Tube vs Solid State Is the War

[MylesBAstor]

?????

There was an article in the first copy of Scientific American Mind (that I can no longer put my hands on) by a leading researcher at the Univ. of Ariz. detailing his research into human hearing and how much it varies between individuals. One of his conclusions was interaural hearing of individuals was so great as to swamp any statistical analysis. So even if one thinks they have come up with a useful measurement, it's widespread application is still dubious.

 

[microstrip]

Actually I think Harry Pearson declared that the ASR Emitter II a solid state integrated the best. He also stated that in the right system it could imitate real music.

You forgot to capitalize the RIGHT word. If you start with any decent high-end amplifier and are free to assemble a system and room for it, limiting the type of music and listening conditions, you will always end with a great system if you manage to achieve the proper synergies.

I have owned the ASR Emitter II (the big one with three box power supplies and accumulator). At that time it was an excellent value for money in Europe, as there were no distributors and we could get them from Germany at a fraction of the price it was sold in the USA. But it was not my type of sound - in my room and system it sounded forward and immediate, but lacked envelopment. Happily after all the promotion it got from the USA press it was not difficult to find a new owner, who was really happy with it.

BTW, I enjoy reading HP articles - we can learn a lot from his analysis of sound reproduction and system characterization. But he is a sound researcher and we can be sure that after his best of today there will be a best for tomorrow and another one for the day after tomorrow. His reviews should not be read separately - they show a constant evolution, that must be read and understood as an whole. Very often his opinion drastically changes in a few months.

BTW2 - some people wrote that the ASR sounded tube-like. I completely disagree about it.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

To me these are as much scientists as some others mentioned in audio, and possibly more with their backgrounds in both education and actually working in scientific research for awhile.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one Orb. The kinds of scientists Dr. Geddes was referring to were guys like Floyd Toole, scientists who research, design and test audio equipment for a living, not chemists turned critics. On all things audio? I'll go with guys Geddes, in spite of his strong and rather eccentric opinions, Toole, Sean Olive, Sigfried Linkwitz etc. every time. YMMV.

Tim

 

[Gregadd]

The question of this thread is has HP evolved or solid state. To put it another way did ss recentty become the equal of tubes or did HP just recently realize it?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

The question of this thread is has HP evolved or solid state. To put it another way did ss recentty become the equal of tubes or did HP just recently realize it?

I'll go with the latter and wait for him to realize that it's gone a bit further than that.

Tim

 

[RogerD]

You forgot to capitalize the RIGHT word. If you start with any decent high-end amplifier and are free to assemble a system and room for it, limiting the type of music and listening conditions, you will always end with a great system if you manage to achieve the proper synergies.

I have owned the ASR Emitter II (the big one with three box power supplies and accumulator). At that time it was an excellent value for money in Europe, as there were no distributors and we could get them from Germany at a fraction of the price it was sold in the USA. But it was not my type of sound - in my room and system it sounded forward and immediate, but lacked envelopment. Happily after all the promotion it got from the USA press it was not difficult to find a new owner, who was really happy with it.

BTW, I enjoy reading HP articles - we can learn a lot from his analysis of sound reproduction and system characterization. But he is a sound researcher and we can be sure that after his best of today there will be a best for tomorrow and another one for the day after tomorrow. His reviews should not be read separately - they show a constant evolution, that must be read and understood as an whole. Very often his opinion drastically changes in a few months.

BTW2 - some people wrote that the ASR sounded tube-like. I completely disagree about it.

Here's a link I found. I would suspect HP has found the perfect religion again and again. He has no credibility as far as I'm concerned. Like I said the poor guy just needs to feel important! Bah!

http://www.manger-audio.co.uk/testimonials-asr.htm

 

[Orb]

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one Orb. The kinds of scientists Dr. Geddes was referring to were guys like Floyd Toole, scientists who research, design and test audio equipment for a living, not chemists turned critics. On all things audio? I'll go with guys Geddes, in spite of his strong and rather eccentric opinions, Toole, Sean Olive, Sigfried Linkwitz etc. every time. YMMV.

Tim

And also JJ, yet look at their scientific backgrounds.
Not all have an actual scientific research in terms of actual science; being Chemistry,Physics.
You want science, then the place to start is with classical science study and research development techniques from that.

