Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
Jack,
Even worse is the assumption that simplification solves everything. Experts write long books and articles, try to make the bridge between psychoacoustics and instrumentation, present their very valid contributions and recognize that there is still a lot to be done. However some people want instantaneous knowledge - they believe that expertise comes by magic reading basic electronics and a few audio postulates in WBF posts tens of times, and any debate on the fundamentals or on the work of real audio experts is a waste of time ...
In science I don't refer to a 'God of the Gaps' for things that I don't know. I simply do more research.
Indeed. The idea that in audio all research is done and all we need to know is in our current measurements is amazing.
Such as denying the obvious that there may be some merit to human auditory experience that some components do sound better, even though this does does not show in the usual measurements, by reaching for the unlikely in saying this cannot be so because all the usual measurements say so.
Certainly, I agree that the measurements that we do make are valuable and should not be dismissed offhand, and I also agree there is a lot of 'magical' thinking, charlatan behaviour, bias and misinformation in high-end. But I don't believe, in fact I know from experience, even with all these caveats that there is more to the story than the adherents of the idea that we already measure everything relevant want us to believe.
Esldude,
Your statement contains a double fallacy - the God of the Gaps was a religious perspective, and the God of the Gaps thinking can only lead to debates on the existence of God, not of science limitations. The second is considering that a measurement is just the act of taking values from an instrument. A measurement is a value that must express an expressive correlation with a the entity you are studying. In stereo audio science the problem is not taking data - we have very powerful instruments that approach the theoretical limits imposed by the intrinsic noise - the problem is establishing the correlations in a firm and clear way. This results essentially from the blurred nature of the entity being studied - the quality of sound reproduction in stereo.
I don't think I've ever denied that, personally. I have probably said that "some components do sound better" is a matter of taste, not fact. But people like what they like, there is no denying that, and no amount of measurement will change it.
[/QUOTE]
Scratch the surface. I think you could count "the adherents of the idea that we already measure everything relevant" here on one hand and still have a few free fingers. I'm not one of them, and I still think, that as often as not, we're talking about reaching for the unlikely in a desperate effort to deny the obvious. You can measure the input and output of a euphonic tube amp and see a difference that can't help but be audible in those measurements. You can run a null test, and listen to the difference. And it's not detail. Perceived as detail? Sure.
Tim
Of course reviewes and audiophiles have spent decades detailing what they hear to no avail. To attribute it all to euphoric distortion shows at least a black of imagination.
If audiophiles are gullible would we not be equally gullible to the truth? Which is more attractive ? A flat earth or a round. Pragmatism would dictate a predisposition toward a choice of spherical
Falling of the edge of the edge of the earth is not a good choice.
There are legendary solid state designers. The prospect of a relatively inexpensive amp is extremely attractive.Anything you want from hobbyist perspective is available from tubes and solid
state. Exclusivity, over design the , and the ability to modify are all present.
Certainly there is an absolute..No one is required to follow it. I invite you to an Am a-Sphere amp Your stereotypes about tube amps will be challenged
If audiophiles are gullible would we not be equally gullible to the truth? Which is more attractive ? A flat earth or a round. Pragmatism would dictate a predisposition toward a choice of spherical
Falling of the edge of the edge of the earth is not a good choice.
There are legendary solid state designers. The prospect of a relatively inexpensive amp is extremely attractive.Anything you want from hobbyist perspective is available from tubes and solid
state. Exclusivity, over design the , and the ability to modify are all present.
Certainly there is an absolute..No one is required to follow it. I invite you to an Am a-Sphere amp Your stereotypes about tube amps will be challenged
Guys... Please stop discussing each other and conduct yourself with the high standard that we have set for WBF.
That's for sure. I would place the best of the modelling guitar amps at about 60% of the abilities of the amp they are modelling. They just don't have the guts!
Some people here have been talking about the magic of tubes. Of course there is no magic. But the idea that we have had everything sorted out for the last 40 years is bogus too. The problem here has to do with understanding how we hear things. We know the mechanics of the ear. Not so much about how the ear is able to convert sounds to neural signals. Even less about how the brain processes those signals on arrival!
But we can say with certainty that the more we know about how the ear/brain system works, the better we can get things to sound. In effect, using engineering to solve the problem. For the most part, right now the engineering has been used to make the equipment look good on paper. The problem is that the paper does not jive with the ear/brain system's perceptual rules. So we can hear things that are hard to measure (trace amounts of odd ordered content) and there are other things the ear just does not seem to care about at all, but are easy to measure, like the phase of a sine wave.
IOW: the 'magic', the mystery is still quite literally in our heads. We're not going to be able to undo millions of years of evolution. Anyone here have any idea why the ear is so sensitive at upper midrange frequencies for example? This is far above human vocal tones... This is an example of what I mean by mystery (if you want the answer I can answer it BTW).
But if you *understand* that the ear is so sensitive in that area, and that it uses higher ordered harmonics to tell how loud a sound is, wouldn't you want to avoid making distortion in that region??
Mark,
Did you change anything other than the tube rectifiers? Can you quantify the "immense drop in source impedance"?
Just to add, some might not know but T+A (German audio manufacturer) has several SS products designed around high voltage concept (they also have several products that can switch in real-time between High Power and High Current mode).
Marketing blurb on their thoughts but there is definite engineering reasons to their high voltage design products:
T+A said:
Cheers
Orb
After reading this thread I wonder if I am alone in thinking it would be nice to get together with Mark (basspig) & Ralph (atmasphere), grab a bottle or two of some nice Scotch, Tequilla, etc., and listen to the 2 of them chat about their personal experiences in designing, building, modifying, tweaking and measuring amplifiers. This would, of course, be followed with a nice music listening/experiencing session with Mark and Ralph demoing their amplifiers. I'm ready.
This is a perfect example of the logical fallacy known as "putting words in someone's mouth." I never said tube gear is garbage. Some of it is very good despite how much more effort (and expense) is required to obtain high fidelity.
--Ethan
esldude gave you the short answer, and these give a much more complete explanation of how fidelity is defined, and what amounts typically matter enough to care about:
Audiophoolery
AES Audio Myths video
AES Damn Lies video
--Ethan
What you miss is that the magnitude of distortion matters much more than its specific makeup. Nobody will hear 0.01 percent distortion whether it's mostly odd or mostly even, and even budget amplifiers often achieve distortion that low. Further, the notion that odd-order harmonics are more objectionable is simply false. It depends on the context, and how far away (in frequency) the added harmonics are compared to the fundamental due to the masking effect. A clarinet produces mostly odd overtones, so adding a 2nd harmonic will change its timbre more noticeably than adding a 3rd harmonic which is already present anyway. Further, even or odd THD is much less important than IM distortion, which is vastly more objectionable than any THD. Since THD and IMD are always present together, IMD is the most irritating type of distortion.
--Ethan
Really?
*In every case competent SS [my note: only competent, not great SS, so what is one to conclude? A receiver is better?] has higher fidelity than tubes, even if some people prefer the sound of tubes (which is fine).* [yes, if you're an audiophool] I think that sums it up pretty nicely.
- Status
