jorjen Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 I would just like to hear the audio difference between the two and this would be such a convenient way to do so as I live so far from any audio shop that could possibly do this for me. You have to hear them directly. There's no way to "record" them and compare them without sacrificing the essential differences in sound. A tube or a transistor is an ingredient in an amplifier. More than being marked by a specific sound, those individual ingredients have certain characteristics when used in a design. The ingredient doesn't guarantee any certain outcome in sound. "Audio amplifier" is one a many kinds of circuits that use tubes/transistors. Transmitters, receivers, and power supplies are other kinds. It turns out that tubes are the almost perfect device for audio amplifiers when compared to transistors. This would not be true for video amplifier inside a TV, or a power supply inside a computer, two circuits where transistors would be superior. The success of an audio amplifier (at the high end) is all about the character of distortion it produces. The ear is very, very particular about what kind of distortion is tolerable. This is why tubes shine for audio amplifiers. A vacuum tube triode is a naturally perfect amplifier where a transistor is not. A transistor is more of a natural switch. You have to force it to perform well as an amplifier, by adding a lot of correction circuitry. A simple triode needs none of that correction circuitry to perform nearly flawlessly as an audio amplifier. That's the easy objective part of the comparison. Because transistors are far cheaper devices today than tubes, there is a tremendous incentive to try to force these transistors to perform like triodes (just like there is a huge incentive to use artificial flavor in packaged food instead of natural flavor). And engineers have gotten very, very good at doing just that. So, a handful of transistors + a lot of cleverness = a good sounding SS amplifier. But it doesn't really change the nature of the device. You would think then, that there would be some kind of universal agreement that for audio amplifiers, tubes sound better - - but, of course that would be too simple! The problem is complicated by three things: 1. Desires and goals of the user 2. Desires and goals of the designer 3. Difficulty to categorize subjective ideals Users all talk (especially among audio enthusiasts) as though they have a common goal for the sound they like. Believe me, that is not true. Forget the words they use, they all have different ideas about the meaning of "good sound." It's like asking "what is good food?" And, on the other side, every designer has a different set of goals they are working to. In a big company, like Sony, or HarmonKardon, designers are driven heavily by cost. The company wants a series of amps selling for $399, $599, $899. The engineer must first and foremost meet these goals or face the boss. In a smaller company, where maybe the engineer is also the owner, he might be willing to have the cost be the lowest goal, and make the sound quality be the highest goal. But is he using the same sonic reference points as his customers? His competitors? Anyone? Or, is he off on his own journey looking for the sound he has come to love? For example, ask 10 artists to paint a picture of the Grand Canyon, or ask 10 poets for a poem about love. That's exactly the kind of latitude that exists for any engineer designing an audio amplifier. One painter may make an almost photo-realistic painting of the canyon, while another uses a huge brush with intense swatches of brilliant color which conveys the emotion of the canyon more than any specific geographic detail. Which one conveys "Grand Canyon" the best? Depends on who is viewing it, right? Making really musical sounds from records, tapes and CDs is really just like painting and poetry. Choices have to be made by the "painter" about what is important to convey to the listener. Those choices have undeniable consequences. For instance, if you choose to reduce the measured distortion (THD) to the smallest possible number (0.001%) you will need a lot of corrective circuitry. Using that circuitry has the good effect of lowering measured distortion, but the bad effect of making the sound seem smeared and lifeless. Think about medicine: there is ALWAYS a long list of "side effects." On many modern medicines, one of the most common side effects is "death." Amplifier design works exactly like medicine design. You must accept all the long list of side effects along with the benefits. For all these reasons, an enthusiast who wants the best possible amplifier, must experiment with lots of amplifiers, and learn about these good and bad effects, and find out what tradeoff satisfies their ear (doctors often have to prescribe several different blood pressure medications for a patient until they find one that has the least objectionable "side effects.") All amplifiers are a set of compromises between the good and bad effects. All of them. There is no perfect amplifier. All listeners have different tolerance for side effects. At the very top end of the audio mountain, where people have had years to experience all the different options, and come to their conclusions, you will find both tube amplifiers and SS amplifiers! Enjoyed reading that Mark. Excellent post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 (edited) JL, by chance are you in Tioga County? If so, get hold of Comstock TV in Wellsboro and ask if John A. Comstock is around (I don't know if he's still living or not- he could be as young as in his 70s, or much older). He was an absolute ace with anything using tubes and may be able to help you out in some fashion. Maynard Edited June 27, 2014 by tube fanatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minermark Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 In a word: Buy Both. Then you will always have a spare Amp around ! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.L. Posted June 28, 2014 Author Share Posted June 28, 2014 Wow again!!!!!!!.... what an excellent read, mdeneen!!!!!!!!!! This joining of this forum has taught me so much just in the years time I've been on here. Such intelligent people on here!!!!!But that post by mdeneen really has sunk in. It’s what I thought mainly anyway, that to each his own basically. But I never new about how tubes are better for amplifying than ss is. And how all this correction must be performed by ss amps before the it reaches my speakers. All this makes my interest very high for trying out tubes. Thank you to all fellow members for all their insight into this topic!!!!!!!!! I very much appreciate it!!!At some point if I do decide to purchase, maybe at that time I could ask what you would recommend for a tube amp.Thanks again!!!!! Everyone!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A1UC Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) . Edited June 30, 2014 by A1UC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAZ Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 (edited) I support the previously stated ' you have to hear them both live and not on youtube'. You cannot capture the essence on a low quality you tube recording. Not sure how far the OP is looking to travel to do his live compare-o; I am in NJ (25 miles from the PA boarder) and my setups are in my signature if you are interested to hear tubes and solid side by side. My crystal ball says that you will end up with a tube amp soon if not already! It happens to everyone. Edited July 2, 2014 by MAZ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.L. Posted July 2, 2014 Author Share Posted July 2, 2014 Hello MAZ.... Thank you for the invite and I would love to hear the comparison, but probably a little too far for me to travel. I still haven't purchased a tube amp yet, but like you say, it happens to everyone!!!! There is a shop in Binghamton, NY (audio classics, I believe is the name). I may venture up there if they would agree in advance to some sort of demo comparison. But for me, it's always a matter of money and time, so I'm am unfortunately somewhat limited. I know I'll need more equipment too, I'm thinking, other than just the tube amp to get the sound to my KG's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schu Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I would just like to hear the audio difference between the two and this would be such a convenient way to do so as I live so far from any audio shop that could possibly do this for me. You have to hear them directly. There's no way to "record" them and compare them without sacrificing the essential differences in sound. A tube or a transistor is an ingredient in an amplifier. More than being marked by a specific sound, those individual ingredients have certain characteristics when used in a design. The ingredient doesn't guarantee any certain outcome in sound. "Audio amplifier" is one a many kinds of circuits that use tubes/transistors. Transmitters, receivers, and power supplies are other kinds. It turns out that tubes are the almost perfect device for audio amplifiers when compared to transistors. This would not be true for video amplifier inside a TV, or a power supply inside a computer, two circuits where transistors would be superior. The success of an audio amplifier (at the high end) is all about the character of distortion it produces. The ear is very, very particular about what kind of distortion is tolerable. This is why tubes shine for audio amplifiers. A vacuum tube triode is a naturally perfect amplifier where a transistor is not. A transistor is more of a natural switch. You have to force it to perform well as an amplifier, by adding a lot of correction circuitry. A simple triode needs none of that correction circuitry to perform nearly flawlessly as an audio amplifier. That's the easy objective part of the comparison. Because transistors are far cheaper devices today than tubes, there is a tremendous incentive to try to force these transistors to perform like triodes (just like there is a huge incentive to use artificial flavor in packaged food instead of natural flavor). And engineers have gotten very, very good at doing just that. So, a handful of transistors + a lot of cleverness = a good sounding SS amplifier. But it doesn't really change the nature of the device. You would think then, that there would be some kind of universal agreement that for audio amplifiers, tubes sound better - - but, of course that would be too simple! The problem is complicated by three things: 1. Desires and goals of the user 2. Desires and goals of the designer 3. Difficulty to categorize subjective ideals Users all talk (especially among audio enthusiasts) as though they have a common goal for the sound they like. Believe me, that is not true. Forget the words they use, they all have different ideas about the meaning of "good sound." It's like asking "what is good food?" And, on the other side, every designer has a different set of goals they are working to. In a big company, like Sony, or HarmonKardon, designers are driven heavily by cost. The company wants a series of amps selling for $399, $599, $899. The engineer must first and foremost meet these goals or face the boss. In a smaller company, where maybe the engineer is also the owner, he might be willing to have the cost be the lowest goal, and make the sound quality be the highest goal. But is he using the same sonic reference points as his customers? His competitors? Anyone? Or, is he off on his own journey looking for the sound he has come to love? For example, ask 10 artists to paint a picture of the Grand Canyon, or ask 10 poets for a poem about love. That's exactly the kind of latitude that exists for any engineer designing an audio amplifier. One painter may make an almost photo-realistic painting of the canyon, while another uses a huge brush with intense swatches of brilliant color which conveys the emotion of the canyon more than any specific geographic detail. Which one conveys "Grand Canyon" the best? Depends on who is viewing it, right? Making really musical sounds from records, tapes and CDs is really just like painting and poetry. Choices have to be made by the "painter" about what is important to convey to the listener. Those choices have undeniable consequences. For instance, if you choose to reduce the measured distortion (THD) to the smallest possible number (0.001%) you will need a lot of corrective circuitry. Using that circuitry has the good effect of lowering measured distortion, but the bad effect of making the sound seem smeared and lifeless. Think about medicine: there