|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
184.167.106.94
And what is sound without silence as contrast (and visa-versa)? A guy tries to describe certain differences between the sound of a good SS amp and a good tube amp and (concerning background noise) he says the SS amp displayed an "abject absence of noise" while the tube amp "renders the silence less stark and more of a presence of space whereby the transitions appear more organic"! He even goes so far as to refer to the latter quality as "spatial wetness", important in the perception of the "transitions between sound and silence". Also, the SS amp sounds "sharper, not in the sense of superior focus but in the sense of a protrusion or spike". What do you say? Do you prefer the "silence" of tubes to that of solid state? Or again, would you claim to prefer the "silence" of analog to that of digital?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12 04/21/12 04/21/12Follow Ups:
telling you to stop posting silly messages on forums...
Brian Walsh
Whatever. You would prefer endless rantings about Audiogon, etc..?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
I mean, if anyone cared.
The applause at the last minute of each side actually CELEBRATES silence!
Whether or not the audience confabbed afterward to trade colorful descriptives
regarding quality of said silence we'll never really know...
CHECK OUT the AUDIO ASYLUM TRADER!
4'33 is a little too long to wait. Remember, the benefits of silent backdrops are best appreciated in contrast.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12
you know, the one without all the repeats.
.
...and during the instrumental intro, I 'heard' the vocalist open her mouth before starting to sing. No actual sound, I'm sure, but... This was through tube amplification, but the tuner (and broadcast) were Digital/SS. Maybe this is irrelevant to this topic?
I thought I heard her uvula swaying in the dark silence... Seriously though, I believe that sounds of the type you've described are audible under certain circumstances, but the reasons why are not clear to me. Maybe the microphone(s) are picking up on slight changes in proximity when the singer opens his/her mouth? Maybe the cavernous oral cavity has acoustical properties just like a room does and the microphone picks up on this when the singer opens his/her mouth? Maybe we hear the sound of breathing? Who knows? One thing is for certain: "Presence" matters.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
hisses, pops, hums, or edginess. I do like equipment of any kind that, when it is put together, is engaging and seductive and causes to me feel lost in the music, so there is no need to put words on what it sounds like.
Observe, don't think
I've never done that before, how do you do it? Seriously though, do you think I'm overly obsessed with minutiea?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12
One sure thing, you don't seem to focus on music a hell of a lot.
I'd say my focus is on the music most of the time. However, a guy has got to take a break from listening and talk about what he hears from time to time. Isn't that why you are here?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Why am I here?
I wonder...
I should have perhaps written something like "observe before you judge". I just meant that from my experience, if I think I have a hi-fi problem, I need to listen a lot before i think about what to do, and then I have to listen a lot more before I make a plan and if I implement the plan I have to listen a lot more before I make a judgement.
All I can say is, that the rate at which I make changes to my "system" has slowed down over time and keeps getting slower.
Do I think you are overly obsessed with minutiae?
Not necessarily, I would guess that you are just a more analytical person than I am. Not that I am non-analytical. I am an empiricist, at least when it comes to putting a hi-fi system together. As far as listening, my judgement criteria are pretty romantic: being engaged, etc.
Observe, don't think
Over time I have come to observation that dynamic contrast is one of the most important things to get right in audio reproduction, and I think that dynamic contrasts in audio begin and end with a proper base of silence. To make an analogy, I think that coloristic contrasts in video begin and end with a base of blackness and (to my eyes at least) the best old glass tube CRT TVs provide a different kind of "blackness" than modern flat screen TVs do. So, when I think that good tube gear provides "silent backdrops" that are different than those provided by more modern SS gear I am sometimes reminded of the way the best old glass tube CRT TVs rendered "blackness". And in reality, I still own - and love - a Sony XBR flatscreen CRT TV (how uncool of me!)!
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12 04/22/12
Digital and analog don't equate to SS vs tubes. There isn't a good comparison there.
As far as silence, it's either not there, or it isn't, if you get my point.
Correctly implemented, there isn't background silence with digital, just low level noise. With 16 bits one will be listening to dither noise which is at -96 dB below peak levels. This will be audible in a quiet room on audiophile quality recordings that include the full dynamic range of a large symphony orchestra assuming there is sufficient amplifier and speaker headroom to reproduce row five concert volumes and the neighbors allow this. (Often one will be listening to microphone preamplifier noise which may be at a louder level on distantly miked recordings.) If one listens to a live analog microphone feed one will also hear noise. Indeed, human hearing is just about sensitive enough to hear the thermal motion of air molecules hitting one's eardrums. If there is "black" silence in a digital recording it indicates something is wrong with the recording. One should be able to hear noise when putting an ear up close to a tweeter.
