|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
24.251.134.201
Hi,Over the years I have owned several reasonably good solid state amps, and several tube amps. I keep coming back to tube amps since they seem to sound more musical to me, and I am trying to understand why.
Measurements I have seen imply that tubes are less accurate. Other than personal preference, are there technical (measurable) advantages to tube amplification vs. solid state? If fidelity to the recording is desired, which approach is more likely to reproduce what is on the recording (good and bad) accurately?
Thanks for any technical insights you might be able to share.
Lynn
Follow Ups:
a
First of all, nobody actually knows why some people prefer the sound of tube amplifiers, all anyone has is conjecture, most of it based on pretty flimsy evidence and faulty reasoning, the credentials of some of tubes best known proponents notwithstanding. The preference is hardly universal. I certainly don't and neither do a lot of other people. I don't know if anyone has ever taken s survey so the percentage of the market preferring them is unkown. One short possible answer is that many so called "high end" loudspeakers are voiced with the typical peculiarities of tube amplifiers taken into account. When they are used with solid state amplifiers, they sound relatively thin and shrill. Therefore the instinctive conclusion is to blame the amplifier. There are valid marketing reasons why speaker manufacturers would want to voice their speakers for tube amplifiers, not the least being that they know a fair proportion of the high end market which is supposedly more savvy will own them. And for those who own solid state amplifiers, well in typical casual comparisons by inexperienced listeners who do not know what real acoustical instruments and accurate reproduction of them sounds like, they actually prefer this kind of sound as long as there is enough deep bass from a subwoofer to make its inaccuracies not sound like it has no bass at all. The fact is that most of what we perceive is based on frequency response alone.Fifty years ago, all amplifiers were tubes. Most speakers had little or no high end. JBL said prior to 1958, they never had to confront program material with information over 12 khz. Tweeters were shrill horns or small paper cones which had poor dispersion, low power handling capacity, and broke up easily if driven too hard...or were much too big. For example, Altec and Western Electric offered a popular 8" tweeter. With the arrival of acoustic suspension speakers, there was a need for more powerful amplifiers than most tube units could offer except at high cost and even with the arrival of dome tweeters, early models often had a high end rolloff. After the initial weak solid state amplifier designs of the early 1960s which had high harmonic distortion at low power output due to improper biasing and were easliy destroyed by accidental short circuits in the output by customers, manufacturers built much better units and they sounded brighter. The speakers of that era sounded much better used with them so that by the late 1960s the vacuum tube amplifier was just about extinct. With the arrival of inexpensive high quality tweeters in the 1970s it was possible to build much brighter loudspeaker systems. And they sold. This allowed new manufacturers to enter the market having tube units make a comeback and Conrad Johnson was among the first to re-enter long after Marantz, McIntosh, Dynaco, Scott, Fisher, Harmon Kardon, and the other major players had abandoned them. The tendency towards increasingly brighter sounding speakers left more critical listeners dissatisfied. Tube amplifiers with their typical high end rolloff was one answer audiophiles turned to. (Another was wires having very high shunt capacitance.) Traditionally, the frequency response of amplifiers is measured at one watt with a resistor for a load. That may have told consumers and engineers a lot about their differences in 1955 but by 1985 it left a lot to be desired as amplifiers which obviously sounded different driving real world speakers measured almost the same by these traditional methods. But by that time, few if any engineers were interested enough to develop entirely new measurement standards. They had moved on to other more interesting projects considering that the amplifier problem was largely solved and for people like me, it was.
As an amplifying device, vacuum tubes have many drawbacks for practical reasons such as heat, inefficiency, deterioration over their lives, necessity for high voltages, microphonicity, just to name a few. They are expensive to install as well, not merely because of their own cost but because of all of the other requirements associated with them. But on the whole, as electronic amplifiers they are approximately equivalent to transistors, both being able to be designed into circuits where nonlinear distortion is well below the threshold of human audibility and where frequency response of the audible range is flat with one major exception and that is for use as power amplifiers for driving loudspeakers where they have a serious drawback. The typical tube amplifier is connected as what's called a common cathode circuit with a plate output. It has a very high output impedence of the order of 6000 to 15000 ohms. To deliver power to drive speakers having an impedence of about 4 to 16 ohms an impedence matching transformer is used in over 99.99% of all tube amplifiers. This device is invariably responsible for most audible degradation, especially to frequency response. By contrast transistors use a common emitter collector output circuit or its VFET equivalent which has a source impedence of well under one ohm. This makes them an ideal choice for driving 4 to 16 ohm loudspeakers efficiently transferring lots of power with at most a single large DC blocking capacitor or no intermediary device at all. The result is less high end rolloff, flatter more extended frequency response in both the low bass and high treble, and much less non linear distortion. In fact, even with modern equpment, manufacturers can build solid state amplifier whose distortion is so low, it challenges the best of that equipment to find any at all. But connected to speakers voiced for tube amplifiers, a sound system's solid state amplifier can and often will make music sound bright, even shrill, and thin. Don't blame the amplifier, blame the speaker...and the unwillingness of users to use corrective tools such as equalizers to compensate for them. So this niche market for tube amplifiers as well as other niche markets for antiquated technology such as phonograph record playing equipment and wires to mitigate overly bright sound systems persists...for now.
I detect only two unsubstantiated audiophile truisms in this rant. You must be mellowing. :)...and much less non linear distortion.
More linear? Sure once you apply a corrective factor of 1000 or so to the circuit!
Some alternate interpretations.Marantz built tube products up 'til the day they were sold to the Superscope people, 1968 or thereabouts. Their 10B tuner drove them into bankruptcy. Dick Sequerra, the head designer for the tuner project, told me at a CES many years ago on the introduction of his new universal tuner (solid state), that a 10B in factory alignment was just as good as his new tuner up to 15kHz. Of course it didn't have digital readouts, PLL tuning as such, but he personally told me not to bother with his new tuner since I already owned a 10B. The 10B was as close to theoretical perfection as the existing circuits of the day could provide was what he told me, with more than a bit of pride showing (justifiably, if you ask me).
What killed tube amps was the Acoustic Research AR-3 with it's requirement of 60 Watts of power. Up till then, bass extension was achieved only with an extremely large box (think Klipschorns). The AR-3 marked the first commercially made speaker that was affordable and significantly smaller. A 60 watt tube amp pretty much marked the top end of most electronic lines: Marantz 9, Dyna Mk III, Mac MC-60 or 275. Some did not even have models in that power range: Scott, Eico. Dyna, incidentally, made tube units well into the 70's.
I distinctly remember and still have the issue of TAS in the late 70's which printed a cartoon of a tombstone with '12AX7, RIP', written across it.
Tweeters were already a popular add on throughout the decade of the 60's: Janzsen had their electrostatic arrays, Bozak concert grands had an array of something like 16 tweeters, and then there was the Ionovac plasma tweeter. Even the Decca ribbons were available, IIRC, in the late 60's, but I could be wrong there, but then they do use a transformer....
