How will my system benefit from a tube amp?

[Guest " "]

"

Shhhhh........Mark - I think that's a big secret. Noone is sure exactly what MAS has for gear or if he even owns Klipsch speakers. All we really know from MAS is that he has years and years and years of expertise in the music industry, and he must know what he is talking about. And if you don't remember, he will remind you about his wealth of experience and/or knowledge. On the other hand, I do not know anything about what we discuss, but just sit in here trying to learn........"

come on guys....disabled veterans in my condition are not supposed to be laughing as hard as your making me do so.......we need some form of content rating to keep me out of the real funny stuff.

[Parrot]

Gosh, mas, if you've had La Scalas since only 1975, how can you

possibly compete with Klipsch Experts who've had their speakers for up

to two years? We've been told today that Klipsch is best for playing

back recordings of 500-piece marching bands at live levels. I can

hardly wait for the next similar bit of audiophile wisdom.

[Piranha]

But I will admit to a potential difference in sound. And both Tom and Trey stomped all over it. Tubes do not excel in tight defined bass. And as I go to lengths to insure that tubes are operated in their linear range, I have no interest whatsoever in the soft clipping and the resultant harmonics - distortion - tubes are capable of creating - however desirable some may find it. I save that for music and studio FX. And that is fine that some seem to like distortion. That is of course their option.

But operated in their non-linear ranges, both formats suffer. And yes, the sonic characteristics differ. Operated in their linear ranges, the results are much less distinguishable. And I still do not use tubes for dedicated LF reproduction.

================

1. "Tubes do not excel in tight defined bass."

You'd have to wonder then why so many bass players prefer tube amplifiers, wouldn't you? But seriously, since you are such a music expert, I assume you know that some bass is "tight sounding" and some is not, right? I mean you do know the difference between a tympani and an electric bass guitar I assume? Should we "tighten" the sound of the bass guitar to be more like a drum? This argument about tubes and bass is one of the silliest in the hobby. Bass reproduction depends on the room, the speaker and to some degree the amp. Let's take the least interesting musical content and make it the number one priority!

2. "But operated in their non-linear ranges, both formats suffer."

Who cares? Why is this even an argument. Yes, we should operate our amplifiers in their linear ranges! And, don't forget to brush your teeth boys and girls. And be sure to make good solid connections with your speaker wires. Wow---real insight there about amplifiers.

What exactly is the sound system you are using to play music on at home?

1.) Why do they use them??? Because they do distort!!! They are creating a sound! Not reproducing it!!! Boy, those electric basses have such a rich resounding full tone! Duh!!!!! and you may be amazed to know that the standard studio bass head has been the Gallien Krueger 2000 series and Hartke HA3500. And most of the best players are using SS amps with various front ends!

Bass reproduction depends on the room? Wow, listen up folks, we are getting an advanced lesson in acoustics! Room gain may add to the perceived gain of the bass, and superposition can change the perceives spectral content, but no bass player counts on the room to change the sound of the bass - especially as they are closed miced and run a DI! And how often are they depending on playing in a small room? That entire point is simply moot.

2. Why indeed! And yet the tube proponents depend upon it! Here, I'll wait as you go back and read the thread!

And since you think the mention of linear operation is so fundamental, where have you been in EVERY thread on the forum regarding tubes, INCLUDING THIS ONE, where the primary advantage of tubes has been stated to be the even harmonics imparted with the clipping of the tube???

If its SOOOOO fundamental, how about lecturing them - the plethora of folks lined up to cite this characteristic! We even have 'reputable' studies posted! ROFLMAO! Now you even mock the tube supporters!

