How will my system benefit from a tube amp?

[ajcllc]

My solid state amp paired with my tube preamp are producing some great results. How will my system benefit from a tube amp or tube monoblocks? What changes in sound should I notice? Thanks!

[mas]

My solid state amp paired with my tube preamp are producing some great results. How will my system benefit from a tube amp or tube monoblocks? What changes in sound should I notice? Thanks!

Let's see, assuming that you have a reasonably good SS amp and you operate it in its linear range, the only definitive statement that anyone can make is that a change to a tube amp may most likely result in slightly higher distortion.

Ideally an amp should not impart any particular sound to the signal - unless you really desire an FX generator. In that case I would suggest keeping the SS amp and adding a SansAmp to the signal chain.

The notion that a well designed amp operating in its linear range makes a significant change in the sound of a system is simply exaggerated. But its amazing how many people hear what they expect to hear.

[pauln]

Here is an excellent investigation and analysis of the difference in sound bewteen SS and tube by a sound engineer - very good and easy to read, Russ Hamm's classic 1973 paper

http://www.gprime.com/proaudio/tubes/tubes.htm

[oldbuckster]

I can't get into great detail on this subject right now, but if you get a chance, get ahold of a NOSvavled Scott intergrated amp, hook it up, take a listen, then ask yourself the same question again.....................................

[boom3]

The real root cause of difference between the sound of a tube power amp and a transistor is that the tube amp has a much higher internal (or source) impedence than a SS unit. This is due to the impedence of the secondary of the output transformers being much higher than the typical output transistors of an SS unit. This results in lower damping factors, which, in a nutshell, means less woofer control. Many (I'm not saying "all") tube amps have a "big" sound and the bass is described as "fat", which to my ears is boomy. Some maintain that, because of the very high acoustic impedence of bass horns, tubes are an ideal match where as SS amps are described as "constricted" in their match with bass horns.

If you look at the frequency response graphs of a tube amp connected to a purely resistive load, the response is not that much different from an SS amp except in the last octave (20 Hz and below) where the output transformers just give up. Connected to a simulated loudspeaker load with inductance and capacitance, the tube amp's response has an amazing varaiation across the spectrum. Again a consequence of this lower damping factor. Some folks like this; I call it a tone control.

A buddy listens almost exclusively to vinyl classic rock & roll. We listened to his Scott 299 (C?) tube amp the other night and it seems like that old Marshall sound really comes through beautifully. It's right for him, it probably would not be right for me.

[rsp1068]

Good read pauln........

Interesting.

[jbsl]

Try a tube amp.

You may or may not like it but until you try it you will never know!

Find one that is recommended on the forum and it should have good resale value in case tube amp sound does not work for you.

What tube preamp and SS amp are you using now and how much can you spend on a tube amp?

[Deang]

Nevermind

[NJbob]

Any elecronics in the signal path will affect sound, SS or Tube, being that Klipsch are HE you have a better slection of amps to choose from. The only thing I can think of to help you understnad the difference is its like the difference of walking into a room, Is it white, is it Red is it Blue.. same goes for amps. I have been a SS guy my whole life, but I always had ineficient speakers under 89db/spl per watt. Once I started playing around with single driver speakers and now Klipsh I find I like the tube sound. You can find a vintage EL84 amp or integrated for around $200. Give it a try if you like it, bring it up to spec it will get better. if not sell it

To me trying different electronics (equipment, Tubes, cable's, speakers) is what make this a hobbie along with a pasion for music

[maxg]

Any chance of a little more info?

Like:

What is your current amp?

What are your current speakers?

What music do you listen to?

What source?

What, if anything, do you not like about your current setup?

etc.

etc.