With the advent of transistors, the catch phrase was that they were cheaper, smaller, and generated way less heat. Power became extremely cheap. Bose had their 500 watt amplifier, and similar sized or larger amps were made by Phase Linear and others. As a result, speaker designs lowered their sensitivity to avoid consumers blowing them out.
With massive amounts of power and current available, speaker designers went crazy. Apogee with their impedance's dropping to as low as 1 ohm at certain frequencies could only be run with Krell amps when they first came out. Many Infinities had impedance's which dipped to as low as .8 ohm: disaster for many amps. I have seen amps smoking in showrooms and with material that was not very difficult or demanding.
This caused a major revolution in amp designs: current dumping became the prevalent design for most s/s units, even to this day. Tubes could not do this, at least not until the Russian 6C33 tube became available in the west. In the older era, speaker designers worked around the limitations of the electronics: these days, they couldn't care less. A constant impedance load is beneficial even to a s/s amp.While cheaper output transformers do have problems, better ones are remarkably extended. Altec Peerless 20/20 transformers had frequency responses well above the accepted range of human hearing. Try telling EE Jim McShane that his Citation II transformers are 'bad'. I believe their FR goes well above 50 kHz.
Solid state gear dominates, because they usually are smaller and cheaper to manufacture. Funny how the best s/s tend to be heavy, though, and hot to boot (of course there are exceptions). It is much easier and much cheaper to employ electronic correction than to make a mechanically precise device, whether it be a driver or a transformer.
Just my view, obviously your interpretation is a bit different.
Well done, 52. Most people here have NO IDEA of the history of audio, or how tubes actually work. Why for example, has it been so difficult for me (and everyone else in the known world) to make solid state audio designs that are superior to the best tube designs? It just so happens that VTL, Audio Research, Sequerra, and many other tube manufacturers can give me, and anyone else, a real run for audio quality. Their only limitation is cost.
The best power amp that I have ever heard in my life was made by Dick Sequerra and JC Morrison, and cost $100,000 a pair. I can't afford one. By far, the best tuner that I have ever used or heard is the Marantz 10 or the Marantz 10B (I've owned both) and I listened to my Marantz 10, just last night. What a tuner!
Hi.(1) An all-Audio Research system: from turntable/cartridge to speakers, tagged for USD400,000 4 years ago.
All hand-built by Audio-Note Japan except the flimpsy built
larger-than-bookshelf 2-way speaker system (with an 8" woofer) was built by Audio Note England. Phonostage 'M-10' (for Audio Note Reference Limited moving cartridge), & 'Kagon' 17Wx2 4x300B PSE stereo power amp were all triode built.It sounded so live, natural & effortless like a live band was performing in front of me.
I lost my interest in my cheapie rig for quite a few weeks afterwards.
(2) Tenor 75WP 75W all-triode OTL monoblocks (USD20,000 a pair) driving Rockport Technologes Hyperion speakers (bi-wired 6ft 550lb USD85,000) - "The best stereo sytem I've ever heard" quoted by J. Valin, The Absolute Sound".
As usual, if it sounds lousy, I walk out in a couple of minutes. But this combination, driven by Rockport's System III Sirius 500-lb record player, & Herron VTPH-IMC+ all triode phono-preamp, hooked up with all Tara Labs exotic cables, tempted me to spend a few days of in-depth auditioning.
I dropped my jaw bigtime by its deep-deep soundstaging with pitch dark background, effortless dynamics & see-through transparency.
Above said, I still love the neutral & muscial sound of my 30-year-young 2x60W all-bipolar built direct-current SS power amp (made in Japan), with DC to 200KHz response though I am listening to my DIY super-upgraded 50-year-young Dynakit SP-2 phonostage + ST-70 trioded EL-34 PP power amp.
I love musical sounding amps, glass or sand made regardless.
c-J
I heard the Tenors. Great amps as are the Einsteins from Germany. The best amps I have personally owned were a pair of 100 watt OTL amps from a company called Silavweld. They also used 4 x 6C33C per monoblock. Got hot as hell but what an amazing sound with killer dynamics. The one I am dying to hear are the Joule Electras.As an electrostatic speaker man, for me the ultimate trip is to ultimately try direct drive (like STAX headphones on steroids).
CJ - see if you can guess which isolation platforms were used in that Rockport/Tenor system Valin flipped over (as did many other listeners) -- one platform under source, one under each of the 4 Tenors.
Hi.I don't know. Want to tell me what makes?
That said, I'm not interested to drop a bundle to buy any commercial products as there are quite a few available. I build my own sinc day one.
Knowing the importance of acoustical isolation, my equipmment rack is my DIY custom design-built, providing massive support & discrete isolation for EACH & every component. Very affordable but efficiency.
IMO, turntable is the most crucial component which demands the best acoustical isoaltion in view of its motor drive & low level signal involve.
I have mine mounted on a very massive discrete isolation platform, completely separated from my main equipment rack. I share the similar idea of Rockport's System III Sirius turntable platform.
BTW, what do you use for your component isolation ?
c-j - the iso platforms in the Tenor/Rockport room that year 2002 were my platforms (Machina Dynamica) (trick question :-). My Nimbus Sub-Hertz Platform was selected to isolate the CD player (French) and my Prometheans were selected to isolate the 4 Tenor amps. Nimbus is a 6 degree of freedom, floorstanding single air spring design (!!) with Fr as low as 0.5Hz. Promethean is a mechanical spring design. Accept no substitutes. :-)PS: that same year, Prometheans isolated four JC-1s in the Curl/Crump/Wisdom Audio room. A special Super Nimbus isolated both the Entec Number Crucher DAC and the G&D Transforms CD transport.
Cheapjack, that is my competition! They are real, and often sound GREAT! I heard the Tenor with the Rockport at a CES. VERY GOOD, best of show that year. We have shown at CES with Rockport, and I have worked for Andy, myself, on custom projects. He makes a very good loudspeaker. Bob Crump, my former business partner, before his untimely demise, used Rockport loudspeakers and turntable in his home system. I just got off the phone with Dick Sequerra, and he says that his NEW tube power amp is even better than the old one, and I believe him, because he went from ultralinear back to triode operation with his latest unit. Dick had to buy the last 500 Siemens E-German EL-34 vacuum tubes a few years ago and he sent 4 to me. I put them into Dyna MK-4 power amps and they now measure and sound great! At least you, Cheapjack, have some idea of what real audio is. I wish others would follow your example and listen up.
So I guess you'll be designing your amps with more even order harmonic distortion, more IM distortion, planned obsolescence, less reliability and higher output impedance.
Well John; I have read your posts on this thread, and I don't think I'm the only one reading them who has spotted the total and utter hypocrisy and double talk.
Have a nice day;
d.b.
