Watts are watts - so what's up?

[dragonfyr]

I find the discussion interesting, but I must note an even more interesting human behavior that accompanies this process.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I think that the article presents a good discussion of how tubes offer a greater range of operation due to the more acceptable non-linear modes of performance, where SS units are rather abruptly limited once they enter a non-linear range of operation. I believe it is safe to posit that as something almost all would agree upon.

Likewise horn loaded speakers are by nature much lower in several types of distortion .

Now many eschew SS amps on horns, I suppose because it makes them sound more analytical as both source and load are inherently relatively clean signals exhibiting rather low levels of distortion when operated within their linear ranges.

But many seem to insist on tubes with the speakers as they add warmth and (fill in the blank with whatever fuzzy emotional term you like), and they dont like that analytical SS sound.

Traditional dynamic speakers (I hesitate to specify a type!) are likewise eschewed by many here in lieu of the horn loaded speakers. Some for reasons of efficiency, some for distortion, some for both. But for a moment lets let the efficiency element slip aside (although it does make rather low power sources viable options to drive them).

Now, removing the issue of efficiency, what we have left is the characteristic of distortion. And I will be the first to say that I do not find the characteristic square wave enjoyable and that is precisely what you get when a SS device saturates. And I will stick my neck out and say that no one here (or at least not many!) enjoys it either, so lets just leave that entire issue alone.

So it seems that a common element for many is the amount, type and source of the distortion that they seem to prefer.

Personally I can deal with a well designed amp of either tube or SS topology. I happen to primarily listen to tubes for the MF and HFs and use a SS amp for the LFs. But I can certainly live with the clean SS amps on the MF & HFs without becoming upset.

{And to digress just a bit

Many talk at length about the soundstage and imaging And in that regards, I enjoy listening to what the engineer did in the process of capturing and mixing the event as well as the performance. To me the engineer is just as prominent a player as any of the more often focused upon performers, whether their signature is to try to make themselves very evident or if they attempt to remain well hidden. And I do not have a fantasy that I am necessarily listening to an event as if there was no active observers involved in the recording process! But then I guess I have spent too much time in studios to imagine that a naturally occurring microphone just happened to capture a spontaneous natural event in nature! So I am often amused at the talk of the sound stage and the localization of the players as if it was a matter of simply capturing Pink Floyd sitting about in a garden as if they were a chamber ensemblewhere in reality, many of the parts were laid down when the other members werent even at the studio, let alone in the same room! And even with symphonic recording where parts are recorded utilizing close micing or zone micing techniques, the total result is still assembled as a collage of separate pieces and parts. But enough of the idea of a recording capturing reality (whatever reality means)! I mention it simply to acknowledge the topic and to try to preemptively remove it from this issue!}

So, efficiency aside, I am curious why some feel that a more analytical horn loaded speaker with a higher distortion amp is better then say the converse of a clean SS amp with a dynamic speaker design exhibiting slightly higher distortion levels. Or why a tube amp and a dynamic non-horn speaker is less optimal then the tube amplifier and horn combination? Is it a matter to degree? Does speaker distortion impart qualities that tube amplifier distortion does not, or visa versa?

Does this make sense? There are several combinations and permutations, but I find it interesting that many seem to have a very set preference and are unlikely to entertain any other combination, even thought the net result may be relatively close.

It seems that what so many prefer is some level of distortion and that many seriously object to a cleaner more accurate signal. And while this in itself is not a reason to object to anyones preference, I find it interesting to note that there does seem to be this preference. And it might be interesting to example the nature of this relationship.

Oh, and why is not someone not filling the niche others have abandoned? And I often wonder about this as well.

I think there are several options. One, either the manufacturer was unable to sell enough in that niche that they left the market and the market is such that not enough people valued that approach (or are too busy buying esoteric tube units. ;-) Either that or they made so much money that they thought it was someone elses turn as they are simply extremely altruistic, After all, the other option is that is it a wide open opportunity for someone to fill the niche and to become fabulously successful! But simple serious market analysis (can anyone say TOWS and SWOT) might provide just such insight.

[Parrot]

Some good observations, dragonfyr.

