I agree in part with what you have said Don. On the other hand, I've found that musicians going shopping for instruments such as a piano describe the sound characteristics in much the same terms that audiophiles do.
Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
I agree in part with what you have said Don. On the other hand, I've found that musicians going shopping for instruments such as a piano describe the sound characteristics in much the same terms that audiophiles do.
Oh yeah! Any instrument... My fellow trumpet players can debate the merits of mouthpieces, leadpipes, and bell flares for hours/days/weeks, and some string players are much worse. Heck, I overheard a debate between a couple of flutists on which of their $10k+ headjoints was best. 
Oh yeah! Any instrument... My fellow trumpet players can debate the merits of mouthpieces, leadpipes, and bell flares for hours/days/weeks, and some string players are much worse. Heck, I overheard a debate between a couple of flutists on which of their $10k+ headjoints was best.
Was one of those flutists my daughter?
Once the instrument is really good, it's a matter of preference.
It's up to 42 pages now and maybe it will die soon Tim. I said before in this thread that if I would have thought about it a little longer, I may have not started this thread. I also said it was somewhat ironic that I started this thread since most people know I sold off all of my tube gear in September of 2012 (except for my Ampex 350s) and have been listening to a Krell KPE Reference phono stage, Krell KRC-HR linestage, and a Krell KSA-250 power amp since then. And of course that chain doesn't include my digital playback gear. I just happened to receive some tube gear for review (a preamp and a pair of monoblocks) and having lived on a SS diet of electronics for approximately 17 months, I was struck (once again) by how good tube gear sounds and the aural differences between the two (SS vs. tube). I'm guilty of sharing my joy and postulating on why one sounds different from the other. Even my bro Francisco took me to task for how I started this thread and in retrospect, I could have done better.
Yup, though the same could be said of audio gear, yes? I know tubes are by and large more colored than SS, I just happen to like their color...
Yup, though the same could be said of audio gear, yes? I know tubes are by and large more colored than SS, I just happen to like their color...
So do I and many others Don. I believe it was TOM in TAS that came up with the analogy many years ago that if music was a paint by numbers painting, SS gets enough colors on enough numbers that you recognize what the painting is supposed to be even though it leaves off paint on some of the numbers. Tubes on the other hand fill in all of the missing numbers that have no paint and therefore gives you the whole painting without making your brain fill in the missing numbers.
I disagree mightily with that analogy but no worries. I would say SS provides high contrast, sharp focus and great detail, while tubes soften the painting, giving it warmth and making it more pleasing to the eye.
As for the thread wander, don't worry about it, Mark, look at all the time people have spent on this thread! Some interesting points have been brought forth (as well as much venom and urine). Personally I found ages ago that the microphonics in their impulse response and higher distortion made (most) tube gear actually sound richer and fuller and am happy with that. I wouldn't mind going tubes again but simply can't afford it (on many levels). That said, I have not been able to part with my old, modified, beat-up SP3a1; still have the idea I'll rebuild it when I retire and use it with my TT. Both are in storage now, no place for them in my current system.
As for the thread wander, don't worry about it, Mark, look at all the time people have spent on this thread! Some interesting points have been brought forth (as well as much venom and urine). Personally I found ages ago that the microphonics in their impulse response and higher distortion made (most) tube gear actually sound richer and fuller and am happy with that. I wouldn't mind going tubes again but simply can't afford it (on many levels). That said, I have not been able to part with my old, modified, beat-up SP3a1; still have the idea I'll rebuild it when I retire and use it with my TT. Both are in storage now, no place for them in my current system.
Don,
You should listen to SoundLabs driven SS or ARC current tube equipment. I would not refer to sharp focus, as SoundLab's do not have razor image, although they manage to separate everything, but the tubes clearly win in having higher contrast and greater detail. BTW, we only notice it if , as Myles has referred, the source can supply it. Surely, all IMHO and YMMV.
Thanks.
Correct. I have heard my amps 'collapse' on speakers nominally more sensitive than mine, but with large woofers. On my speakers the sound has the same kind of energy, dynamics and timbres as with the Spectral, regardless of the type of music.
Re-reading the wikipedia quote. I believe in full context, they weren't saying experienced musicians can tell a piano from a guitar. I believe they were saying though playing the same note they would hear timbre differences between say a Martin guitar and a Gibson. Or between a Yamaha grand and a Steinway.
It sounds as if maybe the Spectral and your tubes sound similar if not overstressed, and different if the tubes have to deal with a load with pushes them a bit more. Which isn't exactly different than what I have been saying altogether. Nor different from the idea that any equipment, if cleanly reproducing the input sounds similar.
Agreed on all points.
By the way, while the Spectral apparently does so, I don't believe that all typical SS amps cleanly reproduce the input.
No they don't. I think I may have mentioned, in my earlier experiment years ago series connecting a VTL feeding a Spectral, I did that with a handful of other SS amps, and not all were a clear window into the VTL sound. I do think in general modern amps are better, but there are so many that could in no way be a universal recommendation. Class D amps of some types have impressed me as awfully good for the money. Others as okay no cigar, and one as " oh my please turn that thing off, can't you see the blood running from my ears".
I have several modes of listening. That is a personal preference of mine. For the symphony playback, none of those devices are in the chain. I use them for enjoying electronic music, J-pop, rock, etc. But when I listen to the symphony, I want it uncolored and unenhanced.