Extra noise may be perceived as "good" if it masks low level distortion due to a poor quality recording or playback. However, any noise that is louder than the hall noise in the recording venue is going to detract from the quality of reproduction. If the noise is in the playback system it will make it impossible to hear all the information on a recording.
(These comments do not apply to pop or rock recordings or other non-acoustic musical genres which have been deliberately mutilated by the engineers for "loudness". One should definitely not attempt to optimize one's system to make these recordings sound "good". These recordings may indeed sound "black", especially after one has destroyed one's hearing.)
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
I hear you. But Genugo seems to be equating digital to SS and analog to tubes, which is a false construct. I understand that there's really no such thing as a perfectly silent recording, or system--unless it's switched off.
And to prefer a "tubey" silence seems to me a contradiction, as I tried to say. If it, the condition of silence, is perceptible, then in absolute terms it isn't silent.
There's always a noise floor on every system or recording. It can't be otherwise, that's the nature of the technology. If the question is purely an analog versus digital one, whilst throwing out the red herring of SS vs tubes, well, it becomes clearer.
But the noise floor remains. Any way you slice it, sound is compression and rarefacton of a medium, air, as perceived by the brain through, as you stated, our senses. That is possible to interpret the phenomena involved differently is self-evident.
So strictly speaking, it's not a matter of tubes vs SS, or analog vs digital, or any conflation of the two. It's a matter of perception.
As humans we naturally prefer pleasant stimuli to unpleasant. But there cannot by definition be an unpleasant silence. Silence is silence.
There can be pleasant or unpleasant sampling rates or noise floors, but that's it.
When we first started using Dolby A in our studio in the late 1960's everybody felt that with the reduction of tape noise we were losing top end.
Yet when we measured high frequency performance nothing was being lost. Still, all our engineers always felt this psychological loss. We eventual stopped using Dolby in the studio for several reasons and started recording at 30ips instead of 15ips to get an improved signal to noise
Alan
Not my intention to "equate", really. I had meant to say something like "Digital and/or SS".., as I think that SS and Digital share some similar qualities (related to the way that sounds emerge in contrast to their backdrops of silence). Ditto for Tubes and Analog.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12
But there is nothing inherently digital about SS as compared to tubes.
You could conceptualize human neurostructure as digital in basic character, but that would be missing a lot of the subtleties. It comes down to the resolution, which our brains do much better right now than our devices.
What we have is a compromise between our perception and our device execution/technology.
It's sort of getting better, but slowly. Analog recording is potentially better because it better relects how our brains process signals, but it's mechanically not equal to the task. It is very much worth building better microphones and processing algorithms.
To say that today's state of the art is even close to perfection is not even laughable, it's absurd.
If digital is going to make it it has to get much better and much faster, which I think it eventually will. The pitfall of that is that our devices will eventually outsmart us.
That's a real possibility, but we have to build music appreciation into them. Before they conquer the world.
Just kidding, sort of.
I believe there are some similarities, that's all. Read my reply to mkuller, down below.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Yes.
.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
... It is hard enough to describe audio as it is without using paradoxical descripts.
Something is either silent or it isn’t.
Depending on one’s reference or parameters it could be said no amp is silent when it is powered up. However the noise it makes may very well not be audible to human hearing.
I believe amps sound different. I believe most amps seem to playback recordings differently, ranging from very subtle to profound.
Given there are so many different types of tube amps & different types of SS amps I’m not sure any meaningful blanket descripts/comparisons can be made.
There seems to be no consensus on what ‘most’ folks actually like to hear from an amp or even what they hear.
Smile
Sox
I think the most important issue having to do with things in the background (in this case, noise) is how it integrates with and/or reinforces that which is in the foreground. So, we're really talking about dynamic contrast(s) and things of that nature. And some would say that "background silence" (or "background noise") manifests itself differently in different systems. These differences affect our perception of dynamic contrasts. In other words, qualities that defy measurement can compete with quantities that are easily measured. Not much to it, really...
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
...As an aside; I think the biggest variable in quality audio playback is the…
Individual
Smile
Sox
.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
I think on this case you are having a problem with what the guy is writing. The thing is it is quite difficult for anyone to pout an emotional perceived response into words that try to explain what is happening.
