Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps

[Atmasphere]

^^ I remember the study just fine. Its not my problem that it does not fit into your idea of how things are, which is what has happened with most of the industry, so you are not alone on that score. But it is why we still have these silly arguments 40-50 years on. They will not go away until this sort of thing is acknowledged. I see that you did not try the test. I told you why the test works, several times, of course you aren't going to see what the deal is if you can't acknowledge how the ear works...

Do the test- I've had plenty of people do this one over the years. They've been pretty consistent.

You could also ask a guitar player how to get the guitar to cut through the mix- or the same thing of a keyboard player. They'll tell you the same thing, although they will use different ways to explain it. BTW it appears you are contradicting yourself in your last statement....

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Have you measured the output transformers from *current* Jadis, EAR, cj, CAT or ARC tube amplifiers? A good friend measured the Jadis and said they are the best measuring OTs he's ever seen.

Also, I'd hate to say that Tim de Paravicini is slouch when it comes to designing and winding transformers.

I had a Jadis Orchestra Reference in my shop last spring. It's performance was okay, but lackluster. Distortion was pretty high and frequency response was somewhat limited, though not nearly as bad as the Carver entry level offering.

A properly working Altec 1568A mops the floor with these 'boutique' amps, in terms of bandwidth, distortion and tightness of control. Also, one of two brands of VT amp that can pass a square wave unadulterated. The other was the McIntosh MC series.

To think that I once possessed three Altec Peerless 16432 output transformers, which I tossed 15 years ago when major changed to my housing situation were in flux, I could kick myself today. I'd built three 6SN7/6L6 amplifiers with these transformers back in the early 70s and used them for many years and they sounded great, though I didn't have the gear to measure them. In the late 1990s, I didn't have any clue that a vacuum tube revival would happen in the 2000s.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

A good start - but each of the Atma-sphere MA2's has over 100,000 uF total capacitance. Can we know what output tubes are you using?

I'm on a budget. High voltage, high capacitance electrolytics are expensive!

Using Russian 6P45 sweep tubes, Similar to 6KG6/EL509.

 

[Mark (Basspig) Weiss]

Mark, that is a bit of a shocker dude! But, its not a shocker that folks claimed it was way better than more linear gear or competed against "higher priced gear" and all that stuff. If anything, Bob delivered the goods for folks that think clean sound is "sterile". There are a lot of them out there and here. This constant change between cleanish and guitarish sounding amps keeps the churn going there and here.

Here is an example of a very restricted bandwith amp but it sounds real good. Its sometimes just about tone control I suppose.

it also shows the particular actions of the circuit when used in pentode mode when harmonics are let loose big time compared to the triode mode.

View attachment 13900

I've recently come to the conclusion that there is a group of audiophiles who are not interested in High Fidelity, but in 'Euphonic' sound. Frankly, spending a lot of time in front of live orchestras that I record, I prefer the sterile, uncolored sound to the 'warm, rose-colored' sound of some of these distortion-generous tube amplifiers. Why anyone would want to limit bandwidth and add distortion to their audio chain just baffles my mind.

Those specs are terrible. Noise floor only -56dB? I'm used to -114 or better. And crosstalk of 30dB? This is an amplifer, not a Sherwood S8000 FM tuner with first generation stereo demuxer! Nothing less than 90dB channel separation would be acceptable for me to define that parameter as a good performance for a stereo amplifier.

 

[esldude]

I've recently come to the conclusion that there is a group of audiophiles who are not interested in High Fidelity, but in 'Euphonic' sound.

Nothing is equal to the High End. High Fidelity? What is that?

As the High End wanders further and further from the idea of High actual Fidelity, to distorted perceptions that refuse to fact check against reality, the crazier and more expensive it becomes. I don't even mind someone preferring an enjoyable euphonic sound. Just don't try and tell everyone how it really is more accurate. Build your euphonic sound from a base of High Fidelity.

 

[853guy]

I've recently come to the conclusion that there is a group of audiophiles who are not interested in High Fidelity, but in 'Euphonic' sound... Why anyone would want to limit bandwidth and add distortion to their audio chain just baffles my mind.

Says the guy who uses a dbx 4bx Dynamic Range Expander and a dbx 500 Subharmonic Enhancer.

Oh, and freely admits:

"...using a dbx 4bx Expander with Impact Restoration I can increase the "pop" of the snare drums to ear-shattering levels... I like my snares to be about 30db above the rest of the music on louder hits. I'll admit this departs from high-fidelity strictly because I am exaggerating the dynamics, but then audio is about enjoyment, and I built this system to provide accuracy and exaggeration to larger-than-life proportions as well...".

I especially like the way you combine the mutually exclusive ideals of "accuracy" and "exaggeration" in the same sentence as the words "larger-than-life". If there's anything worthy of the phrase "mind baffling", it's that sentence right there.

 

[Ronm1]

It does appear we are back to some noise, distortion and non-accuracy are needed ingredients. Course when berated on that observation I was reminded that connection to the music is of primary importance. Certainly one can appreciate fine performances if sonics don't have perfection or excellent repro. I have difficulty making connection when there is a racket going on. I'm just funny that way.

