# Tube Mythbusters?



## Oleson M.D.

Tubes sound better than solid state. No, solid state is just as good as tubes, perhaps even better!

I started a raging debate well over a month ago that is still going on at another audio forum, with the above topic. 

First, a few quotes..............

"When it comes to my personal system, you will not find any tube gear, it's all solid state. And I manufacture VERY GOOD tube components." source - High end audio manufacturer in MN

"Had I performed a blind listening test, I would have chosen the tube amp to be solid state, and the solid state amp to be tubed!" source - Sam Tellig, Stereophile

"A few music listener's still have the illusion that.....tubed products are in some mysterious way better than present solid-state models. The overall superior performance of solid-state design has been scientifically proven.....Anyone investing in contemporary vacuum tube products will experience less than the best available performance." source - McIntosh Electronics / The Absolute Sound Magazine

Now, the above quotes ought to be enough to get anyone's blood flowing, regardless of which camp you reside in.

But wait......there's more!

In my own system you will find tube gear as well as SS. Most recently I had a pure class A system (tube pre-amp and tube power-amp), plus solid state. This made it very easy to do direct A/B comparisons.

Speakers employed were VMPS. CD source was a Samsung SACD / DVD Audio player. 

The CD's utilized were various Piano, female vocal, and big band jazz samples, all of which are very well mastered and recorded.

As my listening room incorporates speaker source switching (the same speakers powered by multiple sources) it is very easy to do the A/B testing. This is not a blind test, as I administer the event and am the subject at the same time.

Now, after very careful listening (I am a trained musician), there was no discernible difference in the two systems.

Prior to the listening trial, both systems were volume matched using a hand held DB meter.

Both the class A tube setup and the class A/B solid state gear sounded very, very good.

Now, one last quote and I'll be done!

"How does it sound, you ask? I will state that all well executed and well designed gear pretty much sounds alike. So you will have to listen for yourself." source - Julian Hirsch, Hirsch Labs (Stereo Review)


----------



## lcaillo

If you are looking for sprited and well reasoned debate, that is OK. If you are looking for rants and raging, you may want to stoke the fires elsewhere. 

The fact is that tubes have limitations that transistors can exceed easily. That is why most systems use transistors. It is also true that tubes can sound different than transistors, and the difference, good or bad, is what lures many to them. It is well known that the distortion produced by tubes is usually different than that of transistors, and the available bandwidth/power relationship is different. If one likes the sound of tubes and is willing to make the trade-offs, I don't think anyone here will have a problem with that. It is no different than the plasma/LCD debate or many others. We can discuss the differences, the perceptions, the opinions, and still be respectful of the opinions of others. No need to rage at all.

Please feel free to state your opinion, but be careful about trolling for controversy.


----------



## Oleson M.D.

Controversy is not my goal. But a spirited debate on the pros and cons of the issues is what motivated my original post.

And the reason this was brought up here at The Shack is because I find the participants here more level headed, and without the air of snobbery that prevails at some of the other sites.

I am always interested in the experiences of others in this field, and looking to expand my my universe with more useful data, as we are always looking to improve upon the audio listening experience.

But since you mentioned distortion........the even order distortion character of tubes vs. the odd order harmonic distortion of transistors is what makes them so well suited to guitar amplification. People such as Clapton get their signature sound from the unique distortion qualities of the tubes they employ. This is primarily when the amps are "over-driven" in order to achieve this.

In my research on this, the statement was made that since in the home audio listening environment, the equipment is rarely (if ever) overdriven, which would be more in favor of solid state gear.

I am interested in the experiences / preferences of others who frequent this forum.


----------



## Guest

I would chose SS for home use, but tube signal amps are still very important in the recording industry, guitar amps, mic amps, etc.

From my understanding, the best of the best can sound just as good if not better, but they are rare and expensive. Or another way of saying it might be, tubes don't automatically = fuzzy warm distortion and a 60hz hum that haters will say, its the only reason people like tubes. Its the same argument for why people like vinyl. Because deep down, we like distortion?!?!?

If I ever got the chance at getting a good tube amp by being at the right place at the right time, I would. I think they are really neat, they have the glowing tube cool factor going, they do sound nice, even if maybe not 100% proper, and SS can never look as cool.