We prefer A over B. Tube/SET over Solid State. We do a comparison and now we try to explain what it is about A that sounds better - because it doesn't measure better we can't go to the graph. Tubes also tend to have a higher noise floor. Perhaps that is what he is arguing that noise suppression is taking the music along with it.
I know this was a complaint with some of the Dolby noise suppression options where it reduced the noise but people felt that it also took away some of the music so they preferred to record without noise reduction at all. Note: I am not saying it is right - but I think the writer is attempting to find some sort of "reason" as to why A sounds better than B rather than the usual "I like it better; therefore, it is better."
Other writers use the word organic or whole or rounded or 3D to describe better Tube gear - all words that really mean nothing unless the reader has experienced the same thing. Most B&M stores do not carry tubes and out of the ones that do carry tubes few carry the good ones - they carry the ones that sell based on looks, they sell hybrids, or they sell bigger entry level stuff. Largely the same for turntables.
The only issue with noise or mega pixels in a camera - can you hear it or see it. I get no audible noise from either SS or tube amps that I have owned. My noisiest amp was SS (Sugden A48b) and my quietest amp has been a tube (Antique Sound Labs MG Head DT). But I would not say that is the norm - just a coincidence. Power conditioners should get rid of noise if present.
"I know this was a complaint with some of the Dolby noise suppression options where it reduced the noise but people felt that it also took away some of the music so they preferred to record without noise reduction at all."
Dolby in its various forms is a psycho-acoustic fix at best when the encoder and decoder are both in proper calibration. It messes up transient response. (This is certainly true for consumer Dolby B and C, where I have done A - B comparisons on a live recording of piano.) To a certain extent, I believe that the same can be said of the professional Dolby A, i.e. I have always believed that the advent of Dolby noise reduction served to end the classic era of purist stereo recordings. It was, however, not nearly so disastrous as early digital recording.
In doing live vs. recorded piano testing, I obtained the best results with a reel to reel recorder with no noise reduction. My Nak CR-7 lacked sufficient signal to noise to capture piano dynamics undistorted unless recording at a very low level, in which case there was sufficient hiss as to interfere with the music. With Dolby turned on the hiss was gone, but the musical dynamics were destroyed. When I did these tests the CR-7 was brand new and in proper calibration. The solution to tape noise is simple but expensive: move lots of tape under the heads. With digital the situation is analogous: use lots of bits, rather than try to skimp using psycho-acoustic tricks.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
My very best recordings were made without Dolby, on a really nice TOTL Akai deck that included proper Dolby calibration settings per tape/type. It took me a while to realize the effects of Dolby past "noise reduction", but once I did ... I never used Dolby again.
tb1
... with the quiet backdrop and the resultant sense of continuousness within the musical presentation (see the link to the product review in my opening post). Among other things.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12
having had in the past, both a tube head amp and a tube phono stage, I prefer the complete absence of noise which my battery-powered, JFET-based components give.
This, however, is considerang 'glass' vs. 'sand' in the analogue space ... I make no comment about digital ss vs analogue ss. :-))
Regards,
Andy
I love tubes in the line stage and power amp, but after owning a Walker Audio and Klyne solid state phono stages I'd have to say that solid state is the way to go for a phono preamp, especially if you are running a LOMC. I owned a couple of tube phono preamps costing up to $8000, that always seemed to have some sort of tube noise or channel balance problems with low output cartridges, say 0.2 mV.
SS phono stages are dead quiet, even at these very low levels. Walker and Klyne are very musical too, especially in front of a tube preamp and amp.
As always, YMMV.
My tubed Shindo line amp and phono stage along with my tubed VTL ST-85 power amp are absolutely dead silent. Just saying that tubes if they are the right ones can be as silent as ss
Alan
.
... is my SET tube headphone amp. I've owned or listened to SS amps that were very quiet at idle but my DNA Sonett is even quieter (both at idle and in the aforementioned dynamic sense), believe it or not. "DC heated for black background - no noise."
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12
What you hear at your listening position ... or with your ear 6" away from the tweeter?
And with preamp volume up top max (no source engaged :-)) ).
Regards,
Andy
The tube amp I'm talking about is the amp I use in my headphone system. And with headphones, you really notice it if your gear does not provide truly silent backdrops. For that reason alone, it would probably make a great preamp. So, I would say that my DNA Sonett tube headphone amp is the "quietest" amp I've ever heard (not heard?) in any loudspeaker or headphone system, taking normal listening distances into account. And when I say "quiet", I mean it in both the passive (absence of noise/interference) and the active (helping dynamic contrast) sense.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12 04/22/12
.
