"Tube" watts....

[Jeff Matthews]

Nope. A watt is a watt is a watt.

I see alot of effort in people trying to justify how it is not. But we have now 2 categories of argument from people in the denial state.

Argument 1: It's in the clipping. First, a clipped watt is not a watt - or at least a watt partly wasted. In any event, if you're not clipping, there is no difference. So, let's get past the clipping issue because you can find plenty of amps at reasonable prices that you will never drive to clipping with Klipsch efficient speakers.

Argument 2: Assumes tube amps produce at higher than rated power and SS do not. It doesn't matter if tubes rated at 40 watts can go up to 80. If they go up to 80, then they are putting out 80. 80 watts is 80 watts is 80 watts. SS amps that put out the same 80 watts will put out the same 80 watts.

We are back to the fact that there is NO SPL difference between a tube watt and an SS watt.

Whether its a Crown or not. [] The article was misleading.

[Jeff Matthews]

That's a sweet-looking amp, Max. Is that yours?

[Jeff Matthews]

I'll go with Max's statement. Plug an 8 watt tube amp into 104 dB/1 watt/1 meter efficiency speakers, and you'd be surprised at the "magic" of those 8 "tube" watts.

This was not about the same old headroom, tubes vs. SS argument. I simply wanted to know what people were saying when they say "The are tube watts." Now, I know. They do not know what they are saying.

I will agree with sonic differences, but not in the manner of affecting SPL on a watt-per-watt comparison.

.......... Unless, of course, the watt that is being compared is being clipped. Then, maybe the type of clipping will show differences. But as long as there is no clipping, a watt is a watt is a watt for SPL purposes. The article I referenced was misleading.

Uummm I think you got it. Well maybe not....... []

I think I got it. Craig, one thing I wish I would have done at Born2RockU's is listen to his stuff at moderate to low volumes. We got in and cranked, and that was pretty much it. But I recall when we first went in, he had some music softly playing. It was like some elevator music, and it sounded very fluid - kind of like something you would do "Yoga" to.

[Piranha]

When is someone going to make smilin those thousand watters?

[6foot8]

Meagain you have never heard anything that even comes close to what is sitting in my media room. I have heard both and have owned everything from KG4s to my Jubilees and everything in between. Some people just aren't qualified to render an opinion. Until such time you have owned what I have and can make these comparison then I suggest you stay in the mall.

[Mike Lindsey]

By the way I live in the Orlando area so if you plan on heading to the beach or Disney let me know and I'll even cook some good filets for us...or maybe some crow []

Where are you? I'm in Oviedo and sure would like to come by and hear your rig!

Mike

[Klipschguy]

I love tubes, love using my tube tester and love watching tubes glow. I have restored a number of tube devices (antique radios and stuff). I also rebuilt a Fisher 500c and as good as it sounds (which is excellent), it is collecting dust in the basement. The bass is just too loose/thick with my Cornwalls. This quality may be desirable with Khorns or La Scalas, but not my CW's.

I'll take solid state with its tight, controlled bass. I like the high resolution, clean sound of solid state across the musical spectrum. Using The Fisher with my Cornwalls is like I am trying to make them sound like my ole Bozaks (which I do indeed like, but not as much as the CW's). I am going to sell that 500c at some point. It is a shame to let such a beauty collect dust.

Just my experience and honest opinion. I also understand that a well functioning 500c is not representative of all tube amplification.

Andy

[sfogg]

"I asked the same thing and Mark was nice enough to reply with an answer I could understand:"

Sure, great sounding explanation. The problem is it is an incomplete answer.

" at the EXACT rail voltage of the amp, the wave form totally flattens out."

True. The rail voltage is the limit of how far an amp can typically go.

"If the amp is 60W RMS, that is ALL it will put out under any signal condition. "

This part however isn't correct. There are plenty of 60w per channel SS amps with dynamic headroom. A 15 or 20 year old Adcom GFA-535II is a 60w/ch amp rated for 3dB (120w) of headroom.

But how can that be........

Very simply using totally fabricated numbers.... say you need rail voltages of +/-30v for 60w out. For an amp to have dynamic headroom above the 60w/ch the rails are actually running *above* +/-30v..... say +/-40v. What that means is for short peaks the amp can put out more then 60w/ch. However the PS in the amps can't sustain that +/-40v rail voltage for long under full load.... its just for peaks.

Under continuous operation the rail voltage sags..... down to +/-30v and hence down to the 60w continuous output of the amplifier. But for short peaks the rails will stay at around +/-40v and the amp puts out peaks above 60w.

If anyone doubts how this is in fact most SS amp works go look at some tested measurements of amps. Look at max power with one channel running vs. max power with two (or more) channels running. The greater load of additional channels draws down the rail voltage in some amps and as such the max continuous power output of the amps drops when more channels are driven to full load.