----------



## tonyvdb

I think Leonard said it all, although you will usually find two camps of people one who love the sound of tube and one who dont the real question here is do you have the setup and budget to support a tube system. The cost of a good tube amp is way up there and solid state amps can generate allot more reliable power to drive hungry speakers. For home theatre a tube amp is not going to work well at all as they are slower at responding than solid state.
Tube amps are also generally low powered most do not produce more than 40-60watts per ch.

Are tube amps bad? not at all. they have there place but I do truly believe that they are a niche market and the average person just simply wont care.


----------



## Oleson M.D.

A couple of interesting points have been brought up.

1. Power ratings

2. Cost issues

My research indicates that with speakers of 89 or 90 db ratings, a moderately powered (35 watts) tube amp will be just fine. I am used to listening to SS amps in the range from 60 watts to 300 watts. All of them will drive my speakers (VMPS - 8 ohm & 4 ohm) with ease. The 35 watt tube amp in the experiment did equally as well, which was very much to my surprise!

As far as cost is concerned, there are tube amp dealers who will sell their products in the range from $650 to $1200, and some of these are in kit form. These are not used items on Ebay, but are brand new engineered items with first class parts quality. These particular amps get rave reviews in the press, and in many forums as well. Of course, you can spend many multiples of those figures if you choose to do so.

In a pure cost per performance comparison, SS looks to come out ahead.

But again, there is something very romantic about the warm glow of a set of EL34's!


----------



## lcaillo

While it is true that most systems are not driven to significant distortion, tube amps with typically far less range are more likely to be, and in systems used for extremely dynamic music, with speakers that are not particularly easy to drive it may happen more than one realizes. 

That said, for me, the trade-offs are clearly in favor of SS and tubes are little more than an interesting niche market. Even as calibration specialist, I have little appreciation for equipment with large variance in performance over time and between devices.


----------



## RIKKITIK

I agree completely, that with reasonably efficient speakers, 35 watts can do a fine job. Lynn Olson, (http://www.nutshellhifi.com/), had stated numerous times that a Dynaco ST70 was a good yardstick for entry level hi fidelity. The Dynaco,(for those who don't know), is an EL34 tubed, 35 watt per channel amp designed primarily by David Hafler, sold in kit and assembled form during the late '50's and early '60's. Olson had stated that this little amp could take on, and beat, many kilobuck boutique high end amps. Not at the frequency extremes, not in power, but in midrange and transparency. Years ago, while still in the SS camp, I decided to find out for myself. I scored an ST70 on epray, factory wired with it's _original_ Mullard EL34's.
Now, I had every intent of updating the amp, new caps, resistors, etc., but my wife said "why don't you just try it stock first?". Uh, why not? I was bi-amped using an updated NAD 2600 crossed at 150 Hz at the time. Then swap in the Dyna, :rubeyes:, _*no way*_. Swapped the NAD and Dynaco several times. The sound stage was so 3D, my wife wasn't sure the surrounds _weren't_ on when I said, "honey, come here and listen to this". Problem #1, it had flaws, but the transparency was unmistakable. Even at very low volumes it was, to use a common cliché', like a veil was lifted. Problem #2 was, *no* other current production EL34 sounded like that. I used those tubes in an Anthem Amp 1, and that same transparency came with them, but with much more extended upper end. With current production Russian tubes in place, there was no advantage over SS.
I've since moved on to different gear, but have stayed with tube, preamp and amp (+150 Hz), SS for low freq.s. Pre also. I can switch, on the fly, between my AVM30 and tube pre, the tube wins hands down every time.
A couple months ago, I was swapping tubes thinking it was kind of a pain - looking for the right combination. Then I realized, I was grumbling about something that woudn't even be an option with SS. I had a say in the matter, as to how my system sounds. With SS, you have what the design team/marketing department decided, on the quality of electronics you would get at that particular price point. So the way it sounds, is the way it sounds.
Pop open a tube amp, you can just about count the number of parts on one hand. Try that with a SS amp. That's alot of signal handling/shaping.
Are tubes a PITA? Yes. Do I believe they are better technology? No. Do I _listen_ to technology? No, I listen to music, I'll take mine tubed thank you. Are tubes for everyone? No, then the good tubes would be even more expensive!!! I'll just hang out in my little niche over yonder.:bigsmile:


> Nelson Pass (born June 27, 1951) is a noted and widely respected designer of audio amplifiers.
> 
> Unlike some audio engineers, Pass remains vocal that listening tests remain valuable and that electrical measurements alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.
> 
> Mr. Pass holds at least seven U.S. patents related to audio circuits.


