Deang Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 In amplifiers: What has to happen to make tube rectificaton sound good? Is it possible to have it sound "bad"? Does SS rectification always sound "bad"? Can it be done "right"? What other parameters come into play, that is -- what kind of things are more important, play a bigger part, or are larger contributing factors to whether an amp satisfies or not? What compromises are best? In a world of tradeoffs -- what would you "tradeoff"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike stehr Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 ---------------- On 8/24/2003 9:38:16 PM DeanG wrote: In amplifiers: What has to happen to make tube rectificaton sound good? Is it possible to have it sound "bad"? A well designed and filtered PSU I guess. Sure it can sound bad. Does SS rectification always sound "bad"? Can it be done "right"? Why would it always sound bad? If the PSU is well designed it should be fine, IMO. I think this is kind of a preference thing. I dunno, I've never heard a SS rectified tube amp. What other parameters come into play, that is -- what kind of things are more important, play a bigger part, or are larger contributing factors to whether an amp satisfies or not? Tone. What compromises are best? In a world of tradeoffs -- what would you "tradeoff"? Food. ---------------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prodj101 Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 some people prefer the sound of ss rectification over tube, they say the bass is cleaner and tighter sounding. I haven't compared the two side by side so I couldn't say. personally I think it would be one of those things that is more trivial than anything, so I'd just take the tubes for looks sake Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Cant wait to see all the answers here... I believe both can be done well. Jeff and I have argued this over and over again and I guess I agree that SS rectification can be done with HEXFRED/soft recovery diodes etc. Many like snubber networks as well. And with this combination, many say that SS can be done RIGHT to equal tube ease. I STILL say that my FAVORITE amps and preamps ALL use tube rectification (this coming from someone that does have a SS rectified preamp reference). I find it the most natural sounding and the most relaxed/liquid. There is just a certain quality to the sound that is far more at ease, drawing you in. While SS can be done well, I just prefer tube for these reasons. Certainly, SS is cheaper...but to me, the magic lies in the valve rectified amps. I have come to want this in my final gear as the more relaxed nature sounds more musical to me, without any of the mechanical edge, even very slight, that creeps in. Many others disagree but I have to admit, I have not truly loved a SS rectified tube amplifier although some have been VERY good. kh ps-OF course, the slow startup time of tube rectification is a BIG plus as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 24, 2003 Author Share Posted August 24, 2003 I know I've preferred it in my preamps. When I had the Scott 299B, I thought the bass sounded a little sluggish. Craig and myself went back and forth on this some today. I maintained that properly implemented, SS rectification would actually be more expensive to use. As far as the sound goes -- again, totally dependant on the usual. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Hmm...so that's how you warm up those tubes... fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 Well, I have both owned and auditioned various SS rectified amps. I will take tube rectification over it perhaps because I am very sensitive to this sound. It just loses a bit of what I love about tube amps to begin with. And I dont think a properly implemented tube rectified circuit has sluggish bass at all. My Moondogs have excellent, defined bass, the best bass I have heard from a SET. Ditto with my EICO amp; I actually consider it's bass definition one of its strong suits as it betters the bass in the B&K Monoblocks as well as the various UL/triode PP EL-34 amps I have had, most of them using various forms of SS rectification. Of course, with Mudvyne ripping it up, many things can appear sluggish, such as the contents within your skull! heh.... kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 24, 2003 Share Posted August 24, 2003 When I had the Scott 299B, I thought the bass sounded a little sluggish. I bet it was on cornwall's ! If I remember right you never mentioned this with the 299A with your RF-7's which you never hooked up to the 299B. I think your sluggish bass was the product of the Cornwalls more than the 299B. That big 15" in a ported cabinet compared to those dual beast in the RF-7 are not a fair comparison. Also you were comparing the bass to what ? Those Quick siilvers ? Oh that is real fair ! The only way you could compare bass reproduction that could be attributed to rectification would be speaker to speaker and at least somewhat similar designed amps ! Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 Well Craig, I think I probably have to agree with you. I did say "a little" sluggish though, but even so, "sluggish" is probably to strong of a word anyways. I wasn't comparing the bass to the Quicksilvers, but more to just how I am used to my bass sounding in a general way (over the years with different systems/speakers). Since the rectification circuit isn't actually in the signal path, how much credit should we be giving it for things good or things bad? Isn't the greatest majority of what we hear a product of the iron, tubes, and quality of the passive parts in the signal path? I'm not even going to try and guess how many posts and articles I've read across the net on this subject. There really doesn't seem to be any definitive answer or consensus. I used to think and believe that SS rectification was used because it was inexpensive to implement, but this really isn't true -- and it seems that most of the time it's actually used to meet a design goal. Mudvayne is best taken in very small doses, and is really only barely tolerable at sane listening levels. It's actually the kind of stuff I don't listen to loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Yes. I wholeheartedly agree! It must have been the sluggish, slow bass of the Cornwall. Ironically, I know of quite a few plastic/poly cone woofers 1/3 the size that dont have bass as articulate and natural as the paper cone Cornwalls, 15 inches or not. Good bass can be designed with tube or SS rectification. Of course, what one defines as quality bass is up for conjecture as well. But quality bass is surely not the domain of SS rectified amps alone. SS rectification IS cheaper to implement on various levels having to do with PS iron, not to mention the extra cost of tubes. Simple SS rectification is quite cheap and usually sounds FAR worse than the SS implementation we have been discussing here (HEXFREDS/Soft Recovery/Snubber Networks etc) kh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Fini>lol Deang> Not to be "anal" or anything but reread the title of this thread and rewrite rectification 100 times and go stand in the corner with Craig! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 And no swappin' tubes, you guys! fini Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisK Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Is rectalfication the prescribed procedure for people that contract that dreaded disease, "Ocular Rectitis"? The symptons of which, include a crappy outlook on life. Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mobile homeless Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I can only hope that Dean made that spelling on purpose; at least that's what I thought. Somewhere within his skull, he found it semi-humorous, perhaps after a dose of Mudvayne. I groaned aloud imagining the comments to follow. Fini's was just subtle enough to whiz by a few...just like the slightly hardened sound of SS rectification... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted August 25, 2003 Author Share Posted August 25, 2003 LOL I've been calling it "rectalfication" for a long time. I recently ran across posts and writings by Joe Rosen, who refers to tube rectificaton as "rectum fryers". "Sluggish" was not the word I was looking for. The Cornwall bass did not sound how I expected it to sound based on things I had read, so I put it down to the Scott. I admit the 299A I had, when put on the RF-7's, didn't have the charateristic I'm trying to describe. I wonder what Dennis' implementation is on the Superamps and the Rocket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dodger Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Greetings: Coming from a Bass Guitarist. How many amplifiers out there use anything smaller than a ten (10) inch speaker ? Traynors had 8 10 inch speakers while the vast were and are 12 or 15 inch. Acoustic tried an 18 inch but at loud concert levels you could hear it doubling. We are trying to duplicate sound originally coming from bigger speakers. When Mesa came around, it was also the time when P.A.s gained power and higher numbers of speakers in rock. In Orchestral, there may be some amplification of certain instruments, but whether there is amplification or none, you have to see what the microphones used can do. With rectifiers, there can be a difference in sound. Over the years of working with Amplified bands, I have some some improvement with a higher quality tube - going to a Tung - Sol or a Genalex U - 52 in the 5U4 circuit. I have heard some very smooth pretty accurate SS amps - the Sony V-FET comes to mind as well as a couple of the McIntosh. BUT it still boils down to what was used originally a tube Amplifier or a SS Amplifier, going through a SS Board or a Tubed Board, A SS Recorder vs a Tube Recorder. And then you have the quality of the pressings to deal with OR an analog Amplifier with a Tubed microphone going to Digital the rest of the way. And last is our hearing. What is our hearing curve? Do we have tinnitus? Well we can add the speaker cables and Interconnects of which many will buy a higher quality than was ever used in any section of the Recording process. We have the "cough" switch on Recording/Mixing Boards - can any Led Zeppelin fan tell when Jimmy Page went over the original solo because he either didn't like it or made a mistake? So we try to come as close as we can to what the original sounded like. We criticize the mistakes in Engineering or Recording and attribute many of those to the equipment we are using when it's there to begin with. But back to rectifiers, Tubes DO make a difference. Ask Steve Cropper, Duck Dunn, Tina = they can hear it. Win dodger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 Dean , Man I love you like a brother ! I didn't think you could sink any lower into the Darkest reaches of Rock and Roll. I really didn't think there was anything worse then Chevelle. Then you come up with Mudvayne oh my freaking god !! Talk about some uncontrollable noise ! I bet they couldn't play a single song the same way twice ! There is no way they plan that musical Mayhem Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Bey Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 I don't have a ton of experience on this topic but I won't let that stop me from posting. I think that design is key, more so than specific componentry (sp?). This issue of rectification is, IMHO, a "buzz word" that seems to have crept into the psyche of the audiophilia nervosa type. Converting AC to some kind of filtered DC is the objective, and there is no particular reason why tubes would lord it over SS. Or SS over tubes, for that matter. Having said that, I would also add that I like the tube rectification in my power amps and the SS rectification in my preamp. Probably for all the wrong reasons, the same way people say "paper cones sound papery, and plastic cones sound plasticy" while "silver sounds bright" and so on. But back to my original statement: it's the circuit topology, not the components. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOSValves Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 SS rectification IS cheaper to implement on various levels having to do with PS iron Kelly makes a absolutely valid point about the PS Iron cost involved here. SS rectification has very little voltage drop compared to the tube rectifier allowing the designer to use a much cheaper PS transformer. The parts involved that Kelly mentions to make a top notch SS rectified amp are not very expensive at all. Craig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Landau Posted August 25, 2003 Share Posted August 25, 2003 At the moment I can recall the example of Radford amplifiers. The STA15 and STA25 amplifiers shared the same output transformers. The STA15 had cathode bias and tube rectification while the 25 had fixed bias and SS rectifier, and was more powerful (35 vs 25 watts) but the STA15 is much sweeter. The bass is almost the same but the STA15 mids and highs......are so much better. 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.