Hi
Struggled mightily not to get in this debate... have to
I find many of these views too absolutist to not interject. I do find more and more things to like about SS (same with digital
) ... having for more than 30 years been in the Tube camp and having moved about 15 years ago to the SS I fail to see what the better SS are lacking. Things have converged to the point where the best SS get the best of both worlds: Burmester, Spectral, Gryphon, Pass, DartZeel, Soulution, Balaboo, Lamm, Boulder, Bryston, Ayre bring a lot on the table and take no back seat to what tubes do. There are perhaps brands that I have heard but forget in this list BTW. Things to me are at point where SS is as good and present mostly advantages when compared to any tubes. The bizarre exceptions are some OTL which tend to sound as good as SS on speakers that would end to require the power of and stability of SS and retain a beguiling and quite unique flavor .. I am naming 2 with which I have heard enough to be able to form an opinion: the Joule Electra and the Atmasphere. They're good and they get what tubes do right; I don't see what they give up to tubes in any regards while they have the kind of bass that only megapower tubes (and not all of these) manage to reproduce.
Now we have spoken about things that at the end are view of the mind: "presence", "Tonality" I am all for subjective impressions but the notion of "presence" or "tonality" perception is at best unreliable. Getting to the point of looking at microphones as single ended devices is forgetting that the recording is made by more than the microphones especially when a console is put in the mix (pun intended), the EQ that follows plus the quasi-present manipulations known as "mastering" in what ways the SET preserve the single ended-ness of the eventual single-ended microphone??
Live music is so far out of the capabilities of any home system, it is a miracle that our audio systems manage to bring up the same emotions Live Music elicit... then again we can cry from listening to our favorite music being reproduced by a clock radio .. so ... I can understand why a person would be taken by the editorializing that some systems can perform. There is no right and wrong in a person preference after all. Other systems are truer to the source and those are what I prefer and this is what IMO the best SS do: Be truer to the source.
Systems that are closer to the reality can evoke emotional response and do so from time to time (I won't say regularly because even live music doesn't do that). I like how people on this forum and others will call a system "editorializing" when it is "too" tonally rich. What I heard recently says just the opposite! Most systems are far too harmonically lean (Threadbare was the term used in the past) compared to the real thing. ) It's kind of like that old saying, "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it!" . The same goes for tonality and presence. I can state, unequivocally, that I have never heard an all SS system that could deliver harmonic richness along with clarity and presence like I heard with that small cello duo. I am sure that there are good enough recordings (I have some) that capture harmonics like this and presence like this and it is therefore POTENTIALLY reproduceable at home. I have heard only a very few all tube systems that could get in the same post code...very few. Why??
I have a good idea as to why the electronics cannot deliver and it relates to distortion and psychoacoustics...it is of course like all things human related a statistical approach because correlating measurements with perception always ends up that way. However, it can be demonstrated that most humans would prefer to not have high order harmonic distortion in their music and if it is present it has to be weighted with the correct pattern of low order harmonics. This is from evolution it is how most humans ear/brains work. People can acquire a contrary taste for something through exposure but it doesn't change the bascis for most people. Therefore, there is a biologically correct distortion pattern that will lead to less audible consequences to the fact that we do not have perfectly linear amplification that makes no disotortion. Note, I didn't say Euphonic distortions I said less audible.
What do I think that this means? Based on my reading and interpretation of the studies available, there is a more correct way to design amplifiers that conforms better with the way humans hear distortion and judge it in terms of sound quality. There is a more right answer, in other words. Is it absolute? No, because as I said people will be contrary. I also think that those with good hearing memory for what they heard live, and I think this varies wildly among audiophiles, are also good a translating that experience into hifi decisions. There is an absolute sound and while no recording/playback system (note: I include the recording as part of the system) gets it right, there is closer and there is further away and this can be determined from careful listening and observation of differernces...i don't think this is purely subjectivist because a careful observer can make quite objective observations.
Now, that said, no single amplification devices is either perfectly linear OR perfectly following a distortion pattern (that also includes SPL) that will make it sound truly invisible...this is where subjective taste becomes important. However, most amplification devices are far enough away that it is rather easy to discredit their approach to reproduction. They are inherently wrong by design. They produce distortion patterns that are not consonant with how our ear/brain evloved and therefore standout like a sore thumb. Once you have heard what is wrong you cannot unhear it. I hear it in every SS and tube Class AB push/pull amp. It is a lack of coherence and an overlay of something...unnatural. It takes longer to hear with Class A SS with no feedback or Class A triode with no feedback...but you eventually hear it there as well. It hinders presence, affects tonality and impacts clarity. A good way to hear the effects of negative feedback is to get hold of an amp that has variable feedback, preferrably one that has "zero" as an option. THat is a real eyeopener. Adding feedback invariably, reduces palpability and flattens soundstage, lessens contrast in tonal colors (greys things out) and lessens dynamic contrasts. Leading edges might get a bit sharper but overally clarity is not improved. The only added benefit in some cases is a tighter, punchier bass...that often sounds less natural because it sounds truncated. Once you do some of these tests it becomes rather clear.
I like the sound of OTLs...I used to own a big pair of monos from Silvaweld. They had shocking transparency and dynamics but tone was too lean to be convincing. They also overheated the room and were a bitch to keep biased, so they were only optimal about half of the time. One of my dream amps might be an OTL SET without feedback (Aries Cerat makes one but it is HUGE and makes a massive amount of heat) but as far as I know only one choice that meets all criteria exists.
Speakers are another kettle of fish and how the amp interacts with them is another key to the puzzle. The interactions with complex impedance will lead to additional, and unpleasant, distortions, especially with amplifiers that have a high negative feedback. Most amps will work better with a speaker with a relatively resistive load and it is one probable cause for highly variable observations of some amps because the speaker interaction is affecting the sound so much. Speakers of course will flavor the sound, even if their FR is perfect because of driver and cabinet resonances and distortions from crossover networks, phase shifts etc. A perfect speaker is even more remote than a perfect set of electronics. More room here for personal preference I think.
Microphones are single ended...microphone amps are mostly not but I am sure that some out there are. It is not an issue to make small signal amplifiers from single ended circuits.
