Tubes vs. SS

[tigerwoodKhorns]

This thread was started by the one we call "Deaf Jeff." [:|]

I love the sound of a good tube system, that is why I use all Musical Fidelity SS gear. The Musical Fidelity stuff is voiced to sound like tubes. Works for me.

[Don Richard]

Tubes clip smoother than SS. That's established, not opinion.

If you are clipping any type of mic preamp you should pad the input, move the mic, or get another mic.

If anyone is routinely clipping a power amplifier, a higher power amp is called for.

These are all standard industry practices, for tube, solid state, or hybrid equipment, whenever overload conditions occur.

[Don Richard]

Ta hey with the recording engineers. You can listen to all the music you want with SS, but you'd better not be listening to electric guitars and presume your hearing the real thing. After all, virtually anybody with any chops on an electric guitar uses tube amplifiers.

Ya think?

http://www.marshallamps.com/heritage/valvestate_i/valvestate_i_01.asp

[Axz Hout]

I 

[Boxx]

I always like the warmth of a good tube. This a 829B final amplifier for my 2-Meter Ham Rig. It was driven by a ARC-5 823A mobile.

Like our Klipsch Forum there is a club of guys using this 829B tube as the final in there audio amps. Running 3.5 watts mono!!! As a 2-meter final I ran it 50 watts out without fan, 80 watts with. It keeped the room warm . chris

Nice looking unit....

[Mallette]

If you are clipping any type of mic preamp you should pad the input, move the mic, or get another mic.

You don't get it, Don. Location recording often means dead reckoning. Most of the time I get my levels set and all is well...no clipping danger. However, when you are dealing with a live event you cannot know in advance what may happen. I am not going to change levels during a recording. That's for the guys who use mixers and such. I don't do this for fame or money, I do it for Dave. If I have to move a level during a performance it's quite likely that recording will never see the light of day as I am trying to record an acoustic space/time event objectively. Level controls are editorial once the event begins. I am further hobbled by having begun with tape where every db counted as one more db of S/N. I often wonder why I don't just go with -15db peaks since I have over a hundred db of dynamic range available and S/N at the same number. And last Sunday I pushed myself and set the peaks during the pre-performance rehearsal to about -10db. Record low for this ol analog dude... Guess what? The organist pulls out a couple of stops not rehearsed and gets all exited. I saw one peak on one channel at +2db. Frankly, I suspect the DAC could handle that just fine but I was further comforted knowing that it was certainly with in the range of the tube preamps ability to provide the DAC with a nice, rounded and undistorted waveform to digitize.

I don't know how much location work you do, and I'm sure you are very good at it as your knowledge of audio is very obvious and has been for years. I pay close attention to your posts and have learned. However, specifically my personal view on your comments is:

you should pad the input

I've no idea why I'd want to do that.

move the mic

Away from where my ears want to be? Whatever for?

get another mic.

Open to suggestions and auditions. Personally I don't believe there are better mikes than ribbons. But that's just me...

As to:

standard industry practices

I'd have to say I am not overly impressed with them, which is why I started recording to see just why 90% of the recordings I heard sucked.

Dave

[Don Richard]

And last Sunday I pushed myself and set the peaks during the pre-performance rehearsal to about -10db. Record low for this ol analog dude... Guess what? The organist pulls out a couple of stops not rehearsed and gets all exited. I saw one peak on one channel at +2db.

Them darned musicians will do it to ya every time. They'll play nice during sound check then throw the coal to it in front of the audience. And I thought it was just the rock and roll kids doing that.[8-)]

[Boxx]

I love to engage my pair of McIntosh 275's during the winter. They can sure warm up a cold room... lol...

[tube fanatic]

I always like the warmth of a good tube. This a 829B final amplifier for my 2-Meter Ham Rig. It was driven by a ARC-5 823A mobile.

