Tubes vs. Solid State Amps
- Thread starter Audire
- Start date
When I read this thread title; "Tubes vs. Solid State Amps", I recalled hearing that solid state adds odd-order-harmonics to the signal which are unnatural and cause listener fatigue, but importantly, solid state is considered more "accurate". I even found a write up https://blog.Thetubestore.com/tube-vs-solid-state-why-do-tubes-sound-better , which repeated what I had heard, just to make sure my old memory was correct.
Valves supposedly give even order harmonics, as do real musical instruments, which according to the link above, "make sound fuller, like a choir", but according to the link above, less accurate? Ayon advertises "no solid state in the signal path" as a selling point for their Spitfire Class A SET (which helped convince me to buy one). But whether or not there is solid state in the signal path of Ayon amplification, is the reason for avoiding it because it causes odd order harmonics and listener fatigue true?
Same question regarding: keeping the signal path as short as possible, class A operation, SET's, low capacitance highly purity wire (silver/copper), star grounding?
Mostly questions such as that posed on this thread "Tubes vs Solid State Amps" get opinions on specific pieces of equipment that people believe in, but I have also on similar threads seen arguments blow up about choices viewers have that do not mention or focus on whether the devices being argued over are tube or solid state but which, I suspect, should.
In my uneducated opinion based only upon what I have read and seen on this forum, it seems that those who favour solid state (and digital) tend to gauge performance by measurements (on solid state instruments), and those who favour hollow state, especially short signal path, class A SET's, gauge performance on sound, but what do I know.
Could someone enlighten me?
Valves supposedly give even order harmonics, as do real musical instruments, which according to the link above, "make sound fuller, like a choir", but according to the link above, less accurate? Ayon advertises "no solid state in the signal path" as a selling point for their Spitfire Class A SET (which helped convince me to buy one). But whether or not there is solid state in the signal path of Ayon amplification, is the reason for avoiding it because it causes odd order harmonics and listener fatigue true?
Same question regarding: keeping the signal path as short as possible, class A operation, SET's, low capacitance highly purity wire (silver/copper), star grounding?
Mostly questions such as that posed on this thread "Tubes vs Solid State Amps" get opinions on specific pieces of equipment that people believe in, but I have also on similar threads seen arguments blow up about choices viewers have that do not mention or focus on whether the devices being argued over are tube or solid state but which, I suspect, should.
In my uneducated opinion based only upon what I have read and seen on this forum, it seems that those who favour solid state (and digital) tend to gauge performance by measurements (on solid state instruments), and those who favour hollow state, especially short signal path, class A SET's, gauge performance on sound, but what do I know.
Could someone enlighten me?
Single-ended circuits, tube or solid-state, are typically dominated by second harmonic distortion but include even-and odd-order harmonics. Differential ("balanced", though not quite the same thing in reality) circuits cancel even-order harmonics by design so odd-order harmonics dominate. You can make single-ended SS amps but most tend to use differential circuits so have lower even-order harmonics.
SS devices, and amps, tend to have high intrinsic gain and bandwidth allowing for more feedback to further reduce distortion. Feedback also stabilizes the operating point so the amp has less "drift" with time, temperature, and so forth. High feedback is not bad, but must be properly designed. The arguments against feedback I have seen are based upon decades-old circuits long outdated or poor execution of modern designs. To achieve high feedback you need high bandwidth and high gain "inside" the amp to maintain high performance across the audio band. Fail at that, and higher harmonics start to become a problem as feedback rolls off at high frequencies due to limited internal gain-bandwidth. Tubes usually have lower gain and thus lower feedback, resulting in higher distortion but dominated by lower order stuff and without the relative rise in relative HF harmonic level some (many? most? I don't know) SS amps.
Any distortion means the sound is less accurate to the source. We are talking about playback here, recreation not creation of music, so in my mind the goal is to not add anything to the original unless I want to add it per my preference. And note real instruments have all sorts of harmonic spectra, certainly not just even. Some are near pure tones (flute), but most have a complex mix of harmonics, some dominated by odd, some by even, and many a mixture of both.
