Mikey seemed to really like this Integrated Amplifier!
- Thread starter Johnny Vinyl
- Start date
Simple Greg. Did you hear about the tube uncertainty?
In audio mechanics, the uncertainty principle states a fundamental limit on the accuracy with which certain pairs of properties of a tube amplifier, such as distortion and perceived sound quality, can be simultaneously known. In layman's terms, the more precisely one property is measured, the less precisely the other can be controlled, determined, or known.
People are still trying to find why solid state amplifiers are excluded from the uncertainty principle.
I can't square them, Greg. I can't square this one by itself:
I don't think they are hearing anything that can't be measured. I just didn't want to start the same old argument with the same old obvious observation again.
Tim
Greg,
In the Carver test the amplifiers did not measure the same - Bob Carver used a null technique to make the modifications that caused them to sound the same. This is completely different from saying that both measured the same.in absolute terms This would have implied that he had taken measurements from the original amplifier and modified the M1.0 to measure the same.
Please understand that my previous post is a joke.
In the Carver test the amplifiers did not measure the same - Bob Carver used a null technique to make the modifications that caused them to sound the same. This is completely different from saying that both measured the same.in absolute terms This would have implied that he had taken measurements from the original amplifier and modified the M1.0 to measure the same.
Please understand that my previous post is a joke.
In the Carver challenge, the amplifiers were not measured at all - or at least those measurements were not published in the article in Stereophile. I'm sure Bob did plenty of measuring during his tweaking and tweaked to bring those measurements closer together, not farther apart. I also suspect that in the end, when the two amps null tested essentially neural and inaudible to Atkinson and...sorry, I forget who the other guy was...that they wouldn't have measured exactly the same. But I'll bet the differences were insignificant. Actually, that's a silly point. No matter what it might have said on paper, the differences were obviously insignificant. Just ask Atkinson and what's-his-name.
Tim
ON EDIT: Ooops. Screwed that up. It was actually Larry Archbald and J. Gordon Holt -- http://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
Last edited:
It's quite easy to square away in my mind anyway. Human Factor. Devices don't spring up from nowhere. The adept can and will manipulate a device to achieve a desired result just as we humans have manipulated our environment. Let's put aside unintended consequences for now. Speaking with my DIY friends who build both solid state and tube electronics as well as their own loudspeakers, not surprisingly, different parts will give different results. In some cases different parts with the same values will alter results. We can skip this too for now. Just as there is an abundance of output tube types, there are an abundance of output transistor types. They will tell us that while these may have their own specific traits, there are a million and one ways to use them like choosing which biasing scheme, how to power their grids or rails, what to use to drive or manipulate the changes in voltage or current to mimic the input signal. This brings us back on topic right here because John mentioned a hybrid.
I can see where Tim is coming from about tubes with his being a guitar player. The almost pavlovian association between tubes and desirable distortions would definitely be a strong one. Then there's the association with most (there are definitely exceptions!) vintage tube gear that stayed in homes but at the advent of stereo were put to the task of driving the space saving little boxes with much lower sensitivity, which is a scenario similar to the guitarist scenario wherein the amps are overdriven. Can sound great, surely not accurate, I agree.
There's a device stereotyping that goes on. As an extreme example, if we say 300B, the automatic response is rolled off highs, syrupy mids, slow bass. Funny thing is, in a different circuit this may not be the case as was demonstrated to me by a local builder. Dropping output from 8w to 5w and electing to use solid state rectification, it defied the stereotype. It sounded like a chip amp. Now taking a stereotypical smooth and slow amp and using them to drive a 105dB efficient set of horns, again, it defied the stereotype. The reverse is true because having said all this theres the ditty about not being able to make a silk purse from a cow's ear. One does voltage the other current. Which one is regarded as silk, I leave to you guys
In the end we have a spectrum of people that just want to hear music in a pleasurable way, accuracy be damned, on one end and those that want accuracy, pleasure be damned on the other. The vast majority of us are in between. For those that supply us with what we need to get to where we want to get individually they've got those parts bins to choose from. They are still just like cooks making a dish. As ingredients interact in a chemical way, parts interact in an electrical way. Now feed that dish to a diner to whom small differences mean a lot..............