I have worked with and in research teams but that does not make me anywhere near a scientist (also worked with those from NASA who would not call themselves scientists and some great mathematicians).
It comes across that you take them over the three I mentioned because they do not necessarily fit in with your view on who is better at discussing audio, and not necessarily from a science audio (which would fall under physics and biology-psychoacoustics).
BTW I give them all equal credence including the three I mentioned, for various reasons but not all are true scientists and science research backgrounds-experience.

However it seems we are now calling people scientists who are not classically trained as such, just because they are doing development and research.
But, by your own view this means Paul Miller should be higher on the scale than most; classical science educated and experience, plus many years developing measuring software and tools for audio engineers that are still used today.
Keith Howard also has various tools, and JA has extensive knowledge-testing audio products and following research passively and actively engaging those doing the work.

So how can you decide who has greater say in audio and yet ignore those 3 because they contribute to audio publications?
Cheers
Orb

Edit:
Removed Geddes comment asking what science/research did he do as it might have been taken wrong way, point is he also has a classical science background as do those 3 I mentioned, and of course Kal.

 

[Gregadd]

I've heard many high-end systems, and I suspect Dr. Geddes has as well.
Yt you found none to evn come close to the sounf real music?
One would think this kind of discovery would be popular, but in the high-end community it is
enough to make a pariah of a scientist.
Indeed such products would and have been wildly popular. The selection of a Pioneer reciever is more of a political statement than a discovery. There is nothing new about Pioneer
For my part I'm not in the camp that believes that there are no audible differences between well-designed amplifiers operating well within their limits. I'm in the camp that believes the differences between well-designed amplifiers (and yes, by the way, I would put most mainstream midfi receivers under this umbrella) operating within their limits are so small that they're not likely to be reliably recognized once sight is removed from the listening experience.


That's pretty small.

With that said, "within their limits" can define a pretty big gap in this context, and the limits of a basic Pioneer receiver and some high-end big iron are dramatic. But Dr. Geddes designs very efficient speakers with a pretty even, easy 8-ohm load. I doubt they are a challenge to his Pioneer, which would probably break sweat just looking at your MLs. Horses for courses, as they say, but not in some diaphanous synergy sense, just a proper match of amp and load. The easiest, and most effective way around it, of course, is engineered active systems.

Tim

I would not call the Pioneer receiver a discovery. Most of us have not only listened to recivers ,we have owned a couple. I drove my Maggies with a Harmon Kardon HK 330. Better than Pioneer, I might add.

I think that Dr. Geddes choice is more of a political statement than a sonic choice.

Less we forget many have taken a similar position on speaker design. Blaming their faults on incompetent design. Our friend Peter Aczel for example.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Can't even double power going from 8 to 4 to 2 ohms. Wimp.

Tim

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I think that Dr. Geddes choice is more of a political statement than a sonic choice.

That's a distinct possibility. I didn't really mean to refer to the Pioneer as the "discovery," but rather the "discovery" that there is small difference between well-spec'd amps operating within their limits. And, of course, that's not much of a discovery either, and Dr. Geddes didn't come up with it.

Tim

 

[Bjorn]

An amp doesn't get better then being no-sounding IMO. Besides that you need adequate power. Everything of serious research points in the direction that a low cost amp can be transparent. But that doesn't mean most are. On the contrary, most, either if they are expensive or cheap, don't seem like they are.

 

[Gregadd]

that claim is as old as solid sate itself.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

that claim is as old as solid sate itself.

Pretty much.

Tim

 

[andy_c]

BTW what scientific research lab did Geddes work for?
That is actually a true science subject?

The guy has a Ph.D in Physics from Penn State, specializing in acoustics. Among his work is the origination of the theory of waveguides, which essentially supersedes the traditional horn design theory, and demonstrates said theory to be incomplete from a Physics point of view. It is remarkable, groundbreaking work.

That said, I don't think he has a background in amplifier design, which is in the realm of Electrical Engineering, so I'd be less inclined to take his statements on that subject at face value than I would his statements about acoustics.