Listener fatigue can be many things, from just listening too loudly to clipping the amps and causing lots of distortion. A clipped tube amp can be just as fatiguing as a clipped SS amp, though before hard clipping the tube amp will usually exhibited "softer" saturation with distortion rising more slowly before clipping. For a number of reasons SS amps tend to move very quickly from clean sound into hard clipping when overdriven. The counter is that it is usually easier to get a lot more power from a SS amp so hopefully clipping is less likely.
I do not know what this means. Fewer active devices means potentially less noise and distortion, but an additional stage can often provide greater gain-bandwidth and better drive the load for better performance. A single-stage amplifier will generally work with a limited range of speakers and provide limited dynamic range since you can only get so much gain and power from a single stage. Horns and highly-sensitive speakers are thus popular matches to SET amplifiers.
From an engineering point of there is insignificant difference between copper and silver conductors particularly at audio frequencies. Low capacitance matters if the source and load impedance are very high; in practice the only place that occurs in a typical system is from the phono cartridge to the preamp. Or if the runs are extremely long, much longer than in a typical listening room.
Tube vs. solid state arguments IMO must include the system in which they are used and listener's preference. You can make a SS amp tube-like and vice-versa; designing for a particular sound is a choice during development.
I strongly disagree with that assumption. While by most measurements digital and SS devices outperform their tube counterparts, the idea that somehow their advocates do not care about sound is an old, tired, and divisive argument. As an engineer I have long been targeted as "anti-music" or "anti-sound" simply because I value measurements and such, ignoring the facts that I love to listen to music and use that to "turn off" the analytical part, and in fact play (make) music myself at a reasonably high level. Many audiophiles prefer SS amps for their tight bass and clean sound because it enhances their enjoyment of the music, not because it looks better on some graph. And in my decades fooling around with all things audio there have been plenty of "tweakers" using all sorts of equipment (tube and SS) who fit another tired old cliché that "audiophiles listen to the gear, musicians listen to the music".
My system is all SS now, but I have held on to some of my old tube gear, and for some time ran a hybrid system I was quite happy with. People listen to what they prefer, irrespective of what the spec sheet says or what active devices are inside.
Alas, probably not, prejudice is very hard to overcome. Grouping all SS folk into "focused on measurements" vs. "focused on sound" is a very wide brush and IME/IMO a disservice to many audiophiles who prefer SS. That said, in most any SS vs. tube (analog vs. digital, etc.) debate, measurements and such are sure to come out. I think the SS people arguing their preference tend to drag out the measurements to beat down the other side, whilst tube aficionados lacking objective superiority resort to subjective preferences in sonic character. Both sides ignore the fundamental bond we all have in wanting to hear the best sound we can. How we get there should not really matter... But humans always seem to have a need to convince others that they are (and/or their way is) best. I am no different than any other in that respect.
IMO - Don
Last edited:
Don, this is an excellent post from my non technical point of view. I started off with a Pass Labs Aleph 3 30 watt amplifier. My friend at the same time bought a tube amp for about the same price to drive our identical speakers. I preferred my combination, he preferred his. They were both enjoyable, in our opinions.
I continued to own various higher powered SS amps from Pass Labs, though always preferring their Class A models. I then tried a Lamm M1.1 SS amp and their tube preamp and phono. I preferred this to the Pass gear, but it was still a SS amp driving inefficient speakers. I then tried a Lamm SET and have now switched to all tube and horns.
As I look back, your post describes well the differences and the role of preference in one's decision. Nelson Pass and Vladimir Lamm both clearly love music, respect and understand measurements, and experiment with different designs to see what they can learn and achieve. We listeners compare and then choose based on what we hear and like. At least I presume this is what we all do.
In the end, we do get into discussions, sometimes heated, but we should remind ourselves that we are all in this hobby for, I think, the same basic reason - to enjoy our music collections and to listen with friends. Thank you for your very clear post about the fundamental differences between these technologies. It makes a lot of sense to me.
Last edited:
I ve heard lots of SS and tubes over the past year and a half .
Both can sound excellent there is no need to differentiate everything into a " whats best ."
What does one like to listen to would be a better viewpoint
Most tubey sounding SS would be R Koda i reckon .
Most remarkable Tube amp i ve heard was probably the latest set of Audio Research Pre/ Monos
Both can sound excellent there is no need to differentiate everything into a " whats best ."
