vinyl was able to smear the problems "under the carpet", while even early digital audio was too transparent to "hide" problems. The elliptic filtering needed in cutting vinyl alone can "fix" problems related to hard panned sounds that can especially with headphones sound harsh. Add to that how vinyl makes treble "diffuse." Masters that are distributed digitally need to have on point spatiality and top end. 

What I mean is that a lot of LPs from the 60s and 70s actually sounded great. They were put out by musicians who became famous or even hugely famous because of them. Then one day the same albums came out on CDs, and people were left scratching their heads, thinking, why does this sound so flat and lifeless? It was especially odd for those who had only got into music in the digital age and had never heard those LPs.

[StudioGuy]

What part of what I said is unclear? I will try once more: I have no intention of engaging in any discussion with you on any matter.

And what part of what I said is unclear? I don't care in the slightest whether or not you have any intention of engaging with me, what I do care about is misinformation/false claims being posted as fact and, as this is a public forum rather than your personal fiefdom, then as I stated I will comment on/refute those falsehoods.

As far as I understand, the early converters were often quite basic. I am not an engineer and cannot claim to grasp the finer technical details, but after looking around online I quickly found confirmation from experts of what I have heard with my own ears for many years. To quote the renowned specialist Bob Ludwig: "Digital equalisation was initially so horrible and brittle; no one would use it."

Apparently, not being an engineer or "claiming to grasp the finer technical details" doesn't mean that one shouldn't make claims about the "finer technical details"? Early digital converters/recorders were not "quite basic", they were actually very sophisticated because in the '70s and early '80s chip design/manufacture was very limited. Therefore, much of the processing that would eventually be built into chips had to be performed by analogue components, for example; dither had to be injected as an analogue noise signal and Sony's solution (for instance) to anti-alias filtering was a complex cascade of 9 analogue filters.

Also rather bizarrely, you apparently "found confirmation from experts of what you have heard with your own ears" but your posted quote from an expert does the exact opposite and actually contradicts what you apparently believe you have heard? Yes, early digital EQ was indeed horrible and brittle but for that reason, as your quote from Bob Ludwig states; "no one would use it"!

Most consumers did not understand exactly what the "Spars Code" actually meant, which in part was deliberate. Mixing and mastering continued to be done in the analogue domain well into the 1990's (even with CDs listed as "DDD"). This fact also demonstrates the inaccuracy of some of the other cherry picked quotes. The mid '90s saw the introduction of large format digital mixing desks when digital EQ first started being widely used but they were very expensive and not many were installed. It's not really until the 2000's when we see "in the box" mixing and mastering take off and the ubiquitous use of digital EQ but by then advanced algorithms and the processing power to easily run them was available and they were no longer "horrible and brittle".

[AnotherSpin]

I don't disagree much with this, but this only applies to early digital audio. The Carly Simon CDs I am complaining about where released in 2011.

Another aspect is that those early albums didn't have that good sonics to begin with. Analog studio tape machines reached their maturity in the latter part of 70's (and indeed, the later Carly Simon CDs have much better sound). Vinyl was able to smear the problems "under the carpet", while even early digital audio was too transparent to "hide" problems. The elliptic filtering needed in cutting vinyl alone can "fix" problems related to hard panned sounds that can especially with headphones sound harsh. Add to that how vinyl makes treble "diffuse." Masters that are distributed digitally need to have on point spatiality and top end. 

I don't think so. Weren't great tape recordings made long before the late seventies? For example, the RCA Living Stereo series, Frank Sinatra's albums in the 1950s, Dave Brubeck's Time Out, Miles Davis's Kind of Blue and others. Some of the most admired recordings in history were created in the 1950s and 1960s on tube tape machines and early multitrack systems. They already had warmth, depth, tonal detail, clarity, dynamic range and a sense of realism. Artistic and sound quality was flourishing decades earlier, and in some ways they remain unsurpassed no matter how recording technology has developed in the following decades.

[71 dB]

What I mean is that a lot of LPs from the 60s and 70s actually sounded great. They were put out by musicians who became famous or even hugely famous because of them. Then one day the same albums came out on CDs, and people were left scratching their heads, thinking, why does this sound so flat and lifeless? It was especially odd for those who had only got into music in the digital age and had never heard those LPs.

What sounds "great" is a subjective thing. Wax cylinders have very bad sound quality, but someone can subjectively find their sound "great", "warm", etc.

CDs sound flat to people simply because they don't have the distortions introduced by analog formats that make the sound "warm" to people. Sometimes masters made for vinyl were used.

I don't think so. Weren't great tape recordings made long before the late seventies? For example, the RCA Living Stereo series, Frank Sinatra's albums in the 1950s, Dave Brubeck's Time Out, Miles Davis's Kind of Blue and others. Some of the most admired recordings in history were created in the 1950s and 1960s on tube tape machines and early multitrack systems. They already had warmth, depth, tonal detail, clarity, dynamic range and a sense of realism. Artistic and sound quality was flourishing decades earlier, and in some ways they remain unsurpassed no matter how recording technology has developed in the following decades.

Technical objective sound quality is not the same thing as subjective impression of sound. There was maybe sense of realism, but it was an illusion. There is a lot to learn from the old analog days. I use effects in my own music that make the sound more analog and warm. That's having the best of both worlds. Digital accuracy and transparency with analog warmth.