The quietest amp I've ever owned was an old Kenwood that wouldn't power up.
Dynamic contrasts second to none, right?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
...
I have been listening..
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
...
... (see the link I've provided in my opening post).
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
...
It's okay for NPR talk radio, e.g., when driving in my car, but not listenable for music, IME.
...for me it's a completely ss sytem with no tubes.
I can tolerate tube distortion much better than solid state distortion.
Many prefer the opposite.
Just don't try to tell me ss is "more accurate" - its inaccuracies are just presented in a different way.
> > ...for me it's a completely ss sytem with no tubes. < <
I've never had any audiophile come over, critically listen to my complete SS system and wonder if 'it' required some form of tube intervention in order to sound "better". Instead, most simply walk away wondering how they'll get their tube based system to match my SS system as a complete "alive" musical package.
That said, my system is unique, and has been refined/designed to be far more than just simply ... a "SS" system.
tb1
...
Same here
"I can't compete with the dead". (Buck W. 2010)
I believe you will have to change that statement. You may well still prefer tubes but I'm pretty sure you would not say you cannot listen to my system. Then again, possibly you only listen to silver disks and not vinyl - whereas I primarily listen to vinyl (when I'm really "listening"). :-))
Regards,
Andy
I generally prefer tube amps also but I must admit my experience listening to a great number of amps other than at the CES is limited. Very seldom are audio enthusiasts offered an opportunity to make a direct A/B comparison and as you may well know, there are a myriad of factors beside the amp which effects the sound.
I'm not suggesting that there is not some legitimacy in pointing out the perceived differences between tube and solid state character. I think there is but making a blanket statement that tube amps always sound better than SS will only draw a defensive response.
I am reminded that years ago Bob Carver bet that he could make his SS amp sound indistinguishable from a tube amp. He won the bet.
as long as it's driven by a tubed preamp. AI-Mod 3a/Classe CA-100
"Man is the only animal that blushes - or needs to" Mark Twain
nt
N/T
CHECK OUT the AUDIO ASYLUM TRADER!
I sometimes think that a mixture of tubes and solid state sounds best. But if I was listening exclusively to CD, I might prefer an all tube system.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
I know three fellows who have all solid state systems with exceptions being one has a Modwrighted Oppo BDP-95, the other two Modwrighted Sony Xa5400es players and all three say they have captured the positive characteristics of tubes and solid state to a degree that works well for them. I have all solid state and am pleased with the sound of my system even though I have owned tube systems. I tire of entrenched either/or thinking. Seldom is it so in reality. There are many paths to Rome. Ditto the contentious infighting over vinyl vs CD. If it sounds really good to you it is really good - for you.
and ludicrous blanket statements like these only point to vast inexperience.
Hells bells, my SS Classe DR3 blow away the vast majority of "tubed" amps using the EXACT same criteria that ~supposedly~ better defines the "tube sound".
tb1
was speaking only for myself.
> > was speaking only for myself. < <
Perhaps, but it's the way you inferred SS with cars & radio that I found obviously silly.
tb1
...
I luv many amps ... including tubed.
tb1
"my SS Classe DR3 blow away the vast majority of "tubed" amps"
Talk about blanket statements
Alan
> > Talk about blanket statements < <
correct, what I should have said, is that it blows away nearly every tube amp I've witnessed. Then again, they blow away every SS I've witnessed also.
tb1
.
so I won't entertain that particular question. Rather I'll discuss noise-floors between digital and analog.
Analog has, and probably always will, have a reputation of having a higher noise floor than digital. It's a perception that is not entirely understood. Ticks & pops are noise, but a properly refined hi-end analog system, with a good LP, should render that noise meaningless. The noise floor of such an analog system should be extremely low to start with, but it retains one major advantage over the truncated type digital noise floor, in that musical details still exist at and below the n-floor. Those "details" generally provide additional musical information, mostly in reference to the layering of the venue/soundstage, providing a bigger more REALISTIC 3D musical picture.
While analog has long provided a 3D type sound, it took digital years before it could render a proper 3D type soundstage. Though "clinical" details seemed more readily apparent with digital, it provided a very limited dimensional experience - esp. compared to better analog.
It really took digital a long time, but advancement in technology (it took some companies a lot longer than others, and some still don't "get-it") finally provided a level of transparency that was solely missing from the digital medium. Digital can now provide a level of transparency/sound that expands the performance in all 3 dimensions, especially in terms of depth perception, one particular area in which digital still struggles to achieve.
