 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.210.117.207
In Reply to: RE: Wavelength Crimson posted by Dynaudio_Rules on May 24, 2010 at 05:03:30
Yeah. Apologies to Wavelength, but I don't really care about the DAC. While I can appreciate the way tubes enhance sound, I don't personally want deliberate enhancement in a digital to analog converter, or any source component. But that's subjective. The statement that tubes continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made is not subjective. It's a statement that begs for verification of some kind. Especially given that even the most expensive tube amps seem to measure at much higher rates of distortion than a sub-$300 Yamaha receiver. I'm not saying the Yamaha sounds better, mind you. That's between you and your ears and what's between your ears. I'm just curious about where that evidently objective observation of distortion characteristics came from.
P
Follow Ups:
Aren't you forgetting the qualifiers? IF you don't use feedback and IF you insist on minimizing active devices THEN tubes are the best choice.
Truth be told, tubes aren't bad and as Gordon has noted it's the transformers that are the rub. At any power level good ones are expensive. That's one of the breakthroughs of transistors (besides reliability, cost, efficiency, safety and ruggedness), you can get good bass in inexpensive products.
At the device level tubes are lower gain and more linear than transistors as they aren't operating in the quantum region and their grids have better isolation than a FET gate. To give the English their due, 'valves' is a pretty apt name for them while solid state devices are more 'switches'.
Does any of that predict product performance? No. About all you can say for sure is that the tube itself will more likely survive an EMP.
Forget stereos, let's argue transportation: I claim that horses are better than cars if you can't buy gasoline.
Rick
Forget stereos, let's argue transportation: I claim that horses are better than cars if you can't buy gasoline.
....what comes out is recyclable. :--)
Good informative post as always, Rick.
No, I'm not forgetting the qualifiers, none of those qualifiers were included in the post that I originally responded to, which was about distortion, not "better," which is purely subjective. if we stay on the subject at hand, your statement is wrong as well...
"IF you don't use feedback and IF you insist on minimizing active devices THEN tubes are the best choice."
Take the obvious subjectivity out of that statement. Change "tubes are the best choice" to "tube designs have the lowest distortion." Now back that one up.
I'm just looking for a bit of intellectual honesty here. Subjectivism is fine. It's really what it all comes down to in the end and it doesn't matter a bit if your tube amp has .05% harmonic distortion at 1 watt and a cheap solid state AV receiver has .003% harmonic distortion at 1 watt. Why the insistence on insisting that it's objectively "better?" If you like it better, that's all that matters.
p
PP,
Rick's was pretty much right on with what he said.
Now granted if you are listening to something that has 0.05% or 0.003% distortion, you may never hear the difference.
But feedback kills... this is why Solid State designers like Charlie Hansen and others that do not use feedback in their designs. Not only does it kill the staging it kills the life out of the music.
Ok now what is the down side of SS non feedback designs. Well there are freaken a ton of components, well compared to like one tube.
Remember with each stage of amplification something is lost. With a SS design like that you maybe talking between 12 and 40 separate transistors.
We don't need a bunch of gain here... most dac chips put out the correct 2Vac RMS... so what we really need is a good buffer. Well not more than one stage or a single triode is required for that.
Really I think your next step should be to try and hear the difference between a good SS DAC with feedback (opamp or discrete based) and a SS dac without feedback like the Ayre and then a tube dac.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
I've read the theory, Gordon. But I keep hearing these solid state A/B amps that sound great. And these guys keep telling me to trust my ears...
P
To give the English their due . . .
Rick, I think you'll find that's British - as in "give the British their due".
To be fair, the inventor of the thermionic valve (1904) was of course an Englishman born and bred, J A Fleming (he of the handy rules of good administration - never let your right hand know what your left one is doing).
As it happens, he was both a student and later a highly distinguished professor at the university I went to many years later. His contribution is recorded IIRC by an august portrait in an austere lecture hall somewhere or other. (It's been a while - it could have been an austere portrait in an august hall.)
They never asked me for my picture.
. . . the tube itself will more likely survive an EMP.
I'm sure you know that old story of the captured Soviet fighter plane amusing the USAF engineers who were pulling it apart on account of its seemingly ancient valve-based radio equipment. It took them a while to cotton on.
Soviet knowledge of the effects of EMP on communications kit owed much to the habit of testing nuclear devices in remote but populated (and thus electrified) areas of Kazakhstan, a practice whose grim consequences are still unravelling and look set to do so for a while yet.
Did I mention "British"?
Dave
"I think you'll find that's British - as in "give the British their due"."
That figures, after typing it I actually looked at that and thought 'maybe it should be British, but I figured it wasn't worth checking! I see I was wrong.
Sorry to say but I don't know the difference...
Rick
Sorry to say but I don't know the difference...
In the scheme of things, it really doesn't matter but the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (UK) comprises four nations (or, in the case of Ireland, parts thereof) of which England is the largest. The world over, people refer to England when they mean Britain and "the English" when they mean "the British". Why, I don't know but even some of those who refer to "the Brits" will talk of "the English" in the next sentence!
Some in the minority nations take great offence at this though most of us couldn't care less. However, we hate to miss the chance of a gripe - who doesn't? Rest assured, I wasn't being serious.
Tubes: Even order harmonics, acceptable to the ear/brain even upto 5%.
SS : Odd order harmonics, unacceptable even in the 0.5% range.
.
Understood. And not the point.
p
Given the respones to your comments, I get the impression that you are arguing with yourself. The fact is, there are many fine tube preamps/amps made today that are state-of-the art products.Audio Research, Lamm, BAT, VAT, McIntosh, conrad-johnson make some great sounding stuff. I would love to own the new Audio Research Anniversary preamp.
We all understand that you don't agree with the statement that "seventy years later, vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made" Fine, good, great, that you don't agree. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that.
All this tells me is that you don't own or get to listen to fine tube equipment.
That's your loss.
All I was trying to do with the original post was to point out that the soundstage of the Crimson was probably largely influenced by its output tubes.
I'm also willing to bet that the bass on my system with the tube DAC is deeper, better defined, and more impactful than yours. I have tried the Weiss DAC2, Berkeley Alpha, and Metric Halo ULM-8 on my system and the Wavelength more than holds its own with these DACs.
Edits: 05/26/10 05/26/10 05/26/10 05/26/10
Merc, I've heard tube equipment, I've owned tube equipment and I've enjoyed tube equipment. And you continue to miss the point entirely...
"We all understand that you don't agree with the statement that "seventy years later, vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made"
...is not a statement that left any room for disagreement, because it is not stated as an opinion, but as a fact. These kinds of opinions are flatly stated as fact on audiophile boards every day. Im not sure why I couldn't let this one pass. Perhaps it's because it is a full 180 degrees off the mark. Perhaps it was just my mood when I first read it. We could go on to talk about how your DAC really can't have a sound stage, but I think we've beat this horse hard enough.
P
Good enough. As long as I'm happy in my delusional world, why complain.
" As long as I'm happy in my delusional world, why complain. "
I KNEW IT!!!!
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
You're not delusional, man, you have an opinion. You have tastes. It is what it is - neither delusion or "truth."
P
A wise yet delusional man once said.... "After all, this is all for fun. "
Sometimes we forget that....
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
"After all, this is all for fun. "
I guess this is your new mantra for nothing really matters. Why bother discussing this stuff at all?
I respect other folk's opinions, but will not embrace these opinions when my listening experience with the actual equipment in discussion tells me otherwise.
I thought that a good number of inmates brought many interesting comments to the discussion. Simply being negative contributes nothing.
Now go have some fun.
Well it is kind of a good Mantra. But discussions are valid EVEN IF it really doesn't matter as much as we make it seem.
I guess this is your new mantra for nothing really matters. Why bother discussing this stuff at all?
You have a point there....but kinda off base. We discuss to exchange ideas [valid or not] and disclose new information. Take from it what you can use and leave the rest. Personally I don't discuss audio to sway people over to my thinking or to gain approval, so I really could care less if my opinion is not validated -or- even if my choice of components are not validated.
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
Believe me DR, no one here has ever been swayed to my choice of components. I think you take me wrong on all of this. I'm really not upset.
Now I'm going to have some fun as I have the next 5 days off for good music.
Point well-taken.
P
PP,In the same way that tubes effect the sound of a dac, so does SS devices. Most SS units have poor engineers that use op-amps in the design which have extensive feedback.
As John Swenson pointed out this is not really a good thing and can diminish the sound.
But that aside the 100 or so transistors in each opamp and there are at least two stages of that for any SS dac means the sound has been altered a lot more than you think.
My basic preface for design is not tubes! My preface is to design with the least number of active components. I feel with each active component more of the real meat of the sound is lost. It just so happens as John also pointed out that Tubes makes my preface a little easier to accomplish. I can do with a single tube or single section of tube can do that even great discrete designer would take a dozen or so active SS devices.
Sure they cost more... I am getting hand made, designed for concept made in the great city of Philadelphia the transformers of choice for my products.
A 100 transistor opamp is going to cost less than a $1. You are not going to be able to get anything for $1 in magnetics.
Thanks
Gordon
J. Gordon Rankin
Edits: 05/25/10
I think the article is referring to the active device by itself without using feedback.
There are some tubes that have very low distortion if you use them in the proper range (voltage, current). Power amps generally try and get the maximum output power they can for a given tube which take them out of that range so they don't have as low a distortion as they could if run a bit less maxed out.
Its definitely possible to build a tube amp with very low distortion without using any feedback. If you try and do the same thing with solid state devices the distortion will be higher. The best feedbackless SS designs are actually pretty good, but not quite as good as the best feedbackless tube designs.
The same thing holds true for line level signals. The best feedbackless SS designs are not as low distortion as the best feedbackless tube designs.
I was very careful to distinguish designs with feedback from designs without feedback. There are some other articles that go into what happens when you add feedback. It decreases the low order distortion but increases high order distortions. This looks good on total distortion numbers, but may not sound the best. This is another of those infamous tradeoffs in audio electronics. There are a group of people that do not like the distortions that feedback causes and are willing to put up with a little more low order distortion in order to get rid of it. For these people tubes generally give the best results, you CAN get low amounts of low order distortion without the high order distortion from feedback.
John S.
Maybe these particular tubes are the lowest -amongst- other types of tubes. Because we all know, by their very nature Tubes = Distortion....which is why people like them.
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
Well, I'm not sure we all know that, I think many of us have a very highly developed ability to believe that out colorations of choice are objectively superior. And while some tubes have very low distortion compared to others, I'm unaware of any tube-amplified audio device that exhibits lower distortion than competently designed solid state. And I mean that exactly the way it sounds. Common midfi off the shelf has lower distortion than high-end audiophile tube equipment. That doesn't mean you can't like the tube stuff better, of course. That is a matter of taste. And maybe that's what Merc meant to communicate.
P
" That is a matter of taste. And maybe that's what Merc meant to communicate.
"
Yeah I think so....Merc seems to have pretty good taste, well sorta.
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
Given that I have a solid state preamp/amp, I guess I don't embrace everything that the author discussed.
Are the 71a tubes colored? Well, every component has a signature sound. I guess that's where the "good taste" comes in. I just think that the 71A tubes contribute positively to the Crimson. It's a tough discussion if you guys don't have a Crimson to listen to on your system.
By the way, DR is just jealous of my dog.
It is tough to discuss what we think of the Crimson without one to listen to. It is very easy, however, to determine that "vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made," is a inaccurate statement. Actually, pretty much the opposite is true.
P
Given the range that the 71a tube is run in Gordon's design, I think it measures favorably when compared to solid state DACs. But John Swenson's response in this thread moved beyond opinion.
It did, but John's response was mostly theoretical. Actual tube amps, even high watt triode designs with zero feedback, typically have higher distortion than entry level midfi of decent quality. That doesn't mean the stuff doesn't sound good. But what John said is that tube designs can be "low distortion," not that tubes are the lowest distortion amplifying devices ever made. And sorry to pick at semantics, but I just don't think the dialogue is well-served by blurring the lines between subjective tastes and objective results.
P
What do you consider theoretical? I have a tube amp that I designed and built that runs at 25 watts per channel with zero feedback that runs at .03% distortion at 1watt and gets up to about .08% at 25 watts. Those are real measured numbers not theoretical. Try doing that with solid state devices without feedback.
The tube preamp I'm using has less than .01% distortion at full output, again actual measured results, not theoretical. Its probably less than .01% but its getting hard to measure down there, and I'm not really interested in spending the effort to improve the test setup to tell if its really .005 or .008.
The best zero feedback solid state preamp I can come up with is about .04%, which is still pretty decent, but not as good as the tube design.
I agree its true that most tube designs used today are fairly high distortion but tubes don't HAVE to be used that way. Careful selection of tube and operating point CAN result in very low distortion designs.
There is an article out on the net somewhere (it might take a while to hunt it down), where someone actually built a preamp circuit with something like 30 different tubes and optimized each for the lowest possible distortion and did the same for various solid state designs, again all zero feedback designs. Many of the tube designes handily beat the best SS designs. Some tubes were not that great, but others really were very good.
John S.
"What do you consider theoretical?"
-- More subjective than theoretical -- the implication that zero feedback tube designs are lower distortion, more accurate reproducers than well-implemented solid state designs that employ feedback. And again, you may believe that, you are certainly welcome to that opinion, but there are many legitimate sources who disagree and, FWIW, the available data is on their side, so it is just that -- your opinion.
P
It's quite practical. If you have an amplifier that has second order harmonic distortion and no higher order harmonic distortion and you apply feedback you will reduce the second order distortion component. However, you will now get higher order distortion. This is completely objective and practical and can be seen on a spectrum analyzer. It also conforms with theory. When it comes to preference that's another matter, perhaps, since there is no mathematical way to define "preference" when comparing different types of distortion. (Note that this is a different question from preference involving euphonic distortion where some listeners prefer increased amounts of second harmonic distortion.)
BTW, I don't mess with tubes. I want my equipment to be stable and repeatable for years at a time. I've had my share of tube rolling and gave it up over 20 years ago.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"...many legitimate sources who disagree and, FWIW, the available data is on their side, so it is just that -- your opinion."That you declare the sources legitimate is ALSO JUST AN OPINION, and that they may have some 'data' supporting their opinion (does not mean that all data supports their opinion) that you declare is "on their side" still only makes it AN OPINION. :)
In the absence of unequivocal data that we all can agree on, it's all just opinions, so what's your point?
"I think it's best if we don't couch our subjective opinions in false objective language."You suggested a couple of times that you don't like the use of objective language mixed up with subjective opinions.
John has provided objective test results that back up his statement. Are these not considered objective (or legitimate) by you?
clay
Edits: 05/25/10 05/25/10
It might settle the matter if you had more detailed numbers, e.g. the distortion percentages for various orders of harmonic distortion. Did you measure and record these?
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
For a different point of view to the general drift here, see link (which is offered in the same spirit as Steve's original post - flame-throwers away please).
Stan Curtis has been a respected figure on the UK HiFi scene for decades.
BTW, I'd always believed that the fact that tubes (valves) are inherently more linear than transistors was so well known as not to merit comment - much as few dispute that resistors resist and capacitors cap.
How they perform in a circuit is a different matter, of course, but I cannot see why the original remark "vacuum tubes . . . continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made" is in any way controversial unless datasheets are to be considered "subjective opinions".
Is a confirmed sand wallah like me wrong here?
.
Tony Lauck
"Diversity is the law of nature; no two entities in this universe are uniform." - P.R. Sarkar
"Seventy years later, vacuum tubes, and especially triodes, continue to be the lowest distortion amplifying elements ever made."
Sure this is only some guy's opinion. I agree with you on this.
But I live for the subjective experience. I can't tell you how many supposedly great amps I have purchased (measured great in a magazine) that sounded like crap in the long term.
Not to be pedantic, Merc, but while we agree that it is a guy's subjective opinion, it is improperly stated. The subjective opinion, hidden in this seemingly objective, but unsupported statement, is that you like the sound better. I can like a Bentley better than a Bugatti. But if, in my admiration and enthusiasm for the Bentley, I said it was faster than the Bugatti, that wouldn't be my subjective opinion. That would simply be wrong.
P
I think the point John Swenson makes is that lower measured distortion in SS designs gained by applying feedback does a disservice to the actual sound, despite that it might measure 'better'.
the question P is this - when you claim that a midfi piece of gear has lower distortion, are you talking about (and measuring) the inherent distortion of the output devices themselves, or the lower measured (but higher order, and therefore more annoying sonically) distortion of the overall design? I think it's the latter. The point under discussion, as I understand it, is (related to) the former. apples and oranges as they say.
YMMV,
clay
"I think the point John Swenson makes is that lower measured distortion in SS designs gained by applying feedback does a disservice to the actual sound, despite that it might measure 'better'."
-- Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that once you're talking about "a disservice to the actual sound," or anything similar, you are back into subjective, theoretical territory, and statements like "lowest distortion" no longer belong in the conversation. You want a subjectivist dialogue? Good. A subjective evaluation is the only thing that matters to you? Even better. But if that is the case there is no reason to fortify your point of view with terms -- distortion, dynamic range, transparency, etc. -- that imply objective measures. What you hear and why you prefer it, in strictly descriptive terms, should be enough. To put in such terms, good solid state, particularly in an excellent active implementation has, to my ear, far greater clarity, speed and precision than any tube rig I've ever heard. And YMMV as well.
P
N/T
And once again, Carcass adds nothing to a reasonable discussion but the live up to the last syllable of his handle.
P
"-- Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that once you're talking about "a disservice to the actual sound," or anything similar, you are back into subjective, theoretical territory, and statements like "lowest distortion" no longer belong in the conversation."
Of course it's subjective, otherwise how can we know/agree that it sounds like 'real music'?
sounds like you're saying that as long as the distortion is measured to be lower it has to sound more like the input, irrespective of the impacts on the actual sound of the different types of distortion generated by different types of output devices?
If so, we don't have a basis for further discussion. You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO.
clay
I think people need to let that sentence sink in.....
Indeed to some people Measurements is what sound is all about, they listen with their eyes as they view measurements.
Other people listen with their eyes in terms of how equipment looks, the more lavish it looks the better it sounds.
Still others let price dictate what sounds best...if it costs a lot then it must sound better than less expensive gear.
Sad to say, the ears have little say when it comes to sound....:-(
Music Is The Bridge Between Heaven & Earth
No, the numbers could be coincidental, for all I know. What I'm saying is that I don't hear what the tube lovers do. I've heard some very good tube equipment. But the best solid state, in my opinion, is faster, clearer, more controlled and precise, has greater dynamic range and, to my ears, a much more realistic presence, particularly in the trebles, though bass control is almost always better as well, and while an excellent valve midrange has its charms, good solid state systems always have an openness that sounds less like hifi and more like live music to me. MHO, YMMV, etc. In all fairness, I haven't heard a fully active tube system.Of course there still may not be further basis for discussion. We may just have to agree to disagree. But as long as there is more than one point of view to be taken, I think it's best if we don't couch our subjective opinions in false objective language.
P
Edits: 05/25/10
"You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO."
How true!
You can't just measure your way to achieving great sound, IMHO.
Nor, indeed, in the HO of pretty well every good amplifier designer - but what do they know?
The illusion that a restricted range of parameters that only partially and inadequately describe the complex behaviour of a electrical circuit nevertheless provides adequate insight into (a one-to-one index of) the even more arcane complexities of perception is as hard to disabuse as it is banal.
It would be, if anyone here were making that argument.
P
