tube vs solid state

[totsuka]

I love my tube receivers (Fisher 400 and Fisher 500C) but recently found a Marantz 2216B on CL and really enjoy it too. I use the KG-4's and KG 1.5's (oak), love the look and performance of

both but keep looking for higher end Marantz and Klipsch just to try something new.  I think I'll send off the 500C for full restoration ($500.00) but think it will be well worth the investment. It's a fun hobby (audio) with so many options for gear.

[MechEngVic]

On 6/12/2019 at 2:22 PM, Mila1924 said:

Hi,

 

I just recently purchased a scott lk 72 integrated tube amp.  it sounds great, but (don't attack me) it honestly stresses me out.  Too old, tubes stress me, too easy for daughter to touch, and lastly, Its in our massive living room and the 35ish watts makes me have to turn it too loud and I think im loss some sound quality at the high volume levels..   

 

any experience/opinions with a marantz 2275 reciever?  im wondering if that would sound as good if not better than my scott?  i THINK im interested in it beacause its less fragile, daughter cant do damage to it, and I THINK the more wattage would be better suited for my large living room and the volume that i need to turn it to would be more fitting for a higher wattge receiever.

 

any thoughts?

Most people who convert from tubes to solid state do so for reasons similar to yours. Most commercial audio installations use solid state for similar reasons. Solid state is more convenient, reliable, and trouble free.

[Audio Flynn]

On 6/13/2019 at 10:31 AM, artto said:

Warning: Propaganda from me 😋

 

You might want to take a look at what's called a direct digital feedback amp (DDFA) (not class D). To my knowledge NAD is the only one making these. The NAD C390DD has been out of production for some time now and can be had for a song. One of the best values out there. New is the NAD M32, successor to the original M3. One thing is for sure, the clarity, openness and incredible low end is probably an order of magnitude beyond anything you've heard before, tube or solid state. Whether or not you like is up to you. I had been using mostly tube amps (Luxman MB3045 and Wright 3.5 Mono) and McIntosh or Crown solid state amps for decades until I heard the C390DD in my system. I now have an NAD M32. This is as close as I've gotten to "real" from an amplifier at any price.

The M32 is the real deal. I have had mine for 3 weeks and find it more interesting every day.

 

I was slightly hesitant but always loved my NAD 3020. I was going to change something in my system and decided it was time to test a non traditional amplifier design.

 

BLU OS is a great quality of life upgrade. High resolution radio worldwide!

[artto]

On 6/12/2019 at 6:57 PM, polizzio said:

 

Respectfully, that's some of the craziest logic i have ever read concerning amplification. 

 

So with tube watts, the more distortion the better?  How does more distortion make the music louder?

 

Personally I like and def prefer my music reproduced with zero audible distortion. It is very easy with SS amps @ low to moderate volumes to reproduce a quality musical recording with  < .05% total distortion. In other words, the distortion is completely inaudible. 

The truth is, with most SS amps the distortion (relatively speaking) is highest at the lowest output levels.

[henry4841]

3 hours ago, artto said:

The truth is, with most SS amps the distortion (relatively speaking) is highest at the lowest output levels.

Nelson Pass calls his smaller company Firstwatt. The biggest difference is most SS amplifiers distortion is 3rd order which is very offensive whereas SET's have 2nd order harmonics which many say is pleasant. Another thing is when a tube amplifier clips unless it is extreme you will never know it. Not so with SS amplifiers, very offensive and harsh. With our speakers we never exceed on average a couple of watts. More on transits but the average is very low amount. There is an easy way to measure how much amplifier power you are using just with a volt meter. 

 

In real world both SS and tubes can sound really good. The biggest difference I can tell is single ended amplifiers vs push pull. There is a distinct difference in the sound. I like swapping back and forth between them for a different perspective. Both have there own sound signature. Most SS amplifiers are push pull. They are the best sellers for their power numbers. I love my 5 watt SET's along with my  150 per channel SS one. 

[Marvel]

I put in "The Duke", a Mark Deneen modified Crown D-45. It's 25 watts of pure bliss. Tight, solid bass, absolutely no noise and all that jazz. Debating with myself about selling my Moondogs.

 

 

 

 

[joshnich]

I was pretty much a die hard tube lover having tried a large number of ss options. I was converted when I tried the Benchmark AHB2. Best sounding (to me) ss amp I have heard. It is an awesome piece of equipment. 

 

J

[OO1]

2 hours ago, joshnich said:

I was pretty much a die hard tube lover having tried a large number of ss options. I was converted when I tried the Benchmark AHB2. Best sounding (to me) ss amp I have heard. It is an awesome piece of equipment. 

 

J

The Benchmark AHB2  is a great amp , 3k$ , for the same price   , I purchased the Yamaha A-S series A1200 integrated amp , with tone controls , VU meters , phono stage etc --I would love to do a sound comparison between both units -

[joshnich]

I am sure you are happy with the Yamaha. I have never owned a Yamaha so I cannot comment on how it would compare. The ss amps I have owned include McIntosh, First Watt, Parasound Halo, Marantz, Crown, Portal Panache ( pass design) and NAD. Those are just the modern amps and do not include the plethora of vintage Sansui, Harman, Pioneer,  and Kenwood receivers/integrated stuff. 

None are in the same league with the AHB2. The Benchmark represent a whole different level. It is not a surprise that Stereophile rates them as an A. Yes they are 3K. I believe the closest class A in terms of price is10K. No I am not saying that Stereophile reviews are the end all. But it is interesting. 

I auditioned the AHB2 because I have owned a benchmark DAC and believe it to be tops for the money. The AHB2 has not left the rack having replaced a pair of MC 75 current edition mono blocks. I could go on and on but its all just my opinion. I dont use tone controls and don’t have use for VU meters. And until Benchmark makes a phono stage, Ill keep my Manley. 

[parlophone1]

No to hijack the thread, how were you satisfied with Benchmark DAC?

 

I suppose it was Mark 1?

I was thinking of buying myself one, but these are now pretty old now. Some were doing mods in them, so there is obviously space for improvements.

And for what I was reading, if one is to use it as a preamp, the volume knob is not so good at low levels - the main difference between Mark 1 and 2.

[joshnich]

On 10/5/2020 at 11:19 PM, parlophone1 said:

No to hijack the thread, how were you satisfied with Benchmark DAC?

 

I suppose it was Mark 1?

I was thinking of buying myself one, but these are now pretty old now. Some were doing mods in them, so there is obviously space for improvements.

And for what I was reading, if one is to use it as a preamp, the volume knob is not so good at low levels - the main difference between Mark 1 and 2.

I have owned the Benchmark DAC1, DAC2 and DAC3. I am currently using the DAC3 in my main system and the DAC1 in my workshop. I have never had a problem with the volume knob at low levels. For the price that I see DAC1’s going for I cant imagine finding a better option for the price. The difference in sound between the three of them is actually not much. A little difference between the 1 and 3 given the different chip. But overall all three are spectacular DACs