Shawn

[m8o]

Nope. A watt is a watt is a watt.

[snip]

We are back to the fact that there is NO SPL difference between a tube watt and an SS watt.

Whether its a Crown or not. [] The article was misleading.

How True.

(I think last time I tried to post this it timed out ; pardon if this is a duplicate)

I'd like to also add a little to this discussion (for better or worse; I guess I'm a glutten for punishment). Headroom. I see it being used in ways that are counter to what I know to be its definition.

As far as I know and I see no reason to think it has changed, Headroom is the measure of how much more power an amp can deliver at lower impedance loads then its rated power at its rated impedance. I.E. a perfect 10 watt amp rated at 8 ohms will deliver 20 watts to a four ohm load (3db headroom), 40 watts delivered to a two ohms (6db headroom), 80 watts delivered to 1 ohm (9db of headroom). This is in no way to say that the amp can ever deliver more then its 10 watts of rated power at 8 ohms, because if it could, then it was underrated, and the amount of more 'peak' short term power it can deliver should technically not be termed the 'Headroom' of the amp.

It is important to note that the output voltage of the audio signal fed to the speaker/load has not increased or decreased at any of the load impedances compared to the voltage level output to an 8 ohm load; only the amount of current the amp can deliver is increased.

- When the voltage drops, this is compression, and this is when the 'Headroom' of the amp begins trailing off to the point where the amp cannot deliver any more current to the lower impedance load and the signal degrades to extreme distortion. The output voltage drops in the ratio P = V^2/R = I^2*R , where P is held constant since the amp is no longer capable of delivering more power and/or current. The four, power [ P ], voltage [ V ], current [ I ] and resistance [ R ] all equate by ohm's law.

- If voltage could increase, that means the amp was underrated, which is different then 'Headroom'.

...at least that is what I had known Headroom to mean for the last 2.5 decades...

[hurdy_gurdyman]

I love tubes, love using my tube tester and love watching tubes glow. I have restored a number of tube devices (antique radios and stuff). I also rebuilt a Fisher 500c and as good as it sounds (which is excellent), it is collecting dust in the basement. The bass is just too loose/thick with my Cornwalls. This quality may be desirable with Khorns or La Scalas, but not my CW's.

I'll take solid state with its tight, controlled bass. I like the high resolution, clean sound of solid state across the musical spectrum. Using The Fisher with my Cornwalls is like I am trying to make them sound like my ole Bozaks (which I do indeed like, but not as much as the CW's). I am going to sell that 500c at some point. It is a shame to let such a beauty collect dust.

Just my experience and honest opinion. I also understand that a well functioning 500c is not representative of all tube amplification.

Andy

I owned a 500C for over 15 years and used it off and on (along with various other vintage tubes and ss amps.) They are a nice sounding amp, but should never be considered good for bass. They have a very "warm" sound, even for a vintage amp. Modern good quality tube amps will leave them in the dust as far as bass goes. Many properly rebuilt vintage amps will, also. The 500C never had as good a transparency as some of the other amps I had, either. They did sound very nice and smooth in the right system, easy to listen to, but not representitive of what's available today with tubes. A really good tube amp can rock in the bass and everywhere else. You can't judge all tubes on one vintage tube receiver noted for being overly warm sounding.

Dave

[m8o]

" It seems the consensus is that the distortion created by tubes is of a different (even) order than the distortion created by SS (odd). " No, that isn't the consensus at all. Go look at actual measurements of various amps and their distortion spectra and you will see even in SS and odd in tubes.... and vice versa. Again, depends upon the design of the amp.

Are you saying there actually exists a SS amp that will run near its rated power producing hamonics like a Triode?

What comes to mind is in comparing a Triode used in as close to the same circuit as you can have with a Pentode (where the Pentode needs some additional circuitry for the add'l grids) . The Pentode may have less overall distortion, but will produce higher levels of higher order, odd harmonics compared to the Triode. However it won't have the strong second harmonic as the Triode will. ...The Triode will sound 'sweeter'. In the end all of this is coloration, i.e. distortion, and that shouldn't be forgotten.

So with this I'm saying, sure tube amps are not only made up of even harmonics and ss amps are not only made up of odd harmonics. However the spectum of harmonics from a tube amp will usually, yes as you say depending on circuit, be biased to lower order, even harmonics, vs that of a ss amp. I would agree with "It seems the consensus is that the distortion created by tubes is of a different (biased towards even) order than the distortion created by SS (biased towards odd). IMO, you show me a ss amp that has distortion characteristics of a nice triode tube amp, and I will pray to it as the 2nd coming. []

[Piranha]

I love tubes, love using my tube tester and love watching tubes glow. I have restored a number of tube devices (antique radios and stuff). I also rebuilt a Fisher 500c and as good as it sounds (which is excellent), it is collecting dust in the basement. The bass is just too loose/thick with my Cornwalls. This quality may be desirable with Khorns or La Scalas, but not my CW's.