And I have a variety of amps and have used MANY more in many settings from SR rigs to studios! At home I have several Crown 2400's, 24x6 MacroTechs, D75As, K2s and the primary tube amp is a Audio Research / Bill Johnson modified D90B-SP 2 of a kind amp that has alternately run KT77s and now KT66s driving the LaScalas (that I got when we were touring with Jethro Tull as a result of being invited to check out what was then referred to as the Klipsch "Motengator" system on a runway that Klipsch was trying to interest us in in about 1975 that they were working on (and perhaps someone else has more details about that)) and Velodyne HGS18Series2 subs, in addition to several other systems. And I have had more speakers starting with A7s and built more than a sane person should have. And over the years I have had Threshold and Krell Class A SS and Conrad Johnson tubes.

And I have worked with MANY more absurdly priced amps in studio settings, not to mention >150KW of SR power. So what is it to you? Some of us have done more in the industry then just sit and pretend to hear the inaudible. And I have worked with more bass amps in 40 years than anyone should have the privilege of luggin around, in addition to playing both electric (1972 Fender rosewood Precision fretless and a Gibson 1967 EB3 ) and an upright acoustic bass (1938 Kay M4-blond). And that is simply a teensy piece of my background!

But it was very interesting to learn about the bass, and how it is the least important part of the audio spectrum! But that sounds consistent with someone trying to rationalize their emotional bias towards tubes!

But the fact is that I have dealt with so many various pieces of equipment since the 1970s that it really doesn't matter!

And the irony is that YOU and others are the ones who mention experience, and then complain if others say they have it. I'll gladly compare my resume against yours anytime. How's that go...It ain't braggin if you've done it.

So I am sure there is some point to your quiz as to whether I have ever used an amplifier before! Sure I have...its that thing that has knobs and gets hot! I sure hope I used the right words to describe one of them things to an audiophile...as us ignort people who have played and worked in the pro side don't have dog ears no more. Wese all deaf. Well, 'ceptin those of us who chose to wear them weeny earplugs all the years. We alz just turn them speekers fasing down on the flor so we can feel the vibes through the floor and ar feets.

But this has gotten old. If you have an opinion about amps, just say it. And I could care less what you have at home. It obviously hasn't helped.

mas,

I have 80 Cornwalls, Denon 3910, Basis 1400 w/RB 300 and Shure V15VxMR, JM Blueberry Xtreme and NOSValves VRD's. You obviously have wealth of knowledge and experience. I'd appreciate it if you'd be so kind to provide me with your expert opinion about my system. What is the weak link(s) and what do I need to do to improve overall sound quality without breaking the bank? Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts.

[mas]

"the least interesting musical content" versus "the least important part of the audio spectrum".

That's the source of your conundrum? ROFLMAO!!!!!!!

In that case, I have definitely underestimated your handicap.[]

But then you are the one who also feels that there is a radical difference between tubes and solid state. And given the choice, I will not use tubes to drive the LF in a bi/tri-amped system.

[Parrot]

Would you like to learn something today? Here's why you are so annoying to so many people.

How much should I PayPal you for the full lecture on tactfulness?

[Deang]

what do I need to do to improve overall sound quality without breaking the bank?

I think you should start by getting that bicycle out of the living room.

Sure I have...its that thing that has knobs and gets hot!

Don't think I've ever had an amp with knobs on it, what do they do?

Some of us have done more in the industry then just sit and pretend to hear the inaudible.

I don't know why you felt the need to single me out.

Man, it must really be crappy not to be able to hear everything.

[oldenough]

What was it that Bill Clinton said? ...."it depends on what you mean by "was" or was it "is". Oh sh*t i'm really confused.

[mas]

mas,

I have 80 Cornwalls, Denon 3910, Basis 1400 w/RB 300 and Shure V15VxMR, JM Blueberry Xtreme and NOSValves VRD's. You obviously have wealth of knowledge and experience. I'd appreciate it if you'd be so kind to provide me with your expert opinion about my system. What is the weak link(s) and what do I need to do to improve overall sound quality without breaking the bank? Thanks in advance for your time and thoughts.

Sounds to me like you have a very nice system. I would focus on optimizing the room.

[Deang]

Would you like to learn something today? Here's why you are so annoying to so many people.