I don't think Bob Carver went into that challenge to prove the supremacy of one topology over the other. I think he went into that challenge to show he could. In so doing he illustrated that sometimes, the cook is more important than the ingredients. Square.
I can see where Tim is coming from about tubes with his being a guitar player. The almost pavlovian association between tubes and desirable distortions would definitely be a strong one. Then there's the association with most (there are definitely exceptions!) vintage tube gear that stayed in homes but at the advent of stereo were put to the task of driving the space saving little boxes with much lower sensitivity, which is a scenario similar to the guitarist scenario wherein the amps are overdriven. Can sound great, surely not accurate, I agree.
There's a device stereotyping that goes on. As an extreme example, if we say 300B, the automatic response is rolled off highs, syrupy mids, slow bass. Funny thing is, in a different circuit this may not be the case as was demonstrated to me by a local builder. Dropping output from 8w to 5w and electing to use solid state rectification, it defied the stereotype. It sounded like a chip amp. Now taking a stereotypical smooth and slow amp and using them to drive a 105dB efficient set of horns, again, it defied the stereotype. The reverse is true because having said all this theres the ditty about not being able to make a silk purse from a cow's ear. One does voltage the other current. Which one is regarded as silk, I leave to you guys
In the end we have a spectrum of people that just want to hear music in a pleasurable way, accuracy be damned, on one end and those that want accuracy, pleasure be damned on the other. The vast majority of us are in between. For those that supply us with what we need to get to where we want to get individually they've got those parts bins to choose from. They are still just like cooks making a dish. As ingredients interact in a chemical way, parts interact in an electrical way. Now feed that dish to a diner to whom small differences mean a lot..............
I don't think Bob Carver went into that challenge to prove the supremacy of one topology over the other. I think he went into that challenge to show he could. In so doing he illustrated that sometimes, the cook is more important than the ingredients. Square.
In a hybrid design, such as the Vincent, what is the function of each, and what are the advantages or disadvantages in designing such a unit?
Agreed. And add to it the facts of hybrid amps with tube pres and SS power. The "tube sound" in a pre is very different from what it is in a power amp. It just doesn't have that big, warm, lush effect, and we guitar players push that effect too the extreme, where it is not at all subtle, and there, preamp tubes, driven hard, tend to be more buzzy than lush, and 12AX7s are higher gain and buzzier than either 12AU7s or 12AT7s.
Of course that's guitar amps. And while their topologies vary pretty radically and the above is pretty universal, this is no guitar amp we're talking about and it has a completely different purpose. But still, I think the warning is valid. There is no good reason to put a tube preamp section in front of a SS amp unless there is a sonic effect. Tubes are inconsistent, unreliable, relatively short-lived and typically high in both noise and distortion. Unless the designer thought those 12AX7s were creating a sound that would not be there with a simple SS front end.
If I were John and I'd been listening to a SS integrated since 1977, I would want to hear that sound, in my home, in my system, in my own good time, before I made any commitment. In fact, I'd want to be able to compare it to modern, high-power SS as well.
I would order both from someplace with a reasonable return policy and do a lot of comparing. MHO. YMMV.
Tim
PS: By the way, Jack, just like tube-loving audiophiles, guitar players don't think of their tube sound as distortion until it gets into the syrupy, crunchy, obvious territory. What we think of as clean tone is certainly full of tube color, but we just think of it as the way an electric guitar and amp should sound. Hybrid tube/SS amps produce much less of the lush clean tone, much more of the crunch. Hybrid audiophile amps may vary.
My friend, this is still the same stereotyping. You are still equating tubes with coloration. I'm not saying that's wrong, I'm saying it isn't always the case. I guess my mileage does vary because I use amps with measurements that would never ever suggest it has a "tube" in it if anyone were to just look at the graphs.
A designer would put a tube in one of his designs for the same reason he'd put a particular transistor, a particular capacitor, a particular type of PCB material or even a particular type of connector. It's to meet a design goal. Whether that goal is a particular sound or a particular set of measured targets or both, a tube or a transistor is just another part. All parts break down, all parts will drift in time. It's all the same. As for tubes not being robust in general, go ask professional broadcast engineers and the military what they think about that.
Let's also put this in the proper context of the OP. Is accuracy your thing John?