P.S. I will archiving this thread on my computer, as this will relate to an upcoming article I will writing this winter. Cheer up; It will get more readers than all of subscribers to high end magazines combined.
Why would I add excess even order distortion! I design all complementary push pull power amps, that tend to cancel even order distortion. My final distortion is almost entirely 3'rd harmonic distortion, with a little second harmonic that is generated by the difference in mobility between n channel and p channel material in the fets that I use. Do you have a problem with this?
I would just love to measure one of your amps sometime, for higher order odd distortion.
Hi.I don't want to guess like you.
Please show me where in his posts you claim him stating "designing your amps with more even harmonic distortion, blah blah ....."
Otherwise, I've read so much "utter hypocrisy...." in you as well.
Hi.Glad you know Andy Payor so well. It is him who recommended the Canadian made Tenor WP75 for his huge speakers. Great idea.
BTW,I am very interested to have two matched pairs of Simens EL-34s. Can you please arrange for me with Dick. I am still enjoying bigtime the original Telefunken ECC83s in my PS-2. I really want to replace the existing Russian EL-34s with Simens. E-amil me if you could arrange so.
Many thanks.
I am doing some upgrade on trioding the EL-34 in my ST-70. Instead of the simple basic 100R resistor bridging the plate & the G2 of the
EL-34 I've using since day one, I am installing a string of zenors & diodes to keep the G2 voltage COSNTANTLY slightly lower the plate voltage. Ask Dick what would he think of this trioding topology.Let see how it would improve the sound.
I don't think that Dick wants to sell any tubes, sorry.
but JC Morrison was one of the guys who helped me get deep into this hobby. Along with Don Garber and Noriasu Komuro, there was a lot of fun with solder fumes at Fi at 30 Watts Street in Manhattan back in the early '90s. I built one his 2A3 amps from a very nice schematic booklet JC used to sell as my first DIY project...Where did you get to hear the amp? Do you remember what speakers were used? (JC has made some rather interesting speaks over the years...)
but JC Morrison was one of the guys who helped me get deep into this hobby. Along with Don Garber and Noriasu Komuro, there was a lot of fun with solder fumes at Fi at 30 Watts Street in Manhattan back in the early '90s.
It's a damn crying shame that Garber wasn't able to keep the business going at that address. Fi. 30 Watts Street. Too damn cool.
Never had the opporutnity to listen to any of his stuff, but I've always loved his industrial design and the ads he used to run. "At this price you're expecting an 800 number?" :)
se
The shop was so much fun to be in. I learned so much about music from those guys...Don's place in Brooklyn is awesome too in its own way, though not the same as the Soho Gallery that Fi was. Its not a retail shop at all, but his "factory," so one needs to call ahead to geet a visit. He makes wonderful equipment, and is such a genuinely good person, one can't help leaving his place with a smile on one's face and a song in one's heart.He's worth visiting if you ever make it to the borough of Brooklyn...
Heard it at HI FI show, New York more than 10 years ago.
There is nothing here that is new, certainly not new on this asylum.Certainly, tubes have their problems and certainly transistors allowed more powerful amplifiers and speaker designers could push speakers to be better in the bottom end but the cost was the loss of realism in the midrange and certainly in having the pace of music. Slow drivers in closed boxes means little resemblance to real music.
For those who prefer the "antiquated technology" represented by tubes, we are relegated to "niche markets." I am sure that those of us preferring tubes are happy to enjoy what others are neglecting given the hype in the market, but we might resent SM's condescension saying that we need to live with the limitations of sound reproduction available with solid state designs.
I may soon have solid state amps for the first time since I briefly enjoyed the 47 Labs 25 watt amp. I presently use a solid state line stage. All of this suggests that good designers can extract quality performance out of transistors. As with tube designs, it takes years for designers to learn enough to extract quality performance. The solutions do NOT rest on equalizing the sound or just being happy with what we can achieve in music reproduction rather than seeking to improve it.
Being cheap and unduly smug in his limited technical understanding, SM should just be allowed to go on his merry way.
But then what can expect from a professor of political science who teaches Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence were all wrong and King George III wasn't such a bad guy after all. Right Norm, isn't that what you teach in Texas? Do your students know what you think? Guess not, you haven't been tarred, feathered, and run out of town....yet!
Actually, I am using several of your posts in my methods class to show how not to defend your hypothesis. Your red herring arguments, vituperative language, misstatements, lack of logical development, and lack of supporting evidence are classic. The logic textbooks have good examples, but yours are even better.
I'm sure I could teach your class far better than you could, and it's not even my field.
Maybe even the week.
Soundmind in the General Forum: "Mid-fi is the other guy's Hi-fi that you don't like".Whether one finds that sentiment cynical or accurate, THAT was the funniest post of the week! :)
We've been saying that for years. Not me, you understand, but various assorted dolts.
a
Sorry, but if you search in the archives, the topic of tubes vs solid state appears every other month.
The arguments of each side are well known, and have been written again and again for years.If this forum is not for us to learn something (would it be technical or about hearing or about audiophile psychology), what is it for?
And as expected, since the arguments are so well known, soon the thread becomes a mean for bashing and calling names.
Childish at least.
Trollish threads wake up the bad and noisy kid in some so-called adults.
My answer to this is I think there are "distortions" with solid-state amplification that have yet to be captured in measurable form. (The same goes for digitized audio.)The crux of most "technical" disagreements is the notion of whether or not a condition exists if it is not measurable at the current time. I personally think "yes," but there are many here who think "no."
Try a simple test.Wire an R-C filter to the output of a filament transformer and line cord to the input. R is one ohm and C is some convenient motor capacitor of 2 microfarads or more.
Plug this in to the circuit that feeds your audio system's digital source and let it warm up.
Did you change to a tube amp?
This works better if you use a simple E-I core transformer and avoid anything with an electrostatic shield. Keep it off the carpet and on something quiet.
but being a lazy sort of guy, although I have many filament transformers, exactly what do you hear, if I may ask? I've been snubbing my filament transformer secondaries for a significant gain in sonic quality: fuller, warmer sound and a lowering of the noise floor. Is that what you've been achieving with this tweak?Since I use the filament outputs, I had conjectured that the diode spikes could enter the power transformer and be reflected onto the other secondaries and other taps. While I didn't have high enough voltage caps to snub the B+ AC lines, I had enough to snub the filament ones, figuring that that may help the B+ line also.