What does one like to listen to would be a better viewpoint
Most tubey sounding SS would be R Koda i reckon .
Most remarkable Tube amp i ve heard was probably the latest set of Audio Research Pre/ Monos
When I say what sounds good, I mean sounds real, having in-the-room presence. You took offence by my suggestion that it appears to me that solid state and digital advocates judge by measurements whereas hollow state and analogue by sound. Sound, in my reference herein, means what sounds real, present. In my experience, digital and solid state amps that I have owned, don’t sound real to me. Carlos, another engineer on this forum, uses a sound mixer to “mix“ digital recordings that have already been mixed in order to make them sound the way he likes. He can not get new material from something already mixed, so is instead distracting and distorting what is there to make something that sounds good to him, but no way could it sound more real or present after all that processing.
Professor Don,
No one who is adequately informed thinks you don't care about music. The last time we conversed via pm you were about to attend concert rehearsal. You undoubtedly know more about music than a subjectivist like me. Where we part company is measurements can't dictate what I hear. A device can measure near perfectly but if does not convey the sense of reality it is of little use to me. I prefer to think there is nothing wrong with me. On the contrary it is the device that has that failed at its job. Others either say that I am either biased in favor or against the device. In other words, I hear or don't hear what I want based on my preference.
I think prejudice can often be overcome like ignorance. it can frequently be conquered with a little knowledge and experience. Bias on the other requires one to let go of preexisting notions. That is far more difficult to do
.
No one who is adequately informed thinks you don't care about music. The last time we conversed via pm you were about to attend concert rehearsal. You undoubtedly know more about music than a subjectivist like me. Where we part company is measurements can't dictate what I hear. A device can measure near perfectly but if does not convey the sense of reality it is of little use to me. I prefer to think there is nothing wrong with me. On the contrary it is the device that has that failed at its job. Others either say that I am either biased in favor or against the device. In other words, I hear or don't hear what I want based on my preference.
I think prejudice can often be overcome like ignorance. it can frequently be conquered with a little knowledge and experience. Bias on the other requires one to let go of preexisting notions. That is far more difficult to do
.
That's your opinion, and that is fine, but what vexed me was your lumping all digital and SS lovers into non-music-lovers or as in this post as listening to equipment that does not sound "real". I disagree that only tubes sound real in a playback system, and that all digital and SS folk don't care about sound as you imply.
The path from performer to disc (vinyl or CD) is very convoluted and except in a few extremely rare cases includes a ton of processing, mostly digital, to create the product we hear.
You asked for enlightenment but don't seem to really care what "the other side" thinks; I gave it a shot. Hopefully one more qualified than I can help. I'll drop this by noting our experience, preferences, and tastes differ. Could just be my ears of clay and crappy system but it sounds OK to me.
There are a myriad of measurements and too much focus is given to a very few. Making the measurements showing why you (generic you, me, anyone) prefer a particular component can be very difficult and generally not worthwhile. But rather get into that debate, I'll say that for me measurements are a starting point, mainly to weed out gear that won't work for me, and then I listen to the stuff I think I'll like. The last time I seriously listened to amplifiers, pushing a decade ago now, it was maybe 1/3 tube and 2/3 SS, but that reflects store stock as much as anything. Most equipment has frequency response and distortion more than good enough, especially compared to what the speakers are doing. My tube gear did not have great specs but sounded great to me. Where my amp (ARC D79) fell down was trying to drive challenging speaker loads (not my Maggies, which are pretty benign) or asking for more power than it could deliver. The only problem I had with the preamp (other than tube replacement) was the power supply was unreliable -- it was an old ARC SP3a1 and the zener diodes used for regulation were biased very, very hot and tended to fail, taking out the power supply. I got tired of rebuilding it. I have had SS amps I did not keep because their noise was too high in my system, and some of the early SS amps had some fairly serious (to me) issues (sonically and reliability). My main system is now an HT-oriented system so is filled with nasty digital circuits and transistors, oh well.
The bolded line in your post is the point I was trying to make: what we hear and enjoy is subject to our own preferences, and saying I and others don't care about the sound just because I like SS and digital sources is much too broad a generalization for me. I like vinyl and reel-to-reel too though my turntable and R2R deck are currently in storage. But I will always be looked down upon by the elite "purists" with their tubes, I suppose. Ironically I remember when SS became big in the late 70's/early 80's and the golden-eared ones looked down on me for my tube gear.