The pluses are you get your potential choice from the native manufacturer's sound to more neutral or more euphonic and can do that anywhere from 30 bucks to hundreds of bucks. With all SS you get the one version which may or not be "accurate". You get the current delivery of SS. The integrated I recommended starts at 150 into 8, doubles down 300 to 4, doubles again 600 to 2 and then over 750 into ONE.
The minuses are that you may get some noisy, unbalanced or weak tubes as Tim says. You will also eventually have to change them eventually, after like 5 years or more, more, more LOL.
A designer would put a tube in one of his designs for the same reason he'd put a particular transistor, a particular capacitor, a particular type of PCB material or even a particular type of connector. It's to meet a design goal. Whether that goal is a particular sound or a particular set of measured targets or both, a tube or a transistor is just another part. All parts break down, all parts will drift in time. It's all the same. As for tubes not being robust in general, go ask professional broadcast engineers and the military what they think about that.
Let's also put this in the proper context of the OP. Is accuracy your thing John?
The pluses are you get your potential choice from the native manufacturer's sound to more neutral or more euphonic and can do that anywhere from 30 bucks to hundreds of bucks. With all SS you get the one version which may or not be "accurate". You get the current delivery of SS. The integrated I recommended starts at 150 into 8, doubles down 300 to 4, doubles again 600 to 2 and then over 750 into ONE.
The minuses are that you may get some noisy, unbalanced or weak tubes as Tim says. You will also eventually have to change them eventually, after like 5 years or more, more, more LOL.
Jack - The word accuracy scares me. It conjures up images of coldness and lack of emotion. Perhaps you or others can describe what accuracy is?
I don't think accuracy is a bad thing John. Basically the thinking is that what goes in one end is the same as what goes out the other. Of course this isn't actually what happens. I mean the signal is either lower coming out of a preamp or higher coming out of the amplifier, unless we're talking about unity gain which would blow out either our ears or a piece of gear. So really it's about keeping the proportions of the input voltage variances (in both time and amplitude, well phase too) as close as possible to the proportions of the output voltages. It's more an assurance that a piece of gear isn't mangling whatever is on the medium be it file, optical disc, tape or vinyl. As to being able to judge by listening whether or not something is accurate, well, you got me there. I can't and I don't think anybody can. maybe if we were electric eels and could listen to electrical signals In my own view then "accuracy" is just what I said it is. An assurance that I or anybody has limited the effects of some variables. To me though it's just not a big assurance at all, these null tests that generate them, because they aren't carried out under dynamic loads. That's why I posted about 300B amps and while they might measure consistently under a specific protocol, will very wildly in actual performance depending on the loudspeakers or the gain of their sources for that matter. Now if I were a historical archivist and not a listener, that would be another matter! As a listener, I have no qualms about manipulating the recording to fit what I consider realistic, pleasurable but more ambitiously a balanced combination of both.
It's more a philosophy IMO and not a depiction of particular sonic traits like those you mentioned. That's my take anyway.
In my own view then "accuracy" is just what I said it is. An assurance that I or anybody has limited the effects of some variables. To me though it's just not a big assurance at all, these null tests that generate them, because they aren't carried out under dynamic loads. That's why I posted about 300B amps and while they might measure consistently under a specific protocol, will very wildly in actual performance depending on the loudspeakers or the gain of their sources for that matter. Now if I were a historical archivist and not a listener, that would be another matter! As a listener, I have no qualms about manipulating the recording to fit what I consider realistic, pleasurable but more ambitiously a balanced combination of both. It's more a philosophy IMO and not a depiction of particular sonic traits like those you mentioned. That's my take anyway.
Tim, I do not agree with you regarding tube preamps. IMHO, a tube preamp is typically more able to render the various details of depth and accuracy of images upon a stage better than most ss preamps.
I have used a tube pre amp for as long as I can remember, and they have been completely reliable and worry free. I do agree that in the amp area this statement is not so true, but we are talking preamps here.
Also, I think the idea that because John is and has been living with his old ss integrated, that he would/should seek the same sound, is a fallacy. There are numerous pieces of newer gear, both ss and tube, that would bring him far closer to the sound of live instruments in his home than his old Pioneer
.So why would you want him to stay 'back in the dark ages'??