[Guest " "]

When I first became curious about the high level of intrest in tubes, I had respect for those who found there way to their current state of realization,and was truely amazed that tube equipment remained in use. It had been 35 years or so since I touched anything with tubes. Having in my posession many state of the are peices of SS equipment, I wondered what level of each could be comparable. What tube amp could equal a new 4K SS amp or vs versa. I fould a pair of 1989 vintage 50 watt class A mono blocks that I paid less than 600 for which sounded better than my 4K amp. I then lowered the bar and bought a 1992 vintage 300 dollar tube amp, and found the same conclusion. While no one was able to answer my questions, it had been apparent that i had over looked something over the last three decads. I sold most of my SS gear, and accuired some tube gear for the long term.

"Let's see, assuming that you have a reasonably good SS amp and you operate it in its linear range, the only definitive statement that anyone can make is that a change to a tube amp may most likely result in slightly higher distortion. "

You have just begun the journey if this is the present notion.

"Ideally an amp should not impart any particular sound to the signal - unless you really desire an FX generator. In that case I would suggest keeping the SS amp and adding a SansAmp to the signal chain. "

It has become clear that the current collection of scientific measurments falls short in the understanding of the physicl world. Relying on black and white to discribe a world of color, leaves ones veiw to be subjective. There is much intrest in why tubes sound as good as they do. It's as if, the scientific community wants to write a speacial set of rules to explain the tube sound.

"The notion that a well designed amp makes a significant change in the sound of a system is simply exaggerated. But its amazing how many people hear what they expect to hear."

Something a scientist would say rather than an artists. Think of music as an art form. Enter the concert hall with out the measuring sticks.

[PrestonTom]

I continue to be amazed!

A few simple points about some of the previous posts.

1. Yes there is more than one kind of distortion and some are more audible than others.

2. No, distortion is never a good thing.

3. Distortion is a non-linearity.

4. Combinations of sine wave are adequate for detecting non-linearities in a system (the test signal does not have to be "music")

5. Non-linearities can be measured, although some are not time invariant (eg, transient IM distortion) and are a bit trickier to identify.

My amazement is that some of these folks are apparently trained as engineers, so linear systems analysis (which is not a bad place to start) is part of their background. However, they throw the book out the window when the system in question is "audio". Why are the rules different? Please don't digress to nth order and trivial effects. The major problems are measurable ones and measurement is not a bad thing. Although I do acknowledge that the relation between the degree of a certain type of distortion and the resulting audibility is not always well-understood.

-Tom

[Gilbert]

I have experience with both, expensive/lofty reputation'ed SS systems and Tubed systems (costing sig. less). I won't throw name brands around, but if you PM me, I will be happy to discuss this with you. I use to consider myself Un-Bias, but have fallen in love with the tube sound, so I can't honestly say that I'm un-bias anymore.

Anyway, for me, the difference is instantaneously noticable, as summed up by Mark Deneen. The smoothness, sound imaging / sound stage is ever present. The musicality of a tubed system wins hands down over SS, which is much harsher in my opinion. I know, I own and run both systems in my house. I don't need to read some audio geniuses (self proclaimed or not) wordy thesis or magazine article, I've been there and done that. I have purchased the gear, I own the gear and I play the gear. TUBES ARE FOR MUSIC LOVERS, PERIOD.

[ajcllc]

My amp is a Sherbourn 7/2100A, seven monoblocks in one...a monster used for home theater and music. I am running Forte I's and II's...upgraded with DeanG's, and I listen to many types of music...Jazz, Classical, Pop, Rock...mostly Jazz, on a Denon DVD 2900. I also having a hard time deciding between my diamond in the rough Audcom AP100 ,that is currently out of business, and my Audible Illusions Modulus 3 for my preamps.

I like my setup a great deal. I think curiosity like many of us, the love of music, and the need for audio nirvana is what drives me to ask this question in the first place.

[boomac]

As here in the land of milk and cheese, you probably experience a fair amount of cool weather. A nice tube amp will help warm not only your sound but your listening area.

