tube synths

[ChairCrusher]

1. MP3 files, while 'lossy' have sufficient resolution to give people
   an excellent idea of what something sounds like. As you said, people
   bitch no matter what sound samples you put up; that would suggest
   to me that you might as well put up high quality samples -- let them
   bitch about download times, rather than about how skimpy they are.

2. I would order the CD, but the fact is that even if I thought the
   Phattytron was the synth for me, I don't have the money to pay for it.

3. My opinionizing was based on the evidence you gave me, and I think
   I presented it with full disclosure of the limitations of what I
   was listening to. 

4. I read all your posts on AH, and I stand by my statement that you've
   obscured your message by couching it in vitriolic terms.  Like my
   mom always said, you catch more flies with honey than with sulfuric 
   acid.

5. My 'garage sale' tube preamp is actually one of the nicer pieces of
   the first wave of high fidelity equipment; I've been offered a lot
   more than $5 for it.  As for your criticism of other tube devices 
   currently in production -- I've not tried them all, and I don't
   mecessarily know enough of the technicalities to judge their sound
   versus a 'properly designed' tube circuit.  I do know that when
   I push the Fisher (labeled "The Fisher") it does indeed have similar
   harmonic characteristics to your sound sample.

I don't want to engage you in any lengthy argument about this stuff. I respect
that you know what you're doing in circuit design.  I would just suggest
that being really confrontational with people doesn't really work in 
getting your message across.
kent williams -- kent at avalon.net ICQ:33001909 

On Thu, 20 May 1999, Eric Barbour wrote:

> > 1. Why 8bit 22khz? If he wants to show off the sound of his synth,
> >    this is pretty low resolution.
> 
> It is the fastest sample rate this old Mac does.
> Besides, I wanted to keep their size down to
> reason. People complain about ANY sound you put
> on a web page--it doesn't sound good, it's too
> long, it's too short......you name it, I've gotten it.
> 
> GET THE CD before you start opinionizing, please.
> 
> >    For one thing, there is a pronounced
> >    hiss to the samples, and I can't tell if they're an artifact of
> >    the sampling rate or part of the actual synth sound.
> 
> "Hiss"? What do you expect from 8 bits? There is a little
> noise in the prototype, that will be reduced in the final version.
> The thyratron oscillator has some inherent noise, but it is different
> in quality from sampling artifacts. It's all part of the beast.
> 
> A tube synthesizer is an eccentric beast, and is intended to be
> eccentric. Tubes, warts and all. If I were trying to build a
> perfect synth, I'd be Juergen Haible......
> 
> And just what IS a perfect synth, anyway??
> 
>  
> > 2. All of the waveforms have a severe negative bias -- they range
> >    almost entirely from zero down to a negative sample value.  If this
> >    isn't an inadvertent side effect of the way the samples were recorded,
> >    I have to wonder why Mr. Barbour didn't AC couple the output to
> >    eliminate this voltage bias.
> 
> I DID, friend. THAT IS WHAT COMES OUT OF THE
> INSTRUMENT. There is NO DC bias on the output.
> 
>  
> > 3. The examples are too short to give you any notion of the character
> >    of the machine.  
> 
> And if I make them long, people complain how long
> and slow to download they are. I'm not going to
> use a lossy-compression scheme, because then people
> complain about the sound quality. An 8-bit .wav seems
> like a decent compromise.
> 
> Get the demo CD. I'm fighting with the contributors
> right now--but we should be sending it to the mastering
> plant May 31.
> 
>  
> > 4. That being said, the samples don't sound that different from my
> >    juno60 when I run it through an ancient Fisher tube phono pre-amp.
> >    I paid $5 for the Fisher at a garage sale.  This leads me to believe
> >    that the Phattytron is a phenomenally expensive box with very little
> >    practical application.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion. Bear in mind that I feel you
> are being UNFAIR by broadcasting it to this list before you
> have heard more of the instrument. I expect you to be reasonable
> and say ON THE LIST that you are reserving further judgement for
> the CD, or a chance to try the thing with your own hands.
> 
> >  There are a number of tube preamp and distortion
> >    devices on the market.
> 
> Most of which are not even good tube distortion
> devices.
> 
> >    Now if you read Mr. Barbour's jeremiad against
> >    John Simonton (http://www.metasonix.com/paiadumb.htm) he may claim that
> >    all of these devices are crap because they starve the tubes for voltage.
> >    But what I've heard sounds pretty decent.
> 
> Not to me, or to anyone who's heard really good tube
> studio equipment. Your idea of good tube sound is a
> piece of yard-sale junk......is that the definition of
> good sound---cheap price?
>  
> > It is a shame in my opinion that Mr. Barbour has chosen to be rude and
> > confrontational in his posts to AH.  When I read through the literature
> > on his web page, it seems to me that he may have valid points to make,
> > which are obscured by the condescending and combative tone he chooses
> > to write with.
> > kent williams -- kent at avalon.net ICQ:33001909
> 
> My combative tone is entirely stirred by Paul Perry's snide
> attack back in February...and the subsequent dismissal by
> some members of this list. I would not be so combative
> if so damn many of the AH and Synth-DIY list members weren't
> so willing to denigrate me, and my product, BEFORE
> it is even ready to sell.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you posted this message to Synth-DIY--I've
> got many things to do, and listening to members of those
> lists whining about my attitude is non-productive. So I got off
> both it and AH.
>