Sorry, but when you say YMMV I think that you have not had enough mileage with tube preamps in your home system
. BTW, as you well know, tube guitar amps are more highly prized than ss guitar amps for their ability to not just break up better but also for their ability to sustain in a more harmonious and accurate manner. I personally wouldn't even consider a ss guitar amp, because I do not like the lack of warmth that a ss guitar amp delivers, even IF it is supposedly more accurate. I guess here YMMV.
The emotion is in the performance, and nowhere else. Don't care if you've got tubes or chips, they don't feel. They just reproduce the recording to varying degrees of fidelity. Does that word scare you any less?
I am; that's what I've heard, but I sure haven't heard them all. But they are expensive and volatile. They drift, and fail, much faster than chips, and I don't need to ask military engineers, I've toted the things around for decades. If the designer is trying to meet a design goal that can be met with a chip and he chooses a tube, there are only two good reasons: 1) He expects it to sound different, in spite of the measurements and goals. 2) He expects it to sell better, or for a higher price, to the market he has in mind. The "sound different" part? Maybe it's not always color. Maybe sometimes that sound is even more "accurate" than the chip, can't say I've ever seen any evidence of that, maybe, and call me skeptical, but I have doubts about the likelihood of that in a $2k, 150 watt integrated amp. In any case, someone who has been listening to a SS integrated since 1977 needs to personally, experientially, understand exactly what that sound or color is, and have an opportunity to back out without losing any more than the cost of return shipping. That's all I'm saying.
Tim
Tim - If a designer chooses one transistor over another, it could ALSO be because THAT sounds different too. Another possibility is that sound quality is close enough but cheaper than the other. That is, unless you believe all transistors, of which there is a large "family" of types and their attendant "genus' and species" with greatly varying specifications, perform and thus sound the same. As such, I can't imagine how any self respecting designer would choose any device "in spite of design goals". Secondly, tubes in a component do not guarantee higher markups. Depending on if the,company is doing point to point, manual PCB or automated PCB, in conjunction with run size labor/capital investment size will give very different pricing scenarios which apply to both SS and Tubes. Add to that the sourcing for the parts themselves. Then there's cost of labor wherever they are made. So if you want to inject the money angle, as one marketing guy to another we both know that markup per unit is what counts on small runs and that for big ones higher price impedes volume sales by shrinking the potential consumer base. So why not we agree to keep the monetary motivations out of this. These are considerations every manufacturer has every right to decide for themselves. Ultimately WE decide whether we get what we pay for. Then there's that musician thing again. I can see how "lugging around" a guitar amp could loosen filaments and stuff BUT we are talking preamp stages in hybrid amps here where the norm is that tubes are packed securely and unmounted, the amps are moved around in drop test approved packaging (which I think is an oxymoron as UPS and their ilk seem to make a sport out of testing these packages to their limits) and hopefully FINALLY sit safely on a consumer's shelf and not thrown in the back of a car or van and bounced around from venue to venue. Throw in a drunk roadie into the mix and sure you'll get what you experience. I have two amps that use tubes in Soviet Migs that pull 9Gs and survive short strip landings. If the tubes don't last I'm betting their burning out precisly because they are over driven by the guitar pick ups and effects pedals more than the bouncing around anyhow. I have a DAC that blew its output transistors because my brother mistakenly fed it an AC-3 signal from an apple TV. Like I said, parts are parts. There are duds for both and good sturdy examples of both. I have seen 45 year old tube pres at work with their first owners(Quads) that have their original tubes. Their caps have leaked but their tubes still work.
Frankly, I don't care what MF says (haven't for some years now) but I can say in all honesty that the unit mentioned even if it were all SS would be and is competitive with all SS amps I've heard and owned at 2k brand new and then some......"in spite of" its having cheap current production stock tubes in it like Sovteks, that costs less than 10 bucks a pop retail, a lot less than that ordered bulk. Go a bit more upscale and you still don't go over 20 bucks a pop. Those willing to buy NOS tubes at the ever skyrocketing prices won't be putting these in Vincents or LSAs anyway.
