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

[esldude]

Or some would say if poorly designed enough.



Which SETamplifier (s) on what speaker (s)?

It's clear that SETs, in contrast to other tube amps, must be more carefully matched to the speaker in order to reap the full benefits.

One could say an SET designed poorly enough would sound like SS. One would be factually incorrect. But one could say it.

As for which SET and on what speakers. As I said in another post. Lose-lose proposition most of the time on forums. Talk in general about a class of design and people will say it doesn't apply to a particular example. Talk about a particular example and people complain it doesn't apply generally.

I already said my experience with SET is limited. Though consistent in a few examples. Have heard variations of them on K-horns, LaScalas, Wilsons, and a home-made high efficiency speaker. That latter was wonderful with a DIY OTL of only 10 watts, and with a Pass Aleph 3 of 30 watts. One can tell some things by measurements. And those are enough with most SET's to see shortcomings. One of which is as you say the need for extremely careful speaker matching. I can hardly think the worlds most wonderful match will unveil yards of detail never before beheld by me. For one big reason the output of good SS leaves little wrong. And SET's have all the characteristics to instead create false space, detail and lively sound. Which also seems the kind of descriptions for them. Yes, it is possible I am missing out on something wonderful. But the odds seem low, and we don't have unlimited time.

 

[esldude]

No, but it sure inferred it. Look, you didn't write the comment, you just quoted it. I just don't think it's particularly brilliant.

No I didn't write it I quoted it and attributed it to wikipedia. Didn't know it would be so tedious to get across. Timbre is two tones sounding equally loud distinguished by ovetones giving them a different character. The formal definition if you will. In terms of music listening a slight variation in that two pieces of equipment may have musical timbre portrayed differently to the listener. Again due to alteration in overtones. We know tubes can add to overtones through harmonic distortion at or just above perceptible levels. Hence to say they have more timbre (more overtones) isn't surprising. It is to be expected. To say that greater sense of timbre is additional accuracy seems unwarranted. To say you like it and enjoy music that way is your preference. So other than to find something wrong with what I quoted not sure what the point was.

 

[treitz3]

And some musicians liked the first generation of digital recordings. What does that say?

Ouch. That's gotta leave a mark.

Tom

 

[MylesBAstor]

One could say an SET designed poorly enough would sound like SS. One would be factually incorrect. But one could say it.

Really, I've heard this happen with SETs as well as with push-pull tube amplifiers. After hearing one instance, my friend turned to me and said, "he's succeeded where no one else has. He's made a tube amplifier sound like a solid-state amplifier." One could say it's due to certain distortions present.

As for which SET and on what speakers. As I said in another post. Lose-lose proposition most of the time on forums. Talk in general about a class of design and people will say it doesn't apply to a particular example. Talk about a particular example and people complain it doesn't apply generally.

No you can't make sweeping generalizations without specifics so there are *SO* many variables involved.

I already said my experience with SET is limited. Though consistent in a few examples. Have heard variations of them on K-horns, LaScalas, Wilsons, and a home-made high efficiency speaker. That latter was wonderful with a DIY OTL of only 10 watts, and with a Pass Aleph 3 of 30 watts. One can tell some things by measurements. And those are enough with most SET's to see shortcomings. One of which is as you say the need for extremely careful speaker matching. I can hardly think the worlds most wonderful match will unveil yards of detail never before beheld by me. For one big reason the output of good SS leaves little wrong. And SET's have all the characteristics to instead create false space, detail and lively sound. Which also seems the kind of descriptions for them. Yes, it is possible I am missing out on something wonderful. But the odds seem low, and we don't have unlimited time.

So basically your mind is closed? I think most of us are still learning that the only certainty is uncertainty.

 

[mep]

No I didn't write it I quoted it and attributed it to wikipedia. Didn't know it would be so tedious to get across. Timbre is two tones sounding equally loud distinguished by ovetones giving them a different character. The formal definition if you will. In terms of music listening a slight variation in that two pieces of equipment may have musical timbre portrayed differently to the listener. Again due to alteration in overtones. We know tubes can add to overtones through harmonic distortion at or just above perceptible levels. Hence to say they have more timbre (more overtones) isn't surprising. It is to be expected. To say that greater sense of timbre is additional accuracy seems unwarranted. To say you like it and enjoy music that way is your preference. So other than to find something wrong with what I quoted not sure what the point was.

It was simply to point out that I thought the statement from Wiki that I originally highlighted was actually kind of funny and like I previously said, not particularly brilliant.

 

[mep]

Here's a question for the SS cognoscenti here: Can someone please name some classic SS amps that are highly sought after and rarely if ever come up for sale?

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

esldude, yours is a noble pursuit, but it cannot end well for you. Unless you're willing to agree that whatever they prefer is superior, the arguments will continue circling until you give up and go find something better to do with your life. Trust me on this.

Tim

 

[esldude]

So basically your mind is closed? I think most of us are still learning that the only certainty is uncertainty.