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

Theres a great deal of technical aptitude here on the Forum. There are also people with a great ear for music. Sometimes these folks have both qualities and when I think they do, I listen to them. From there, you just have to listen and decide. I have tube & SS and will continue listening to both. FWIW, I generally listen to classical and acoustic stuff on the tube gear. Jazz and rock are usually played on the SS set-up. Im 50/50 vinyl vs. CD on both set-ups.

[jacksonbart]

I just like saying the word "psychoacoustic".

[oscarsear]

I've tried both and ended up back with top end SS (Accuphase).  

[pauln]

The old tubes and records were designed for the purpose of audio. Transistors and digital circuits were not originally designed nor intended for audio; these two later technologies were highjacked for audio with a hstory of problems getting them to do so (some beleive these troubles persist today). I have to wonder if this might be important in explaining the longevity of preference for tubes and records among many music lovers...

[mas]

When I first became curious about the high level of intrest in tubes, I had respect for those who found there way to their current state of realization,and was truely amazed that tube equipment remained in use. It had been 35 years or so since I touched anything with tubes. Having in my posession many state of the are peices of SS equipment, I wondered what level of each could be comparable. What tube amp could equal a new 4K SS amp or vs versa. I fould a pair of 1989 vintage 50 watt class A mono blocks that I paid less than 600 for which sounded better than my 4K amp. I then lowered the bar and bought a 1992 vintage 300 dollar tube amp, and found the same conclusion. While no one was able to answer my questions, it had been apparent that i had over looked something over the last three decads. I sold most of my SS gear, and accuired some tube gear for the long term.

"Let's see, assuming that you have a reasonably good SS amp and you operate it in its linear range, the only definitive statement that anyone can make is that a change to a tube amp may most likely result in slightly higher distortion. "

You have just begun the journey if this is the present notion.

"Ideally an amp should not impart any particular sound to the signal - unless you really desire an FX generator. In that case I would suggest keeping the SS amp and adding a SansAmp to the signal chain. "

It has become clear that the current collection of scientific measurments falls short in the understanding of the physicl world. Relying on black and white to discribe a world of color, leaves ones veiw to be subjective. There is much intrest in why tubes sound as good as they do. It's as if, the scientific community wants to write a speacial set of rules to explain the tube sound.

"The notion that a well designed amp makes a significant change in the sound of a system is simply exaggerated. But its amazing how many people hear what they expect to hear."

Something a scientist would say rather than an artists. Think of music as an art form. Enter the concert hall with out the measuring sticks.

Thanks for explaining music to me. I have been associated with the

music industry for just a few years and I am well aware of the

arteeest's relationship with music. And I have very intimate with the

desire to create a sound as opposed to accurately reproducing a sound.

And I have been exposed to more absurdly priced SS and tube amps than

most, in addition to having or having had them in my possession.

And

I love your assumption that I am basing any conclusion on

measurements! What amazes me is that your pronouncements are so

predicated on erroneous assumptions as to bear little or no relation to

reality. And I also find it interesting that so many feel that live

music possesses excessive even order harmonics.

It is one thing

to speak of realism and another thing to speak of what effects you

emotionally. And my standard is not what effects me emotionally in a

listening environment, it is what reproduces the LIVE event most faithfully. And so many factors in the recording process modify this

standard that it is all but useless. So many speak of imaging and soundstage in

mystical terms, simply exposing a fundamental ignorance of recording

techniques as opposed to the physics of multipoint sound sources (about which Henry, Haas, and so many others have done much research).

Sound stage and image huh? Really? Tell me about

maintaining the phase relationships between various instruments.Yes,

the bass was to the left of the drums and slightly forward, the guitar

to the right and the keyboards further right and set back. Great. I

just wonder when the last time any of you were in a studio? So you have

so romantic notion that they actually set up as if they are performing

live in the studio????And you think that there is some magical micing

technique (that is currently used!) that establishes and preserves that "image". If you do, you

are hallucinating. But many think exactly that! That is exactly how they approach a

recording when they sit down and listen to it. And how much of their

reaction to equipment is a result of their expectations being satisfied?

