Thanks but I know how good they can sound and with very good measurements, I was being a bit-subtly scathing to that other post as again it was another generic comment this time about SETs
Cheers
Orb
Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
Thanks but I know how good they can sound and with very good measurements, I was being a bit-subtly scathing to that other post as again it was another generic comment this time about SETs
Cheers
Orb
Just to add.
And interestingly what you describe can also be applied to digital due to both DAC architecture-filter-coefficients or technology (PCM-DSD), where we can have added colour even with near zero distortion, reference level of minimum jitter, and FR that is still -0.2db flat to 20khz.
A good example is MBL latest digital product C31 that sounds warmer-more analogue-richer than the older Noble line; ironically the previous Noble line DAC has much greater jitter, FR droop -3db at 20khz (where the new C31 is -0.2db at 20khz), and marginally more distortion than the C31 while still using the same DAC chip.
Then there is the debate on how DSD sounds more "analogue-and subtly softer (to PCM)".
Taken all together meaning we can or do have similar colouration with digital but without the assumptions (too many general-generic conclusions) of what causes this with the excellent well engineered tube amps that are used within specification - after all the demand for such as modern ARC/McIntosh/Nagra and others is still incredibly high.
Cheers
Orb
I have, though not recently, and disagree. To me, tube amps (my ARC D79 plus D90 and D120 from friends/store I worked) on the big full-range SoundLabs (and Quads, and Beveridge, the ESL's available to me at the time) gave them a great midrange but I would not describe it as having "higher contrast and greater detail". The bass was a little "tubby", and highs sounded a little rolled-off and harsh. Using ML, Krell, and Threshold SS amps (not sure all the models, this was the 80's) the bass tightened up, and midrange/highs cleaner but arguably less engaging. This was mostly vinyl, not sure the TT's but would have been an Oracle, Linn, and my old Linn clone. I think carts were Denon 103, Grace F9E, not sure the other.
For me, virtually every system I have heard revealed more with SS amps. Whether the sound was better is up to the listener. Again IME, the best/cleanest tube amps were comparable to SS, but by and large with more difficult loads the tube amps had a very tough time keeping up in the bass and sometimes very top end. Midrange was always a winner with tubes for me, not because they provided more detail/calrity, but because they just sounded better.
Many will argue I have not heard the latest tube gear and by and large they are correct. I have mostly lost interest and lack time to listen for listening's sake as I did when I was in the business and had plenty of opportunity and time to do so. There are far fewer opportunities around for me now, and the few stores I have visited are not really interested in me hanging around just to listen if I am not going to plop down a few kilobucks. Nor do I have multi-thousand dollar sources, and all the high-end gear most of the people poo-poo'ing my opinions have, so you can certainly argue my equipment and ears are simply not up to your standards. All I can state is my opinion based upon what I have heard, sometimes through a foggy memory. That is not good enough and is why I had tried to back out of this thread some time ago. I do find the content interesting, both technically and subjectively, but quite frankly very few care what I have to say about listening impressions, I am simply not in their league. I remember when I was, but somewhere along the line diverged when I realized there was too much variability in the process to state with certainty some of the opinions I once held. I try to stay to the technical side where my contributions are (sometimes) worthwhile.
Was kind of thinking along the same lines. Recently (last week) had an experience where a TT was simply spinning and a music server actually providing the ... Err ... Music. My audiophile friends commented on how the lp sounded more "organic" ... Let's drop the issue for now, it is however worth mentioning that we need to qualify, perhaps, under what conditions the qualifications were made...
Back to the scheduled discussion ...
Hello Basspig, you wrote
"I will measure whatever people are willing to haul into my shop"
I won't be asking you to bring anything into your shop, but to show a measurement of your freq response. I can assume that you use REW or another measurement system. If so which one?
If using REW would you be so kind to post the m.dat of your bass response? And a full range response?
Also which SPL meter do you use for testing?
Thanks,
Wendell
"I will measure whatever people are willing to haul into my shop"
I won't be asking you to bring anything into your shop, but to show a measurement of your freq response. I can assume that you use REW or another measurement system. If so which one?
If using REW would you be so kind to post the m.dat of your bass response? And a full range response?
Also which SPL meter do you use for testing?
Thanks,
Wendell
Well Tim,
considering the only DBT for THD and music shows it is only audibly perceived down to a threshold of roughly 4%, why do you keep on about that being a cause for what we hear with tubes-etc
You cannot have it one way and then argue DBT with statistical significance for everything else.
So I guess you are also saying PCM and DSD sound the same because they fall into same category as my post......btw you would be in the minority suggesting they sound the same until proven otherwise with a valid dbt due to it being psychological/bias for their subtle differences.
