Regulars here can tell you I love a good food analogy, as I'm using them all the time; producing music is so much like cooking food that it's almost scary sometimes.
That said, one thing I have also discovered is that different analogies can mean different things to different people; that what I sometimes consider to be a perfect analogy, the next guy may perceive differently. With that caveat in mind, I'd suggest the analogy for me is the difference between what feed the chicken was raised upon before it was turned into your dinner, that chicken raised on corn may have a subtle difference in intrinsic flavor than one raised on sunflower seeds. Or like the difference between corn-fed beef or dairy and grass-fed beef or dairy.
If you're making tacos, the difference will probably be wasted. If you're making a four-star dinner, the difference may be appreciated, but even then a lot depends upon the quality of the pallet of the person eating it.
As far as the quiet and clean angle goes, again it really all depends upon the desires of the person making the decision. But usually, I think, it really winds up being the opposite; most folks say they want this tube or that tube (or any tube at all) because of the "color" that it can impart to a sound. Just as the food that the cow or the chicken eats can impart a bit of a distinctive flavor to their muscles or milk. Usually this means the certain character of harmonic distortion that some tubes can ostensibly add to the signal.
Sure, one wants tubes that do not impart any more self-noise in the way of hiss and crackle and such than need be, but usually that is not the reason why people want to swap out for custom tube makes in their gear. Sure, people will need to replace tubes that get too noisy or start artifacting in some out-of-spec way (we had to do just that with our V69 just a few months ago), but that's usually more along the lines of repair than it is of customization. Though it's not unheard of fpr someone wanting to move to custom tubes for being cleaner and quieter, that seems to be more of the exception that the rule for the reasons generally given for tube swaps in forums like this one.
G.
As far as the quiet and clean angle goes, again it really all depends upon the desires of the person making the decision. But usually, I think, it really winds up being the opposite; most folks say they want this tube or that tube (or any tube at all) because of the "color" that it can impart to a sound. Just as the food that the cow or the chicken eats can impart a bit of a distinctive flavor to their muscles or milk. Usually this means the certain character of harmonic distortion that some tubes can ostensibly add to the signal.
Usually this means the certain character of harmonic distortion that some tubes can ostensibly add to the signal.
Ok this sounds closer to either what I was inquiring about some time in the past which has been:
Q: Why do people intentionally swap what otherwise sounds like perfectly good vacuum tubes? (Remember I am thinking clean and quiet)
A: because of the "color" that it can impart to a sound.
Is that answer what it really boils down to?
btw, When I read the line about the taco v. 4 star dinner, it all started to make sense.
Another way I would analogize it: You can't make a work horse a race horse and vice versa.
Actually, that's a proverb that's better applied to modification.
Your statement is addressing something different....
More like the difference between a Volkswagon beetle and a Cadillac.
Now, Phil Good has been working on a Mic mod for the 960. In his case, he essentially guts the mic of the essential components from the capsule to the leads that go to the cable jack and all that's left is the shell. His mod is akin to strippin' a '32 Ford 3 window coupe of it's stock drivetrain and droppin' in something like a small or big block Chevy or Hemi and some X spec drivetrain to the rear axle. His mod results in what I would classify as a genuine hot-rod mic. On the other hand, If Phil were an mic company engineer, the project might be a special Corporate car.
Anyway you get the idea.
In art, your analogy might be to mix a drop of brown paint to a pure white base. That white no longer pure white. The artist knows it's there but the painting's afficianadoes might not.
So.... As I am trying to understand this, the "color" is akin to the painting's ground, whatever the ground's tint, it will influence the rest of the painting's colors (depending on the transparancy of the successive layers applied).
IF I have that right, what are the "colors" used to describe the various tubes?
I think I mentioned that I have already mounted the RCA into my 960, Gain appears to be slightly less, but the room
sounds smaller and quieter in the sense that, I think, a captured sound's "decay" is quicker. ie a padded cell v. bathroom. Otherwise, it's pretty quiet.
As far as harmonic distortion goes, I am not yet familiar with the sound that description applies to. I may have heard it many times, but wouldn't recognize if you asked me to.
Sure would be interesting if someone or a small coterie, took a tube mic and sampled various tubes not changing anything else with flat/neutral eq and no compression, so we could better understand the terms. Simple sounds, a few vocally spoken words, acoustic guitar. Repeating the same riff and spoken sentence or sung verse.
It'd be website in of itself if the same mic were used by say, a bass, bartone, tenor, alto, contralto, soprano etc voices. Likewise a Dreadnought, a Small body, and Classical guitar, A lot of files. Perhaps there are easier ways and of course the audience must realise the differences between studio monitors, headphones and home/portable/personal audio equipment so as not to prejudge without those variances in mind.
That's about all I can think of for now.
… or just so-so, and might work OK as spares, but certainly not as any improvement.