No it isn't closed. As I said, life is finite, time is limited. Explanations that are rational, measurable, and repeatable give a good explanation for what is going on. Faith based metaphysical explanations for what one is hearing don't cut it in my opinion or experience. You are the one being closed minded not to consider that what the measurements and other facts of human hearing are telling you are somehow insufficient. Given the likelihood with the facts as they are known, I have better things to do than chase what appears to be a phantom. If I trip across a demonstration that changes my mind, I would investigate further. The zealotry behind direct heated triodes and such have proven unhelpful thus far. The constant refrain is if you didn't like it the first 6 times you just need to find one done right it is incredible. Sorry, I'll try other paths.

 

[esldude]

esldude, yours is a noble pursuit, but it cannot end well for you. Unless you're willing to agree that whatever they prefer is superior, the arguments will continue circling until you give up and go find something better to do with your life. Trust me on this.

Tim

Believe me Tim, I know you are speaking the truth. I periodically bother to post such things and periodically despair and desist. I love your signature as a result. It appears most audiphiles don't want to really know the truth. Or as Mark Twain said, "it is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled."

I must say if the preference and accuracy thing were straightened out it wouldn't be so bad. As you state it I must agree their preferences are superior as if they crave some sort of confirmation. Otherwise no rest for the wicked.

Expensive watches are an example how it could work. They aren't more accurate than mass market watches. Maybe not even as well built as the better mass market. It is a matter of taste and preference. There is no wrong taste or preference. And among some groups a particular taste may make one a connoisseur of sorts. I have no problem with connoisseurs of SET sound, horn sound, or push-pull triode sound or what have you. That should be plenty enough. Come listen, I have tastefully assembled a system with DH_SET's, and horns that will leave you reveling in the sheer joy of music. Neither accuracy, nor simple fidelity are enough for me. Listen for yourself and see. One either gets hooked by it or doesn't. It would even lead them to more efficiently achieve their goals. But instead to insist on false superior fidelity, they chase ever more expensive phantoms and ghosts which they will never catch.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Believe me Tim, I know you are speaking the truth. I periodically bother to post such things and periodically despair and desist. I love your signature as a result. It appears most audiphiles don't want to really know the truth. Or as Mark Twain said, "it is easier to fool people, than to convince them they have been fooled."

I must say if the preference and accuracy thing were straightened out it wouldn't be so bad. As you state it I must agree their preferences are superior as if they crave some sort of confirmation. Otherwise no rest for the wicked.

Expensive watches are an example how it could work. They aren't more accurate than mass market watches. Maybe not even as well built as the better mass market. It is a matter of taste and preference. There is no wrong taste or preference. And among some groups a particular taste may make one a connoisseur of sorts. I have no problem with connoisseurs of SET sound, horn sound, or push-pull triode sound or what have you. That should be plenty enough. Come listen, I have tastefully assembled a system with DH_SET's, and horns that will leave you reveling in the sheer joy of music. Accuracy, nor simple fidelity are enough for me. Listen for yourself and see. One either gets hooked by it or doesn't. It would even lead them to more efficiently achieve their goals. But instead to insist on false superior fidelity, they chase ever more expensive phantoms and ghosts which they will never catch.

Perhaps the perfect analogy. This is like talking to a collector of expensive timepieces who must believe that his IWC Grand is more accurate than the clock in his smart phone. Never mind that the phone calibrates it's clock regularly to an atomic clock. The watch lover will question the very concept of time to continue believing that his IWC presents a more perfect representation of time. Try to soothe him with reason, or allow him to save face by acknowledging that accuracy isn't important, that, in fact, it pales in the diamond face of his beloved watch, and he will only bristle. "It's all about the time!" He will insist.

Tim

 

[MylesBAstor]

No it isn't closed. As I said, life is finite, time is limited. Explanations that are rational, measurable, and repeatable give a good explanation for what is going on. Faith based metaphysical explanations for what one is hearing don't cut it in my opinion or experience. You are the one being closed minded not to consider that what the measurements and other facts of human hearing are telling you are somehow insufficient. Given the likelihood with the facts as they are known, I have better things to do than chase what appears to be a phantom. If I trip across a demonstration that changes my mind, I would investigate further. The zealotry behind direct heated triodes and such have proven unhelpful thus far. The constant refrain is if you didn't like it the first 6 times you just need to find one done right it is incredible. Sorry, I'll try other paths.

Yeah but scientific progress has only been made by those who think outside the box, not accepting four elements.

 

[esldude]

Yeah but scientific progress has only been made by those who think outside the box, not accepting four elements.

Scientific progress is not made by ignoring the principles of the scientific method.

Claiming your hearing is more accurate and something is being missed isn't thinking outside of the box. It is being stuck inside it without knowing where the box limits are.

And despite your oft loved quote about thinking outside the box, in fact much scientific progress involves working at the edge of the box and expanding where that box is. Following a rational progression you can sometimes work within the box to do that. Sometimes, leaps of understanding occur that put you outside the box whereupon your first task is to build bridges back to the box.