Thanks,
Filament transformers are a good way to couple noise filters to the AC. Your idea of using the filament secondaries to snub the B+ rectifiers is excellent. In my present setup, I do not have tubes, but have plenty of need to filter the AC.Alan Maher posted a tweak regarding use of Hammond 193L chokes as AC noise filters. I have some large filament transformers, so I decided to give them a try. It seemed wise to load the secondaries, so I used R-C filters. The R-C filters seem to work well with the inherent loss mechanisms in the transformer cores to absorb RF noise on the AC line.
and yes, I do get better mid bass resolution also. However, with the preamp that I have thus modded, if I simply leave it on and use another, I do not hear the same effect. I would conclude that a dedicated transformer would be necessary for what you are doing. I will have to investigate that, and also how large a transformer is necessary, although I suspect larger will be more effective.I read Alan's tweak, but haven't followed up on it, but I have tried and use RGPC units in my system. RF is quite insidious, and I live in an extremely high RF area, so high that when a nearby store brought in their first Yamaha CD players (1985), none could play for more than 30 seconds, before the RF would cause the logic circuit to go crazy and shutdown.
near the sensitive load.I've survived an "upgrade" to my wife's video setup. Her TiVo died, and, for a few days, I had blissful sound. Then the new unit arrived and the noise returned. I've found that a filament transformer plugged in the same outlet that feeds the video setup (in another room from the audio system, which has dedicated circuits) helps tremendously.
If you already have the RGPC units, you won't need the choke tweaks for your audio system. However, you might want to experiment with using them next to unrelated noise sources.
I've already done so, however. Still, when I have some time, I'll try experimenting. Your ideas are quite intriguing.With appreciation,
"Measurements I have seen imply that tubes are less accurate. Other than personal preference, are there technical (measurable) advantages to tube amplification vs. solid state?"There is extensive information on this, and the answer is No, the issue of differences in distortion between SS and tubes is a red herring, some Mr. Bob Carver's demonstrations a while back amply illustrated this fact to the discontenance of many audiophiles.
" If fidelity to the recording is desired, which approach is more likely to reproduce what is on the recording (good and bad) accurately?"
Either will do the job provided they are competently designed.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
There are two types of discussions around here:Quantitative
Can audiophiles hear differences between tube and SS amps or do they only imagine they hear these differences? There is an answer to questions like these.Qualitative
Which amps sound better, tube or SS? It’s personal preference and there is no answer (only statistics).Maybe you meant to ask a more quantitative question like what are the measured differences in audio signals processed by either configuration?
Nice post.
Lynn, Dan is the wrong resource for this. Tubes usually have a better sound than most solid state. This is partially due to the lower order distortion generated by the tubes themselves, compared to bipolar transistors. Also, tubes use less overall negative feedback than solid state amps.
"Tubes usually have a better sound than most solid state. This is partially due to the lower order distortion generated by the tubes themselves"Every specification I have ever seen, every test I have ever done or witnessed had lead me to the conclusion that well designed solid state amplifiers not only produce lower non linear distortion, wider bandwidth, and flatter frequency response than tube amplifiers, but beat them generally by orders of magnitude.
"Also, tubes use less overall negative feedback than solid state amps."
When it comes to results, what difference does it make what goes on inside the box. As far as the user is concerned, an amplifier is a two port black box.
Isn't it true that you do not have any measurements to correlate the results of bench testing amplifier electrical performance with your preferences and that of other audiophiles, not only for amplifiers but for other audio equipment as well? Isn't it fair to say that to credit your preferences to the fact that amplifiers which test worse sound better to some people is jumping to an unfounded conclusion about the amplifier and completely ignores the fact that it may be compensating for or disguising shortcomings of other parts of the reproduction system?
I can measure in the next room from where I am typing now, harmonic or IM distortion to 1 part in 1 million or -120dB down. I CONSTANTLY measure higher order ODD harmonic distortion in solid state designs, INCLUDING MY OWN, that is virtually absent in vacuum tube designs. Why? How? IF you actually studied tube design, you would find that it has several advantages over solid state design. The tube input impedance is more linear as well as its transfer conductance. Standing alone, a tube outshines ANY fet or bipolar transistor in distortion, especially when it is weighted as to how the ear actually hears.
The limitations in tube design keeps it expensive to make, relatively low power, subject to compromising added parts to make the circuit work, such as caps and transformers, and limited noise performance. However, outstanding examples of tube design going back 50 years, will still outshine 90% of all solid state design made today. This is similar to having a Mercedes Benz 'Gullwing' coupe outperforming 90% of autos today,
...what I've been hearing.Prior to when I stopped comparing equipment in about 2001, I never heard a solid state amp I could live with for very long (I never heard yours).
They all seem to have an 'electromagnetic' coloration or upper mid grain - which never let me forget I was listening to a ss amp reproducing sound.
The last one I owned was a Pass X-350, which was the best ss amp I'd heard, except for the upper mid grain which eventually got to me.
Good tubes on the other hand sound to me like real music without those colorations and now that the best ones like ARC, VTL, Manley, etc. are reproducing bass and treble almost as good as the best ss, why compromise.
You are a glutton for punishment. That being said, I do admire your stance, being a primarily a s/s manufacturer.
The truth about tubes is reality. It is not ad hype. Now, how do you make solid state products do as well or better (overall) than tubes? That is the challenge! I have worked for 40 years to do this, and I will continue to attempt to make solid state even better, as I learn new ways to optimize active devices.
Hi.Yes, it is a hugh SONIC challenge for SS to beat tubes.
Last year I auditioned the new Tenor hybrid power amp with triodes driving MOSFETs OTL, replacing the worldwide famous WP75 all-triode OTL, using the same hi-end set-up I mentioned above with Hyperion speakers & turntable etc etc.
I was not impressed like I did with Tenor all-tube OTL at all. Frankly I was saddened that WP-75 was no longer available.
What about those output transformers?BTW, how about some numbers. Tube amplifiers typically seem to have at least 1% THD + IM while ss designs are usually a quarter or less of that, some far less. Are you saying tube amplifiers sound better because they have less nonlinear distortion?
My tube preamp has lower distortion than I can measure, under 0.003% at 2.5VRMS out. My tube power amp runs about 0.01%THD at 1W, 0.08%THD just before clipping. IM numbers for the power amp are slightly higher, about 0.02% and 0.1%. Preamp IM is still below measurement threshold. And neither of these designs is very unusual.Now if you want to talk about single ended triode power amps, that's different. The whole point of those is to be an effects box.
I guess from my perspective that the whole point of many components is to cater to measurements of little relevance to sound. Mies Vanderoeh said that in architecture, less is more, certainly many feel the fewer parts in SETs allows them to be truer to the music.
said that. He pointed out that a lot of the appeal of the SET was due to the simplicty of the circuit, and then emulated it with his Aleph series of amps and such. If you looked inside of those amps there was almost nothing in them.
And accurate they are not, at least if you define "accurate" as having the voltage presented to the speaker terminals be a linearly scaled version of the voltage input to the amp. The frequenc response errors alone are waaaaay above the audible threshold (bad pun), not to mention the rather high levels of distortion- tone control AND Aphex.Nelson is a strong believer in audio as entertainment, not in the musical sense, but in the sense of the purchaser playing around with equipment and adding his (I use that pronoun deliberately) own touch to the music.
