Tube amp and pre-amp with Turntable vs SS with DVD-A

[robforst1]

I have assembled what I believe to be a pretty awesome sounding 2-channel and 5.1 channel sound system.

I use HDCD, DVD-A, SACD and standard CD players as my sources with SS amplification.

For fun I was thinking of buying a Turntable and a Tube amp and preamp (possibly Antique Sound Labs SET).

How different would my 2-channel listening experience be on my cornwalls with Tubes and Phono vs CD and SS?

[AndyKubicki]

robforst1, unless you have the listening experience of someone like Mobile Homeless, it's hard to tell. I had what I thought was a decent SS system and when I got my Scott 222D, I discovered that it was not as "decent" as I thought. I thought, for example, that on a jazz DVD where the bass player played an acoustic bass and I did not hear the upper bass on the SS amp/pre-amp and thought it was a poor recording or a poor mike used to amplify the bass. When I listened to it through my Scott, the upper bass was there! Not as loud as the lower bass, but you could hear it! And this is on a vintage amp. Who knows what surprizes you might find. Mine are listed below in the "222D is a keeper" post.

How do you like your ES 555? Is there a difference between 2 channel DVDa vs 2 ch SACD?

[Deang]

You will also find a substantial reduction in digital hash, and treble 'spit' when using a decent deck with a tubed front end. The sound of that Sony 555ES will be completely transformed with tubes. I use the 9000ES, and I think these Sony machines are perfect with tubes.

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 1:01:33 AM robforst1 wrote:

How different would my 2-channel listening experience be on my cornwalls with Tubes and Phono vs CD and SS?

----------------

A two channel vacuum tube system with a quality turntable / tonearm / cart / phono, which has been properly setup will certaily sound less harsh at the very least.

I ended up selling all my SS stuff and... now rarely listen to CD - the cornwalls will love you for it

Regards,

~Michael~

[Colin]

lest I be perceived as rudely shouting:

HORNS LOVE TUBES!

[Manuel Delaflor]

I have not listened to DVD-A, but I know the differences between SS and Tubes. I will put it this way: If you want amplification you can rely on SS, if you want music you need tubes.

[artto]

Its hard to imagine that this tube vs SS & digital vs analogue thing is still going on after many decades. You can achieve superior results with either. However, your preference will probably be biased by your equipment preferences, how you have the equipment setup, the room's acoustics you listen in as well as the recordings you listen to.

Dean supplied some excellent links somewhere in the forum yesterday that gave an excellent perspective on tubes vs. transistor amplification.

I use all of the above. While I don't seem to find my SS gear as offensive as some people seem to, I'll be the first to admit that it doesn't really compare or hold a candle to the tube gear as far as "recreating" the musical event. Whether this is because of certain distortions or not, I don't really care.

The same goes for the vinyl LP thing verses digital. I've had superior result with both. And I've experienced absolutely horrendous sound with both.

From a techical standpoint, by the time you get a SS amp to really "sing" & perform properly you basically loose all the so-called "advantages" of SS. The amps are no longer small, they get big & they get heavy, they put out very little power for their size & make lots of heat, they are more expensive, etc., just like tube amps. For what its worth, the vacuum tube is inherently a more linear (low distortion) device in the audio range. A transistor has to be "finagled" into doing the same thing across the entire audio range, and can do so because of its natural tendency towards higher gain, which is probably where most SS amps go wrong. Too much opportunity for the designer to f*** things up. SS amps tend to measure better under test conditions (basically a static, non-dynamic, simple 1 or 2 tone signals). However, the "tricks" that need to be done to make a SS do this can also cause the amp to basically become a "distortion machine" when reproducing music (which is constantly changing in both frequency content & dynamics).

I suspect similar inherent distortions in analogue are responsible for it "sounding" more "musical". Consider the fact that the typical vinyl LP you are listening to is probably, at a minimum, the 10,000th+ copy that had its grooves "pressed" into some second grade (non-virgin) plastic from the same master. And then you take a microscopic stone (that doesn't really match the shape of the groove), and hang it on one end of small cantilever with some magnets or coils attached at the opposite end & suspend it in some kind of rubber gromet at the fulcrum. And then drag this thing through a microscopic pressed plastic groove at 7.5"/second. Does this sound like anything thats capable of reproducing accurate sound, in stereo no less? Its amazing we get as much out of it as we do.

I also sometimes wonder what other people's music reference is. How many "audiophiles" frequently attend live musical events, both acouctic & amplified? How many have ever played an instrument at the professional level? How many have ever recorded live music, amplified or acoustic? Or mastered their own recordings? An acquaintance Of Paul Klipsch, Sergent Jack Riley, tells of a visit to a "hi-fi" show when he was stationed in England. A feature was a comparison of various playback systems with a live orchestra. He reported "The orchestra came in third."

Lets not forget that we are dealing with imperfect systems regardless of the technology used.

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 10:42:25 AM artto wrote:

Its hard to imagine that this tube vs SS & digital vs analogue thing is still going on after many decades. You can achieve superior results with either. However, your preference will probably be biased by your equipment preferences, how you have the equipment setup, the room's acoustics you listen in as well as the recordings you listen to.

----------------

Absolutely correct - that's a given. In like manner, strictly speaking from an epistimological viewpoint - all opinions and impressions about audio are subjective. Whatever sounds good to each individual is what matters in the final analysis. De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum.

----------------

On 12/4/2002 10:42:25 AM artto wrote:

I also sometimes wonder what other people's music reference is. How many "audiophiles" frequently attend live musical events, both acouctic & amplified? How many have ever played an instrument at the professional level? How many have ever recorded live music, amplified or acoustic? Or mastered their own recordings? An acquaintance Of Paul Klipsch, Sergent Jack Riley, tells of a visit to a "hi-fi" show when he was stationed in England. A feature was a comparison of various playback systems with a live orchestra. He reported "The orchestra came in third."

Lets not forget that we are dealing with imperfect systems regardless of the technology used.

----------------

Not all people like live concerts. I for one prefer the imperfect world of my listening room - no bacchanalian trolls, people caughing or talking or otherwise rude arse holes ... and the convenience to get up and go to the fridge - for example.... plus the volume level does not bother me. Frankly, I don't know how I ever attended live performances at all over the past 30 years, though theatre is a bit more palatable.

If you like look for the sound of live orchestra no audio system will ever be satisfying.

Regards,

~Michael~

[Deang]

Nice post.

But what the hell is "epistimological viewpoint"?

[artto]

"If you like look for the sound of live orchestra no audio system will ever be satisfying."

Well I gotcha on the last one aksho. While I agree with you that live concerts can be a pain in the arse, which is probably why I don't attend them as often as I used to, its still the real thing. My system does sound like the real thing, orchestra & all. And it is very satisfying. And thats the way I want it to be. The live event is the reference. If it is not, then what is? An opinion of what someone thinks sounds good? Who cares!

Both non-audiophile & audiophile types, & experienced musicians who have listened to my system have been astounded at "how real" it sounds. They all have said the same comments. Such as "its as if you can see all the musicians The sense of space goes right over your head, etc, etc.

Quite frankly, the live verses recorded things were accomplished decades ago in the 1930's. The point is most people prefer the artificial sound and wouldn't be able to recognize the real thing in a blind test if their life depended on it.

I record live concerts for a local Chorale comprising 50-70 persons, piano accompaniment, & various "musical guests" several times per year. I also play professionally in local bands. And some of those bands have rehearsed/recorded in my listening room/studio. I've also recorded some other acoustic music in my room that is commercially available. I think after being having the opportunity to record voice, banjos & guitars, drum kits, etc. in my room, I have a fairly good idea what the real thing sounds like and can make a fair comparison between live & recorded sound.

On one recording session, involving 2 banjos & one bass banjo, & 3 vocals, it was rather uncanny to hear playback of the master tape with the musicians making comments between takes. It was as if there was 2 of everyone. You would look up as if to respond to one of their comments only to realize that they weren't talking. A similar thing happened when a friend of mine wanted to record some parts that he could then play back & record himself in duet. Classical American banjo is not "my bag". Consequently, my wife, his wife & myself, all present in the room, had sort of lost our attention when my friend made a major blunder playing a banjo part. We all looked up, ready to laugh and do some finger pointing, only to realize that he wasn't playing. It was the recording

I may not be able to fool all of the people all of the time. But most of the people most of the time is fine for me. And thats about all that technology is capable of at the present time.

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 2:34:13 PM artto wrote:

Well I gotcha on the last one aksho. While I agree with you that live concerts can be a pain in the arse, which is probably why I don't attend them as often as I used to, its still the real thing. My system does sound like the real thing, orchestra & all. And it is very satisfying.

----------------

On November 22nd I attended a performance of The Academy of St Martin in the Fields (Joshua Bell - Guest Director) in the Alexander W. Dreyfoos, Jr. Concert Hall of the Kravis Center in West Palm Beach. The performances included violin concertos by Bach & Hayden and the second half of the program featured Mahler's orchestral arrangement of Schubert's quartet, "Death and the Maiden." (I was given Grand Tier tickets as a gift - hard to resist - plus it was nice to take time off from work). Sonically truly overwhelming.

I must salute you and your audio system - an amazing accomplishment indeed to have a system sound like the real thing, orchestra & all, i.e. have performances sound just like the one I witnessed that day in the Dreyfoos Concert Hall. You certainly "got me."

What can I say - "Cuiusvis hominis est errare"

Regards,

~Michael~

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 1:43:07 PM deang wrote:

Nice post.

But what the hell is "

epistimological viewpoint

"?

----------------

Not sure, but I thought it sounded pretty good.