If I all-caps I'm not shouting just to lazy to italicize. It is 2am over here
Frankly, I don't care what MF says (haven't for some years now) but I can say in all honesty that the unit mentioned even if it were all SS would be and is competitive with all SS amps I've heard and owned at 2k brand new and then some......"in spite of" its having cheap current production stock tubes in it like Sovteks, that costs less than 10 bucks a pop retail, a lot less than that ordered bulk. Go a bit more upscale and you still don't go over 20 bucks a pop. Those willing to buy NOS tubes at the ever skyrocketing prices won't be putting these in Vincents or LSAs anyway.
If I all-caps I'm not shouting just to lazy to italicize. It is 2am over here
Last edited:
Jack, I'm not really disagreeing with you except on one core principle: Tubes have a characteristic sound. Doesn't mean they all sound alike, but it does mean that most designers would have to go to pretty great lengths to make them sound like SS and vice versa. I believe that and most tube lovers believe that. And again, there is no good reason to use an inefficient, less reliable (even if it is just marginally so), antiquated technology if there is no difference.
And I just think anyone considering an audio device with tubes in it should hear them, hear that difference, and decide if that's what he's looking for before he makes a comittment to it. Simple as that. I know there are dealers out there who either can't or won't send gear out with a liberal return period. I've always managed to find someone who would. And that's what I'd personally recommend for any substantial investment, but especially if you're considering changing basic technologies. I'd say the same thing to a guy who had been using a Benchmark for the last couple of years and was considering an expensive non over sampling DAC. Occasionally I'd even find the objectivity to say it if the case were reversed. That's potentially a big change. You need time to compare and evaluate unless two grand is pocket change to you. I'm really not sure what's to disagree with there. Are you really saying that someone should make a drastic, expensive change in their system without being able to hear it in their system, even if that is an option?
I think perhaps we're having different discussions with each other.
Tim
And I just think anyone considering an audio device with tubes in it should hear them, hear that difference, and decide if that's what he's looking for before he makes a comittment to it. Simple as that. I know there are dealers out there who either can't or won't send gear out with a liberal return period. I've always managed to find someone who would. And that's what I'd personally recommend for any substantial investment, but especially if you're considering changing basic technologies. I'd say the same thing to a guy who had been using a Benchmark for the last couple of years and was considering an expensive non over sampling DAC. Occasionally I'd even find the objectivity to say it if the case were reversed
. That's potentially a big change. You need time to compare and evaluate unless two grand is pocket change to you. I'm really not sure what's to disagree with there. Are you really saying that someone should make a drastic, expensive change in their system without being able to hear it in their system, even if that is an option?I think perhaps we're having different discussions with each other.
Tim
Jack, I'm not really disagreeing with you except on one core principle: Tubes have a characteristic sound. Doesn't mean they all sound alike, but it does mean that most designers would have to go to pretty great lengths to make them sound like SS and vice versa. I believe that and most tube lovers believe that. And again, there is no good reason to use an inefficient, less reliable (even if it is just marginally so), antiquated technology if there is no difference.
And I just think anyone considering an audio device with tubes in it should hear them, hear that difference, and decide if that's what he's looking for before he makes a comittment to it. Simple as that. I know there are dealers out there who either can't or won't send gear out with a liberal return period. I've always managed to find someone who would. And that's what I'd personally recommend for any substantial investment, but especially if you're considering changing basic technologies. I'd say the same thing to a guy who had been using a Benchmark for the last couple of years and was considering an expensive non over sampling DAC. Occasionally I'd even find the objectivity to say it if the case were reversed
I think perhaps we're having different discussions with each other.
Tim
Tim- the one point I would make is that SS has a sound as well. do bipoloar transistors and mosfets sound alike? hardly. how about full class A vs A/B? hardly. or add an autoformer ala Mac.
and the reason people use tube preamps before an ss amp has nothing to do with coloration---it usually has to do with inefficient speakers that can't be run on a full tube system correctly. that, and perceived ease of use, not sonics.
Of course.
That seems to me like the reason to use the SS amp, not the reason to use the tube pre. Again, if there is no sonic benefit, what is the justification for the use of the more expensive, less efficient, less reliable technology?
Tim
Similar threads
 | Steve Williams Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator |  | Ron Resnick Site Owner | Administrator |  | Julian (The Fixer) Website Build | Marketing Managersing |