When you hear a system with a superb low noise floor, you won't notice it as a lowering of "noise" issue per-say. What you will notice is the vast layering of instrumental detail, with a level of transparency that allows you to hear thru, well into the soundstage, much the same way as live performance in a nice musical venue. It will also include more apparent dynamic contrast, instruments will have more nuance and impact.
The very best low-noise hi-end systems should help make the walls of your room disappear.
The above could be heard with either a solid state state system, or tubed.
tb1
...between digital and analog LP noise, as HP in TAS has pointed out, is that the LP noise - mainly tics and grove noise - are completely separate from the music.
You can ignore them and tune them out.
With digital, any noise or artifacts ride the music signal and are integrated into it.
Not separate.
> > ...between digital and analog LP noise, as HP in TAS has pointed out, is that the LP noise - mainly tics and grove noise - are completely separate from the music. < <
Exactly, unlike digital, where the noise imparts itself within the musical fabric of the medium.
> > You can ignore them and tune them out. < <
Well, that's a matter of perspective. Too much T&P and even I'll be bothered to distraction. In reality, a good rig, with good LP, my system will display absolutely no noise related to T&P (except for maybe the leading groove). In fact, many of my LP-CDR recordings are so "clean" and void of noise, that many people consider 'em to be completely digital in origin.
(I've actually done a test in which I recorded from vinyl a track (which was originally digitally mastered) to be compared to the CD ... and even I couldn't tell them apart on a consistent basis.)
tb1
"with a good LP": like you I have come to realize that in any given collection at any given time there is only one single LP that meets such criteria.
There are people who say just the opposite. Regardless of the format they use.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
> > There are people who say just the opposite. Regardless of the format they use < <
Who?
Please provide an example, and please don't reference the vastly inexperienced.
tb1
Start your reading around paragraph 7 of the linked article (page 3)...
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12
in my opinion, Srajan and the 6moon "hype" crew leave a lot to be desired when it comes to "reviews". However, I'll dismiss my "opinion" on such matters in order to review this review from an unbiased position.
I'll comment later ... but remember ... this article needs to correlate tubes with analog and SS with digital ... in order for it to be properly related to your original post.
tb1
A Zanden CD Player was used as the source component for this particular review. But you'll notice (if you bother to read through the numerous other reviews authored by Srajan Ebaen) that this author does believe that SS and tubes both tend to have distinctive qualities - regardless of the format being used in tandem with them. I do tend to think that certain amps and certain formats seem to complement each other, or have certain things in common with each other.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12 04/21/12
and truth be told, I enjoyed it, thought it was very well written (because I could relate, something missing from too many reviews). That said, I'm still struggling to understand Strajan review in relation to your original post, in which you asked ...
> > Do you prefer the "background silence" of SS/Digital, or the that of Tubes/Analog? < <
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it, you're lumping SS noise with digital and conversely, you lumping tube noise with analog? If that is the case, I stand by my original response, in which NO CORRELATION exist between the noise-floor issues of either source mediums versus either amp types.
However, back to Strajan article ... in which he concludes ...
"The only differences that remain, at least in this particular juxtaposition, are bass (the transistors win) and space (the tubes win). Until I hear a solid-state amp that breaks down this last barrier, I will have to believe that this line remains drawn in the sand to compel music lovers to vote either/or in accordance with their priorities and preferences."
His line of thinking has long been the traditional train-of-though regarding tube vs solid state advantages. In fact, I thought similar thoughts when I first heard the Gumat amps (while not a SE design, unlike traditional SS amps, they used very few output transistors). Those so-called "barriers" were being dissolved long ago (but not eliminated) enough so that they could easily be ignored, and one could enjoy the true advantages of either design without feeling they've lost out on some form of "musicality".
As for his noise floor "spacial wetness" comment, well ... that's simply another way of describing a "liquid" type quality in sonic terms, which has been used to describe the EXACT same effect many moons ago, by many other reviewers.
Look, past the quality of equipment choices, noise floor issues should be considered a total system project. My system includes DEDICATED power-line-conditioning per each unit, not only to protect them from outside grunge, but to also protect each component from contaminating the rest of the system. Not only that, (and just as important) it's ungrounded (I don't recommend this to all). My source components on both side of the scale, analog or digital, where either chosen based on transparency/low-noise, plus they were further refined to achieve such goals by tweaking.