I'll take solid state with its tight, controlled bass. I like the high resolution, clean sound of solid state across the musical spectrum. Using The Fisher with my Cornwalls is like I am trying to make them sound like my ole Bozaks (which I do indeed like, but not as much as the CW's). I am going to sell that 500c at some point. It is a shame to let such a beauty collect dust.

Just my experience and honest opinion. I also understand that a well functioning 500c is not representative of all tube amplification.

Andy

I owned a 500C for over 15 years and used it off and on (along with various other vintage tubes and ss amps.) They are a nice sounding amp, but should never be considered good for bass. They have a very "warm" sound, even for a vintage amp. Modern good quality tube amps will leave them in the dust as far as bass goes. Many properly rebuilt vintage amps will, also. The 500C never had as good a transparency as some of the other amps I had, either. They did sound very nice and smooth in the right system, easy to listen to, but not representitive of what's available today with tubes. A really good tube amp can rock in the bass and everywhere else. You can't judge all tubes on one vintage tube receiver noted for being overly warm sounding.

Dave

hurdy_gurdyman, I couldn't agree more. I used a Fisher 500C on my CW's for a while. As Klipschguy said, the 500C sounds excellent, but is a far cry from the tight controlled bass that I get with my tube separates. I have also tried a lot of SS gear, all of which was quite fatiguing to my ears.

I am curious to know what SS gear you are running Klipschguy? I'd like to try it out.

[NOSValves]

"I asked the same thing and Mark was nice enough to reply with an answer I could understand:" Sure, great sounding explanation. The problem is it is an incomplete answer. " at the EXACT rail voltage of the amp, the wave form totally flattens out." True. The rail voltage is the limit of how far an amp can typically go. "If the amp is 60W RMS, that is ALL it will put out under any signal condition. " This part however isn't correct. There are plenty of 60w per channel SS amps with dynamic headroom. A 15 or 20 year old Adcom GFA-535II is a 60w/ch amp rated for 3dB (120w) of headroom. But how can that be........ Very simply using totally fabricated numbers.... say you need rail voltages of +/-30v for 60w out. For an amp to have dynamic headroom above the 60w/ch the rails are actually running *above* +/-30v..... say +/-40v. What that means is for short peaks the amp can put out more then 60w/ch. However the PS in the amps can't sustain that +/-40v rail voltage for long under full load.... its just for peaks. Under continuous operation the rail voltage sags..... down to +/-30v and hence down to the 60w continuous output of the amplifier. But for short peaks the rails will stay at around +/-40v and the amp puts out peaks above 60w. If anyone doubts how this is in fact most SS amp works go look at some tested measurements of amps. Look at max power with one channel running vs. max power with two (or more) channels running. The greater load of additional channels draws down the rail voltage in some amps and as such the max continuous power output of the amps drops when more channels are driven to full load. Shawn

Well in my opinion what your describing with this amp is a poorly designed power supply that can not sustain its voltage under current load. In reality the same amp with a upgraded and adequate power supply would surely be of higher sustained power and your dynamic headroom would be no more. This amp your describing might very well be done this way by design to meet a price point. I can give you 200 examples of vintage integrated amps that do much the same thing. But IMHO I wouldn't describe these types of amps like this to be "High End" I would describe them and "great bangs for the buck" or maybe "designed to a price point"

Craig

[Klipschguy]

Just a Panasonic XR50 digital (tripath?) receiver. Two channel mode. Actually 2.1. Digital amps are the future of audio. Imagine how good they will be in ten years if they are this good now.

Try a refurbished XR25. Probably only about a hundred bucks! Almost makes me feel bad that good sound can be so cheap. Watch out for the "this is cheap so it can't sound good reverse placebo thing" if you get one.

Andy

[m8o]

Just a Panasonic XR50 digital (tripath?) receiver. Two channel mode. Actually 2.1. Digital amps are the future of audio. Imagine how good they will be in ten years if they are this good now.

Heh Heh Heh ... Ya, I was definitely considering 5 Flying Mole monoblocks! (but ended up with the Butler 5150 ... both tubes and ss! watch the heads explode of any who are unwavering die-hard followers of one or the other here... [] )

[sfogg]

" Well in my opinion what your describing with this amp is a poorly

designed power supply that can not sustain its voltage under current

load."

Not at all. If the amp was designed to be a 60w continuous amp with

dynamic power beyond that this is how you would design it. You claimed

SS has no dynamic power above its rating, you were wrong. Deal with it

and learn something.

Why can't your tube amp sustain its 'peak' power?