It's not intended as an insult, just an observation. McIntosh amplifiers are among the few VT amplifiers which are really, objectively good quality, high fidelity amplifiers. It's the newer stuff that I am finding to be severely deficient.
So many folks these days exhibit purchase decisions that suggest that they possess more money than common sense.
I will measure whatever people are willing to haul into my shop. I can't measure it if someone doesn't bring it in.
Logic would suggest that the state of the art is always improving. However, with some things, the greatest advancements were the product of individuals working within a company. The transformer industry had a lot of trade secrets. Special winding methods, the wire composition, the core configuration, and metals used in the core, etc. Just a handful of engineers knew the complete formula. Why it's so hard to reinvent that wheel? Maybe it has to do with the engineers being turned out of modern universities, or something along that line. Serious innovation has tapered off greatly in the US since the 1960s.
Early tube amps from the 1920s and 1930s were indeed limited. But by the fifties, high fidelity had reached a pinnacle with McIntosh and a few others making really high quality stuff with 10-40KHz power bandwidth and sub 0.2% distortion. Today, however, I'm seeing 'boutique' so-called 'high end' amplifiers with very limited bandwidth, ringing and unimpressive distortion figures as vacuum tube offerings. The circuits are all similar, so the remaining wildcard has to be the output transformers.
On the data sheets I have (which are in Russian), it looks like the Ip curve goes a little past 1400mA, so yes, likely. And if I do the Class H mod that my power supply design will enable, I could double that current for brief periods. The tubes have enormous thermal mass. They can take 800mA continuous all day, and probably 4-5 times that for brief moments.
The simple fact is, SET amps (thinking the 2A3 variety here, not some massive transmitting tube with 2kV on the plate) are typically capable of single digit wattage at relatively high THD. Orchestral music strains the bandwidth and easily requires too much of such a small amplifier.
I believe that the best approach is to build as neutral a system as possible. Then add processing chain to give the desired effects WHEN YOU WANT THEM, or bypass them completely. An interesting device would be a box with three triodes in it, and a three way frequency splitter. Each triode gets to add some harmonic richness to bass, mids and treble ranges, separately so they don't make gross intermodulation distortion, and recombine the result into full range and pass that on to the rest of the system. When you want high fidelity, you bypass the magic box. But when you're going for a certain sound which might be more satisfying to a particular taste, depending on type of music, you insert the box in the chain. Best of both worlds. That's why I have the dbx boxes to play with. Rarely do they get use, but once in a while, when I want to make a lot of noise, they can be fun.
Sorry but look and see how many designers in those days learned their craft in the military--and if they did go to school--went on the GI Plan.
Second, if you think the old tubes amps sound better than present day models from cj, ARC, VTL, VAC, CAT, etc., then all you are listening to are euphonic colorations. Come to think of it, have you heard a new tube amp from any of these companies? Or what *botique* amplifier are you talking about? BTW, let's call them what they are, high-end audio companies.
Last edited:
Ethan, did you try this as a DBT ABX and if so what was the statistical significance at 1%,3%?Yes, of course, because it directly tests what's being claimed.
Sure, but obviously not at 0.1 percent. Analog tape distortion at an amount that adds "character" is more like 2 to 5 percent distortion. And how many audiophiles complain about that level of odd-order distortion?
The reason "we still have these silly arguments 40-50 years on" is because some people prefer to believe in magic, and refuse to simply test this for themselves. For example, the notion that we can hear odd-order distortion that's too soft to measure, and that odd-order distortion as low as 0.001 percent is audible, and that distortion as soft as 0.1 percent can be "quite intolerable." All you have to do is add a few sine waves in an audio editor program to know this is completely wrong!
Not everyone has and knows how to use audio editing software, so I'll do the work and anyone reading can decide for themselves at what level odd-order 3rd harmonic distortion is objectionable or even audible. HERE is a link to a short Wave file that plays 1 KHz at -3 dB for 7 seconds. I inserted a 3 KHz 3rd harmonic tone that sustains for one second at 10 percent (-23 dB), then at 1 percent (-43 dB), then at 0.1 percent (-63 dB). Anyone can hear when there's 10 percent THD, but 1 percent is difficult to notice, and 0.1 percent is probably impossible for anyone to hear no matter how good their ears are. The image below shows how the added distortion tone pulses on and off, just so it's perfectly clear what the file contains.
--Ethan
Furthermore what about other frequencies as it seems you have chosen one of the most ideal, such as 70HZ or 10kHz (these are far from being the worst ones as well in terms of perception).
While what you have done is interesting to do, unfortunately the test is too simplistic as it does not correlate well to actual music-complex sounds and I am not sure too much of a conclusion can be reached with this.
Keith Howard did a more advanced model where he applied distortion to the actual music, and created multiple scenarios such odd,even,equal,etc patterns.
His conclusion was that it is very difficult to hear distortion at 3% with music and this is even without doing dbt ABX with significant statistical result, furthmore I think this was non-linear (I mentioned earlier best I have read for hearing distortion with music in dbt was 4% using trained listeners).
His preference was always for the "clean" track no matter what distortion pattern he used.
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
I can hear the difference between a Martin and a Gibson on a good recording, and many other things as well. But audiophiles often hear things that totally escape me. Perspective? Experience?
That this is even remotely controversial baffles me. Perspective again? Maybe I hear very subtle differences in music as much larger than life, and some audiophiles hear very subtle differences in reproduction that way.
Tim
- Status