Like our Klipsch Forum there is a club of guys using this 829B tube as the final in there audio amps. Running 3.5 watts mono!!! As a 2-meter final I ran it 50 watts out without fan, 80 watts with. It keeped the room warm . chris

Now you're onto something!!! There were all kinds of tubes used in ham equipment years ago as final amps which can be used for audio service such as the 2E26. And they're cool to look at also!!!

[CIGARBUM]

As they say about other certain things, it's all good, some are just better than others. I like them both.

Cigarbum

[thebes]

Ta hey with the recording engineers. You can listen to all the music you want with SS, but you'd better not be listening to electric guitars and presume your hearing the real thing. After all, virtually anybody with any chops on an electric guitar uses tube amplifiers.

Ya think?

http://www.marshallamps.com/heritage/valvestate_i/valvestate_i_01.asp

Interesting. Here's a quote from the ad:

"Quite simply Valvestate technology emulates the superb tone of a cranked
to the max all-valve power stage with uncanny accuracy. The result is a
highly versatile range of amps which couple the cost cutting advantages
of solid state technology with the all-valve sound every guitarist
lusts after"

Sounds to me the word "mimic" would be more accurate. And of course, it's cheaper, and a knockoff.

No wonder Marshall passed away this year.

[Marvel]

56 channels? You calling that a professional studio console? Here's a real studio console, made by Solid State Logic:

Well, yes, the SSL consoles are nice. The small ones cost more than my house. I imagine a survey would show the majority of professional studios are smaller and even 56 channels would be overkill and waste of money.

Not sure your point. I agree with much of what you say, but this argument is headed the wrong way. Next you will say a car isn't a car unless it's a Mercedes, Ferrari, Bentley, etc., when the morjority of transport doesn't use them.

btw, I understand the need/use of the large consoles with all the automation. It can certainly make the engineers job easier, but doesn't necessarily make the music sound better or have a better vibe.

Bruce

[oscarsear]

Tubes are sexy. And in my personal experience, they are just as finicky and sensitive as a sexy woman...... and just as expensive (to get good ones). My solution, ACCUPHASE. State of the art solid state. I paid big time, one time and I never looked back. I want a good system that is reliable and not one needful of babying adjustments. Others, I think, enjoy the tweakage of a tube based set-up. Maybe I'm just an old man, with old man ears, and old man money. But My Accuphase E-530 driving seriously modded Khorns will stack up to most any 2 channel rig, tubed or otherwise.

[Jeff Matthews]

This thread was started by the one we call "Deaf Jeff."

I love the sound of a good tube system, that is why I use all Musical Fidelity SS gear. The Musical Fidelity stuff is voiced to sound like tubes. Works for me.

LOL!, Chris.

I'm waiting for this one to run its course (maybe 20 pages or so). Then, we'll slide over to Cornwalls vs. LaScalas. [6]

[Boxx]

This thread was started by the one we call "Deaf Jeff."

I love the sound of a good tube system, that is why I use all Musical Fidelity SS gear. The Musical Fidelity stuff is voiced to sound like tubes. Works for me.

LOL!, Chris.

I'm waiting for this one to run its course (maybe 20 pages or so). Then, we'll slide over to Cornwalls vs. LaScalas.

There is a high probability that the discussion could move into the subject of speaker wire preferences; premium vs. Radio Shack or lamp cord, etc.....

[mikebse2a3]

Unless you listen to 78s exclusively you are listening to music made on solid state studio equipment.

You sure about that Don..?

Well, this is the 2 channel forum. Since stereo was introduced and multitrack recording became the norm there has been little recording done with tube tape machines. Can you imagine the heat produced by an 8 channel tubed tape recorder or a 24 channel tube mixing console? You won't have to since none were made and used commercially.

We are lucky to have some excellent recordings made in the late 50s and early 60s before the early SS and multitracking took over on most recordings and you can often hear the drop in quality and realism that followed this trend for many years.

Since when did what became "the norm" or "used commercially" serve as a good indicator of the end product's quality?