[AndyKubicki]

One other aspect of the "live" similarity is that when you are at a concert with a large orchestra, you don't hear all the instruments "live" unless you are in the best seat in the house. Chances are, you are hearing some of it, if not most of it, amped, which then becomes dependent upon the quality of that whole chain! This is not to mention the acoustics of the location. On a smaller scale, seeing a quartet or band is also usually miked. I too prefer the recorded sound without the echoes of the hall you get while watching a live performance. Live performances are enjoyable if you like to watch the musicians perform their magic, but not acoustically. I went to see Tony Levin's band when they toured and really enjoy watching musicians of this caliber do their thing. But the location where I saw them had the volume up to a literally painful level, one at which you actually could no longer hear music, just noise. So there are drawbacks to live music. But a good recording will let you hear things you might miss at a live show.

When we say live, I think the objective is to capture the actual sound of an instrument as best as technology and the art of the engineer will allow, rather than a literal live experience. The possible exception is a live small amount of instruments being playing in your living room.

[T2K]

The difference would be the hiss, pops, and crackles you will hear on vinyl as opposed to not hearing same on the other formats.

If your Cornwalls are bright or shrill the tube amplification will probably help.

Keith

[edster00]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 1:43:07 PM deang wrote:

Nice post.

But what the hell is "

epistimological viewpoint

"?

----------------

"epistemological: (note the spelling)

adj: of or relating to epistemology"

"epistemology:

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity."

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

"epistemological: (note the spelling)

adj: of or relating to epistemology"

"epistemology:

The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity."

----------------

Thank for looking that up in the dictionary for us, doctor. While you're at it could you please look up "rhetorical" and "sarcastic".

Thanks,

~Michael~

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/4/2002 3:36:33 PM talktoKeith wrote:

The difference would be the hiss, pops, and crackles you will hear on vinyl as opposed to not hearing same on the other formats.

Keith

----------------

If one uses quality equipment, handles and cleans vinyl properly hiss and pops are minimal at best - on the other hand the tonality and detail in a quality pressing such as LSC-1806 Strauss - Also Sparch Zarathrustra Reiner/CSO or LSC-2446 Rimsky-Korsakov - Scheherazade Reiner/CSO are rather impressive and quite beautiful to listen to. I suspect that redbook would find this difficult to match.

I'm admittingly facinated with your apparent expertise on the suject of turntable setup (VTA, azimuth, matching carts to the effective mass of tonearms, proper RIAA phono gain factor, etc ad nauseam) that lead to the "hiss, pops, and crackles" dismissal of the vinyl format ... perhaps you could enlighten me with your obvious acumen on the matter at hand.

Best regards,

~Michael~

[T2K]

It would be a waste of both your time and mine Michael.

The plain and simple fact is that no matter how much time, effort, and money one were to expend on the vinyl format, should that person expend a like amount of time, effort, and money tweaking the newer formats that person would achieve far superior sound with DVD-A or SACD.

Perhaps you too should check the definition of 'sarcastic'.

Keith

[akshobhyavajra]

----------------

On 12/5/2002 5:30:07 AM talktoKeith wrote:

It would be a waste of both your time and mine Michael.

----------------

Keith,

You are probably correct. I'll stick to my big, black discs and you can keep your little, shiny ones. As to the definition of the before-mentioned term - I am aware of the definition

Best regards,

~Michael~

[artto]

I try to get the best seats in the house (or at least what I consider to be the best) Many times this is easier to achieve at matinee performances. Most of my live concert experience (acoustic) has been in The Foellinger Great Hall at the Krannert Center for the Performing Arts in Champaign-Urbana, IL, U of I http://www.krannertcenter.com/center/venues/foellinger.php , and at Orchestra Hall, Chicago. Orchestra Hall used to suck. The Chicago Symphony used to go down to The Great Hall to record. Orchestra Hall has since been renovated & sounds better. I still prefer The Great Hall. An amazingly beautiful & wonderful sounding space. As a matter of fact, it was the inspiration and served as a model for building my music room, which is kind of like a miniature auditorium. Unfortunately, for my own live recordings, I dont have the liberty of choosing recording locations & Im somewhat limited in how I can setup.

So Andy, you got to see Tony Levin, eh? VERY COOL. Hes one of the worlds most awesome bass players! The past few years Ive been able to see Stanley Clark, John Paul Jones (from Led Zep), Roger Waters (from Pink Floyd) and my look-alike twin, John Entwistle (from The Who). I have to tell you, Entwistles concert is where I first got my idea about acoustic overload in rooms. This band was so F******* LOUD it was unbelievable. I had solid core ear plugs, & believe me, you didnt dare open your mouth for fear the sound pressure would knock your ear drums out from the inside. When he went into his bass solo, I swear, it was as if someone had shoved their fist up thru your chest, grabbed your heart, & started shaking it. I wouldnt be surprised if Park West had sustained structural damage. And as you said Andy (re: Levins concert) everything just became noise. After his passing earlier this year, I think Roger Daltry seemed to put the next phase of Entwistles career in perspective best when he said I just hope God has got his earplugs ready. Whatever happens, Hell have to reinvent thunder, as it simply wont be loud enough anymore.