Jump to content

Why the hell are tube amps so expensive?


SuBXeRo

Recommended Posts

I don't think that the class D tech is totally there yet. There is just something wrong to me about chopping the sound wave apart/ Its like when i upload music through ITunes, i never have it chop out the sub bass frequencies.

I am not sure I understand that observation? are you under the impression class D means class "Digital"?

just curious.

Class D, as to my understanding, suffers when the sine wave is converted into a square wave and this is where audio signals can get truncated and some signal is lost that isn't necessarily essential. The next thing is the switching of the amp for full range vs subwoofers where the sub ranges don't really suffer.

class D amps are High speed switches basically... all on or all off.

I don't personally understand the truncated sine wave unless you are referring to the wave being turned off or pulse modulated, or the idea that the amplifier is in some way is converting the signal. please explain if you have more on this subject to share.

but generally, my ice based units are very very good, superb black floor, great separation and clarity. I have heard some other ice based monoblocks or 2 channel rigs that didn't have quite the life of the Bel Canto's, but to each his own.

Edited by Schu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have heard some class D stuff and i have mixed feelings. My zed audio amps i had for my car were class D and i returned both i had because of digital artifacts that could be heard as part of the noise floor. It was really disappointing because they are supposed to be really solid and well engineered units and they may have been except for an audible floor noise.

I agree, theory is bullshit if what reality is differs, thats why it is theory. Reality is often predicated on theory which isn't always true. I read a few articles on class d over the years, none of which i can remember exactly nor where i read them but it was explained that class D is as described above, on or off and that the signal gets truncated for whatever reason/s. The truncation doesn't help with smoothness which is supposedly why a lot don't care for class D. In my experience with class D so far, and this is applicable to other techs as well, garbage in and garbage out. You have to make it with quality parts and have a good design and i think my experience was just ill designed class d's. I would love to audition some ICE power amps and i probably will in the future. I am always interested in the latest tech's and i am not shunning class D because of a few things when i know I haven't had time to truly audition other pieces of equipment. I still think there have to be some advancements in class D though. It is only in recent years has the technology improved enough to be good at full range music reproduction instead of being crude amps for subwoofers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Euphonic sound IS accurate sound.

By definition a euphonic amplifier imposes it's own sonic signature on the music. That means it does so on all music that it attempts to reproduce whether you want it to or not. It is anything but accurate.

Grab a dictionary my friend. The word "euphonic" has nothing to do with something imposing its own sonic signature on something. The word simply means, to sound good or agreeable. More literally. "sweet sound". People have adopted this bizarre view that euphony is the antithesis of accuracy, or precision. Music executed with precision and good tone, is both euphonic and accurate - just ask any musician. Since the goal of the artist is to create a pleasing sound, you can't really have one without the other. However, when I say "accurate" or "precise", I mean it in the context of the music itself, not the reproduction of it, therefore, "euphonic sound is accurate sound". This is how the musician would see it, and I have a little bit of experience in this area.

Engineers listen through mixing monitors or headphones, and of course you're always at the mercy of their hearing, what's left of it. I have no interest in hearing what those clowns hear, for crying out loud, listen to the quality of the crap their putting out.

Well, what else are they going to listen through? Electrodes implanted in the brain hooked directly to the amplifier? Osmosis? An unnamed, unknown mechanism? How are you getting music to listen to then? Recording it yourself?

Microphones, monitors and headphones all influence the sound in their own way. All stages of the mix-down are influenced by the sonic signature of what's being used for this process. I can't believe that anyone could possibly think that after all the tracks are laid down, that the what is heard on the final play back bears any resemblance to what was heard by the musicians in the studio as they were working. "Accuracy" is a misnomer. Why in the hell would I want to expend great care and funds to accurately reproduce what some half deaf recording engineer has captured and stuffed into a can? This ties to my first statement. Since music is euphonic in nature, "accuracy" in reproduction is obtained when you can reproduce this effect in your room. I want to be transported to the event -- and this normally involves things like "good sound", and "having a good time". "Warts and all accuracy" simply means that one has spent a great deal of time and money to reproduce a canned presentation that more times than not sounds, well, like a canned presentation.

