Solid State, Tubes or Both?

[Johnny Vinyl]

What is your preference for both POWER and PRE amplifiers?

If you are of the opinion that a combination is the way to go, which unit would be SS or Tube?

John

 

[Bruce B]

I've always liked the combo of tube pre and solid-state amp.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

What is your preference for both POWER and PRE amplifiers?

If you are of the opinion that a combination is the way to go, which unit would be SS or Tube?

John

Very clean solid state, ooodles of headroom.

Tim

 

[naturephoto1]

I have only owned all solid state systems or solid state amps with a Hybrid Preamp when I owned a Carver C19. I can not say whether all solid state, all tube or a combination is better. I am however quite pleased with the sound now and when I get the first of my Acoustic Room treatments it will be even better.

Rich

 

[DWR]

Tubes for both here.

Dan

 

[tony ky ma]

all tubes for me no mix up. if you are not a DIYER build tube amp with super parts, you never know how far tubes can go.tube amp products from market all in similar level except Kondo Audio note's 211SE Onkaku, but not too many people can have a chance to listen, $60K long time ago.
tony ma

 

[microstrip]

When analyzing tubes versus solid-state electronics you have to compare sound quality, convenience of use, reliability and value for money.

Your choice will depend on the weighting factors you associate with each of these items. Currently I favor tube electronics, as modern electronics based in tubes such as the 6H30 can have mean times between tube replacement of the order of 4000 hours and high reliability. Sound quality of modern top high end tube and SS electronics has converged; we do not have any more that old clear separation of poor bass, great medium and limited highs of tubes and the solid bass and sterile medium of solid state. (I am exaggerating, surely ). But I still prefer the tube sound of my current top tube equipment over the SS I have owned or listened to.

Some people like to mix tube preamplifiers and solid state amplifiers – I have also done it mainly for convenience of use, but retrospectively I think I always got better absolute results not mixing tubes with SS, using either all tube units or all SS units in a system.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

you need to add a third choice for a preamp, which is passive.

i've owned solid state and tubed amps, and solid state and passive preamps. but never a tubed preamp. although i've owned four different tubed phono stages and own one now.

it took me 5 years to find a preamp better than my passive, and it happened to be solid state.

as far as my current preference it's what i use now; which is a solid state preamp and amp which have the essence of tubes (smooth top end extension, lack of grain, a touch of bloom), without the coloration and slight softness on the leading edge and frequency extremes, with a remarkably low noise floor no tubed preamp or amp i've heard could attain.

i've certainly heard tubed preamps and amps i'd be proud to own and loved them. i do not have strong pro-tube or anti-tube sentiments. at the top of the food chain you are sort of splitting hairs and choosing flavors.

 

[MC352]

I tried SS Pre and Power Amp, and Tube Pre and Tube Power Amp, and I ended up with Tube Pre Amp, and SS amp as my favorite combo. It's all personal choice.

 

[FrantzM]

you need to add a third choice for a preamp, which is passive.

i've owned solid state and tubed amps, and solid state and passive preamps. but never a tubed preamp. although i've owned four different tubed phono stages and own one now.

it took me 5 years to find a preamp better than my passive, and it happened to be solid state.

as far as my current preference it's what i use now; which is a solid state preamp and amp which have the essence of tubes (smooth top end extension, lack of grain, a touch of bloom), without the coloration and slight softness on the leading edge and frequency extremes, with a remarkably low noise floor no tubed preamp or amp i've heard could attain.

i've certainly heard tubed preamps and amps i'd be proud to own and loved them. i do not have strong pro-tube or anti-tube sentiments. at the top of the food chain you are sort of splitting hairs and choosing flavors.

never was a fan of passive line stages .. since they amplify nothing .. I won't call them "preamps" ... I agree with you for the most part .. especially the last

i do not have strong pro-tube or anti-tube sentiments. at the top of the food chain you are sort of splitting hairs and choosing flavors

My sentiments .. exactly

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

i do not have strong pro-tube or anti-tube sentiments. at the top of the food chain you are sort of splitting hairs and choosing flavors
My sentiments .. exactly

I agree with this, and suspect I could get the sound I like with tubes. I just think it would cost a lot more money.

Tim

 

[jadis]

I've been using all tubes for pre and power since the mid 80s. Prior to that, my only SS gear was a mosfet Sumo Polaris mated with a tube pre amp from Counterpoint. And I love them NOS tubes from the UK and Germany, well, and from Russia too, for my ARC amp.

 

[Mike Lavigne]

never was a fan of passive line stages .. since they amplify nothing .. I won't call them "preamps"

i'm sure we agree more than we disagree here. you cannot just throw a passive preamp into a system. OTOH it can be the ultimate in transparency too and an ideal balance.

10 years ago i was using a Levinson #32 solid state preamp. not exactly chopped liver. then i purchased the Kharma Exquisites and Tenor 75 watt OTL monoblocks which happened to be integrated. the integrated volume control on the Tenors were passive. so no active gain stage.

one day i bypassed the #32 and tried my Linn CD-12 direct into the Tenors. Oh My! it made the #32 sound broken. later, to get a remote volume control i tried the Placette RVC passive; which was even a little more transparent than the Tenor integrated volume control. the Tenors were already voiced for the internal passive volume control so they synergized nicely with the Placette.

i spent the next 5 years on and off auditioning active preamps in my system. one by one the Placette crushed them all in terms of low noise, immediacy, and microdynamics. i had to listen 'around' any active preamp i tried. some of them (typically 5x to 15x the cost of the Placette) came close but overall i preferred the Placette).

then i was given the active darTZeel battery powered NHB-18NS to try; and the Placette was retired. the dart out-passived the Placette. lower noise, more transparent, more of everything. of course, it took a $25k+ preamp to top the Placette.

i agree that passive is not for everyone. they are very system and taste dependant.