 

[mep]

I must say if the preference and accuracy thing were straightened out it wouldn't be so bad. As you state it I must agree their preferences are superior as if they crave some sort of confirmation. Otherwise no rest for the wicked.

I invite you to go back and read the thread I started once upon a long time ago called "It's all a preference." It's still true I do believe. In the end, it's all about what we like to hear. You thought your VTL amps were much the better than your Spectral amp and even after you proved to yourself that the Spectral was the more 'accurate' amp, you sold the Spectral and kept your VTLs. What does that tell you?

 

[esldude]

I invite you to go back and read the thread I started once upon a long time ago called "It's all a preference." It's still true I do believe. In the end, it's all about what we like to hear. You thought your VTL amps were much the better than your Spectral amp and even after you proved to yourself that the Spectral was the more 'accurate' amp, you sold the Spectral and kept your VTLs. What does that tell you?

That you and I agree on that point.

 

[mep]

esldude, yours is a noble pursuit, but it cannot end well for you. Unless you're willing to agree that whatever they prefer is superior, the arguments will continue circling until you give up and go find something better to do with your life. Trust me on this.

Tim

Well Tim, let me say this about that: Everyone knew by the title of this thread what this was going to be about. If you are a lover of all things SS, you and everyone else of your ilk had the option of skipping this thread for something that truly interested you and that you believe in. So, to come into this thread and express dismay and surprise is analogous to a guy walking into a clearly marked strip bar and claiming to be offended at the site of naked women.

 

[Phelonious Ponk]

Well Tim, let me say this about that: Everyone knew by the title of this thread what this was going to be about. If you are a lover of all things SS, you and everyone else of your ilk had the option of skipping this thread for something that truly interested you and that you believe in. So, to come into this thread and express dismay and surprise is analogous to a guy walking into a clearly marked strip bar and claiming to be offended at the site of naked women.

And you surely knew when you started this thread that if no one showed up to take the opposite position that it would be a one-page handshake. You start it because you know there will be debate. I enter because I know there will be debate. We're here for the same reason, Mark; entertainment. There does, however, come a time when the argument has circled exactly the same points enough times and is ready, as it has been so many times before, wind down. 41 pages is pretty good, I think.

Tim

 

[microstrip]

Perhaps the perfect analogy. This is like talking to a collector of expensive timepieces who must believe that his IWC Grand is more accurate than the clock in his smart phone. Never mind that the phone calibrates it's clock regularly to an atomic clock. The watch lover will question the very concept of time to continue believing that his IWC presents a more perfect representation of time. Try to soothe him with reason, or allow him to save face by acknowledging that accuracy isn't important, that, in fact, it pales in the diamond face of his beloved watch, and he will only bristle. "It's all about the time!" He will insist.

Tim

Tim,

Thanks for this knowledgeable, elaborated and decisive comment. We were really missing the old cliche of the expensive watch versus the accurate quartz clock, now in much fancier version of the phone that calibrates it's clock regularly to an atomic clock . The fact that someone can consider this a perfect analogy in WBF is really amazing!

 

[GaryProtein]

And you surely knew when you started this thread that if no one showed up to take the opposite position that it would be a one-page handshake. You start it because you know there will be debate. I enter because I know there will be debate. We're here for the same reason, Mark; entertainment. There does, however, come a time when the argument has circled exactly the same points enough times and is ready, as it has been so many times before, wind down. 41 pages is pretty good, I think.

Tim

You can re-set the number of posts per page in your preferences.

I set mine at 40, so this thread doesn't seem so long to me. I'm only on page 11.

 

[MylesBAstor]

Scientific progress is not made by ignoring the principles of the scientific method.

Claiming your hearing is more accurate and something is being missed isn't thinking outside of the box. It is being stuck inside it without knowing where the box limits are.

And despite your oft loved quote about thinking outside the box, in fact much scientific progress involves working at the edge of the box and expanding where that box is. Following a rational progression you can sometimes work within the box to do that. Sometimes, leaps of understanding occur that put you outside the box whereupon your first task is to build bridges back to the box.

Well having worked with some (and almost) of the best in my field, they all thought outside the box include one Nobel prize winner.

 

[DonH50]

Man what a useless thread at this point.

On musicians and what they hear, going back to a post a few pages ago, I have by and large found them to be less sensitive to equipment. Musicians listen to the music, audiophiles to the gear. A musician is more likely to notice the third not dropped enough in pitch to fit the chord than the high noise and distortion (until it gets very high) and is much less likely to pick out sonic details routinely discussed in audio fora. I showed some members of the orchestra a TAS review once and they wanted to know how it sounded? Much of the descriptive prose was out of context for them, they didn't grasp the review.

Of course that is not true for all musicians, nor all audiophiles, but that's the trend I have seen (in my roles as an audiophile, musician, and engineer). YMMV - Don