is ALWAYS a long list of "side effects." On many modern medicines, one of the most common side effects is "death." Amplifier design works exactly like medicine design. You must accept all the long list of side effects along with the benefits. For all these reasons, an enthusiast who wants the best possible amplifier, must experiment with lots of amplifiers, and learn about these good and bad effects, and find out what tradeoff satisfies their ear (doctors often have to prescribe several different blood pressure medications for a patient until they find one that has the least objectionable "side effects.") All amplifiers are a set of compromises between the good and bad effects. All of them. There is no perfect amplifier. All listeners have different tolerance for side effects. At the very top end of the audio mountain, where people have had years to experience all the different options, and come to their conclusions, you will find both tube amplifiers and SS amplifiers! My god... I can not make heads or tails out of this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjptkd Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I would just like to hear the audio difference between the two and this would be such a convenient way to do so as I live so far from any audio shop that could possibly do this for me. You have to hear them directly. There's no way to "record" them and compare them without sacrificing the essential differences in sound. A tube or a transistor is an ingredient in an amplifier. More than being marked by a specific sound, those individual ingredients have certain characteristics when used in a design. The ingredient doesn't guarantee any certain outcome in sound. "Audio amplifier" is one a many kinds of circuits that use tubes/transistors. Transmitters, receivers, and power supplies are other kinds. It turns out that tubes are the almost perfect device for audio amplifiers when compared to transistors. This would not be true for video amplifier inside a TV, or a power supply inside a computer, two circuits where transistors would be superior. The success of an audio amplifier (at the high end) is all about the character of distortion it produces. The ear is very, very particular about what kind of distortion is tolerable. This is why tubes shine for audio amplifiers. A vacuum tube triode is a naturally perfect amplifier where a transistor is not. A transistor is more of a natural switch. You have to force it to perform well as an amplifier, by adding a lot of correction circuitry. A simple triode needs none of that correction circuitry to perform nearly flawlessly as an audio amplifier. That's the easy objective part of the comparison. Because transistors are far cheaper devices today than tubes, there is a tremendous incentive to try to force these transistors to perform like triodes (just like there is a huge incentive to use artificial flavor in packaged food instead of natural flavor). And engineers have gotten very, very good at doing just that. So, a handful of transistors + a lot of cleverness = a good sounding SS amplifier. But it doesn't really change the nature of the device. You would think then, that there would be some kind of universal agreement that for audio amplifiers, tubes sound better - - but, of course that would be too simple! The problem is complicated by three things: 1. Desires and goals of the user 2. Desires and goals of the designer 3. Difficulty to categorize subjective ideals Users all talk (especially among audio enthusiasts) as though they have a common goal for the sound they like. Believe me, that is not true. Forget the words they use, they all have different ideas about the meaning of "good sound." It's like asking "what is good food?" And, on the other side, every designer has a different set of goals they are working to. In a big company, like Sony, or HarmonKardon, designers are driven heavily by cost. The company wants a series of amps selling for $399, $599, $899. The engineer must first and foremost meet these goals or face the boss. In a smaller company, where maybe the engineer is also the owner, he might be willing to have the cost be the lowest goal, and make the sound quality be the highest goal. But is he using the same sonic reference points as his customers? His competitors? Anyone? Or, is he off on his own journey looking for the sound he has come to love? For example, ask 10 artists to paint a picture of the Grand Canyon, or ask 10 poets for a poem about love. That's exactly the kind of latitude that exists for any engineer designing an audio amplifier. One painter may make an almost photo-realistic painting of the canyon, while another uses a huge brush with intense swatches of brilliant color which conveys the emotion of the canyon more than any specific geographic detail. Which one conveys "Grand Canyon" the best? Depends on who is viewing it, right? Making really musical sounds from records, tapes and CDs is really just like painting and poetry. Choices have to be made by the "painter" about what is important to convey to the listener. Those choices have undeniable consequences. For instance, if you choose to reduce the measured distortion (THD) to the smallest possible number (0.001%) you will need a lot of corrective circuitry. Using that circuitry has the good effect of lowering measured distortion, but the bad effect of making the sound seem smeared and lifeless. Think about medicine: there is ALWAYS a long list of "side effects." On many modern medicines, one of the most common side effects is "death." Amplifier design works exactly like medicine design. You must accept all the long list of side effects along with the benefits. For all these reasons, an enthusiast who wants the best possible amplifier, must experiment with lots of amplifiers, and learn about these good and bad effects, and find out what tradeoff satisfies their ear (doctors often have to prescribe several different blood pressure medications for a patient until they find one that has the least objectionable "side effects.") All amplifiers are a set of compromises between the good and bad effects. All of them. There is no perfect amplifier. All listeners have different tolerance for side effects. At the very top end of the audio mountain, where people have had years to experience all the different options, and come to