[mikebse2a3]

Funny how some dismiss Tubes as "old" outdated technology while at the same time embrass technology that predates Tubes or SS...ie: HORNS

The types of horns used today are different than those used in pre-WWII times. Tractrix, Constant Directivity, Conical profiles, Unity horns, etc. have replaced multicells and exponential HF horns in modern designs. Similarly, solid state devices have replaced tubes in amplification equipment overwhelmingly

Don both Horns and Tube based equipment have seen design advancements but not everyone seems to be aware or willing to acknowledge this fact.

As far as the "Similarly, solid state devices have replaced tubes in amplification equipment overwhelmingly" proves nothing I'm afraid there are many examples of what has become popular not being the same as what gives the best quality.

How is saying that one prefers solid state equipment over tubes bashing anyone? Why so defensive?

Read my post carefully Don because I never said that nor do I believe that..!

Whats funny to me is how because I have pointed out IMHO that Tube Technology has much to offer and shouldn't be dismissed because of it's age as some here have insinuated is seen by you as being defensive.

Just for the record I'm not married to any technology..! My system uses technologies from Solid State, Tube, Digital DSP and Horns.

miketn

[Don Richard]

How is saying that one prefers solid state equipment over tubes bashing anyone? Why so defensive?

Read my post carefully Don because I never said that nor do I believe that..!

Then who hijacked your keyboard and wrote this?

"What I will never understand is why some people think that because they heard one or even a few examples of either technology (Tube or SS) in systems and rooms that are unique unto themselves believe that their limited experience entitles them to bash another persons opinions of the value of their chosen technology."

So what is it? Have you forgotten what you wrote on Dec 13 already?

Whats funny to me is how because I have pointed out IMHO that Tube Technology has much to offer and shouldn't be dismissed because of it's age as some here have insinuated is seen by you as being defensive.

What is funny to me is how I said that I prefer solid state equipment, and even though a person is listening through tube equipment the recording was likely made with solid state recording equipment, could be construed as me being defensive.

[Don Richard]

We are lucky to have some excellent recordings made in the late 50s and early 60s before the early SS and multitracking took over on most recordings and you can often hear the drop in quality and realism that followed this trend for many years.

Since when did what became "the norm" or "used commercially" serve as a good indicator of the end product's quality?

There are some good recordings that were made in the late 50s and 60s, and there are some horrible recordings from that era as well. I did not imply nor did I suggest that using newer technology automatically results in a superior recording. Simply put, solid state and digital equipment dominates commercial recordings today for many reasons and if you listen to any new albums, or to any recently remastered vintage recordings, you are hearing solid state technology even if tube gear is used for playback. The important thing with recordings or with live sound is the skill of the engineer(s). The type of equipment used in the recording process is of secondary importance to the engineering.

[Boxx]

We are lucky to have some excellent recordings made in the late 50s and early 60s before the early SS and multitracking took over on most recordings and you can often hear the drop in quality and realism that followed this trend for many years.

Since when did what became "the norm" or "used commercially" serve as a good indicator of the end product's quality?

There are some good recordings that were made in the late 50s and 60s, and there are some horrible recordings from that era as well. I did not imply nor did I suggest that using newer technology automatically results in a superior recording. Simply put, solid state and digital equipment dominates commercial recordings today for many reasons and if you listen to any new albums, or to any recently remastered vintage recordings, you are hearing solid state technology even if tube gear is used for playback. The important thing with recordings or with live sound is the skill of the engineer(s). The type of equipment used in the recording process is of secondary importance to the engineering.

Interesting points being made here. I utilize both tubes and SS. I'm also a reel to reel guy. I record many of my favorite cd's and "other" downloads to reel. IMO the playback on reel is superior to the original. Or better stated, what I actually experience and feel, from one of my recorded tapes, is more satisfying to sit back and enjoy than the original cd. Of course, quality equipment is important for this result....