I don't know if you've read the 588 replies to this thread below

http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/view.asp?mode=viewtopic&topicID=51538

but if you haven't, there is a lot of relevant discussion to some of your questions.

[Parrot]

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

On 6/21/2005 7:54:32 AM Colin wrote:

shows that a 4w triode can rival a 25w SS amp in output current and provide soft clipping!

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

Why choose clipping at all?

[edwinr]

In relation to distortion, is in not true that many solid state amplifiers, when overdriven, tend to reproduce uneven order distortion - we are less tolerant to this type of distortion even at low levels.

I understand that most tube amplifers tend to reproduce even order distortion when under stress, which I believe is a form of distortion that is more acceptable to the human ear, even at relatively high levels.

Also some solid state amplifiers, like NAD, feature a very high dynamic ability, reproducing transient musical signals accurately , even though their rated continuous power output is low. The little 320BEE, sounds much more powerful than it is because of this ability.

[scriven]

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

On 6/22/2005 9:04:11 PM edwinr wrote:

In relation to distortion, is in not true that many solid state amplifiers, when overdriven, tend to reproduce uneven order distortion...

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

Yes it is true. A square wave, which you get when an SS amp is overdriven and hits its power supply limits, is made up of the fundamental and all odd harmonics.

[jacksonbart]

So in peoples opinions, below clipping, what are the sonic differences between tubes and SS?

[Colin]

This thread started with the scientifically measured objective differences between solid-state and tube amplifiers, which is essential for any logically valid discussion of the sonic differences between our HT systems. Yet, the mere numbers fail to adequately describe the true favor of one sonic affect versus another. Even the venerable Stereophile magazine uses dense subjective observations to put into English what the graphs barely describe. Besides, except for the occasional test CD and Radio Shack SPL meter, few of us have any objective measuring equipment.

Therefore, the only valid observations are those with the same music, on the same equipment, in the same room, by the same person. I have heard only a few solid-state and tube amplifiers in that specific situation. Most importantly, the observations must include big ole horns. Other speaker types certainly change the perceptions.

In solid-state, I have compared $6K Pass X250 monsters, $700 harmon kardon av730, $2K Roksan Caspian and vintage $25 harmon kardon 330B receivers.

In tubes, I compared $1K ASL AQ1003DT, custom $700 Bottlehead 2A3 Paramour and $198 ASL Wave 8 monoblocks.

Looking over this list, I would have to say that price certainly influences my impressions: the lower the price, the more I am impressed with a quality-sounding piece of equipment.

á For both types, I would say that price has a major influence on value. It is amazing what a vintage harmon kardon receiver or $99 tube amplifier can do for the money.

á I would also say that size doesn¡¦t make a difference, except that the bigger amplifiers do sound better. Smaller ones can sound almost as good, at a lot less money.

In general, the solid-state amplifiers were brighter, a little harder, shaper, often adding a sparkling edge to the high notes, seem to play background notes with equal weight as foreground sounds, had longer sustain at the top of the notes and made bass notes more well defined and solid. They have sleek looks, easier to work with, pose less set-up and maintenance problems, simpler to move, less dangerous to handle and have modern features like remote controls and flexible hook-ups (even the ancient 330B has pre-amplifier inputs and outputs).

In general, the tube amplifiers were softer, faster attack made many sonic effects sound more natural, high notes seem better formed, imaging is excellent, less sustain at the top of the notes, with bass more rounded, blooming more than thunking. They have charming antique looks, are fussy sometimes, with set-up and maintenance problems, tricky to move, dangerous to handle and most lack modern features, except he ASL AQ1003DT, which had remote and sub-woofer outputs (yes!).

The solid-state amplifiers seem to have a feeling of power, more effortless when playing difficult passages, but a dry, clinical sound. The Pass was the best of everything, bass and tube-like naturalness, yet even the cheap ASL Wave 8s made magic. The fast attack of tubes seems to make sonic effects stand out more. They sound more musical.

When I played visitor¡¦s favorite music on the tubes, without telling them about any changes in my system, they always seemed to like it better. Especially telling was when the AQ1003DT replaced the Roksan, three guitarists in a row commented on how great the stereo sounded now!

Finally, studies show that long term exposure to solid-state wears out the listener, removes the joy from the hobby, and even turns some tweaking audiophiles into Bose lovers!