Circle of life...Tubes often sound beautiful, and I can see why people love them so much.
For me, tube-rolling is a part of the hobby I do NOT want to get into, but YMMV and lots of smart, interested music lovers do it all the time. We all enjoy different bits of the hobby
This thread has been great for the absence of tube vs SS “fighting”- well done all.
For me, Audionet Humboldt is SO good, I feel like I have the beauty of valves (fine! Tubes!) and the power and accuracy of solid state. ( I drive Humboldt with MSB DAC into Magico A5s)
So I am not thinking of an amp upgrade soon, although if I did, the Heisenbergs look insanely good.
So OP, maybe have a listen to the Scientist line?
Enjoy, everyone
Regards,
For me, tube-rolling is a part of the hobby I do NOT want to get into, but YMMV and lots of smart, interested music lovers do it all the time. We all enjoy different bits of the hobby
This thread has been great for the absence of tube vs SS “fighting”- well done all.
For me, Audionet Humboldt is SO good, I feel like I have the beauty of valves (fine! Tubes!) and the power and accuracy of solid state. ( I drive Humboldt with MSB DAC into Magico A5s)
So I am not thinking of an amp upgrade soon, although if I did, the Heisenbergs look insanely good.
So OP, maybe have a listen to the Scientist line?
Enjoy, everyone
Regards,
I have written a series of articles on testing for the Copper magazine.
The articles are in issues 125, 126, 127, 128 and 130. Just in case anyone is interested.
I am pretty agnostic when it comes to tubes vs. solid state. It is all in the implementation. The late Tim de Paravicini once said that it does not matter which type of device is used as long as it is used appropriately. It is true that tubes have limited open loop gain and therefore can become unstable with a lot of negative feedback. But there are ways to lower distortion without resorting to negative feedback. Solid state devices come in very handy here, and transistor current sinks can provide impedances in the megaohm range, which cathode resistors cannot hope to achieve, for example. Therefore, it is best to avoid becoming dogmatic (e.g. vacuum tube or SS only approach), and use each type of device where it excels. Another heresy I commit is the use of solid state devices in the power supply. I find the modern fast recovery diodes preferable to tube rectifiers, but I can get trolled for saying that.
The articles are in issues 125, 126, 127, 128 and 130. Just in case anyone is interested.
I am pretty agnostic when it comes to tubes vs. solid state. It is all in the implementation. The late Tim de Paravicini once said that it does not matter which type of device is used as long as it is used appropriately. It is true that tubes have limited open loop gain and therefore can become unstable with a lot of negative feedback. But there are ways to lower distortion without resorting to negative feedback. Solid state devices come in very handy here, and transistor current sinks can provide impedances in the megaohm range, which cathode resistors cannot hope to achieve, for example. Therefore, it is best to avoid becoming dogmatic (e.g. vacuum tube or SS only approach), and use each type of device where it excels. Another heresy I commit is the use of solid state devices in the power supply. I find the modern fast recovery diodes preferable to tube rectifiers, but I can get trolled for saying that.
Honestly, I sit firmly on the fence regarding this issue. Even as I type this response, I sit with SS on the left of me and tubes on the right. They are two relatively modest headphone setups. I enjoy them both very much. My last amplifier was a hybrid.
If I were choosing a dream system, where price is no object i am not sure where I would and. Tubes just appear to be a much simpler design. Even an all-out attempt like Atmasphere. Most ss amps I would consider are huge and very expensive complicated designs.
I think I would settle on a hybrid. AT CAF 2022 I was impressed by an SET hybrid. The Moscode 402AU is a pure hybrid using tubes in the output stage. Then there is the McIntosh MC 902which is basically puta tube and ss on the same chassis and handles all the problems of mating them for you.
We have come a long way from the days when many ss designs were simply unlistenable. To be fair tubes were all about the midrange. IMO the choice is more dependent on speaker choice r than inherent sonic quality.
If I were choosing a dream system, where price is no object i am not sure where I would and. Tubes just appear to be a much simpler design. Even an all-out attempt like Atmasphere. Most ss amps I would consider are huge and very expensive complicated designs.
