In Reply to: RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) posted by Garg0yle on August 24, 2015 at 09:49:33:
"Chris you raise a good point about previous audio stages being SS etc.
The main difference, IMO, is that small signals are not nearly as demanding of an application compared to the large signal's requirements to couple to a mechanical device of varying impedance while maintaining fidelity."
Well, that is a possible explanation. On the other hand, by the standards of what solid-state devices handle in other more challenging situations in electronics, the signals involved in a home stereo amplifier are really pretty minuscule, even in the output stage driving the loudspeaker. It does seem a bit of a stretch to suppose that the solid-state devices in the prior stages in the signal path handle things perfectly well, without "bleaching out" the sound, but that suddenly in the final stage (and the only one that happens to be under the control of the audiophile himself), their ability to handle the signal properly breaks down.
It seems to me that a much more economical explanation (in the sense of needing to invoke fewer additional assumptions of questionable plausibility) would simply be that the SET amplifier "removes the bleached out" sound precisely because it adds in colourations that are pleasing to the human ear. It is, after all, typically rich in second-order distortion, which apparently the ear finds attractive.
Chris
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 21:11:08 08/24/15 (18)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 02:44:01 08/25/15 (12)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - gusser 12:08:01 08/25/15 (3)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:33:54 08/25/15 (2)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - gusser 20:43:22 08/25/15 (1)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 01:17:23 08/26/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 06:52:07 08/25/15 (7)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:38:59 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 09:14:18 08/25/15 (5)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 15:47:59 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 09:16:15 08/25/15 (3)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 11:25:29 08/25/15 (2)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 18:03:36 08/25/15 (1)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Mr_Steady 19:04:24 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 22:38:47 08/24/15 (4)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 23:35:48 08/24/15 (3)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - morricab 02:46:03 08/25/15 (0)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - Garg0yle 00:03:18 08/25/15 (1)
- RE: Nobody here ever said tubes don't need break in. (nt) - cpotl 01:11:21 08/25/15 (0)