"In reality the same amp with a upgraded and adequate power supply

would surely be of higher sustained power and your dynamic headroom

would be no more."

Doing the above may or may not result in an amp with a higher

continuous sustained power. You could easily run into other problems

(thermal) in just bumping up the PS.

Shawn

[meagain]

Meagain you have never heard anything that even comes close to what is sitting in my media room. I have heard both and have owned everything from KG4s to my Jubilees and everything in between. Some people just aren't qualified to render an opinion. Until such time you have owned what I have and can make these comparison then I suggest you stay in the mall.

Facinating.... First off, I wasn't even addressing you. I quoted Craig's comments regarding bass & tubes & your quote got in there. 2nd - you have NO clue what levels, pricepoints, or types of systems I've listened to in my lifetime - but go ahead and assume. Why not 'eh? I'll consider your freekishly condescending remarks seriously. Knowing I'm not qualified to render an opinion on sound quality - I should just sell everything off and get a JVC boombox. I hope they still make them. This will save me vast amounts of money!!! Woooo! See ya at Walmart baby!

[sfogg]

Mark,

"There is rarely a never, or an always. "

Agreed.

"It still exists today, although more by legend than experience, but there are still some amps with no headroom at all. "

Never said there weren't. I was just pointing out that simply because

an amp is SS does not mean it has no dynamic headroom. Thank you for

confirming that.

"If someone handed you tomorrow the "perfect amplifier" proven by every

scientific means possible, and you plugged it in and hated the sound

would you keep it?"

Mark, you should already know my answer to that since we have discussed

this before. In no way shape or form am I a 'statistics only' listener.

Craig just tries to paint that strawman to bolster his weak arguments.

Like I have said numerous times before... being able to relate

listening impressions to measurements is a useful thing in

understanding ones likes and dislikes behind audio. Getting real data

on what may cause an impression is useful IMO. Far more useful then

someone simply taking a wild a$$ed guess as to why they like or prefer

something then trying to put that forth as fact.

"and choose something entirely different. Go figure. "

Easy... personal preference. Some like vanilla, some like chocolate.

"Reviewers couldn't be bothered measuring distortion - it was too low for their test gear. "

It was too low for THD test gear. I believe that same gear was what was

used in learning about transient intermodulation distortion (TID) and

how lousy it sounds.

"And lastly, (just MY personal observation) experienced audiophiles

who've owned a dozen or more amps more often end up with tube amps than

SS."

Hang out on some audio forums other then vintage audio gear forums.

There are certainly tube amps used in system but there are IME far far

more systems using SS gear. How many *high volume* audiophile tube amp

companies can you name? Conrad Johnson, AR and maybe Cary would

probably be the top three. Now name how many high volume audiophile SS

amp companies can you name? Conrad Johnson, AR and Cary would all be on

the list too along with dozens of others. If experienced audiophiles

weren't buying the SS amps all those companies wouldn't be around.

" I have heard some really great sounding SS amps, and many I could easily live with."

There are great sounding amps in both camps. Anyone that says otherwise is suffering from tunnel vision.

Shawn

[Jeff Matthews]

Okay. A watt is a watt, and we got into whether the sound produced by a tube is better than that of SS. Sounds like vanilla vs. chocolate again.

But, in seeing some comments re: the Fisher 500c (or whatever model) as not having enough bass makes me think those who made that comment are or might be leary that tubes in general might lack sufficient bass. That could be true, except everything has exceptions, and it all depends on your price-point.

I can say this re: the VRD's I heard: They have all the bass slam of my Crown. I don't own tube anything, so I have no agenda to "sell" this point. It's just what I heard.

Like I said earlier, I wish I would have spent more time taking in their sound at more moderate levels. This may well be where all the "gains" are to be realized. I'm just not so sure Deep Purple and Black Sabbath need to be "chilled," although I am sure greater gains might be made in the area of easy-listening, classical and jazz.

[Jeff Matthews]

It's nice to see that the most knowledgeable participants on this topic wind up agreeing as to the science in the end. It might have been a little rough and bumpy getting there, but anyone following this can definitely see a clear picture.

A watt is a watt is a watt. A "tube" watt is not capable of producing more dB's than an "SS" watt. The factors we have addressed that might lead to the misguided perception that there is a difference are:

(1) playing 8 watts through highly efficient speakers where the SS-consuming public has not been exposed to these so-called (or believed to be) "weak" amps, and they are amazed at what 8 watts sounds like;

(2) the amp's headroom (which can vary from nothing to alot, and the designed headroom appears to have no correlation to whether the amp is tube-based or SS); and

(3) the manner in which an amp clips (SS clipping is more harsh and sounds like a degradation, while tube amps can clip and sound less degraded - so you can happily clip the poor things and eak out some more volume that way).

Agreed?