I think I would settle on a hybrid. AT CAF 2022 I was impressed by an SET hybrid. The Moscode 402AU is a pure hybrid using tubes in the output stage. Then there is the McIntosh MC 902which is basically puta tube and ss on the same chassis and handles all the problems of mating them for you.
We have come a long way from the days when many ss designs were simply unlistenable. To be fair tubes were all about the midrange. IMO the choice is more dependent on speaker choice r than inherent sonic quality.
Some measurements can describe what you hear (albeit, partly), not the other way round -- surely!
For example, the bump in speakers' measured FR at around 120Hz is a depiction of that boominess you hear.
Personal taste is important, of course, but (as you know, of course) the sound we hear does not depend on performance of a single device. It is the result of all the devices in the chain working together.
Ultimately, however, what you will hear is a reproduction of what's on the source: vinyl, file, cd, etc...
I think that is pretty well accepted that component design is part science, part art. As we see on PBS any competent artist can crank out a decent painting. But it takes talent to create a work of art. The difference is difficult if not impossible to quantify
I was looking for an answer from someone who understands and builds quality amplifiers based upon the principles of short signal paths, 99.9999 pure silver and the use of the best quality parts, but limiting parts as much as possible as each additional part affects the sound adversely. I am asking for people like Masaki Ashizawa of Kondo Japan, Ken Shindo of Shindo electronics and Don Garber from fi who build exceptional sound reproduction systems based upon these design concepts explain them in a way that even audio engineers like DonH50 will understand and appreciate.
A correction/clarification on what I have written. I am not saying SS sounds worse than hollow state period, nor am I saying that those who enjoy SS and hybrid systems are enjoying them solely on how they measure, so please stop taking offence.
What I am trying to find out in my posting is what aspects of design are making amplifiers put out by Kondo, Shindo, fi, Morrison etc., sound so incredibly real (to me), whether or not they sacrifice frequency extremes and require horn speakers. And to put it in terms that engineer’s can appreciate but also so that lay persons like myself can understand.
I am also wondering if differences in people’s hearing and psychoacoustic perceptions are what is truly behind disagreements over solid state vs hollow state vs SET vs pure analogue tape to cutting head with or without digital, etc. etc.
What I am trying to find out in my posting is what aspects of design are making amplifiers put out by Kondo, Shindo, fi, Morrison etc., sound so incredibly real (to me), whether or not they sacrifice frequency extremes and require horn speakers. And to put it in terms that engineer’s can appreciate but also so that lay persons like myself can understand.
I am also wondering if differences in people’s hearing and psychoacoustic perceptions are what is truly behind disagreements over solid state vs hollow state vs SET vs pure analogue tape to cutting head with or without digital, etc. etc.
Last edited:
I started to, but was directed to this thread (by algorithm?) and didn’t want to re-hash if already being discussed. I suppose I should, but I don’t know if I will necessarily get different replies.
I don't care what points you raise. I just don't know how you can raise an off-topic point and at the same time tell others what you don't want to hear. I am done here anyway.
The title of this thread is “Tubes vs Solid State amps”. My first entry on this thread said how my Ayon Spitfire advertses “no solid state in the signal path” as a selling point, and I included a URL that claimed Solid State emits “odd order harmonics“ that “cause listener fatigue”. I wondered aloud if the odd order harmonics in solid state devices was responsible for the differences between solid state and hollow state and perhaps the issues some find with digital too, but was told by an engineer on this thread that what I had downloaded from the internet is incorrect and that both solid state and hollow state emit odd order and even order harmonics (I must defer to the engineer‘s greater education on this).
I then considered Japanese amplifiers like Kondo, Shindo, and Air Tight (the amp included by the original poster) and wondered, if not odd order harmonics released by solid state devices, then what is it about these Japanese amps that people find so pleasing, so asked about short signal paths (ultra linear), DHSET’s, high purity silver wire (Kondo Ongaku), etc. hoping that someone famiar with such would explain it to me … if truely not due to solid state.
I admitted I am not an engineer so know little about all the heavy digital processing used by the recording industry to master music today, except that intuitively it seems to me that all that processing and noise shaping and global negative feedback would actually remove the “presence/naturalness” from the recorded performance.
Last edited:
Similar threads