 

[microstrip]

the dart out-passived the Placette. lower noise, more transparent, more of everything.

Mike,

I own an excellent passive preamplifier designed by Ben Duncan, the Audio Synthesis Passion, have owned the Dartzeel for more than one year, as well as an ARC Ref5 and settled with a ARC Reference Anniversary. My choice was only due to my own taste, preferences and existing system, other people will naturally have other preferences.

I have measured all these preamplifiers. Theoretically, no active preamplifier can have lower noise than a properly designed passive and this is was technically confirmed in my measurements. If transparency means electrically neutral , the passive always was the winner in every measurement.

But, as you, I preferred the sound of an active preamplifier every time. So, in my view, the question can be formulated this way - the preamplifier is enhancing our perception of excellent sound by addition, subtraction or both?

By addition I mean it is modifying the electrical signal in a way it enhances it in a way we get a picture that better re-approaches the real thing, after all the processing the signal is submitted between the sound wave and the recording. Subtractive would mean that some spurious information that is added in the process is removed again form the signal, making it more like the real again.

I accept one thing - neither my preamplifier or yours are more neutral than a good passive used properly! Used properly means that you respect the output and input impedance (resistance and capacitance ) of the devices and cables used in the system.

But in our view the difference was enough to persuade us to pay for it!

 

[RBFC]

How about measuring the different preamps and the same amp together? Perhaps that would show some differences that could explain the preference in sound.

Lee

 

[Mike Lavigne]

Mike,

I own an excellent passive preamplifier designed by Ben Duncan, the Audio Synthesis Passion, have owned the Dartzeel for more than one year, as well as an ARC Ref5 and settled with a ARC Reference Anniversary. My choice was only due to my own taste, preferences and existing system, other people will naturally have other preferences.

I have measured all these preamplifiers. Theoretically, no active preamplifier can have lower noise than a properly designed passive and this is was technically confirmed in my measurements. If transparency means electrically neutral , the passive always was the winner in every measurement.

But, as you, I preferred the sound of an active preamplifier every time. So, in my view, the question can be formulated this way - the preamplifier is enhancing our perception of excellent sound by addition, subtraction or both?

By addition I mean it is modifying the electrical signal in a way it enhances it in a way we get a picture that better re-approaches the real thing, after all the processing the signal is submitted between the sound wave and the recording. Subtractive would mean that some spurious information that is added in the process is removed again form the signal, making it more like the real again.

I accept one thing - neither my preamplifier or yours are more neutral than a good passive used properly! Used properly means that you respect the output and input impedance (resistance and capacitance ) of the devices and cables used in the system.

But in our view the difference was enough to persuade us to pay for it!

Microstrip,

the darTZeel does not play fair. i don't know if you also used the darTZeel amplifier with the dart pre. but if you did then the 'zeel' BNC interface does yield additional advantages in lowered noise floor with the 'system' of the both darts, and now i use the Playback Designs and my King Cello repro both with the Zeel interface too. the dart used an internal phono stage compared to my 'then reference' phono the Lamm Lp2 Delux.

so in the context of my system the dart had unfair advantages in terms of low noise connectivity which go beyond the actual preamp/gain circuit noise floor.

i don't agree that the absense of a gain circuit or specific parts always would mean a lowered noise floor. in general, that might be true but not necessarily in all cases is that true. maybe the Placette is not as transparent as your Audio Synthesis Passion. but i percieved the dart as having blacker backgrounds and more transparency then the Placette.....as well as other advantages one might expect from an active pre. the Placette had a very good stepped volume attenuator; but the dart's attentuator was better.

 

[microstrip]

the darTZeel does not play fair...

I know of it - only used with the matching power amplifier and 50 ohm cables the dart preamp shows its best. It is what I call a "system synergy". Unhappily this synergy can cost you a lot if you want high power ...

the Placette had a very good stepped volume attenuator; but the dart's attenuator was better.

I think we can not separate the attenuator performance from the whole unit. The sound of the dart preamplifier is due to the whole system that includes - input modules, selector, attenuator and output modules. Technically , the attenuator of the Dart had worst measured performance than my Passion, but , IMHO, considered as an whole the Dart with the matching amplifier sounded better than with the passive . But this does not legitimate the conclusion that the Dart attenuator or its technique is per se is a better one.

but i percieved the dart as having blacker backgrounds and more transparency then the Placette...

OK, but unhappily we do not have measurements for background blackness or transparency in audio .

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

OK, but unhappily we do not have measurements for background blackness or transparency in audio .

Of course we do. Background "blackness" is merely what is left by a lack of noise. Transparency is the effect of a component disappearing in the system, having no audible sonic signature. It is a bit more complex than low noise, but start by measuring the frequency response and you'll be a lot more than halfway there.

Tim

 

[Mike Lavigne]

OK, but unhappily we do not have measurements for background blackness or transparency in audio

maybe you are unhappy about that, but i'm very happy about it. although this question i think has been addressed in another thread.

 

[microstrip]

Of course we do. Background "blackness" is merely what is left by a lack of noise. Transparency is the effect of a component disappearing in the system, having no audible sonic signature. It is a bit more complex than low noise, but start by measuring the frequency response and you'll be a lot more than halfway there.

Tim

Tim,
It is not easy to explain, but what I (and, may be some others) mean by Background "blackness" is also related to the way the sound decays to silence and grows again in a system, not only the absence of noise. It is something you hear in a live performance, mainly in classical music in a good auditorium. You can have systems with an excellent signal to noise ratio that do not have this Background "blackness". Some people refer to it as "the noise is in a distinct plane from the music and seems not to interfere with it". Crazy? yes, but once you experience it, you really enjoy it.