I don't know why distortion signatures are being discussed. As long as the amp isn't run into the clipping, the distortion signature is of relatively low consequence.

Amplifiers made without using negative feedback, particularly single-ended amplifiers, have smoothly rising distortion curves that can get into the double digit range at low peak power levels (3-5 watts) when playing at normal listening levels. Remember that at least 13 dB (20X power ratio) headroom is necessary to reproduce undistorted peaks.

Yes, some tube amps have this issue, however, most don't -- and it's not like solid state amps, even very good ones, aren't without their own unique set of problems. None of this changes my opinion that distortion signatures are of "relatively low consequence" . You seem to have missed my point here, I wasn't referencing distortion levels, but distortion signatures. My point was that distortion levels are more important than the distortion type (even or odd), because truthfully, this is something that gains more significance as you reach the limit of what the amplifier was designed to put out, not during responsible use. As for headroom, we don't need that anymore. Aren't your figures a little outdated, considering we're fed a steady diet of stuff that's so compressed that the only "peak" you hear is the one you remember being there 30 years ago?

All of you guys who want "accurate", which basically means sterile, thin, flat, and makes you wince and grit your teeth -- can have it!

"Accurate" means no such thing. It means that the amplifier reproduces what is put into it without adding noise or adding harmonics. If you don't like it, that's cool. But know this; what you do like is distorted sound.

"Accurate" means hearing something that somewhat resembles the musical event. How you get there is of no consequence. Just because a system is euphonic in nature doesn't mean it's using distortion to do it. I've never heard distortion that sounds "good". Sure, the even order stuff might be easier on the ears, but it's not pleasant.

I read your other post on what it took to make your bad recordings sound good. So, which system was "accurate" - the one you started out with or the one you ended with? I took a different approach. I built a system with less resolving power, and everything sounds very good on it. Incidentally, you must be very gifted with this stuff -- I had biamped/time aligned Jubilees, and recordings that sounded good on my modified Klipschorns -- sounded so bad that I couldn't stand to listen to them.

Edited by DeanG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all are trying to find what sounds best to our ears. We try something for a while, we change, we modify, we all have our opinions, which is what makes this forum great. The thoughts expressed here make us continually strive for the best sound for our individual tastes and what each of us can afford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DeanG, on 09 Jan 2014 - 1:59 PM, said: Euphonic sound IS accurate sound. By definition a euphonic amplifier imposes it's own sonic signature on the music. That means it does so on all music that it attempts to reproduce whether you want it to or not. It is anything but accurate. Grab a dictionary my friend. The word "euphonic" has nothing to do with something imposing its own sonic signature on something.

Where you are going wrong is you are using the general definition of "euphonic". When specifically applied to audio "euphonic" means a piece of equipment that is designed to alter the reproduced sound so that is more "lush", i.e. has more even order harmonic distortion. When a power amplifier is the euphonic component it imposes it's signature on everything going through it whether the distortion is desired on all recordings or not.

Microphones, monitors and headphones all influence the sound in their own way. All stages of the mix-down are influenced by the sonic signature of what's being used for this process. I can't believe that anyone could possibly think that after all the tracks are laid down, that the what is heard on the final play back bears any resemblance to what was heard by the musicians in the studio as they were working. "Accuracy" is a misnomer.

Where you are going wrong with this is thinking the multitrack process is designed to reproduce what the musicians hear. It is not. It is designed to create a sound that the producer wants and the "performance" occurs when the tracks are mixed down. It is more like the producer is the architect and the musicians are the workers who build the house.

As for headroom, we don't need that anymore. Aren't your figures a little outdated, considering we're fed a steady diet of stuff that's so compressed that the only "peak" you hear is the one you remember being there 30 years ago?

