solid state amp that sounds like tubes

[oscarsear]

How about even a sillier ???? Say your running an SS amp but using a tubed source as in a DAC or CD. Do ya get some of the tube benefit, none, or all of it?????

[edwinr]

Wouldn't it be nice if the goal was a device, be it tube, SS or made of linguine, with a transfer function that showed no difference between the input and output! Of course I suspect that most here would hate it!

There is no reason why any properly designed amplifier, cost considerations aside, should approach the ideal of 'straight wire with gain' (SWWG). Of course I would imagine that as more money is spent on the components, a more expensive amplifier would come close to the SWWG ideal.

[edwinr]

So this begs the question, "Do I actually want to hear what was recorded?" If I had a perfect recording, then I would most certainly want to have the purest playback possible...but does that perfect recording exist (let alone the perfect playback system)? ...Anyways, I'll stop for now because I'm way off topic and could go on for hours...

There is a lot of extremely well recorded music out there, DrWho. And you DO need a good system to appreciate it. I suggest that a system that adds as little tonal coloration as possible, and of suitably high resolution, should still enable us to appreciate music that is poorly recorded. I go so far as to suggest, that a system with excess tonal coloration, may in fact make the poorer recordings less palatable. I'd like my system to be as tonally pure as possible. Then I will know for sure that the distortion/coloration/limited dynamic range comes from the recording.

There is no such thing as being off topic when we are talking about the reproduction of our music. [8]

[DrWho]

So this begs the question, "Do

I actually want to hear what was recorded?" If I had a perfect

recording, then I would most certainly want to have the purest playback

possible...but does that perfect recording exist (let alone the perfect

playback system)? ...Anyways, I'll stop for now because I'm way

off topic and could go on for hours...

There is a lot of

extremely well recorded music out there, DrWho. And you DO need a

good system to appreciate it. I suggest that a system

that adds as little tonal coloration as possible, and of suitably high

resolution, should still enable us to appreciate music that is

poorly recorded. I go so far as to suggest, that a system with

excess tonal coloration, may in fact make the poorer recordings

less palatable. I'd like my system to be as tonally pure as

possible. Then I will know for sure that the

distortion/coloration/limited dynamic range comes from

the recording.

There is no such thing as being off topic when we are talking about the reproduction of our music. [8]

but there's also a lot of bad recordings....take for instance Led

Zeppelin. Most of it is unbearable unless you boost the subwoofer a

good 6dB or so (at least all the recordings I've heard). Coming from a

younger generation I am probably more interested in the newer

stuff...and as we all know the newer stuff is going down the drain

thanks to all the cheap toys the digital world is providing. Queen on

the other hand needs a great system to be able to fully enjoy it to its

greatest extent - but where do you draw the line between accurate

playback (for listening to queen) and a sloppy system (for listening to

zeppelin).

"I go so far as to suggest, that a system with excess tonal

coloration, may in fact make the poorer recordings less

palatable."

-again this depends greatly on the source material and the playback

system in question. On a really crappy system, "The Best Of - Three Dog

Night" sounds really bad...on a slightly better systerm is sounds great

(I'd say it was more enjoyable on my Marantz 940's than my Chorus

II's), but on a really accurate system it sounds like crap again (what

do you expect from guys on acid? lol).

I'm still a young guy and I've been priviledged to grow up around audio

(been mixing since I was 8) and I've been planning my future home

theater/studio since forever....I'm beginning to come to the

realization that I either need to "remix" every recording (which

wouldn't be too feasible, nor do I think I can accomplish my goals with

those tools) or I simply need to have multiple signal paths - a clean

path for good recordings and another that I can tweak everything (via

remote?). dragon mentions using the wrong tools for the job, but there

are attributes to different speaker/amp distortions that never sound

right when performed upstream - so I'm thinking like 3 or 4 different

stereo pairs in my listening room that automatically switch based on

the source material (so i'll prob have a pc based system of course). I

really feel that you have to build your system around the music you

listen to....so if your source was recorded in a studio where the

subwoofer was set too high (making the bass quieter on the recording),

then you totally need to have your subwoofer set too high (even though

it's "wrong").

I guess what I'm trying to say is that doing something because it is

"technically right" doesn't mean it is the right thing to do if it

decreases your musical enjoyment.

(In fact, if the technically right thing doesn't improve the sound,

then the science itself is flawed...at least that's how I've been

taught how emperical science is supposed to work)

[Marvel]

You can build one of the Leach SS amps. They are around 120 watts into

8 ohms. He sells the boards to, and provides a shopping list on his

website. He also has one that is around 270 watts as well.

They are builts on separate cards, so you can build a multi cahnnel amp if you want.

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/lowtim/

I have been tempted myself.

Bruce

[Parrot]

Dr Who,

If you want to tinker with many recordings, why not just use a decent parametric EQ.

[Marvel]

Parrot,

He would be more inclined to use multiband compression AND eq.

Bruce

[Duke Spinner]

i use the Yamaha deq ....and 20 memories.....

[Marvel]

Thanks for the memories Duke! []

[Deang]

I guess what I'm trying to say is that doing something because it is "technically right" doesn't mean it is the right thing to do if it decreases your musical enjoyment.

It has to be at least kind of-sort of technically right. I for one agree with what you are saying.

I really enjoy the ability to change things up in my sound. I'm prone to boredom at times regardless of how "good" it sounds. A good tube amp sounds great, and a good solid state amp sounds great too. I really enjoyed the sound of the QSC PLX-1602 -- something I wasn't prepared for in the least. I use several different networks because I've found that even my favorite filter doesn't sound as good as the simple Type A at the lowest volume levels. If there was such a thing as technically "perfect" gear, or technically perfect sound, it wouldn't matter -- I'd still be bored to tears with it in a month or two.

The only SS amp I have heard that sounds "like" tubes is the little TEAC.

[DrWho]

If you want to tinker with many recordings, why not just use a decent parametric EQ.

That's the problem...I have way too many quality parametric and graphic

EQ's at my fingertips (even pure digital ones on the computer) and I

just can't get the sound to dial in on a good system...yet it sounds

great without any modifications on my mediocre system at home! An EQ

doesn't have the distortions (group delay and THD) that a small woofer

has, causing that low end to fatten up more than it was recorded...I

have even gone so far as to implement all sorts of fancy digital

crossovers and adding multiple levels of delay and reverb to all sorts

of frequency bands and it's just not the same as playing it the car.

There is no end to the creativity I've tried to employ.

Btw, I am very much against compression and believe it is the easiest

way to suck the life out of music....I prefer the intstrumentalists

perform the compression (or the equipment they're using because it adds

the cool speaker grunge that you just can't do electrically).

I do find it interesting though that most of the problems I have with

the music resides in the low end...might be somewhat related to the

fact that the majority of studio monitors aren't very good below 80 or

100Hz, every studio has different LF characteristics, and the bloody

equipment we're using doesn't have much control beyond 60Hz (well the

low mid sweepable EQ's on a lot of boards go as low as 35Hz, which

doesn't help much when you want low mid control) []

And it's not like I blaim any of the "engineers" mixing the music...I

don't think I could even pull off full control below 100Hz, even if I

had all the latest toys available. I think I just need to take the

advice of "just shut up and listen to the music" [] (aka, turn off

those critical ears).