I guess my point is, and always will be, that noise-floor issues in hi-end audio have never truly been universally understood. Only a few reviewers, years ago used to comment about noise-floors, while the vast majority of reviewers didn't have a clue. Personally, I ran that particular gauntlet decades ago, so I can safely state that it's simply not a matter of amp type or source type or any mixture.
Certainly, it's far more dependent on total system design & integration, particular equipment choices, and a true dedicated refinement/commitment to achieving a low-noise "liquid" type sound as a system whole.
tb1
I am not sure I buy the argument that SS has better bass. Punchy bass perhaps but not depth which in most every single case tubes win IME.Compare for example the Audio Note OTO's bass depth (and this arguably Audio Note's weakest tube amp) being an EL 84 based designed, directly against a pre/pro (4B) from Bryston. The OTO walks all over the Bryston for bass. The Bryston sounds lean and thin in the bottom end - fast and punchy yes but fake.
Perhaps the argument is true when the speakers are very difficult to drive and at high levels where the Bryston's bass would still be there and the OTO would be huffing and puffing and might completely fall apart - but then as always I ask - why buy such speakers when HE equivalents with bass exist. And again there are far more powerful tube amps and tube types out there.
Edits: 04/22/12
Great comments, thanks. I'm glad that someone else takes the importance of "silence" seriously... BTW - it was not my intention to suggest there was a direct "correlation" between 'SS/Digital", etc... In an attempt to squeeze too many words into the title line I skewed it's intended meaning. Sorry about that.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/22/12 04/22/12
They probably do.
Soundhounds - a dealer with more experience and listening time on gear than any and all reviewers has some great SS and tube systems - SET, Turntables, digital streaming from some of the top companies. Linn, Meridian, Ayre, Bryston, Classe, ARC, Audio Note, ASL, Sim Audio, YBA, Sugden, Wyatech Labs, McIntosh, Octave, etc.
I don't think there are absolutes - tubes are better than SS or vinyl is better than CD or digital. I suppose we can generalize but there are exceptions. I generally like SET on easy to drive speakers. I generally like the wider baffle not as deep speakers over the slim line speakers with 5 smaller drivers stacked on top of each other.
But There are exceptions. CD and vinyl is largely recording quality dependent and that impacts the end result no matter what players are being used. A great CD on a great CD player sounds better than a rubbish LP on a rubbish turntable.
SS amps like the Sugden A21a have sold for over 40 years with their fry an egg heat and no feedback pure class A single ended topology. It's an exception to the SS generalizations and it beats a lot of tube amps IME and IMO and for 40 years a lot of people seem to agree.
Still the very best I have heard if we take price considerations out of the equation has been LP on a SET with HE speakers.
There spurious "magic factor" is a tough thing to find - some gear has it - I have experience it with CD and LP never with SACD or digital from a computer as technically good as they are something seems off. What that something is is difficult to articulate.
...but about different audible distortion components.
Neither tubes nor solid state are totally accurate and they sound different.
Solid state sounds cleaner an quieter, some would say more sterile and cold, many times with a very fine upper mid grain.
Transient attacks tend to sound sharper and better defined particularly at the top and bottom of the frequency spectrum.
Tubes don't provide as black and silent of a background, but appear to provide more 3D spatial cues and sense of air density.
While the transient attacks are a tad softer, there is a more lifelike sense of decay which allows greater development of instrumental harmonics and body.
These, of course, are generalizations.
It's all about which distortion products you can live with and sound to you more lifelike.
Analog and digital comparisons re a whole different ball of wax.
Not to me. The way that sounds "emerge" from the background in tube systems reminds me of the way sounds emerge from the background in vinyl systems. And I feel that sounds emerge from SS and CD systems in ways that are similar to each other too. I might even say that the backgrounds of the former types are characterized by "warm silence" while the latter types are characterized by "cold silence". It can be terribly hard to describe but I feel that this is true.
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
Edits: 04/21/12
Still have not given up on the word "silence" I see.
What a great distinction you make; sort of like saying that there is cold nothingness and warm nothingness.
You have too much time on your hands. I suggest you get a constructive hobby.
... (which I'm providing for you because I know that you must have at least as much spare time on your hands as I do) Have you ever experienced a "cold stare" from an enemy? (I'm pretty sure you have!) Ever notice that it feels quite different from the "warm look of admiration" you might get from a friend?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
nt
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
nt
All "noise" is the same? All "silence" is the same? Black is black, and White is white?
"He was one of those men who live in poverty so that their lines of questioning may continue." - John Steinbeck
"All "noise" is the same? All "silence" is the same? Black is black, and White is white?"
No, yes, yes, and yes.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: