Do you need technical knowledge to consider Tube gear?

[treitz3]

Hello, DACMan.

If they're being honest, then they'll be the first to tell you that they deliberately make their tube equipment sound *different* from their solid state equipment. If it sounded exactly like their solid state equipment then there would be no product differentiator - and so nobody would care which they bought.

I've yet to hear any SS amplifier sound like a tubed amplifier or vice-versa. I don't believe that it's possible. Perhaps a respective 95% but indifferent? Eh, I tend to think that this isn't possible. At least with today's technology.

Tom

 

[DACMan]

Cute little tube amp

On that note, check out the "MiniWatt". (Actually, there is the "original MiniWatt", and the model sold by the folks who apparently used to manufacture it for them but now sell it under their own name). Simply go on eBay and search for "MiniWatt" and you will find both. The one from the original OEM is cheaper (about $230 to the US - with shipping) and supposedly identical.

The MiniWatt is a tiny (about 6" x 6" x 8") STEREO tube single ended integrated amp.
It puts out about 3 watts per channel, has a volume control, and is beautifully constructed.
The output tubes are pentodes (which may or may not be run as triodes - they don't say).
The driver is a nice old 12AX7 dual triode - and both are quite "rollable" if you like.
The build quality is really nice, and it has an internal power supply (a real, detachable, cord - NO wall wart).

It sounds a tiny bit "tubey" - but really quite nice overall
(and tubey goes well when the speakers are three feet from your face).
Amazingly, it can drive small desktop passive (inefficient) speakers quite well,
and louder than you might think for 3 watts a side.....

And it looks really cool sitting on your desk.
And, oh yes, it comes in black or silver, and even a deluxe gold-tone model

---- You got that right Jack!

* By the way, you can buy a very inexpensive and cute little single-ended triode tube amp and have a very happy life. :b ...Go for two Monos to make it Stereo; looks and sounds delightful.
No learning curve here, just fun each day after the next.

But for a new AV Receiver, get ready to read the Internet bible!

P.S. I just discovered this thread (outside my regular hours and exploring the site around),
and it's a fun thread for sure. :b

 

[DACMan]

Hi,

I'm inclined to agree with you on power amps - output transformers are simply too non-linear to NOT make some difference. I rather suspect that modern power amp technology has simply surpassed what's possible with tubes - in terms of accuracy and low distortion (and, face it, nobody is spending the money necessary to actually advance tube technology any more, even if it is possible). Maybe a good new low-voltage high-current tube that could make OTL designs practical would be a game changer, but it isn't going to happen, and would still be less practical than a new and better transistor or FET.)

As for preamps, I've heard claims that there are tube designs that are really close to solid state designs - but I haven't really listened in a while.

To me it's all sort of easy, my goal in a preamp is for it to really be "a straight wire with gain". That means that, when I set the volume control so the gain is "1", I can switch it in and out and hear no (or the least possible) difference; but I CAN turn the volume up and down when I want to.

I've encountered quite a few solid state preamps that meet this requirement (a few of which I've kept). When I listened to tube preamps, I never heard one that didn't color the sound in some way. However, once I found several solid state models that were, for my purposes, "perfect", I stopped looking.

(As far as I can tell, virtually every person who prefers tubes talks about some sort of distinctive sound which, to me, means coloration. At that point I sort of lose interest in the conversation. If someone has two "great" tube preamps, and you can hear the difference between them, then one, or possibly both, MUST be coloring the sound in some way. I come to the same conclusion about "tube rolling"..... doesn't sound like fun to me.)

I see it as pretty simple.... if the goal is "a straight wire with gain", then ANY change is a problem, so either another preamp will sound like the one I already have (like "nothing") or it will sound different - which means worse. Therefore, any tube preamp MIGHT sound as good, can't possibly sound better, and almost certainly will cost more... so why bother. Since I basically define any coloration as undesirable, there's no point in listening to it, or arguing about it.

I have heard differences between even good solid state power amps with certain speakers (I suspect it has to do with damping at low frequencies and possibly inadequate slew rate at high frequencies), but every tube amp I've ever heard was so obviously going in the wrong direction that I stopped listening to them a long time ago.


The one "point" that I'll concede tube equipment is this....

In a live performance, you're probably sitting several feet from the performers, while most modern recordings are very close miked these days. This certainly will result in the recording being brighter, and with more accentuated (and possibly harsher) detail than what you would hear in the audience. The close miked track is probably more accurate to what the instrument itself sounds like, but may not be more accurate to what you would HEAR sitting in the audience. If that's true, then it is indeed possible that the coloration introduced by some tube equipment might change the recorded tracks in such a way that they DO indeed sound closer to what you would hear sitting in the audience.

To me, the problem there is that you are guessing.... the coloration is fixed by the hardware, and you're just hoping that it will improve a particular recording rather than the opposite. I find it safer to NOT introduce coloration, trust the recording engineer to deliver whatever he or she wants me to hear, and try not to screw it up any further with MY equipment.
(Honestly, with rock, pop, or even country music, most venues aren't very good anyway.... I think I'd rather hear an accurate rendition of what each instrument really sounds than an accurate rendition of what I would be hearing if I was there, live, in a not-so-good venue, with a bad PA system, and mediocre engineering... Except on a few rare occasions, I've generally been disappointed by live concerts. Perhaps this would be different if I listened to classical music, in good concert halls.)

Hello, DACMan.

I've yet to hear any SS amplifier sound like a tubed amplifier or vice-versa. I don't believe that it's possible. Perhaps a respective 95% but indifferent? Eh, I tend to think that this isn't possible. At least with today's technology.

Tom

 

[Gregadd]

Another tube attack by a measurement guy. Did you hear that Teresa?

 

[DACMan]

If biasing worries you, then opt for either a fancy design with computerized bias (like the Doge), or a nice simple design with cathode bias (like the majority of older amps used). With cathode bias, the bias is "self determined" by the current flowing through the tubes, so you NEVER have to set it (in fact, you usually CAN'T set it). It doesn't let you do any fancy tube matching, but it's simpler and more reliable.

John, I don't think that you need any great technical knowledge to consider tube gear. If you intend to modify or repair your tube gear then that's a different matter, BUT that applies to ss gear as well. In my system, I use both tube and ss amps and a tube preamp.
The tube preamp is IMO more like what I am trying to re-create of the 'real' than any ss preamp I have ever heard or tried....that cannot be said for the tube amp. The tube amp offers a different 'flavor' to the ss amp; neither better or worse than the other, just different.
When it came to the horrific biasing procedure for the tube amp....well that's why I have a great tech. When it comes to repairs on the ss amp, that's why I'm glad that the factory is still servicing these pieces. ( an important aspect, IMO, is to be fairly certain that the manufacturer you are considering will "likely" be around into the future). As an example of this, I'm not sure that I would consider any Counterpoint piece now that Mike Elliot is no longer servicing these...OTOH, ARC is a VERY safe bet.

 

[microstrip]

Now, I guess that depends on what you mean by "biased".

I tend to run by the old definition of "high fidelity" as "accurate" and the best and most accurate electronic component as being "a straight wire with gain".

I agree that "what sounds best" is a matter of opinion, but "what is most accurate" is not.
Accuracy can be measured, and tested.
My goal is accuracy, and, since that can be measured, that pretty well doesn't allow me much bias about it.....
Alternately, if you prefer, my BIAS is for accurate sound; which, in the case of electronics, means NOT altering the signal in any way except amplitude...
you may have a different bias. (...)

Thanks for making it clear. There are really several approaches to sound reproduction. You choose the simplest one, that is predictable, can be measured and tested as you say.

However, IMHO most people in this forum are looking for something else. Opinions matter and we choose what we find more rewarding in terms of listening pleasure and enjoyment. If by chance accuracy is part of this way we are very pleased with it. However our aim is not accuracy just because we are afraid of divergence or non unanimity. A dangerous route? Perhaps, but most of the time very rewarding for those who want to risk into it.

 

[NorthStar]

-- Hi Keith,

First I must say that I am truly impressed by all the time and dedication you show here; Chapeau!
I don't know many people who take the time to do what you do, and it's a rare quality that I truly appreciate.

BTW, I cannot access the link in your sig.

Cheers,
Bob

 

[NorthStar]

Another tube attack by a measurement guy. Did you hear that Teresa?

---- Greg, who is Teresa?

 

[Gregadd]

---- Greg, who is Teresa?

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/subjectivist.htm

 

[Gregadd]

The more I read about tubes and it's gear the more I'm starting to believe that you need to have some sort of technical knowledge. As you all know, I have NONE o). For someone like me, and many other non-technophiles, would considering tube gear be a mistake without first learning about it? Or would it be ok to just take the plunge and learn as you go?



FYI - This is just a general question as I'm not considering any changes. I'm only trying to pick the brains of all the tube fans here.

All you need is a love of music

 

[microstrip]

Just thought I would remind that "we" is pretty much an encompassing word Micro! (...)

Surely. My we only addressed the most of us in WBF. Should we make a poll asking our members if they would love to own an amplifier that it is just an wire with gain and are prepared to accept all the consequences of this choice?

 

[NorthStar]

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/subjectivist.htm

---- Thx Greg, da was an excellent read.

All you need is a love of music

---- ...And SS, or Tube, or Digital, or Analog, ... has truly nothing to do with that love, but only the music. :b

 

[Johnny Vinyl]

All you need is a love of music

And THAT I unquestionably have!

 

[DACMan]

A poll would be interesting.... and amazingly relevant to this thread.

The simple fact is that, IF THAT IS YOUR GOAL, then tube amps are pretty much out of the running.

And, conversely, if you start from the assumption that you do want your equipment to alter the sound, then we're pretty close to "back to square one"; because it is pretty easy to define "zero distortion", and there is one discrete point there as a goal, but when you talk about deliberately changing things, there are an almost infinite number of possible goals and paths. (It's sort of like wall coloring. "White" is defined; you can measure it, and you can measure how close you are to it. You can still argue that, since nothing is pure white, you have a choice of which miniscule error to prefer, but the goal itself is clear. In contrast, "my favorite color" is and must remain a matter of opinion, which makes measuring how close something is to "my favorite color" always a personal experience, and one where, no matter how many measurements you take, there is never likely to be an agreement between two of us.)

You are asking a good question Micro. I would glady like an amplifier, a wire with gain, that is no distortion and the ability to drive any load requiring a voltage source, to deafening levels.

Run your poll....lets find out

 

[DACMan]

Thanks very much.
It's a pleasure to find a place where people pay attention

As for the link - that seems to have something to do with the way the forum software interacts with the browser.
It is "passing" the color and font information along with the link, which confuses the browser.
If you actually type it in, or copy just the text, it works, but if you click on it in Firefox, it picks up the HTML stuff and then doesn't work.
That may be a Firefox issue - or not. (I changed it a bit, but the extra tagging stuff still seems to stay with it.)
It works fine if you just type it, though.

-- Hi Keith,

First I must say that I am truly impressed by all the time and dedication you show here; Chapeau!
I don't know many people who take the time to do what you do, and it's a rare quality that I truly appreciate.

BTW, I cannot access the link in your sig.

Cheers,
Bob

 

[DACMan]

I have several "problems" with subjectivism.... some philosophical and some brutally practical.

1) Objectivism is quantifiable. If you and I agree that we want "a straight wire with gain", then we can compare notes and measurements. If instead, we both subjectively "want what sounds good to us", then we don't have much to talk about because we have no common point of reference. At most we can try to find a reviewer who likes the same things we like, and listen to him.

2) On a personal philosophical note, I have already made MY decision, and it is "objectively subjective". In other words, WHAT I WANT is for my audio system to give me EXACTLY what's in the recording. Accepting that there are infinite possibilities for things to be decided and modified, my choice is that I want to hear EXACTLY what's on the recording, and I will then decide whether I want to listen to that recording or not accordingly. My ideal amplifier HAS no tonality, which lets me choose my music solely on the tonality IT has. That simplifies my choices because I have a concrete goal, and, back to my first point above, I can then discuss my goal and how closely I am approaching it with like-minded people. And, since my stereo system is now "out of the picture", I can concentrate on choosing music I like. (Likewise, when I print color pictures, I can buy a "high-CRI" bulb to view them under, because I know the CRI number will describe how objectively close it is to white. And I can calibrate my printer and screen so they are objectively neutral. And I can rationally discuss the tint of a certain print - or printer - with other people who use high-CRI very white lights to view them. This is much simpler than endlessly looking for "a bulb that looks nice" and trying to figure out how mine compares to theirs.)

3) Especially when inexperienced people are involved, subjectivism leads to extreme unhappiness and loss of income.
(And, yes, I'm targeting tube equipment here , but it happens with solid state equipment and notably things like cables as well. )
If you have no standard yardstick to measure with, then how do you tell a bargain from a ripoff? If you, personally, happen to think that a $10 table radio sounds good, then we don't have a problem. If some scam artist gets you ta pay him $5000 for something that SOUNDS like a $10 table radio, then "harm has attached" - you got cheated.

4) I also have an especial problem with what I call "subjective objectivism".....
To wit... If you REALLY want to focus on the music, then you WOULD do as I do - and try to find "a straight wire with gain" that didn't alter the sound of the music - so you could hear it as it really is recorded. Picking equipment that "sounds good" rather than equipment that is accurate is NOT "concentrating on the music". It is, instead, becoming part of the production process by choosing equipment that CHANGES the way the music sounds to suit the way YOU like it. It is hypocritical to say "all you really care about is the music", then make a hobby of finding equipment that CHANGES the way the music sounds..... think about it. (Again, I'm not picking on anybody or suggesting that doing so is bad, just that you should be honest about your intentions.)

I'm not going to claim an overwhelming love of music, but I do want to hear what my recordings actually sound like - which means that I need accurate equipment (that "straight wire with gain"). I'm willing to trust the engineer and the musicians enough to do my best to listen to it the way they intended; and, if I don't like it that way, then I'll find something else to listen to. [If, for example, THEY wanted it to have "that classic tube sound", then THEY would have included some tube equipment in the production chain. If not, then who am I to second guess their judgment or intent?]

==================
On to tubes.....

As I said elsewhere, I am in the interesting position of knowing quite a lot about designing tube equipment, but simply not being especially fond of the way it sounds or the "value proposition" it represents. I'm sure that the following statement will offend a few people.... so I"ll just go ahead and get that part out of the way.... "Live with it, or go to engineering school and learn enough so that you can REALLY judge whether I'm right or not, before arguing with it. Although, in the modern world, good luck finding an engineering school that covers tubes anymore Stop believing everything you read, or everything that some company who is hoping to get you to buy some overpriced piece of tube equipment tells you. Unless you actually know how to design tube equipment, then you have no basis for judging which parts of the propaganda are true and which ones aren't."

The fact is that much of modern tube equipment is simply badly designed, and it sounds bad (sometimes the two are related, and sometimes coincidental). Beyond that, a lot more of it is reasonably well designed, but specifically designed to sound different from solid state equipment. (You may like it or not, but PLEASE don't fall into the trap of assuming that it sounds anything other than different.) If you don't believe me, find someone who designs tube equipment, and become their FRIEND (convince them you aren't going to buy anything), and they just might admit it to you

If you REALLY want an amplifier that makes 10% THD at 10 watts (because you actually like that distortion), you can get one for $50; you don't need to spend $5000 for one. There is this whole (very expensive) "culture of mysticism" going on with tubes lately. It just appalls me that there are companies out there charging thousands of dollars for amplifiers that are the same (and sound the same) as the amplifiers you would have found in a medium-priced department store console sixty years ago - before the designers moved on to better designs.

Since I'm picking on tubes.....

Single ended triode amps have HUGE drawbacks - and, beyond the mysticism, no technical benefits.
They have limited power and, especially if you limit feedback, they usually have painfully high levels of distortion.
(To sort-of quote a designer "Even if SET triodes really had some sort of magical sound, how could you possibly hear it over 10% THD?")
Any single ended amplifier runs current one way through the output transformer.
They are also required to run Class A (if it isn't obvious why, you need to take some classes).
This means that the transformer saturates way sooner, so an equivalent transformer will make 2 to 5 times more power,
at MUCH lower distortion and noise, when used in a push-pull design instead of single ended (it will run cooler and last longer too).
(Or, alternately, you need to spend about ten times as much on a transformer to get the same performance in SET as
you would have needed in push-pull.)
Because the power-supply noise mostly cancels out in push-pull, a SET amp needs a MUCH larger and more expensive
power supply to match the performance of an equivalent push-pull design.
These are the main reasons why push-pull amplifiers replaced SETs a long time ago.

[It IS true that the distortion produced by a SET amplifier will be mostly "benign" second harmonic distortion, but the relationship there has been skewed as well. An equivalent push-pull amplifier will make LESS "nasty" third harmonic distortion than an equivalent SET amplifier. If you don't notice it with the SET amp, the reason will be that it is buried under a huge amount of second harmonic distortion - which the push-pull amp doesn't make.]

Please, remember, I have no argument with someone who WANTS that distortion.
That is your subjective choice.

My concern is for the poor guy who buys an expensive tube amp based on false claims and bogus expectations.

I would suggest that, if someone WANTS a good tube amp, they should consider a nice used (refurbished) MacIntosh - they probably had the best transformers EVER (their unity coupled design is actually somewhat unique and has actual benefits). The old Eicos are pretty good as well. Both will probably need a rebuild since the electrolytic capacitors go bad. Otherwise, read a lot of reviews and avoid cheap and unknown brands. Transformers, in order to work well, should be rather heavy. Don't trust a 300 watt tube amp that weighs less than about 60 pounds. Tube amps are pretty simple to design, but they can be designed badly - and the result will be crummy sound, high distortion, and very short tube life. Not all tube amps are even good, let alone very good - even by tube amp standards.

If anyone REALLY wants tips about what to look for in a good tube design, PM me and I'll post it somewhere (good design hasn't changed).
(But don't ask me about specific modern brands; I only know a few because I haven't bothered to keep up.)

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue62/subjectivist.htm

 

[microstrip]

A poll would be interesting.... and amazingly relevant to this thread.

The simple fact is that, IF THAT IS YOUR GOAL, then tube amps are pretty much out of the running.

And, conversely, if you start from the assumption that you do want your equipment to alter the sound, then we're pretty close to "back to square one"; because it is pretty easy to define "zero distortion", and there is one discrete point there as a goal, but when you talk about deliberately changing things, there are an almost infinite number of possible goals and paths. (It's sort of like wall coloring. "White" is defined; you can measure it, and you can measure how close you are to it. You can still argue that, since nothing is pure white, you have a choice of which miniscule error to prefer, but the goal itself is clear. In contrast, "my favorite color" is and must remain a matter of opinion, which makes measuring how close something is to "my favorite color" always a personal experience, and one where, no matter how many measurements you take, there is never likely to be an agreement between two of us.)

Keith,

I understand your point, but just because the process of selecting what is good is more difficult if you accept that the equipment can change the sound does not validate the "zero distortion" approach. I congratulate those who really believe in the "zero distortion" theory and behave accordingly. But an honest poll will find that most people want to have a feet in each side, or even worse, claim that the "zero distortion" is the way to go and have a system that modifies the signal for their listening.

 

[mep]

On to tubes.....
The fact is that much of modern tube equipment is simply badly designed, and it sounds bad (sometimes the two are related, and sometimes coincidental).

(But don't ask me about specific modern brands; I only know a few because I haven't bothered to keep up.)

I’m having a hard time reconciling the above two statements. You say that *much* of modern tube equipment is badly designed and it sounds bad, and yet you say don’t ask you about specific *modern* brands because you haven’t bothered to keep up. Since you admittedly know next to nothing about how modern tube amps are designed, built, and sound, how could you possibly make the statement that much of modern tube equipment is badly designed and it sounds bad? You shouldn’t have said that because you are obviously clueless due to lack of experience with modern tube amps. I can assure you that modern tube amps of high quality don’t sound like old tube amps. I find it best not to talk about things in a lecturing/patronizing know-it-all sort of way when you lack the fundamental experience to have an informed opinion.

 

[microstrip]

(...) My concern is for the poor guy who buys an expensive tube amp based on false claims and bogus expectations. (...)

Thanks. But I find that I should remember that if he is reading WBF he can have the advise and experience of all our experts in tube equipment - better than reading hundreds reviews. Or, my usual advice - find a good dealer in which you can trust, someone you can expect to be in business for a long time and will support you.

 

[jazdoc]

My concern is for the poor guy who buys an expensive tube amp based on false claims and bogus expectations.

Thank goodness that never happens with solid state gear