How much should I PayPal you for the full lecture on tactfulness?

Wrong guy, you need to paypal Craig $700 for that course.

[Deang]

Sounds to me like you have a very nice system. I would focus on optimizing the room.

That's what I said, he needs to get that bike out of the room.

[jbsl]

ajcllc

If you do try a tube amp how much can you afford?

[ajcllc]

$1000 to $1500.

[jbsl]

You can go with a rebuilt vintage tube amp Dynaco, Scott, Fisher, Eico or go with a new tube amp. Craig(forum member NOSValves) has a new stereo tube amp email him for price.

What other new tube amps would everyone else recomend?

PriamLuna has two stereo tube amps priced from $1150-1400. Has anyone heard the PrimaLuna with Klipsch?

I have not been keeping up with new tube amps in this price range.

What other new tube amps would everyone else recomend?

[oldenough]

I should imagine ajcllc fell asleep a long time ago. Such a simple question, followed by a few technophiles flexing their tongues.

[Spongeworthy]

[jbsl]

Other than Primaluna, Cayin, and Jolida I can't think of a new tube amp in the $1000-1500 price range.

[jbsl]

I noticed spongeworthy has a TAD 60 which is another option and it has gotten very good reviews on Audiogon.

[Mallette]

So, I can't see how it makes a scintilla of difference how the incoming signal was made when comparing amps. Guys were in booths, or not in booths, or used this mic or that, or were playing together or not makes no difference. The person doing the playback from his little disc can make no decent assumptions about HOW the signal got on the disc. He will simply judge how deceptive the results are or aren't. Deceptive in the presentation of what he/she might regard as musical.

Haven't looked at this post in a couple of days. Wow, real food fight for a change! But I am too much of a gentleman to get involved. Not gonna do it... Won't lower myself..

The hell I won't!

You've waded into my sandbox. I've said it before and I'll start with it here so many can dismiss my opinion without further ado. I cannot tell any differences in interconnects, speaker cables, or capacitors, etc. However, I've never met an SS amp I like. I ditched my MacIntosh SS when I discovered class D. When I want tube sound, I switch in my ST-70, and my Super PAS4i is ALWAYS on line for preamp duties.

NOW...mdeneen, I may not be understanding precisely what you meant by the above, but if I got it correctly I completely disagree. The factors you dismiss have EVERYTHING to do with my perception of quality in a recording. I can normally tell what kinds of mikes, at what distance, and ALWAYS whether a mixer was involved. No matter how well used a mixer detracts from the purity of a recording unless used to control only levels and from the digital realm. Moving instruments or voices around on a soundstage is often painfully obvious to me, and I can sometimes even sense where the instrument actually was. For many years I would not use but two microphones, or 4 for surround until I determined that there were certain editorial advantages in slight level changes done on completely separate tracks in the digital realm. It actually took a violent attack by a septuagenarian superstar female pianist (I am at work and her name escapes my aging mind at the moment) to force me to alter the apparent levels between her piano and the cellist from a recital. I'd used my usual "best seat in the house" miking approach but she insisted the levels were not balanced...probably true from her piano bench.

'nough of that. Point is, for every audio freak who believes all good things come form one sort of amp, preamp, TT, interconnect, room dimension, or whatever, there is some equally valid point of view. Mine is that it is ALL about the performance and the recording. I'd rather listen to a superbly miked and engineered recording on a car radio than the vast majority of the recorded cacaphony available today on the finest system of which the mind can concieve.

Regards,

Dave

[Mallette]

Never mind...

Well, actually perhaps I should back up to the post you mentioned and take a look. I only went back a couple of pages before encountering yours. From what I gather, I may be somewhere between you guys. Obviously (IMHO), an amp with an opinion is not an accurate amp. As I stated, I can easily separate the original recording quality, conditions, and methods from all but the most dreadful of playback chains. Finally, I'd state that from my own perspective audio is precisely like computers in that "garbage in, garbage out" and so the quality of the source material transcends all other considerations.

