Amp/Preamp Asylum Looking for a new Amp or Preamp? If you're after tubes, post over here. |
|
In Reply to: RE: Don't you know posted by b.l.zeebub on March 28, 2014 at 02:07:48:
what you don't know is that most gear that is labeled "analytical" or "neutral" or "accurate" is really nothing of the sort. The "neutral" label on an amp is often given to one that doesn't properly express tonal color correctly...everything is a shade of gray. The "analytical" or "accurate" amp is often one that has over emphasized leading edges and high frequencies that results in a skelatal outline of instruments and spaces but lacking the flesh on the bones.
All of these are a form of DISTORTION and it is an insidious one because it steers towards what many consider good hifi "values". It is however distortion and it degrades the sound because it of how it steers the sound away from a natural sound and more towards and artificial or synthetic sound. It is no surprise given that the distortions that cause such colorations are the result of unnatural processes such as negative feedback in electronic circuits...something our brains were not evolved to handle the consequences it imposes on the sound.
CHeever and others have shown that even very low levels of higher order harmonics are audible and thus detrimental to sound quality. These high order harmonics are quite dissonant also have consequences on the perception of loudness...this can destroy proper soundstaging from sonic cues in the recordings.
Now, tube amps suffer from other distortions, mostly transformer saturation distortions. Those seem to affect more bass frequencies, since those are the ones usually saturating the core of the transformer, and have repercussions up through the midrange. This is what is mostly responsible for the classic "tubey" sound. If the tube amp is also using a lot of negative feedback then it can sound both tubey and slow AND glassy and hard (or analytical). THere are many bad sounding tube amps with both of these characteristics
If you look at the really good tube amps, they do not suffer significant distortion from their output transformers, they often use no feedback and as a result sound extremely open and transparent with no "edge" to the sound...very natural. Bass is also well controlled, despite the relatively low damping factors, but with natural tone color. The secret to the great sound of these amps (if not pushed too hard as they are often lowish power) is the Class A operation, which eliminates one of the more insidious and nasty distortions called zero crossing distortion, no feedack so that the distortion pattern is monotonic...i.e. exponentially decreasing with increasing order, excellent transformers so that distortion even at full power is less than 1% etc.
This results in an amp with LESS distortion of the audible kind than most so-called "analytical" or "accurate" amplifiers because our ear/brain is not an oscilloscope. Up to a few percent of 2nd order is inaudible but 0.01% of 9th order is likely audible.
You CAN do similar things with transistors and even eliminate the output transformer from the list of potential issues but it seems to be somehow more difficult or at least less popular to do. Nelson Pass has tackled it with his First Watt series (but all are low power like a tube amp). However you are then really getting the sonic signature of the device itself and triodes, pentodes, Mosfets and bipolar transistors do not sound the same and have distortion harmonic patterns based on their transfer functions (none of which are linear).
Hybrids without feedback can give a melange that is better in many ways to pure tube or transistor and in fact some of the very best I have heard were hybrids (KR Audio, NAT, Blue Circle) AND single ended.
Push pull creates a distortion pattern that is not really consonant with the way we hear, which is effectively single ended in nature.
The best SETs are more consonant with how the human hears so I would say that this is probably closer to the "truth" than a Class AB, push pull, high negative feedback amp could ever dream to be.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Don't you know - morricab 09:08:15 03/28/14 (53)
- RE: Don't you know - Jottow2 17:28:47 04/02/14 (1)
- RE: Don't you know - morricab 07:47:07 04/03/14 (0)
- You'r mostly just rationalizing your preferences - Feanor 12:03:18 03/28/14 (50)
- RE: You'r mostly just rationalizing your preferences - morricab 16:30:34 03/28/14 (49)
- My "good" and "bad" recordings - Feanor 07:21:33 03/29/14 (48)
- RE: My "good" and "bad" recordings - morricab 13:40:46 03/29/14 (45)
- I have read Cheevers & Geddes - Feanor 07:33:00 03/30/14 (44)
- RE: I have read Cheevers & Geddes - morricab 13:20:37 03/30/14 (43)
- At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Feanor 13:36:32 03/30/14 (42)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 14:19:36 03/30/14 (41)
- I have ALREADY defined accuracy ... - Feanor 11:10:24 03/31/14 (1)
- RE: I have ALREADY defined accuracy ... - morricab 15:49:08 03/31/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 07:57:27 03/31/14 (38)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 15:34:24 03/31/14 (37)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - RGA 21:58:29 04/02/14 (28)
- I grant Morricab that he's less pompous than you, RGA - Feanor 08:24:44 04/03/14 (1)
- If you were not an Ostrich you would not find my post pompous. NT - RGA 17:36:32 04/03/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 08:18:25 04/03/14 (25)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - RGA 18:13:45 04/03/14 (2)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 12:52:44 04/04/14 (1)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - RGA 00:53:14 04/05/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Disbeliever 09:12:25 04/03/14 (21)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 04:09:23 04/04/14 (2)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Disbeliever 04:31:57 04/04/14 (1)
- RE:"only Class AB does it for me" - rick_m 13:29:23 04/04/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - RGA 18:28:31 04/03/14 (15)
- Class A to B switching nonsense - Feanor 08:47:40 04/04/14 (10)
- RE: Class A to B switching nonsense - RGA 01:16:01 04/05/14 (0)
- RE: Class A to B switching nonsense - morricab 12:44:06 04/04/14 (8)
- Let's remember the purpose of class A - Feanor 13:36:57 04/04/14 (7)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - morricab 04:07:52 04/05/14 (5)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - rick_m 10:23:09 04/05/14 (1)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - morricab 12:19:22 04/05/14 (0)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - Disbeliever 06:35:49 04/05/14 (2)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - morricab 12:37:50 04/05/14 (1)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - Disbeliever 00:08:53 04/07/14 (0)
- RE: Let's remember the purpose of class A - RGA 01:21:24 04/05/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Braxus 18:49:24 04/03/14 (3)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - RGA 08:30:35 04/04/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 04:13:31 04/04/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Disbeliever 03:58:40 04/04/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 10:11:22 04/03/14 (1)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 05:15:42 04/04/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 21:32:46 03/31/14 (7)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 02:05:04 04/01/14 (3)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 07:16:33 04/01/14 (2)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - morricab 10:33:04 04/01/14 (1)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 11:00:29 04/01/14 (0)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - Braxus 21:53:24 03/31/14 (2)
- RE: At best Cheever defines the euphonic, not the accurate - rick_m 06:35:32 04/01/14 (0)
- There are many reasons they will carry the brand - morricab 02:06:55 04/01/14 (0)
- RE: My "good" and "bad" recordings - morricab 13:33:13 03/29/14 (1)
- On the subject of masking/cloaking - Feanor 07:25:43 03/30/14 (0)