 

[Orb]

Andy,
Yeah I know (think it is Physics degree with masters or PHD and with lab research) I edited my post 9:31 to explain the reason why I asked.
Just edited which no longer shows that edit time to remove a few Howevers that may look to be too aggressive
The point I messed up is it shows he has a classical science background, which is my point about those 3 that Tim feels are not as valid.

A few of the others associated with audio research do not have such a classic science research background, for some this may not matter but when discussing such topics in terms of science and putting credence on some it needs to be taken into account, along with the experience they gain outside of that science research background.
This is where I differ from Tim, and was using Geddes as an example and not one of the others, but realised my question while leading and directs to that conclusion could be taken wrong way doh
Thanks for adding your post as well as it helps to clarify my mad reasoning on its use

Cheers
Orb

 

[Orb]

The guy has a Ph.D in Physics from Penn State, specializing in acoustics. Among his work is the origination of the theory of waveguides, which essentially supersedes the traditional horn design theory, and demonstrates said theory to be incomplete from a Physics point of view. It is remarkable, groundbreaking work.

That said, I don't think he has a background in amplifier design, which is in the realm of Electrical Engineering, so I'd be less inclined to take his statements on that subject at face value than I would his statements about acoustics.

Just to add, I think his masters is closer to traditional Physics while the PHD was acoustics, although I am not sure so could be wrong.
Thanks again
Orb

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

I don't think Dr. Geddes, with degrees in physics and acoustics has any more validity in commenting on electronics than the chemistry guys do...well, maybe a little...at least acoustics is related, and I'll bet he has tested his own speakers with a lot of amps and knows what they're supposed to sound like. That's pretty valuable.

But the guys who have big cred regarding the audibility of electronics are those who have specifically tested the audibility of electronics (duh), with the deepest cred going to the very few, like Sean Olive, who are doing daily, extensive, carefully controlled research in the subject. You have the quantifiable, repeatable and verifiable and you have "I hear X." The latter is fine. You hear what you hear and I want you to enjoy it. But it's an opinion. The former is data. Imperfect, perhaps. Unproven in any absolute sense, maybe, but meaningful beyond one listener with his eyes wide open and all of his biases engaged. That's a huge difference in my book. YMMV. And boy are we along way from tubes vs. SS. Probably good. That subject is deader than Latin.

Tim

 

[Steve williams]

That subject is deader than Latin.

when it comes to tubes vs SS the old Latin phrase comes to mind...... "noli contra ventum urinare".

 

[MylesBAstor]

You forgot to capitalize the RIGHT word. If you start with any decent high-end amplifier and are free to assemble a system and room for it, limiting the type of music and listening conditions, you will always end with a great system if you manage to achieve the proper synergies.

I have owned the ASR Emitter II (the big one with three box power supplies and accumulator). At that time it was an excellent value for money in Europe, as there were no distributors and we could get them from Germany at a fraction of the price it was sold in the USA. But it was not my type of sound - in my room and system it sounded forward and immediate, but lacked envelopment. Happily after all the promotion it got from the USA press it was not difficult to find a new owner, who was really happy with it.

BTW, I enjoy reading HP articles - we can learn a lot from his analysis of sound reproduction and system characterization. But he is a sound researcher and we can be sure that after his best of today there will be a best for tomorrow and another one for the day after tomorrow. His reviews should not be read separately - they show a constant evolution, that must be read and understood as an whole. Very often his opinion drastically changes in a few months.

BTW2 - some people wrote that the ASR sounded tube-like. I completely disagree about it.

I had the earlier ASR model in sometime in late '90s or early 2000 and reviewed it. In my system, it was nice and inoffensive compared to other ss of the day but lacked balls, and did sound rather soft and dark. Just my 2cents

 

[KeithR]

The debate comes down to soundstage for me. SS amps in my system don't have the 3d-ness of tube amps. Admittedly, i have not heard a Soulution in my system or some other 40k+ SS. My McIntosh amps are better in this regard---but they have output transformers which SS purists hate. To me, that 3d hologram is closer to the real thing.

I did notice the trend of mega watt SS amps at THE show---I think they are going about it backwards. Higher efficiency speakers are becoming more popular and good, simple circuits will sound better.

KeithR