The

facts are a little more harsh. And I hate to dash so many of your

fantasies, but this is NOT what you are listening to. But maintain your

fantasy if you wish. Far be it from me to tell you that there is no

Santa Claus. The depth or image or - heck - whatever you chose to call

it - is a creation of an engineer who places the multi-tracked parts

with a pan knob! "Balance" to you gurus out there! After they have

created the desired sound with EQ and any number of FX devices. What

you hear is not some mythical 'original sound' where you are 'there'!

Except in your vivid imagination! Not only were most of the musicians

in positions relative to each other that would make absolutely No sense

in the real world, but half of the parts were recorded at different

times, maybe even from different cities over a period days, weeks, or

months! But nevertheless we get to listen to many wax poetically about

the pristine image and the incredible sense of air and the mauve tones.

Yeah, whatever.

Having mixed enough live performances as well

as TV shows and just about every venue one can imagine, I can say with

some authority that what many of you imagine does not exist. And if

folks cannot understand nor distinguish between this and reality, I

wonder just how folks determine what amplifier sounds more

'realistic'?

Oh, I will grant that some find a particular

sound more emotionally engaging. I even know lots of folks that prefer

certain types of music more when they are high. But please don't tell

me how that is more realistic!

But if you want to tell me

that you simply like one more than the other, fine. I like butter pecan

ice cream and you like chocolate. And what you are dealing with in an

amp is not recreating a live event. You are recreating the recording.

You are recreating a snapshot of an 'event' which is of a form that

most folks have no idea regarding its true nature. And when I hear

someone telling me about the imaging in a recording, how the sense of

staging and depth amazes them, I AM amazed! I am amazed that an

engineer with the mere tuning of a knob can so amaze so many folks! And

then, on the basis of that hallucination, so many then proceed to judge

which amplifier reproduces the sound more accurately! The

problem is, it is not reproducing the live event, the performance

itself so accurately, but it is a measure of how well the amplifier

reproduces the signal created in the studio and pressed on the

recording that you are reproducing.

And I dare say, until you can

get over the fantasy that you are "there" listening to the 'actual' event

and not listening to a creation in itself that bears only a slight

relationship with the actual performance, one wonders both what and how

one thinks they are evaluating. And I have listened to plenty of amps,

both SS and tube in the recording studio where we listen back to the

actual process, and the best one can hope for is to recreate the

recording process - what is recorded - accurately! I have no fantasy

that it is identical to the actual performance. And anyone who cannot

understand this is fooling themselves that the menu is the actual meal

and a map is the actual territory. But it is amazing how many will

mistake a recording for the actual performance. And this extends even

to the vast majority of symphonic and orchestral pieces!

I have been to the theater. And while you may believe that Peter

Pan actually flies, I know how they manipulate the wires. So don't tell

me how it was just like they were really flying...except as how it

appears to your imagination!

So, tell me how you react emotionally to the sound, but please don't wax poetically about the artistry

and the subtle nuances that this or that particular amplifier

recreates! In this sense, the amplifier is simply another piece of

equipment in the FX chain.

But there is a different measure that

I prefer, and that is one where the ability to accurately recreate the

recording is judged, and not the degree to which 'desired qualities'

are imparted to it. And I'm sorry, at that point, the artists have

long since left the building.

[Guest " "]

mas

Folks tend to discount comments by folks who can not refer to their experiences. If you've owned tube equipment, and have pro's or con's about them....these type's of post are always intresting.

Most of yor post do not contain references to anything you have tried or done. You basiclly bash the current or past efforts of others with out trying to gain any insight from them.

I remain anxious to see your first DIY thread or some other audio enjoyment relevant thread. I'm not even sure you've own or have owned some heritage speakers. In which case, if you pay the shipping, I will be happy to loan you some, to start you on your journey.

If you re-read the intial question, perhaps you should have asked yourself what value you could have added to this thread, rather than throwning your broken glass on the roadway for others to sweep up.