 

[Orb]

I've recently come to the conclusion that there is a group of audiophiles who are not interested in High Fidelity, but in 'Euphonic' sound. Frankly, spending a lot of time in front of live orchestras that I record, I prefer the sterile, uncolored sound to the 'warm, rose-colored' sound of some of these distortion-generous tube amplifiers. Why anyone would want to limit bandwidth and add distortion to their audio chain just baffles my mind.

Those specs are terrible. Noise floor only -56dB? I'm used to -114 or better. And crosstalk of 30dB? This is an amplifer, not a Sherwood S8000 FM tuner with first generation stereo demuxer! Nothing less than 90dB channel separation would be acceptable for me to define that parameter as a good performance for a stereo amplifier.

Mark dont you think that is an insult to those who do like tubes and manufacturers such as Audio Research, McIntosh, Nagra,etc that frankly are nothing like what you suggest with that statement.

Must admit I am starting to be annoyed with generic views/statements (it is not just you) about both distortion (enough counter investigations to highlight it may not actually be beneficial in terms of preference or objective dbt audibility with music as mentioned in the past even in this thread) and tube electronics where the view always has to be focused on the very worst in terms of performance/measurements.

Cheers
Orb

 

[MylesBAstor]

I had a Jadis Orchestra Reference in my shop last spring. It's performance was okay, but lackluster. Distortion was pretty high and frequency response was somewhat limited, though not nearly as bad as the Carver entry level offering.

A properly working Altec 1568A mops the floor with these 'boutique' amps, in terms of bandwidth, distortion and tightness of control. Also, one of two brands of VT amp that can pass a square wave unadulterated. The other was the McIntosh MC series.

To think that I once possessed three Altec Peerless 16432 output transformers, which I tossed 15 years ago when major changed to my housing situation were in flux, I could kick myself today. I'd built three 6SN7/6L6 amplifiers with these transformers back in the early 70s and used them for many years and they sounded great, though I didn't have the gear to measure them. In the late 1990s, I didn't have any clue that a vacuum tube revival would happen in the 2000s.

The Jadis integrated Orchestra amplifier is hardly their best component. Why don't you measure a JA-200 or 500?

BTW, my friend Larry Smith (Perfectionist Audio Components) was a damn good electronics and speaker designer in his day and he wouldn't have, as many other have, complimented the performance of the Jadis output transformers unless they were very good. IIRC circuit as I remember was based on Mac (Francisco and I discussed that a long time ago here). He had a wonderful set of speakers like the four speaker Infinity design based around the Strathearn ribbon and their were few equals to his preamplifier. He and his partner Sal Demicco (RIP) also built some very good cables for the day.

I just find it hard to believe that in 60 or 70 years, there hasn't been any improvement to the design of output transformers. Tim, who's probably one of the world's expert in transformer design, would certain disagree. Not to mention the sound of tube amplifiers have improved by leaps and bound. What you say makes little sense since early tube amplifiers were really bandwidth limited and had little bass or top end to speak of and were muddier than hell. Since tube amplifier circuitry is basically based on the three same circuits (plus something like Ralph's OTL circuit), then what's responsible for the improvement in sound? Or hasn't the sound improved in your estimation? If that's the case, there's something really wrong in your system.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Nothing is equal to the High End. High Fidelity? What is that?

As the High End wanders further and further from the idea of High actual Fidelity, to distorted perceptions that refuse to fact check against reality, the crazier and more expensive it becomes. I don't even mind someone preferring an enjoyable euphonic sound. Just don't try and tell everyone how it really is more accurate. Build your euphonic sound from a base of High Fidelity.

Yes it's beginning to feel like a Woody Allen film in here:

You're like a New York Jewish, Left-Wing, Liberal Intellectual, Central Park West, Brandeis University, the socialist summer camps, and the father with the Ben Shahn drawings, right? Really, you know, strike-oriented, kind of Red - Stop me before I make a complete imbecile of myself!

"No, that was wonderful. I love being reduced to a cultural stereotype."

"Right, I'm a bigot, you know, but for the left."

Gotta just love your sweeping generalizations that couldn't be more wrong.

 

[microstrip]

Mark dont you think that is an insult to those who do like tubes and manufacturers such as Audio Research, McIntosh, Nagra,etc that frankly are nothing like what you suggest with that statement.

Must admit I am starting to be annoyed with generic views/statements (it is not just you) about both distortion (enough counter investigations to highlight it may not actually be beneficial in terms of preference or objective dbt audibility with music as mentioned in the past even in this thread) and tube electronics where the view always has to be focused on the very worst in terms of performance/measurements.

Cheers
Orb

+1!

Orb,

Unfortunately, many people who seem to have only seen the tip of high-end and do not care about the main objectives of sound reproduction love to show their indignation against tubes using the worst equipment they can find to illustrate their point. And yes, I know, the unfortunate provocative tittle of the thread is the justification of it all ...

IMHO, one possible way to understand "tube sound" is listening to the best and then looking at what gets lost and what is kept as you go down the hill. Some people seem to prefer the witches hunter style - may be they would love to connect the guilty amplifiers to the high voltage distribution lines and keep watching!