their conclusions, you will find both tube amplifiers and SS amplifiers! My god... I can not make heads or tails out of this. "Listening" is subjective and good / bad "sound" is different for everybody and at the end of the day many people are perfectly happy with either tube or solid state power. This is one of those questions that can only truly be answered by the person asking the question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I think we need a dedicated amp section here for the amp builders and enthusiasts. There are too many other things going on in the two channel section to sift through and find. Plus I think this would jump start a little more amp activity which is needed here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I am in NJ (25 miles from the PA boarder) And I thought that I'm the only NJ forum member. Maynard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAZ Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I am in NJ (25 miles from the PA boarder) And I thought that I'm the only NJ forum member. Maynard Up until a few days ago you were! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 I agree with Mark about not having a separate category for amp builders/enthusiasts. It would probably wind up like Diyaudio which is often like a battleground. This is one of the most pleasant forums I've ever encountered and wouldn't want to see it get spoiled! Maynard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max2 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 How about a general AMP section? There is almost a half a million replies to the two channel section, which is double the amount of any other section here. I think a dedicated Amp section would make more sense breaking things up and allowing users to find amp topics immediately without wading through the mound of straw. The two channel section catches basically everything that doesn't fit elsewhere and some things that should. Just a thought guys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpc2001 Posted July 2, 2014 Share Posted July 2, 2014 tigerwoodKhorns is right. I've rebuilt and redesigned a few vintage SS amps and one vintage tube amp, done a lot of spice simulations and a lot of listening. In 1970, a typical SS amp would make distortion products something like 60db quieter than signal (0.1% distortion.) SS amps tends to produce 5th, 7th, and 9th order distortion products, which are audible at 60db below signal. Some designs of this era were marginally stable, giving them poor transient response. You don't need a golder ear to hear these artifacts. By 1980 a typical SS amp would make distortion products no louder than 80db below signal (0.01%). At this level the sound is fairly clean, errors are subtle. More manufacturers figured out that stability margin mattered, whether for the sake of sound quality or just to reduce the number of units that got around to really oscillating, burning up, and coming in for warranty service. In the 1990s Doug Self did his work on distortion reduction in the input and VAS stages, and Baxandall invented transitional miller compensation (TMC) which nearly erases crossover distortion in class AB amps. By 2000, techniques existed to design reasonably simple, fully-discrete, fully-analog SS amps that put 110db between signal and distortion products, at any audio frequency and at any signal level, in class A or AB, with excellent stability and with good overload-recovery characteristics. Really modern SS amps sound transparent and effortless, they just sound great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 J.L.> audio classics is great, you don't need to check ahead they will have several amps hooked up that you can listen to through several speakers. They might all be really expensive but they will let you listen. Last time i was there i listened to the pf- 39 palladiums through mac ss and tube gear along with mac and b/w speakers for about an hour by myself! They also used to have a cut a way klipschorn so you could see how it works. it's worth the trip! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I'd suggest selecting a few LPs or CDs from your own collection that you really enjoy and bring those with you. I find this to be very good advice. I may have the CD, or an LP that you like, but not know where it is. Easy to wind up spending more time looking then listening. And I would rather listen and visit then try to hunt up a music source that I may not know where it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tube fanatic Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 In the 1990s Doug Self did his work on distortion reduction in the input and VAS stages, and Baxandall invented transitional miller compensation (TMC) which nearly erases crossover distortion in class AB amps. By 2000, techniques existed to design reasonably simple, fully-discrete, fully-analog SS amps that put 110db between signal and distortion products, at any audio frequency and at any signal level, in class A or AB, with excellent stability and with good overload-recovery characteristics. Really modern SS amps sound transparent and effortless, they just sound great. No question about the extremely low distortion of the newer SS equipment. However, I encounter many listeners who still find the sound of such equipment to be harsh and grating (particularly with horn type speakers). When doing a level matched comparison with SETs, for example, they much prefer the sound of the tubes in spite of the possible few percent 2nd harmonic distortion. I'm not convinced that this issue will ever be resolved from an objective standpoint. Maynard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClaudeJ1 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 when have you ever heard a tube amp advertised to sound like solid grate ooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's good!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.L. Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 when have you ever heard a tube amp advertised to sound like solid grate ooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh. That's good!! Hehehe..... That sounds like something talk radio host Mark Levin would say, that is if he were an audiophile!!!!!!!! Sorry, couldn't resist..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.