We don't need headroom? Speak for yourself, I rather like headroom. And I have many recordings that are 30 years old to which I listen that are very dynamic.

"Accurate" means hearing something that somewhat resembles the musical event

As I said, with multitracked recordings the performance occurs at mixdown. The powered minimonitors used widely studios today are time aligned, flat as a pancake, and are nearly perfect point sources. My Khorns are pretty good in that respect, if I do say so myself.

I had biamped/time aligned Jubilees, and recordings that sounded good on my modified Klipschorns -- sounded so bad that I couldn't stand to listen to them.

So you got rid of them? I'm sorry for your loss. :D

Edited by Don Richard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guys are talking past each other a bit.

I think if people are using the word "euphonic" to mean adding distortion then they need to choose a new word. It is not what it means. But that is the funny thing about language. Words can eventually mean what people say that they mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer to the original point, I think much of the cost of tube amps over solid state has to do with supply and demand. We all understand that an item is worth no more than people are willing to pay. Schu, I've heard you say that here before.

If there were all the sudden a flood of low cost, high quality amps, then the cost would plummet. That is of course unless those high quality amps get slammed as crap by a reviewer from a certain website I will not mention because they don't cost enough to be good.

If the demand for tubes keeps climbing, and the market doesn't increase production, costs will go ever higher.

As mentioned earlier, hand made costs more. Also mentioned earlier, audiophile (worth it or not) components cost more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol, you're a trip Don. I think we are at least in partial agreement. I was one of the stupid ones, having sold off most of my LPs when CDs came out. But honesty, I don't think most pop and rock recordings had much dynamic range to begin with. Yes, we have our standouts, but not many. Still, if you have 3 watts, and only use a half watt most of the time, I think you're okay.

The musician is both architect and builder. The recording engineer is something else, maybe more like the guy on the other side of the street running his chainsaw.

Again, just because something sounds "euphonic", doesn't mean distortion is the reason it sounds that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HYPEX amplifier module. A future Jubilee customer has these and raves about them. If you go to their website, you will see some pretty convincing tech data. Latest technology of Class D or whatever amplifiers. Please not Signal to Noise ratio figures are 23 db worse at 2.83 V (1W into * ohms) vs. full output which is where most amps do their measuring, SS or Tubes. Tubes on top SS on bottom, I always say. I especially like the comment about the "fairy dust." I think a tube version would be very expensive, if not impossible.

The astounding performance of Ncore technology is now available to DIY enthusiasts. The NC400 packs a feature set never before seen in a modular amplifier product.

The NC400 module's audio performance sets new standards, regardless of operating class or circuit technology. Distortion (THD and IMD) over the full audio and power range is negligible, typically below 0.0007%. Distortion at listening levels (1W) is unmeasurable. This amp adds neither dirt nor fairy dust.

http://www.hypex.nl/product/2012-11-23-13-41-35/nc400.html


Edited by ClaudeJ1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I selected my tube amps of choice- VRDs. Placed a WTB ad in the garage sale section of this forum with a good reasonable price that I was willing to pay. I got laughed off the page at first but then guess what? A forum member was wanting to upgrade his set to match his new setup with some type of fancy wood. I did not steal them but I was very happy with the transaction. Food for thought if you decide to go in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was browsing the Hypex site yesterday, and the NC400 is the one model that got my attention.

Distortion (THD and IMD) over the full audio and power range is negligible, typically below 0.0007%

very nice... put it in a box and people will probably buy it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was browsing the Hypex site yesterday, and the NC400 is the one model that got my attention.

Distortion (THD and IMD) over the full audio and power range is negligible, typically below 0.0007%

very nice... put it in a box and people will probably buy it.

People have...Do a search on Hypex NC400. Lot's of information on modifications, etc. I think there is some commercial offerings using the NC400 modules, or circuit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...