Musical Fidelity's Tube Buffer: Listening test #1.

I thought we'd have some fun.

I ran a song through Musical Fidelity's tube buffer just to hear the difference. I posted a clip of the before and after to let you decide which is which.

There are two halves in this WAV (13 MB) file. One half is D/A to A/D (CD player to CD recorder using Grover cables). The other half is through the same chain with the tube buffer between the converters.

The song is from the DCC CD of Gerry Rafferty's "City to City" album.

So, the question is which one is through the tube buffer?

SOUND CLIP

Good luck!

 

This is fun!

They are pretty darn close together, but I am guess first track is CD to CD and the second track is using the tube buffer. I hope we get some more guesses before it's revealed!

 

I think it's the first one that's through the tube buffer. It sounds warmer and not as "crisp" as the second.

 

After a few passes I can't tell the difference. If I'm going to look that hard for one, I'd rather have what the tube buffer cost in CDs.

I'll give it a more intent listen for a bit, see if anythign appears, I'm unfamiliar with the artist and the music.

 

The two halves definitely sound different. in the first section the cymbals sound down in level, while Raffety's voice is a touch muffled, as if he's holding his hands in front of his mouth. The second clip has a better voice and is crisper overall. I've never played with the MF tube buffer but if it is supposed to make the sound more old-school tubey, then the MF would be on the first section.

This is just using the speakers built into my iMac.

 

There should be a third choice for, "My computer's speakers are too crappy for me to tell any difference."

 

I'd say the second half sounds a touch more liquid, so I'm voting it had the tube buffer.

Can't wait to see how wrong I am...

 

I don't know which is which, but clip 2 sounds "better" to me, at least in terms of detail--more HF sparkle to the cymbals, better clarity to the voice, more "air" around the voice. However, clip 1 sounds like it has better pace, and is more "musical," if less precise.

 

Which stage do you have? The original one in the weird cylinder enclosure which used 6DJ8/6922/7308 tubes, or the latest one that uses 6112s?

 

I honestly couldn't hear a difference on my PC speakers but I did veiw the wav sample in Audition and noticed that the second half contained a clipped sample. I would think that this was the result of the tube buffer being in the chain.

 

Showing my ignorance, what is a tube buffer supposed to do? To my ears, the second half is brighter, and the instruments sound more independent of each other, so if a tube buffer makes things brighter and more differentiated, then that's where it is (and vice versa if its absence makes things sound less bright/less differentiated).

And based on the sound reproduced from my crappy PC speakers

 

Thanks for letting me participate in the democratic process.

 

The 2nd sample sounds a little rounder to me for lack of a better term. So I would guess the tubes were used on sample 2.

 

The output of the tube buffer is a bit higher voltage than standard line level (2.2V vs. 2V IIRC) therefore a bit louder so I hope you took that into account. The computer I'm on doesn't have speakers otherwise I'd chime in on the sound!

 

My computer "reference system" isn't the greatest but I could hear a difference. After about three runs through and listening to what sounded like some distortion in both tracks, the second track sounded cleaner and higher resolution, so I am guessing that the second track is the original and the first track was the buffered track. I don't guess that it is a very good way to test it since it was only one short track and done on a PC but it does seem like a few others are hearing something similar.
-Bill

 

I'm not sure what the MF tube buffer is supposed to do to the sound in terms of character, but put me down as someone who finds the first clip warmer and rounder...more musical. Also, just to clarify Jamie, did you say that the non-buffer clip was done analog out>analog in (obviously the buffer one was) vs. a straight digital rip (i.e. a DAE)? If so, I'd be interested in hearing how a straight digital extraction stacks up against the two, as a sort of "tonal control" (and bypassing any D/A, A/D).

If it's not possible at the moment...no biggie though.

 

I did. The output of the tube buffer was 1.6dB louder so I made sure both clips were the same loudness.

And I have the X-10 v3 tube buffer which is the latest version.

 

It seems to me that the more revealing, more interesing way to vote here would be, "which clip sounds BETTER!?"

I think clip 2 sounds better.

Hukk

 

Hmmmm... still think the sonics are better on 2, HOWEVER, the band's rhythm is hanging together better on clip 1.

There's just no pleasing some people!

 

Unfortunately I can't tell over my crappy computer speakers at work, nor can I turn it up enough. I'll have to try from home later. Good thread, I've been thinking about getting a tube buffer recently!

 

They sound pretty close to me, but what the heck... the second clip is the tubey thingy!


Listening via my laptop using Sennheiser 560 and Grado 125.

 

There seems to be a little more sizzle to the cymbals and boom to the bass in clip 2, so I'm guessing that's the tube buffer.

 

You're cheating. Be warned though, I don't have any volume controls on my converters so that may not have been from the tubes.

 

Jamie, i'll have to get back to this later. I'm out of town.