Seriously, the even ordered harmonics of tube equipment is more like acoustic instruments that the odd-ordered THD of solid-state.

[edwinr]

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

On 6/23/2005 2:40:00 PM Colin wrote:

This thread started with the scientifically measured objective differences between solid-state and tube amplifiers...

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

That was a great post, Colin. Thanks.

[pauln]

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/faq/tubeprimer.html

Max, this is an excellent information story about influence of tubes vs SS in the recording studio and playback equipment. It addresses many phenomena including why tubes may sound louder for the same watts. It has an extended discussion of the differences in distortion components and their relative weighting in the final sound. This is not a technical article but it is a carefull and thoughtfull examination by experienced folks. Lots of actual experimentation is documented here.

Paul

[colterphoto1]

The most singular BRILLIANT thread I have ever read here. Excellent initial topic by MaxG and I really enjoyed Dragonfyr's and Colin's posts. Thanks guys!

This thread explains a lot about recording, mixing, playback and the human elements of reproducing and enjoying sound. Pretty much required reading in my book.

Michael

[Spkrdctr]

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

On 6/22/2005 12:13:29 PM maxg wrote:

If your typical listening levels are around 85 dB continuous with peaks hitting 95 dB and you sit within 3 meters of a pair of Heresy's (for example) you are still only going to "need" a couple of watts and are therefore highly unlikely to clip - ever - with an amp of 20 wpc - even if it has no headroom at all.

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

Max,

I think I have been beating that drum for a while...... thanks for bringing it up again! Using 1 watt or less for the average listening volume, on a set of high efficiency Klipsch speakers, means they should almost never, hardly ever clip at all. So, if your 100 watt per channel Pioneer system is not clipping at all, it seems to be far less important to get a mega power system. Now if people want concert level volume (105+db) with no clipping, then yes, it takes a mega power system. (Sunfire equipment IMHO)

[maxg]

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

On 6/24/2005 4:12:16 AM pauln wrote:

http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/faq/tubeprimer.html

Max, this is an excellent information story about influence of tubes vs SS in the recording studio and playback equipment. It addresses many phenomena including why tubes may sound louder for the same watts. It has an extended discussion of the differences in distortion components and their relative weighting in the final sound. This is not a technical article but it is a carefull and thoughtfull examination by experienced folks. Lots of actual experimentation is documented here.

Paul

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

Thanks for that link - indeed very interesting!

Also glad others have enjoyed the thread - I was really worried it would collapse into a SET / PP slagning match but I am delighted it did not.

Well done all!!!!

[Mallette]

One more week before I get back to Texas from Fort Lost in the Woods, MO so I can really listen to the Panasonic Class D that so changed my attitude and outlook on amplification. Even then, I will wait until I get my ST-70 back from Craig before getting deep...

However, let me through this into the mix. One thing is already a done deal: I promptly dumped all my SS amplifiers of all vintages. One of the reasons is that, as a minimum, I found the Class D superior without question to any SS amp I've ever heard at any price...and some of them have been quite pricey.

Having said that, relevance to this thread: One thing I noticed is that I had (and have) doubts about the output rating of the Panasonic. While rated at 100w/ch, I did not feel the output (on Frazier Super Monte Carlos here at FLW) matched that rating audibly. That would imply that there are, indeed differences in db to the ear/watt depending upon whether that watt is generated by SS, tube, or D. Either that or the Panasonic's ratings were IHF or inflated otherwise... OTOH, I've no doubt that, whatever the rating, there will be more than enough for my 'horns/cornwall/Frazier rig in Texas.

While I've not driven it to clipping, I would anticipate that it would be dreadful and quite dangerous to the speakers in zero transition to some sort of topless square wave or something equally frightening.

Have any other of you "early adopters" out there done a direct Class D (TriPath or TI chips) to tube comparison? What of the qualitative and quantitative differences?

Dave

[Mallette]

Dang, I seem to kill more threads...do I need a bath?

Anyway, after due thought I realized that the way to answer my own question was to have a DFW Hornhead event after I get my ST-70 back from Craig. We will A/B the Panasonic Class D and Van Alstine modified Craig fixed ST-70 both using the Panasonic as an integrated as well as feeding it the Super PAS4 vacuum tube preamp (that should get confusing...but fun!) to see what we hear.