I have no illusions that I can make Tony Rice's guitar sound better than Tony Rice can.
NO, just lower WEIGHTED higher order distortion! Of course, they have some or even a lot of 2'nd or 3'rd harmonic distortion. So what?
I'm still trying to understand what you are saying. Are you saying that solid state amplifiers have distortion components above the threshold of audibility but tube amplifiers don't when reproducing the same input signals at the same levels?
In most cases, yes. In other cases, the actual distortion that the ear detects may not be measured by simple IM or distortion tests. Then Hirata measurements (JAES around 1980), or FM modulation may be what we detect. This test equipment is not commonly available.
Relative levels of distortion components are not meaningful, only absolute levels count. Once they are below the threshhold of audibility, what difference what their distribution is? Do you care which is more toxic and has the higher concentration in your water lead or mercury as long as both of them are far below the allowable safe limits? If a solid state amplifier's fifth harmonic distortion component is three times higher than it's third, what difference does it make if it's only .05% of the total signal? It's still inaudible.
"they are below the threshhold of audibility, what difference what their distribution is?"
Prove the distortion made is below this threshold. According to an earlier discussion with JJ, the thersold, depending on the frequency band, much lower than nearly all amps can achieve. Therefore; the order of the distortion is VERY important."If a solid state amplifier's fifth harmonic distortion component is three times higher than it's third, what difference does it make if it's only .05% of the total signal? It's still inaudible"
Is it really? Why don't you use Keith Howards software to add distortion to cds and see what is audible. I did this with a solo violin track and I added distortion based on measurements I found for 1Khz distortion for a variety of amps. The difference was audible.
http://stereophile.com/reference/406howard/
"Do you care which is more toxic and has the higher concentration in your water lead or mercury as long as both of them are far below the allowable safe limits"
Actually there are no safe limits for mercury or lead, which is why they are constantly revising the minimum exposure limits down down down.
Thanks John. You have designed many great amplifiers, and I appreciate your insights into this issue.The JC1 is very nice solid state amp, among others you have helped to create. How were you able to minimize the adverse affects of solid state in it's design? Many have said it has a tube-like quality.
Also, have you had an opportunity to create tube amp (I would be very interested in listening to it)?
Thanks again,
Lynn
Lynn, I have a number of tube amps around, but the best tube amp that I have drives my STAX headphones directly, without a transformer. It is difficult to get quality tubes that don't cost a fortune for these amps. I'll stick to designing solid state , much like many people gravitate to digital design. I do have a Marantz 10 tuner, that someone gave me. WOW! I have NEVER heard anything better!
Yep OTL is the bomb and electrostatic headphones show why. Still, it is much easier to make a good one to drive headphones than speakers.
I guess that's why you have been designing solid state amps for the last twenty years or so.
ROTFLMAO!
d.b.
Dan, I have been designing power amps for almost 40 years. I first designed the complementary differential input stage, (don't you use it in your amp?) in 1968. I still have the prototype.
If tubes are that much better(acording to you) than why have you not been designing and manufacturing with tubes?
ANSWER THE QUESTION.
d.b.
I didn't say that tube DESIGNS were better than solid state, I said that A TUBE is better than any solid state device in many ways.
I lived with and used tubes in my hi fi system for the first thirty years of my life. I learned the fundamentals of tube design in college classes along with transistor design. Over 40 years ago I used to repair and maintain vacuum tube hi fi amps and preamps, at Berkeley Custom Electronics, (a high end hi fi store) while I finished college. For the first 10 years of my serious commitment to hi fi as an avocation, I used tube amps, preamps, and tuners almost exclusively, while I learned even more about designing solid state amps to compete with tube design. This is when I developed the complementary differential input stage, in 1968, and achieved distortion levels at 1W below .005%. Since I was using a K-horn, I didn't need more than 10W at the time. It had taken me years to make a power amp that sounded better than a stock Dyna mk3 power amp, but I still had a difficult time matching the sound quality of a Radiocraftsman 10W triode power amp. When I measured both amps, I found that they BOTH achieved .005% IM distortion at 1W slowly rising to .1% IM at 10 W, Neither had crossover distortion as I ran my transistor power amp at .5A quiescent current. They BOTH had a damping factor of about 40, and their frequency response both extended to 100KHz.
What could be the audible difference then?
My imagination? I think not. Then, I read the first paper by Matti Otala, in 1970, that promoted high slew rate, and high open loop bandwidth. I found that the slew rate of my l0W power amp was only a few volts/microsecond, because I had tended to overcompensate the dominant pole in order to get maximum stability with any capacitive load without a lead network or an output inductor. I had gone too far, but this did not effect the IM measurements. I modified the compensation to make the power amp a bit faster, and this did help it subjectively.
Now, why do I design solid state, yet give some credit to tubes? I design solid state, because I am good at it, and it allows more combinations of creative topology, BECAUSE it has complementary devices, lower noise, both enhancement and depletion mode devices, which allows more creative freedom (for me) to try different topologies.
Still, tubes give me serious competition, and I know it.
"I didn't say that tube DESIGNS were better than solid state,"Okay
But then you raise another poser.
"I said that A TUBE is better than any solid state device in many ways. "
Why? Your post discusses circuits not the devices.
I design solid state circuits. Solid state devices are generally inherently inferior to tubes. However, solid state topology CAN help to get around solid state device limitations, but not as well as you might think. Solid state is GREAT for digital, and has always been superior for switching circuits. Analog, it takes an expert to make solid state give good tube designs a close race.
I hear you, you say that Solid state devices are generally inherently inferior to tubes.IYO, What inherent inferiority do transistors have in comparison to tubes and how does compared to any widely acknowledged weakness.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Here is a theoretical paper on the differences in amplification devices.They basically reach a similar conclusion to John.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf#search="boyk and sussman"
Thanks, I quibble with the article's treatment of FETs and Triodes, but I will have to look atJonathan B. Scott, S. Roxenborg, and Anthony Edward Parker, "Improved triode model," in 6th Australian Regional Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, World Congress Centre, Melbourne, 10-12 Sep. 1996, vol. B-4 Preprint 4301, pp. 1-9, Audio Engineering Society, Inc., New York.
and
Jonathan B. Scott and Anthony Edward Parker, "A MOSFET model for the simulation of amplifier non-linearity," in 6th Australian Regional Convention of the Audio Engineering Society, World Congress Centre, Melbourne, 10-12 Sep. 1996, vol. B-1 Preprint 4298, pp. 1-11, Audio Engineering Society, Inc., New York
before reaching any conclusions.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Thanks, I will check it out.
I had a tube on my test bench a few weeks ago that, in grounded cathode, 20VRMS out, showed -68dB second HD, and no measurable higher harmonics. with 37dB of gain. This is all before any application of feedback. Show me a transistor or FET that will do that.Since I'm not a creative guy like John, I have to rely on inherently linear devices for voltage amplification.