Dave

[mas]

And again, you (mdeneen) miss the point! And may I suggest you concentrate on keeping
your mutually exclusive positions straight rather than misquoting and
erroneously taking statements I have made out of context!

"OF
COURSE the recording makes a difference in sound quality we hear." But
he is also unable to distinguish between an amplifier operated in a
non-linear mode to create and FX and an amplifier limited to its linear
range o operation to accurately reproduce a recording of the FX.

I said that the SAME people who wax philosophically about the differences in
the amps are the same who wax philosophically over imaging presented by either
the speakers or the amp! These same erudite audiophiles wax ad nauseum
about a soundstage that they assume is captured in the recording, but which is
at best an engineer created montage made possible by a pan knob!

In other words, (and I will go slowly here as multiple attempts demonstrate
that this is a complicated process): these audiophiles hear that which is not
present! The soundstage they wax so philosophically about is but, at best, an
illusion. The phase relationships that would recreate the spatial relationships
between the actual players in a real ensemble setting are completely and
totally absent.

In an earlier thread you were curious as to what distinguishes the pro
market from the audiophile market. Well, for one, recording engineers
recognize the real world limitations inherent in the recording process, as well
as the available tools that they have at their disposal. Audiophiles seem to
ignore this and make assumptions that a recording is indistinguishable from the
live event itself! Its easy to recognize audiophiles, as they are the ones at restaurants
gnawing on the menus and sending their regards to the chef!

But many listeners expectations predicates their experience, and they
mentally create that which they expect to experience. And that's fine (he said,
fearing that they might become upset...), but don't give an amplifier the
credit!

I find it rather amazing that in the realm of the recreation of a recorded
signal (as opposed to intentionally introduced distortion used to create an FX
in the original creative process - AND the failure
to distinguish between the two!) that so many wax philosophically about the
wonderful attributes of tube distortion (and this does not even count the
plethora of threads that address the ADVANTAGES of the additional dynamic
headroom afforded by tube soft clipping as they complain that it is
shortsighted to list only the linear output of tubes, but that you must absurdly
count the extended distorted tube output in a comparison against the output
power of linear SS operation.

And if you fail to remember these seemingly never ending tube v SS threads,
spend a bit more time reminiscing and rediscovering them instead of simply
demonstrated a selective ignorance.

And if so many can extol the advantages of distortion in a tube amplifier, I
simply maintain that this is anathema to the accurate recreation of a recorded
signal. I don't give a flip what kind of distortion you do or don't like. I
feel the distortion offers no advantage in the accurate reproduction of a
recorded signal. And I can't believe that an 'audiophile' can't fathom this
concept! Maybe I should rephrase that to say that it is amazing how so
many audiophiles tube users count on that concept! Just read the posts extolling its virtues!

And, since you continue to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the
recording process and cannot see how that has a direct bearing on that which is
available to be recreated; And since you continue to demonstrate your confusion
of the recording process with the recreation process as you focus on why some
use the tube distortion as an FX in the performance and/or recording process;
It is no surprise that so many audiophiles can delude themselves into
believing that the recording possesses some mystical soundstage where
'audiophiles' can sit back and close their eyes and hallucinate the
relative positions of the various players - 'just like they were there!' (Something
that is at best purely a fantasy of their own making!). That pan knob is magic!

But when so many 'audiophiles' can delude themselves into hearing something
that is simply not present in the recording, I am not at all surprised that
they can convince themselves that there is necessarily
a radical difference between a well designed SS or tube amp operated solely within their linear ranges.

And then you go on to belittle the statement that, in recreating recorded
material, where I reject the notion of amplifiers operated in anything
other than their linear ranges, as being obvious! But, obvious to whom? It
would seem a simple statement that should not need to mention. But you and the
others are the ones who continue to
bring up the advantages and desirability of tube distortion!