PS Just to tell that a good friend of mine had the small Jadis DA30 for decades - his system sounded great and many people spent countless hours listening to great music in his system. It would embarrass all the Onkyo's, Sony's and Kenwood's of the neighborhood.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Nothing is equal to the High End. High Fidelity? What is that?

As the High End wanders further and further from the idea of High actual Fidelity, to distorted perceptions that refuse to fact check against reality, the crazier and more expensive it becomes. I don't even mind someone preferring an enjoyable euphonic sound. Just don't try and tell everyone how it really is more accurate. Build your euphonic sound from a base of High Fidelity.

You're not getting the point. You have to embrace the concept of greater detail emerging from higher noise, of midrange purity in the right kind of distortion, of more musicality coming from a limited range. And in the end, you have to understand that there is some undiscovered property out there that elevates your preferred tone above all its limitation, making it just...more like real music. And after all, what is fidelity to the recording if you can somehow extract more reality from it than what was actually put in it?

Tim

 

[Al M.]

You're not getting the point. You have to embrace the concept of greater detail emerging from higher noise,

How can that happen, more detail (I suppose you mean more timbral detail, not that you hear more of all kinds of side voices)? More harmonics due to distortion?

 

[MylesBAstor]

+1!

Orb,

Unfortunately, many people who seem to have only seen the tip of high-end and do not care about the main objectives of sound reproduction love to show their indignation against tubes using the worst equipment they can find to illustrate their point. And yes, I know, the unfortunate provocative tittle of the thread is the justification of it all ...

IMHO, one possible way to understand "tube sound" is listening to the best and then looking at what gets lost and what is kept as you go down the hill. Some people seem to prefer the witches hunter style - may be they would love to connect the guilty amplifiers to the high voltage distribution lines and keep watching!

PS Just to tell that a good friend of mine had the small Jadis DA30 for decades - his system sounded great and many people spent countless hours listening to great music in his system. It would embarrass all the Onkyo's, Sony's and Kenwood's of the neighborhood.

Know this is going to make a subset of this site indignant but 99% of the issue is the front-end. One really doesn't know what the electronics and speakers are capable of doing until you have a top notch front-end, be it digital or analog. Corollary: the electronics and speakers are a lot better than we think. They're only reproducing what they're fed-whether it be the frequency extremes or what's in between. And man has that ever been proven out once again with my new table.....

I'd love to have someone come over and tell me us all about the distortions and euphonics in cj or ARC tube gear. Biting my tongue.....

And this stuff about *all* audiophiles wanting euphonic colorations is beyond bogus. How about those with solid-state with detail that peels the paint off the walls? Gotta love sweeping generalizations....

And if you don't believe that, I have a DBX for sale....

 

[microstrip]

You're not getting the point. You have to embrace the concept of greater detail emerging from higher noise, of midrange purity in the right kind of distortion, of more musicality coming from a limited range. And in the end, you have to understand that there is some undiscovered property out there that elevates your preferred tone above all its limitation, making it just...more like real music. And after all, what is fidelity to the recording if you can somehow extract more reality from it than what was actually put in it?

Tim

Tim,

There is hope for you. You are really understanding the high-end. With some small changes to clarify, it is all true - my changes in bold.
(...) You have to embrace the concept of greater detail emerging from higher measured noise, of midrange purity in spite of higher measured distortion, of more musicality coming from a measured limited range. And in the end, you have to understand that there is some unmeasured property out there that elevates your preferred tone above all its limitation, making it just...more like real music. And after all, what is fidelity to the recording if you can somehow extract more reality from it than what the engineers thought was actually put in it?

 

[microstrip]

(...) Using Russian 6P45 sweep tubes, Similar to 6KG6/EL509.

These are good news. Do you think the Russian 6P45 is capable of 1400mA plate current? As far as I remember reading in tube forums, the current production EL509s could not go beyond 500 mA. See: http://tubehifi.websitetoolbox.com/post?id=67129

 

[Al M.]

SET amps simply fall apart when trying to reproduce a full blown orhestral recording and those that don't believe that simply need to play a SET and a ss amp at the same time to hear the missing details (as opposed to embellishment of some details) the SET amp adds....the SET amps simply add too much extra richness to higher level tones ...

How is that extra richness possible? By distortion? Could that add extra perceived timbral detail?

 

[andromedaaudio]

Tomelex , I think you haven't heard what high quality tube bass whether set or other can do with an orchestra .
On the RIGHT speaker there is no SS substitute , the weight/ bloom/ heft such an amp can display on that kind of music is very natural, it will fill the room as SS bass will be controlled and thats it for the most part.
Go listen to octave jubilees for example.
That's one of the main reasons I find active bass(mostly digital modules ) in speakers unattractive

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How can that happen, more detail (I suppose you mean more timbral detail, not that you hear more of all kinds of side voices)? More harmonics due to distortion?

It's easy. Just close your eyes, cross your fingers and repeat after me...I believe in faries...

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

How is that extra richness possible? By distortion? Could that add extra perceived timbral detail?

We have a winner!