I hope you didn't actually add any feedback. BTW, have you read this?
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~musiclab/feedback-paper-acrobat.pdf#search="boyk and sussman"
Feedback is not appropriate for device testing!Yes, I read that paper. I wasn't impressed.
Are you technical! Ever heard of transconductance? What about nonlinear input capacitance, nonlinear beta?
Well, in simple terms, they are both transconductance devices, give us your comments technical or otherwise.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
The rate of change of the transconductance with current, or delta Gm/delta I is very different for tubes, fets and bipolar transistors. Bipolar transistors are the worst, as they have a change in Gm that is proportional to current, Fets are second worst as their transconductance changes with the square root of the current, and tubes are the best, because they follow a 3/2 law characteristic that can be partially compensated for by the change in output conductance with current. NOW, do you understand?
From the information I have on hand, the transconductance of a vacuum tube is very similar to that of FET.i.e. For both FETS/Vacuum tubes,
Gm is changes in linear proportion to current change.
Whilst that of BJT, Gm changes with the square root of the current change, which you mistakenly attribute to FETs.
From your discussion, it is not clear why tubes are superior to transistors simply on the basis of the Child-Langmuir law (i.e. 3/2 power law), the transconductance of transistors devices (albeit by different mechanisms for each device), can be compensated for. Or is there any clarification here you want, this is especially true of FETs.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You are NUTS! Go back to class on this stuff.
interesting response, and by so doing you avoid answering the original quesion, nice ploy.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
It was basically his way of saying you are dead wrong. You have a problem with the boyk paper because it says the same thing John just told you. Fets are basically quadratic, tubes (triodes specifically)follow a 3/2 law, and BJTs are strongly nonlinear (e^x or some such exponential function).
Corrections in respect of BJT accepted.John said this
"Bipolar transistors are the worst, as they have a change in Gm that is proportional to current," not
"BJTs are strongly nonlinear (e^x or some such exponential function). "
Yes, I do have a problem about the Triodes and the FETs, the reasons are per the original post you responded.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
"Tubes usually have a better sound than most solid state."We can never agree. You are essentially a subjectivist at heart. You do not have an objecive working defiinition of what an amplifier is supposed to do ideally. You judge by sound alone. At what point do you say the amplifier is doing its job, any problem with the sound lies elsewhere? In your way of looking at the problem of sound reproduction, no such point exists. For you, every problem is a nail because what you do is to hammer at them.
"This is partially due to the lower order distortion generated by the tubes themselves, compared to bipolar transistors"
"I CONSTANTLY measure higher order ODD harmonic distortion in solid state designs, INCLUDING MY OWN, that is virtually absent in vacuum tube designs."
"In other cases, the actual distortion that the ear detects may not be measured by simple IM or distortion tests. Then Hirata measurements (JAES around 1980), or FM modulation may be what we detect."
You rationalize your opinions with guesses. At what levels are non linear distortions inaudible. At what level does it no longer matter what the distribution of distortion components are because they are so low nobody can hear them anyway. By your way of thinking, no such level exists. You postulate distortions you cannot measure or speak about distortions in qualitative terms to justify an endless parade of new designs. When do you passs the point of diminishing returns so far that you reach the point of no return? And when do you start looking elsewhere for a real explanation of why some amplifiers sound different from others, one which correlates exactly with measurements so that their design can be optimized once and for all and we have a yardstick everyone can agree on knowing beforehand based on meeting objective design criteria that one amplifier will outperform another even if we don't like the sound of the result? For you I'm afraid the answer is never. For me that day dawned a long long time ago. I find it pointless to think about gnat's eylashes while there are still problems in sound recording and reproduction the size of elephants flying around.
Yes, and I also postulate what electrons are made of. Have any absolute facts about that?
"Yes, and I also postulate what electrons are made of. Have any absolute facts about that?"No, nobody does. I only have my own theory about them which I am not willing to share at this time.
it was a whole straw army.
and we are not discussing your subjective opinion, but the scientific basis for the performance of these devices. At this point, I know what I like will not cut it.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
You don't like that I pointed out that Soundmind was tossing strawmen like rag dolls? Is that it? No? Must be my comment about John Curl's amps, which if you measure and test, you'd note that "good" hardly does them justice. By what arrogant misreading of a post do you get the idea that I'm proposing something "subjective?" Did you bother to read Soundmind's post to which I replied? Did you just guess that the topic was "the scientific basis for the performance of" John Curl's amps? It wasn't the topic, actually. Where did you read me posting anything like, "I know what I like...?" I lurk here for two reasons, one of which is educational (which diminishes as the ill-humor and personal attacks take the forecourt), the other which is entertainment (which is all about the ill-humor and personal attacks). Not sure if you can see it from your high horse, but your reply is definitely in the "entertainment" category.
whatever you make of my post, your outburst serves to illustrate that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion, the original poster ask for technical justification, not 'I like Amp A'. Or could you point me to something of value that you have added to the thread?
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
most of you wouldn't be allowed.My initial post was about strawmen created to justify suppositions about Mr. Curl's desigm methodology. That you may not agree with my post does not render it valueless.
"Outburst?" You still don't have a clue as to why I wrote any comment at all about John's amps, do you? That was an attempt to get Soundmind to make a disparaging remark about a product that fulfills both his "requirements" for the function of an amp, and measures extremely well. He obliged.
Really, that looks more like an "A" after your moniker rather than a "B," so maybe you should just relax. Soundmind's sense of humor is letting him continue, as he is very comfortable with his position(s) and his knowledge base, and I'm enjoying doing the same with him. Don't read any of my posts if you don't find any "value."
What was the technical value of your intent? None.That was an attempt to get Soundmind to make a disparaging remark
On the other hand I see that you are doing your bit to turn the thread into flame war :( ;-)
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
Have you done a survey of the technical merit of posts in this thread? No? Oh well, I was rather looking forward to the facts.Flame war?? The whole thread is a flame war. That's why it's so entertaining. <8o
"Damn those JC-1s are gooood!"
I use Nagras. Tubes. No negative feedback. Those Nagra guys haven't got a clue what they're doing. But since I'm not a measuring device, it doesn't really matter, does it?
"Those Nagra guys haven't got a clue what they're doing."
If you know of others who are as clueless as the engineers at Nagra, let me know. I'd love to audition whatever they've got....
.
I'm curious Soundmind as you are constantly attacking, criticizing and berating John Curl as a designer, what audio components do you design & manufactuer that are as good or superior to John's?From his JC-1 preamp which he designed for Mark Levinson and I owned and IMHO stomped all other solid state preamps I heard at that time, to the Blow Torch preamp which John had a hand in, but I never heard, John designers wonderful audio components.
Even if John designs his equipment subjectively as you claim, even if John doesn't have a working defiinition of what an amplifier is supposed to do ideally (which I highly doubt) even if 100% of what it appears you fabricate against John is true, what it really comes down to is this...