Just go back and COUNT THE POSTS in
THIS thread alone extolling the advantages of tube distortion that are so
wonderful! They are not quoting this because they are talking about
perceived deficiencies of tubes! And they
are NOT talking about an amplifier operated in its linear range!

And the entire 'equivalent tube power' versus 'SS power' would be laughed at
as well! The fact is, most depend upon the tube distortion, both to extend the
available output power and because they like its characteristics! But you
continue to vacillate back and forth whenever you find it convenient and argue
both sides of 'no distortion' and 'distortion is good' while not dealing with
the issue of tube distortion in any meaningful or cogent form!

They are the ones who keep quoting the wonderful distortion
characteristics! If those tube amps were indeed operated in
their linear range, the entire 'what type of distortion do you have' would not
be mentioned! Instead it is the primary advantage focused upon by the tube
proponents!

In fact, if you were consistent, you would be lecturing them against such a concept! I would
suggest that you instead go back and lecture your legion of handicapped tubes
are the only legitimate source that one can listen to' audiophiles!

But nope, instead you continue to talk of the virtues of tube distortion
(after all, why do so many bass players use them? -Well, Mr. Wizard, based upon
studio supplies and sales, they don't.- ) while at the same time you belittle
the suggestion that both topologies be operated in their linear ranges!

Heck, just pick a side! ANY side!

Attempting to debate any issue with you is like attempting to debate
the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz!

And I will still maintain that in the realm where the amplifiers are
operated solely within their linear range, a well designed amplifier of either
topology is not radically different - with the one exception being the damping
afforded LF reproduction.

And if you have a problem with that, sit down and look at a few transfer
functions that simply compare the signal input into any given item with the
signal that exits the same piece. But I guess this is where we be
subjected to the audiophile equivalent of Luddism as we listen to the 'measurements
are meaningless' mantra. This from someone who can't figure out how the
limitations of the recording process impose limitations on what is available to
be recreated by their equipment.

But there is a bright side to this. For some audiophiles, the real world
limitations of the recording process don't prevent some these folks from
hearing what they imagine they hear. Even if its not present in the
recording. Far be it from me to belittle 'them ears'!

But I'm curious...what do the voices tell you it sounds like? []

Continue to debate this as you will. I hope you convince yourself. As I have
said, both topologies are fine operated in their linear range, but each have their
personalities, and SS has a distinct advantage in lifecycle costs and
flexibility with various loads.

But then I try not to represent either as being capable of recreating that
which is not available to be recreateddespite Jimi actually visiting my house
last night and performing live in my living room. What made it even more
amazing was that he was the one who
brought the herb. But I had best watch out, as such a claim would almost
qualify me as an audiophile.

Edit: But as far as can some amplifiers sound dramatically different? Sure! But as I am not into FX generators, and I also not consider then to be a well designed amplifier ...or at least not one operated in its linear range.

And I would suggest that the complex impedance match, or mismatch, between source and complex load (as represented in the Nyquist and Heyser spirals) has more to do with actual differences in perceived sound that actual topologies. But thats another discussion.

PS

Oh, and Dave, I agree. Ideally an amplifier should not
impart a character of its own. In my opinion, a well designed amplifier
is such that its job is simply to accurately reproduce whatever is fed
to it....the proverbial 'straight wire with gain'. Nothing less,
nothing more! My initial statement that got Mark so upset was that I posited that a well designed amplifier of either topology, operated in their linear range, should not be immediately distinguishable. And 'thems' fightin' words to an 'audiophile' !

Part
of the the issue is predicated on a perceived difference on the part of
Mark between the inferior 'pro' equipment and the esoteric and
incredibly revealing 'audiophile' equipment. (As well as and an
unawareness in what factors are involved in the recording and mastering
processes...) The result is audiophile equipment so advanced that, just like the audiophiles who can hear the inaudible, it can even reproduce qualities that which it absent in the recording. []