I would certainly not characterize this as a "shootout" or "vs" anymore than pitting a vintage steam locomotive against a diesel would yield anything useful. Both work, one generates more torque and pollution, the other less pollution and greater efficiency...but you need BOTH!!!!

My ST-70 is slowly floating towards Craigs bench, so I can't set a date for this (as I also told him to keep it and play with it for a while as he was curious about the Van Alstine mod and had not heard one yet...I hope he is not TOO much younger than I!!).

Anyway, when it happens I'll provide a full report and encourage others attending to do likewise...perhaps we can shed some light on "watts is watts or natts."

Dave

[edwinr]

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

On 6/24/2005 5:05:56 PM Mallette wrote:

Dang, I seem to kill more threads...do I need a bath?

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

Well, maybe a quick shower...

Anyhow, this whole topic has been bothering me for a while. People talk about the relative power outputs of SET, PP, Solid State etc, and some manufacturers make silly claims about the driving capabilities of one or the other. It looks to me like the actual continuous power output of any one amplifier is only part of the story. The real world ability to drive complex loads as in most loudspeakers, rather than purely resistive loads as we might see in some lab tests, is probably more important to us.

In fact without doubt, I suggest most good sounding amplfiers have incredibly well engineered power supplies. Not necessarily big, just well designed.

The propensity for many solid state designs to clip or easily distort when presented with musical transients, may very well be that 'magic' factor missing from non tube designs. This may explain why the really big (read expensive) solid state designs are often described by reviewers as 'tube like'. This is because the manufacturers have compensated for this propensity to distort by engineering in sufficient 'headroom' so that the amplifier rarely approaches clipping.

This is not to say that the solid state designs don't measure well. Many do, quoting massive continuous power outputs with impressively low distortion. BUT, how often is the ability to reproduce music transient information measured? In fact is it possible to measure this information accurately? Are our ears a much better measure than laboratory equipment?

[Mallette]

Just got out of the shower...

>Are our ears a much better measure than laboratory equipment?

If I've learned anything in 40 years of listening to reproduced music, it would be that the answer to this question is YES.

However, I might prefer to say "different" as opposed to "better."

Dave

[franczyk]

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

On 6/24/2005 5:05:56 PM Mallette wrote:

Anyway, after due thought I realized that the way to answer my own question was to have a DFW Hornhead event after I get my ST-70 back from Craig. We will A/B the Panasonic Class D and Van Alstine modified Craig fixed ST-70 both using the Panasonic as an integrated as well as feeding it the Super PAS4 vacuum tube preamp (that should get confusing...but fun!) to see what we hear.

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

I'll be looking forward to that. I currently am using a rebuilt Dynaco 70 for my home theatre and am thinking to replace it with a Panasonic (to cut down on heat and power draw, and to move the Dynaco back to my two-channel system in the home office, where it sounds AWESOME)

If the panasonic can hold its own against the dynaco, Ill be buying one.

[Speedball]

Mallette,

You said you like class-D better than any S.S. Funny you say this, I am thinking about some class d mono's for my 7's.

[Mallette]

Well, if you've seen my posts in the past you know I am more oriented towards source quality than variants in wires, amps, etc (assuming a Heritage system with anything beyond blister-packed amplification) so take my advice with that in mind.

I've not heard the much vaunted TriPath, but if it is better than the TI chips in the Panasonic then WOW. Given my predisposition stated up front, if I can hear such a profound and clear difference as when I first turned this cheap little puppy on, then there must be something to it.

The great thing is that you may not be as impressed as I was...but you will NOT be disappointed and you will not be out much money.

A classic win-win situation.

Dave

[coda]

Following his success with the current-source 10wpc F1 stereo amplifier, Nelson Pass' second entry for this short-run line is the F2, a 5wpc current-source amp whose THD distribution has been deliberately designed to mimic that of tubes - or as the designer puts it, there are 2nd and 3rd-order solid-state designs. The F1 was a 3rd-order type, the F2 will be a 2nd-order variant. First units are expected to ship in July. firstwatt.com