Does John, design, manufactuer and sell a solidstate component that sells well? Now I readily admit that selling well isn't typically a graet indicator, after all look at all the IPODS being sold. However when one considers the expense involved in purchasing one of John's products, I'd have to believe that the people laying out those amounts of $$$$$ would listen and probably very carefully before buying, wouldn't you?
Now consider that John does indeed sells his products, which means after listening and considering what must be spent to obtain John's product the consumer decides it's the best (in their opinion) for the $$$$ they're spending. They could have bought a Dan Banquer designed product, but they didn't the bought Johns product.
Now look at the resale price (usually a very good indicator of quality) and notice how John's products command a high resale value and THOSE numbers speak about the quality of John's components.
Unless of course you believe that the majority of solid state loving audiophiles are mindless idiots who don't have the foggest idea what real, live unamplified music sounds like?
Very little solid state audio components sound musically correct IMHO. However John's products are one of the few I include in the group of solid state components that do!
I have to admit for all his arrogance here on Prop Head I haven't th foggest idea what Dan Banquer designs and builds or ever designed and built as far as highend audio components are concerned.
John. My hat's off to you. Just keep on, keeping on. Your continued sucess of designing and selling expensive soild state audio components speaks volumes on what you make.
However willingness to admit publically that a product different from your own, i.e. tubed equipment is as good or better than your solid state components is admireable from my POV. It also speaks volumes about your character as a man!
"Very little solid state audio components sound musically correct IMHO"Solid state audio components don't make any sound, neither do tube components. They perform a strictly electrical function. What I asked John Curl to define is what that function ideally is and what criteria he uses to determine if he has met his design goals in fulfilling that function. That is what engineers do, they define design goals and evaluate how well they've met them, they do not evaluate their results by subjective criteria. That may play a role in a marketer's evaluation of sucess or failure but not in an engineer's.
"I'm curious Soundmind as you are constantly attacking, criticizing and berating John Curl as a designer, what audio components do you design & manufactuer that are as good or superior to John's?"
First of all, I did not attack his designs, I questioned the philosophy of his attitude towards the practice of design and engineering and the standards by which to measure it. That is an entirely separate issue. If you must know what I have designed that I have contributed publically so far, it's the concept and circuit which was incorporated (according to me), in the Yamaha DSP1. On the advice of legal counsel, I did not pursue them over it. At this point, it hardly matters anyway, the patent is expired and the idea was never favored much by audiophiles. I have other ideas which don't much interest anyone either.
Soundmind you stated "Solid state audio components don't make any sound, neither do tube components." I would have to say that statement is 100% incorrect in a real-world enviroment.As EVERY audio component is distorting in one way or another, they are adding something to the signal that wasn't there originally. I know you'd probably argue that it's inaudible, but I disagree! Thus to the extent that they add distortion, or if they are interacting with the other component's LCR parameters or for reasons I don't even know are happening, they are adding a characteristic sound that's uniquely their own. So I'd argue that ALL audio components do indeed have a unique "sound".
I believe you're just playing one of the many Objectivist games. In fact the "sound" game is the same one that Dan Banquer also likes to play when he states "One of these days the crackpots are going to realize that there is no real sound of wire..." (See link provided)
However this time you're wrong! EVERY audio component I've ever heard imparted a unique "sound" of it's own on the music. Whether this is due to their own unique way of distoring, or if they are interacting with the other component's LCR parameters or for reasons I don't even know are happening, it's an undeniable fact. While it's true that in a perfect world an amplifier would ONLY amplify the signal it's being feed, the ideal would be straight-wire with gain as they say. However, it's not a perfect world. NO audio component does ONLY what it was designed for. Unfortunately they all vary from perfection and they all do it uniquely, thus all have a unique sound characteristic.
Now as for your comment that you didn't attack John's designs. Again I'd disagree with you. Attack can mean: The word attack is often used to mean criticize or accuse (this usage may have started in newspaper headlines, where "attack" typesets into less text line length than "criticize") Now let's look at these comments of yours as addressed to John:
1) You do not have an objective working definition of what an amplifier is supposed to do ideally. You judge by sound alone. At what point do you say the amplifier is doing its job, any problem with the sound lies elsewhere? In your way of looking at the problem of sound reproduction, no such point exists. For you, every problem is a nail because what you do is to hammer at them. (Here you critic how he designs his components, i.e. "by sound alone" as if you're there and actually know, you also critic John problem solving abilities)
2)To this comment "Damn those JC-1s are gooood!" (YOU replied, You are easy to please.) Sounds like a critic of his product to me!
Finally I asked what you've audio components you've made that's as good or superior to John's designs. To that YOU responded "If you must know what I have designed that I have contributed publically so far, it's the concept and circuit which was incorporated (according to me), in the Yamaha DSP1. On the advice of legal counsel, I did not pursue them over it. At this point, it hardly matters anyway, the patent is expired and the idea was never favored much by audiophiles. I have other ideas which don't much interest anyone either."
I'd say the fact that audiophiles don't favor your ideas and you other ideas which don't much interest anyone either, speaks volumes about your abilities to design and build a marketable audio product to discerning audiophiles. That's something John has been doing since the JC-1 preamp he designed for Mark Levinson so many, many years ago.
PLEASE don't misunderstand me. I believe you're intelligent, but being intelligent or even gifted in one area doesn't mean your intelligent or even gifted in another different area. When you start designing, manufactuering and selling audio components that others start to prefer over John's designs perhaps then you can start attacking/criticing how John designs, solves problems and defines how and what the function ideally is and what criteria John uses to determine if he has met his design goals in fulfilling that function!
Tell then it's all just techno-babble speak on your part, that seems more due to the fact that you believe John is a Subjectivist than for any other real reason.
Thetubeguy1954
"Soundmind you stated "Solid state audio components don't make any sound, neither do tube components." I would have to say that statement is 100% incorrect in a real-world enviroment"If you put your ear up to one, you might hear the transformer humming. That's about as much sound as it makes. It is strictly an electrical device which can only be properly evaluated by its electrical performance. Setting the criteria for that performance is a big part of what elecrical engineering it all about whether non engineers understand that or not.
"As EVERY audio component is distorting in one way or another, they are adding something to the signal that wasn't there originally. I know you'd probably argue that it's inaudible, but I disagree! "
Based on what? That's the issue. Engineers don't guess. They don't hypothesize. They find out what the required performance is, they set standards they must achieve to meet or exceed it, and then they test their products to see if it meets those standards. Period! Anything else is tinkering. You cannot be an engineer and a subjectivist at the same time, it's one or the other. They may argue the pros and cons of different approaches, the relative merits of different types of shortcomings but they don't design without at least some goal in mind and some way to know if they achieved it. And they don't dismiss the success of one effort, even their own because it doesn't compensate for the failure of another, especially when the product of that other effort varies from day to day and person to person. For all Curl knows, he may have built the perfect amplifier and didn't know it because his method of evaluation can't tell him whether he did or not.