Cheers
Orb
Last edited:
Just to clarify Don, are you talking also about experiencing this with modern (say since 2004 top end designs/models) ARC or McIntosh tube amps and was it just digital or also analogue?
Agree saturation is a problem at low frequencies with many tube amp designs and exacerbated with analogue that is not limited to 20hz (although this is still a challenge for nearly every tube amp), also damping factor relating to bass can be a consideration and exacerbated with certain speakers.
This was definitely more true with older designs or lower models, and of course using the right taps.
Just mentioning these two brands as they are very popular and also have excellent measurements for their higher designed products.
Thanks
Orb
Don,
Considering the gear you refer I would expect you to disagree. There is very little to compare between the gear you list and SoundLabs of that period and current gear. The Soundlab's still have an impressive midrange, but nothing else is as it was. I good friend of mine still owns the old A1 Soundlabs (1993 vintage) and they sound veiled and harsh compared to mine, not tho speak about the enormous difference in efficiency. If you want technical details just compare that the bandwidth of the old treble transformer only went up to 17 kHz with considerable losses and distortion, and the new toroid's go up to 25 kHz with minimal distortion, the old crossover and HV units, and the rigidity of the stricture.
I am repeating ourselves, but trying to substantiate conclusions on auditions carried 30 years ago is nice to show our age and background, but not of any use in this particular debate, as it will be most probably misused or misunderstood. BTW, I am now listening to an upgraded Oracle Premier (new motor, motor drive electronics, suspension, bearing and acrylic mat platter ) with a Graham tonearm - believe me, night and day compared with the old Oracle with the tacky mat!
Well Tim,
considering the only DBT for THD and music shows it is only audibly perceived down to a threshold of roughly 4%, why do you keep on about that being a cause for what we hear with tubes-etc
You cannot have it one way and then argue DBT with statistical significance for everything else.
So I guess you are also saying PCM and DSD sound the same because they fall into same category as my post......btw you would be in the minority suggesting they sound the same until proven otherwise with a valid dbt due to it being psychological/bias for their subtle differences.
Cheers
Orb
I'm not trying to say anything is audible or inaudible, but every time an audiophile hears something he likes in a digital file or component, it is "analog like." I'd like to know what it means. The more expensive DAC, the higher res file, the dsd, the hard disc drive, he high end server, the dedicated computer...they all sound "more analog like." I'd like to know what that means, and whether or not it is something that can be consistently identified is a good place to start.
And do you think I believe THD is the thing that differentiates tubes from SS? Then I have been unclear. Noise, IMD, limited range, high output impedance and a general lack of linearity all seem to be contributors as far as I can tell. And of course all tube amps are not created the same. The very best of them, with enough headroom for the load, probably sound much more like good solid state. I'm not a technician and anything I've said about what causes "tube sound" is speculation based on the reading I've done, most of which tells me that there is not a single bit of objective evidence to say that the difference is due to tube gear's ability to retrieve more detail from the recording and amplify it with less added noise and distortion.
Tim
Tim,
Again some progress - now we also have the good solid state and the not good (bad?) solid state. As you do not want to debate using technical qualitative and quantitative arguments, can you refer what are the good and not so good solid state examples? I hope that you will not answer that the good ones are those that sound like the best tubes!
Yes, several great solid state designers do not hide they inspire themselves in the "tube sound" or other obscure "tube likeness aspects".
Tim,
Again some progress - now we also have the good solid state and the not good (bad?) solid state. As you do not want to debate using technical qualitative and quantitative arguments, can you refer what are the good and not so good solid state examples? I hope that you will not answer that the good ones are those that sound like the best tubes!
Are you sure you know what quantitative means? I'd be thrilled to discuss this with you quantitatively. That discussion would begin with a handful of bench reports on a handful of tube amps with lower noise, lower distortion, better separation, wider range and flatter FR than a good solid state amp. What do I mean by good? For this exercise, midfi should be fine. Beat this $500 Emotiva quantitatively with a tube amp. Beat it with the same headroom, so we have a decent choice of speakers, at less than a four times the cost and I'll buy you one -- http://shop.emotiva.com/collections/x-series/products/xpa200
Qualitatively? I'd just as soon argue immaculate conception with a nun.
Tim
Ah Ok, well discussing what "analogue like" means to everyone in the specific context of subtly different digital sound (and even applicable to amplifiers) is probably for another thread.
I know those (including professional reviewers and engineers) who discuss the merits of DSD/PCM with regards to "analogue like" for products that are not expensive high end, cost has nothing to do with this context.
BTW the C31 is actually cheaper than the Noble line (in fact much cheaper as it is both a CD-DAC while Noble are separates), so actually "analogue like" is working in reverse in this instance of your view higher price means greater "analogue like" sound
Anyway, there is something fundamental regarding the subtle sound difference between DSD and PCM that can be derived as "analogue-softer-shaper leading edge-etc" that I feel also touches on the tube/SS aspect.
Regarding THD and differentiating tubes from SS; it is nigh on impossible to do a dbt comparison that focuses on thd difference in their sound while "normalising" all the other parameters - remember this has already been touched upon when we all discussed the Stereophile test setup-requirements to create a near identical sounding amp.
Anyway try Ethan's THD test but with 80hz and then say 9khz tone with say Foobar or something that allows dbt ABX and let us know what the pass rate is for 1% thd however it MUST be linear so THD is equal regardless of volume (otherwise it will spike much higher and will not be 1%); but as mentioned earlier this test will be much easier to perceive differences than using music.
If talking very generically about tubes the negative differences will mostly come down to design specification affecting saturation-damping-output impedance (and these can be heavily reduced with some of the best designs) rather than thd IF talking about the very well designed-engineered tube amps used within specification (after all you would not use a First Watt SS amp with 84db sensitive speakers that are challenging to drive in a medium-large room).
Cheers
Orb
Tim,
As usual you start with a divergent condescending observation and go into you also usual monolithic speech, ignoring the clear and objective question.
The question was only about good and not so good SS amplifiers, but you permanently try changing the subject in your answers.
So you believe what you read all the time. Then read Nelson Pass' articles on feedback and provide us a critique. I've heard tube amps have more detail than SS- and not brightness, but midrange detail. I'm talking guitar picking, vocal texture/trembling, etc. I believe higher order harmonics are masking detail- big time. You won't even demo one in your house, so why bother arguing.
I'm tired of this thread in general, but particularly tired of folks comparing amps built in the 80s, studies done 30 years ago, taking horrible examples of tube amps to compare with, and trying to make conclusions out of it. Or, always jumping to SET amplifiers and assuming they are used on 88db efficient speakers so therefore distort heavily. Yet on the SS side, nobody compares to say a $299 Pioneer receiver.
The FACT is SS amps and tube amps both have colorations and distortions- or else all of us would own $799 QSC amps which measure spectacularly, but nobody owns or cares because they sound like trash. Some prefer one topology over the other (as Nelson Pass basically has found in his studies). I have enjoyed both topologies (and currently own a SS amp as a matter of fact). The big thing SS guys can't understand is how the ear interprets harmonics and how negative feedback is terrible for any amp design because it sprinkles loads of higher order harmonics that mask detail. Also, that tone is something that exists in any concert hall with unamplified music and that sterile SS is stripping it through harmonics, and not "objective." The thing tube guys ignore is that high loads of 2nd harmonic ARE distorting sound and ultimately one that they find pleasing. Many tube amps (Cary and Jadis imo) take things too far.
Finally, "tube" sound isn't about an enhanced presence region or "warmth." It's about the whole note and space of an auditorium. It's about strings not sounding chopped off or with so much leading edge, faking dynamics. It's about notes having decay like my brother's Steinway that I play. In general it's about flow. And in my experience, its VERY difficult to get flow right with SS. And flow can't be measured as far as I know.
Last edited:
That's impossible to do due to speaker load. Running tests on a scope doesn't get you there as speaker impedance interaction with an amplifier is incredibly system dependent. I have 100db speakers that distortion patters would be similar to SS. In fact, once I went to high efficiency speakers, I found amplifiers MUCH different sounding.
Last edited:
Tim doesn't want to answer a question as he already knows his answer. He's never even tested a hypothesis at his home or another's. He doesn't want to understand negative feedback concepts, as shown last summer in that thread.
I have had 15+ amplifiers in my room to come up with my conclusions in addition to the heavy measurement reading I do (i think it's important). I know you have as well, Micro. Unfortunately those experiences are lost on folks like Tim because he believes in preconceived notions based on reading that he wants to agree with.
I didn't mean to be evasive, Micro. I read this post....
...in which you opened with an observation so obvious that I completely missed that you were inviting me to debate the obvious. Passed right over it and assumed you were on topic and asking for a qualitative/quantitative discussion of tubes vs SS. I got pretty excited at the quantitative prospect. I really didn't mean to be condesceending either. In my misunderstanding of what you were proposing, I just couldn't imagine that you were inviting quantitative debate of tubes vs. solid state.
In any case, my error, mis-read and inappropriate response; my apologies. Now to the question you did ask: No, I don't want to have that debate. Our qualitative debates go nowhere and a quantitative debate of whether or not there are good and bad solid state amlifiers would be a monumental waste of time. Of course there are good and bad solid state amplifiers, just like there are good and bad tube amplifiers. I think we can agree on that without digging up any quantitative data, don't you?
Tim
- Status
