08-11-2015, 01:44 PM
I'd give you 10 to 1 odds that it's possible to replicate the sound. I suspect that no one's
willing to take the time/$$ to do it. If something comes close and most people are willing to buy it,
why spend $$ on the 5% who can tell? Another disincentive, I'd guess, is that there's a higher profit
margin on the tube equipment.
The sound of organs using Leslie speakers (a baffle under the speaker is actually rotated by a motor)
are quite a bit harder. I read an article by an acoustic engineer a while back (2001 to 2005 I'd guess )
saying that it was a bit beyond what was feasible at the moment. Sound samples from the actual organs
worked pretty well, but connecting the individual samples hadn't been done successfully.
Another problem is there are no (or not many, don't know) studies using blind listening tests.
When someone knows what they're listening to, the subjective bias (it's the same with
psychiatric drugs) is too great to get reliable results.
I do know there have been studies where the sound of vinyl records was compared with
CD sound that had had a little sputtery white noise mixed in. No one could tell them apart.
With MP3 (128 kbps), on the other hand, experienced listeners can tell the difference.
As for me, I'm willing to swear that that Dynaco tube pre-amp of mine is just plain sweeter.
While I don't believe myself for a second, I'm happy to bask in the placebo effect.
( Cats, by the way, overwhelmingly prefer tubes: Every time I fire up my Dynaco, it's only
a matter of minutes before there's a cat lying on top of it.)
When the power fails, acoustics still work. It's the same with my typewriter.
willing to take the time/$$ to do it. If something comes close and most people are willing to buy it,
why spend $$ on the 5% who can tell? Another disincentive, I'd guess, is that there's a higher profit
margin on the tube equipment.
The sound of organs using Leslie speakers (a baffle under the speaker is actually rotated by a motor)
are quite a bit harder. I read an article by an acoustic engineer a while back (2001 to 2005 I'd guess )
saying that it was a bit beyond what was feasible at the moment. Sound samples from the actual organs
worked pretty well, but connecting the individual samples hadn't been done successfully.
Another problem is there are no (or not many, don't know) studies using blind listening tests.
When someone knows what they're listening to, the subjective bias (it's the same with
psychiatric drugs) is too great to get reliable results.
I do know there have been studies where the sound of vinyl records was compared with
CD sound that had had a little sputtery white noise mixed in. No one could tell them apart.
With MP3 (128 kbps), on the other hand, experienced listeners can tell the difference.
As for me, I'm willing to swear that that Dynaco tube pre-amp of mine is just plain sweeter.
While I don't believe myself for a second, I'm happy to bask in the placebo effect.
( Cats, by the way, overwhelmingly prefer tubes: Every time I fire up my Dynaco, it's only
a matter of minutes before there's a cat lying on top of it.)
When the power fails, acoustics still work. It's the same with my typewriter.
a brightly colored fungus that grows in bark inclusions