"2)To this comment "Damn those JC-1s are gooood!" (YOU replied, You are easy to please.) Sounds like a critic of his product to me!"
What's the matter, don't you have any sense of humor about life?
"I'd say the fact that audiophiles don't favor your ideas and you other ideas which don't much interest anyone either, speaks volumes about your abilities to design and build a marketable audio product to discerning audiophiles."
Not necessarily but we have no way to know that one way or the other for a long time. Many inventions which were groundbreaking generated no interest at first but later became very widely used. FM radio was one. The acoustic suspension loudspeaker was another.
"When you start designing, manufactuering and selling audio components that others start to prefer over John's designs perhaps then you can start attacking/criticing how John designs, solves problems and defines how and what the function ideally is and what criteria John uses to determine if he has met his design goals in fulfilling that function!"
I could just as justifialy say to you that when you become an engineer, you can enter into a discussion about how engineers approach problems and evaluate the results of their efforts regardless of what field they are in but until you do, you are not ready for such a discussion because you don't understand the issues.
"That's the issue. Engineers don't guess. They don't hypothesize"That about sums you up. No intuition, no imagination. Its no wonder you can't hear a difference you are set in stone. Just an old fossil someone will dig up in a million years.
It is also no wonder that you cannot understand the changes around you where creative engineers decided to look back on old technology to see if there was something important there that they had missed before. You know what?? They did find something!! Quite a lot actually.
It is quite often in science that people go back over old theories, some forgotten and discover a new relevance to the theory (Einstein's cosmological constant is a good example). It is insulting that you think a very large group of people are delusional and somehow you are the one who isn't! These are EXPERIENCED listeners who are disagreeing with you. Of course trying to penetrate a lifetime of unimaginative, unintuitive, calcified thoughts seems to be impossible.
I don't think you have listened to modern tube gear with an open ear. Your preconeived notions completely forbid a shift in the paradigm of your thinking. No one here claims perfection. They would be foolish to do so. But your inability to even grant some of the obvious advantages to the sound of top tube gear tells me either you haven't really heard it or you heard it but your brain won't allow you to admit even the obvious.
Of course, engineers guess! You can't know everything in advance, all the time.
See you when the smoke clears.
""2)To this comment "Damn those JC-1s are gooood!" (YOU replied, You are easy to please.) Sounds like a critic of his product to me!"What's the matter, don't you have any sense of humor about life?"
Oh my Gawd your killing me here. Please stop. No, really. Stop!
Tubes: their great for microwave ovens! There are a few other applications but certainly not in audio.
d.b.
A funny quip, but the question remains: is there any objective measurement that would show tubes having an advantage over solid state?I realize that in audio personal preference defines what sounds 'right' for each individual. However, I remain curious as to why for some people tubes sound more 'right' than solid state.
Is it that tubes do a better job masking flaws in the source recording, while solid state being generally more accurate reveal the flaws? Or, is it possible that tubes are more room friendly, not as easily overloading a room with frequency extremes? Or, what else might be a measurable benefit to tubes?
There is no measurement that I know of that definitivly says that tubes are better than solid state. Tubes clip differently, but they can mimic that with solid state also.
Given the software which is available to anyone with a computer, you can make a solid state amp sound like a tube if you so desire. I've heard it done years ago.
Tubes are for people who just love antiques and the status that supposedly goes with them.
d.b.
Hi Dan,I have used software to add a tube-like quality to solid state as well (Ozone does a nice job tweaking bass, compression, sparkle, and other attributes and the old version was specifically designed to mimic tubes). It did work to add a more musical feel to the music.
I wish I could explain better why I like tubes more, but I do know it has nothing to do with prestige or a desire to own an antique.
The best way I can describe my subjective observation is that the tubes sound less sterile and mechanical and the emotional aspects of the music are conveyed more clearer. For jazz at least they seem to have more swing,nuance, and harmonic overtones seem enhanced.
On the other hand I do find solid state seems somehow more transparent and detailed, and dynamics are more crisply defined.
I wish I could have the best of both, and lacking objective measures I sometimes wonder how much of what I am hearing is just a subjective bias.
"It did work to add a more musical feel to the music"
Can you define this any better?'On the other hand I do find solid state seems somehow more transparent and detailed, and dynamics are more crisply defined.
I wish I could have the best of both, and lacking objective measures I sometimes wonder how much of what I am hearing is just a subjective bias.'
Everyone gets to have a subjective bias. Separating fact from subjective bias appears difficult on this forum.
d.b.
That's why I like tubes.
That's why I like solid state.
I thought someone here kept claiming that tubes were dying. I'll bet there weren't 50 such systems at an equivalent show 10-15-20 years ago.Not that you actually heard 50 tube systems this time. Get real. Hyperbole doesn't help make your case, not that anything could.
When a preamp consisting of three 6AT7s which could have been built for about $50 50 years ago sells for $10,000, almost anything with tubes in it is megabucks. At least that's what some people would like to think it's worth. Even $50 seems rather steep for it to me. A little more and I could get a nice Hafler.
Who is using 6AT7s? That is a pretty uncommonly used tube (I will have to check that one out actually to see if it is a real tube). Did you mean 12AT7 perhaps? This one is more commonly used. FWIW, you can get a very nice sounding tube preamp from Transcendent Sound using the 12AT7 for $500 (assuming you know how to solder). This is not 1970 anymore. Back then you could also get a new car for $3000. So what?
Well, not really.
a
The next question is which measurements, which goes beyond your technical grasp, and then there's my formal musical training. Just one thing you ought to know: I listen to my stuff about everyday, I don't get tired of it, and I enjoy it to.
have a nice day;
d.b.
Hey Dan, stating that you listen to your stuff about everyday, & you don't get tired of it, and you enjoy it to, doesn't say much of any worth.Most DIYers would say those exact same words, yet I've only heard 2 DIY designs (both were speakers) that didn't make me want to run from the room. Still if you asked those DIYers they'd say...
Just one thing you ought to know: I listen to my stuff about everyday, I don't get tired of it, and I enjoy it too. < < < F.Y.I that's actually the correct spelling of too as you used it Dan.
Thetubeguy1954
not a subjective one and looking at some John Curl's posts, he based his discussion on the basis of the technical behaviour of tubes not their subjective behaviour. Afterall a vacuum tube is a creation of scientific/engineering endeavour not a art piece even if thought it can be appreciated by consumers (most can only do that anyway!) as such.
Music making the painting, recording it the photograph
What are you the subjective police!?!?! Give it a rest. All your posts are nontechnical complaints about others not being technical or being too subjective. Get a life!
You sure make me laugh! But then it is obvious that your half-baked ideas have zero credibility when objective evaluation is taken into account.Thanks for the suggestion, but I already have one!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: