Most probably because the the explanations presented are not good enough. And in order to really understand the differences we need to study the characteristics of the devices that are really due to the medium in which the electrons flow.
Why Tube Amps Sound Different (and better) Than SS Amps
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
- Status
Most probably because the the explanations presented are not good enough. And in order to really understand the differences we need to study the characteristics of the devices that are really due to the medium in which the electrons flow.
You're talking about digital processing, aren't you? Whether or not you consider that a form of EQ, the point doesn't change; it is reversable, adjustable. It is, in theory and practice, the opposite of coloration built into an amplifier. Now, if you're talking about digital effects, it's the other part of your argument - that they are acceptable to most audiophiles who reject tube colorations - that is questionable.
Tim
Not when it is already in your chipset it isn't. How many DACs have you seen where you get a choice of algorithm? I had exactly 1 and the ones that made it don't offer that option anymore. Again, I'm not talking about EQ. I'm talking about designing based on perceptual models. This is not limited to FR alone.
Just wondering where that 1000% mark up quip came from. It's not a run of the mill transport. This coming from someone that sells their competition.
Whatmore,
No, they are not . They explain some characteristics, such as low bass performance, sound differences when over-driven, euphony of a few tailored designs but none of the good typical qualities people associate with most good designs with tubes. Some one will surely ask me now to summarize all these qualities, so I anticipate the answer - it was done thousands of times before in WBF, not needed ...
You are exactly right Jack and I have regretted posting it more than a few times.
^^ Don, getting good bass is always about matching and bandwidth. One issue frequently leveled at tube amps has been how they present bass, but IME this has a lot to do with how much bandwidth the amplifier has in the octaves below 20Hz. In a nutshell, if you want the bass to be right, there had better not be any phase shift at 20Hz. This requires a cutoff frequency of no more than 2Hz. This is a bit of a trick for transformer coupled amplifiers in general. I know of exactly one transformer that can handle an amplifier that has that sort of bandwidth (the ZERO, for those interested... http://www.zeroimpedance.com). Of course we make sure we have that sort of bandwidth at full power in our amps.
Matching is another issue, and no doubt controversial. Here is why: In high end audio, there really is no good reason for low impedance loudspeaker loads. The reason is simple- all amplifiers, tube or transistor and including class D, have higher distortion driving 4 ohms and less. Its easy to see in the spec sheets. The distortions involved are often higher ordered harmonics, causing the amplifier to be brighter, harsher and less detailed all at the same time. In addition the speaker cable gets really critical in low impedance applications as it becomes a significant part of the damping factor expressed to the loudspeaker.
High end audio is all about finesse and accuracy; adding distortion does not seem like a viable pathway to that goal at first blush, and upon later examination, is found to be unquestionable
Now if sound pressure is your goal, there is a weak argument for lower impedances, which is about 3 decibels with some amplifiers. I always find it amusing that certain speakers get a reputation for being difficult loads; folks, a difficult load is never going to sound like real music, plain and simple. Its going to cause the amplifier to make too much distortion.
Matching is another issue, and no doubt controversial. Here is why: In high end audio, there really is no good reason for low impedance loudspeaker loads. The reason is simple- all amplifiers, tube or transistor and including class D, have higher distortion driving 4 ohms and less. Its easy to see in the spec sheets. The distortions involved are often higher ordered harmonics, causing the amplifier to be brighter, harsher and less detailed all at the same time. In addition the speaker cable gets really critical in low impedance applications as it becomes a significant part of the damping factor expressed to the loudspeaker.
High end audio is all about finesse and accuracy; adding distortion does not seem like a viable pathway to that goal at first blush, and upon later examination, is found to be unquestionable
Now if sound pressure is your goal, there is a weak argument for lower impedances, which is about 3 decibels with some amplifiers. I always find it amusing that certain speakers get a reputation for being difficult loads; folks, a difficult load is never going to sound like real music, plain and simple. Its going to cause the amplifier to make too much distortion.
Tubes are better because they do a better of passing the details of real music in real space.Dealing with the problems is just easier. DHT is the holy gmail of audio. Now other goals may be better served by other devices. Overall
there is no contest.
there is no contest.
^^ Don, getting good bass is always about matching and bandwidth. One issue frequently leveled at tube amps has been how they present bass, but IME this has a lot to do with how much bandwidth the amplifier has in the octaves below 20Hz. In a nutshell, if you want the bass to be right, there had better not be any phase shift at 20Hz. This requires a cutoff frequency of no more than 2Hz. This is a bit of a trick for transformer coupled amplifiers in general. I know of exactly one transformer that can handle an amplifier that has that sort of bandwidth (the ZERO, for those interested... http://www.zeroimpedance.com). Of course we make sure we have that sort of bandwidth at full power in our amps.
Matching is another issue, and no doubt controversial. Here is why: In high end audio, there really is no good reason for low impedance loudspeaker loads. The reason is simple- all amplifiers, tube or transistor and including class D, have higher distortion driving 4 ohms and less. Its easy to see in the spec sheets. The distortions involved are often higher ordered harmonics, causing the amplifier to be brighter, harsher and less detailed all at the same time. In addition the speaker cable gets really critical in low impedance applications as it becomes a significant part of the damping factor expressed to the loudspeaker.
High end audio is all about finesse and accuracy; adding distortion does not seem like a viable pathway to that goal at first blush, and upon later examination, is found to be unquestionable
Now if sound pressure is your goal, there is a weak argument for lower impedances, which is about 3 decibels with some amplifiers. I always find it amusing that certain speakers get a reputation for being difficult loads; folks, a difficult load is never going to sound like real music, plain and simple. Its going to cause the amplifier to make too much distortion.
I agree with your amplifier impedance discussion, for whatever that's worth (bloody little). Doesn't McIntosh still use autoformers (baluns) on their big SS amps? Not sure exactly how you'd make it work on a tube amp since you still have to get DC to the plates. If you use an OTL scheme that problem goes away but then why add the transformer...
As for speaker matching and their impedance, well, I am not a speaker designer. For my Magnepans you'd have to increase the wire length in the panels to up their impedance, and that's a trade among impedance, sensitivity, cost (how much wire/how many magnets), distortion (panel control, though arguably more wire and magnets to distribute the fields over smaller areas could improve distortion), etc. As for the rest of the world, why conventional drivers need to be low-impedance could be an interesting discussion topic. I can think of a few pro/con arguments but not my field of expertise.
My Maggies are 4 ohms'ish but actually pretty flat over frequency. I suspect many conventional designs are a worse load at some frequencies despite their higher-impedance "nominal" rating.
Not sure higher SPL correlates with lower speaker impedance, though SS amplifiers do put out more power into lower loads (with varying success). I think speaker sensitivity, more of a trade among drivers and box design, plays a bigger role. Again not my field.
Thanks for your insights! - Don
+1
Laughing & having a difficult time talking[skip that word] meant typing.
zz.
The Maggies, other than impedance, seem to be pretty easy to drive. There is a conversation here about the difference between efficiency and sensitivity though. Both are a measure of energy being placed in the speaker. One is a Power Paradigm measurement and the other is the Voltage Paradigm measurement (see http://www.atma-sphere.com/Resources/Paradigms_in_Amplifier_Design.php). If the speaker is 8 Ohms they are the same thing. If the speaker is 4 ohms, the efficiency will be 3 db less than the sensitivity rating. So a 4 Ohm loudspeaker that is rated at 90 db Sensitivity (2.83Volts/1 meter) is really 87 db efficient (1 watt/1 meter). This is because 2.83 volts into 4 Ohms is 2 watts, not 1.
So when two woofers are put in parallel, they have the same efficiency as a single woofer, but the sensitivity figure will be 3 db higher as the impedance is cut in half. I do find that people are confused by this, but it relates to something called Kirchoff's Law, which says that there can't be any more energy in an electrical system than the energy put into it. So if you have 2 woofers in parallel, and put 1 watt into the array, each woofer will dissipate 1/2 watt. A single woofer with the same 1 watt will dissipate the entire thing.
Well clearly. The thing is tubes are hot, they use elemental fire and phlogiston in a way that semiconductors can't.
Not many, but while there may be people who her algorithms, I think we're talking apples and oranges here.
Tim
From my sense of humor, though I don't think it's exaggerated by much. I have no use for a CD transport, myself. I don't care how carefully designed and constructed it is, at some level it is a electro-mechanical impediment in my view. YMMV, of course.
Tim
Tim,
Curious that some people share with you the same words about hard-disk drives - they only accept Solid-State Drives ...
Anyway, for reasons I can not fully understand, IMHO media servers do not manage to sound better than top CD transports with DACs, and supreme heresy, many of them sound different from each other.
Tim,
Curious that some people share with you the same words about hard-disk drives - they only accept Solid-State Drives ...
Anyway, for reasons I can not fully understand, IMHO media servers do not manage to sound better than top CD transports with DACs, and supreme heresy, many of them sound different from each other.
Yeah...I know that, too.
Tim
- Status
Similar threads