----------



## chadnliz

I love tubes and SS gear and own both, it all boils down to pairing the right gear with other items in your rig to get the synergy. In my sysyem there are tubes in my pre and amp but have owned plenty of gear that was pure solid state.
There is no right answer and its not a competition anyway, for those who love tubes its their opinion they sound the best, yet SS guys have an equal but opposite view favoring SS. Both are fantastic, tubes have strengths SS many times cant match but SS has advantages tubes can never overcome. Smoke em if ya got em and love whatever makes you happy, just dont tell me I am wrong or this is fact and that is fact because it is an individual based hobby with many interesting theory and individuals making it fun and keeping it from being boring.
TUBES RULE..............BUT SO DOES SOLID STATE!


----------



## Oleson M.D.

Here is one more often overlooked benefit of tubes.

They also function as highly efficient space heaters!

In my recent experiment, the tube amp was located on a shelf in an audio cabinet. Dual multi-speed cooling fans were placed on the rear of the shelf to direct the airflow over the amp, to keep the amp and cabinet from getting too hot.

The people sitting in the row of seats nearest the audio cabinet are now kept "nice & toasty warm" due to the heat output of the tubes! Very nice for these colder than normal winter days.

But when summer returns................................


----------



## RIKKITIK

Very well stated Chad, on all counts. Most certainly the labling of _right_ or _wrong_, in one's particular path to audio happiness.



> They also function as highly efficient space heaters!


I almost added that myself.:T


----------



## chadnliz

Dont forget pure Class A Solid State amps are room heaters too!
My friend runs a 1600 watt Krell Class A, when he was in a small apartment it was his actual heater!
My other bud owns 2 Pass Labs monsters for winter they are great but in summer he runs some of those Nelson Pass clone amps as they stay cool all the time.


----------



## RIKKITIK

When overdriven, tubes tend to clip the waveform more gently than SS. The clipped portion of the wave is essentially seen by your speakers as DC, and passes unfiltered through the crossover. The tweeters voice coils are generally least able to handle this duty cycle, and are usually the first to say goodbye. This also leads to the seemingly odd but true, "More speakers are blown due to a _lack_ of amplifier power, than too much power". Tubes are a fair amount more forgiving, in this area, due to the way they clip. 
Also, 35 watts equals 15.4 dBW, 100 watts equals 20 dBW. So a system with 92 dB speakers and a 35 watt amp _can_ produce a higher SPL than a system with 100 watts, and 86 dB speakers. I believe 86-87 dB is about the industry average.


----------



## lcaillo

So the only conclusion is...it depends. It depends on the combination of equipment, depends on the preferences of the user, depends on the priorities of the user...depends on many variables.


----------



## Guest

Cost is usually on top or near the top for consideration. Per $ SS wins easy. I think it takes a special person to live with the added cost and upkeep of a tube amp. Why, you almost have to be crazy enough to clean records, turn all your CDs facing the right way in the case, and organize a music collection in a way that only the owner knows how to find stuff.


----------



## RIKKITIK

Uh huh, tube _or_ SS.:T
Or do you just pick the prettiest?, and believe "They all sound the same".


----------



## RIKKITIK

> So the only conclusion is...it depends. It depends on the combination of equipment, depends on the preferences of the user, depends on the priorities of the user...depends on many variables.


The same holds true regardless does it not? Wether SS or tube, the component should be reasonably matched and properly set up. The users satisfaction should be an important consideration, yes? Some people want an appliance that makes good noise, some people choose to invest a little effort to achieve a (hopefully) more musical result. Some only want WOW factor, (again, either camp can be guilty of this). I just want a system that makes me smile, makes me _*want*_ to stay up too late spinning disc's. A system that (to my ear anyway, no visitor has been shy on their observation either), that sounds _beautiful_. No, not every track has rewards, some are best left in the case. But I enjoy mine, and mine is tube. I really hope you receive as much music and happiness from yours. Not meant to cause controversy, but you seem somewhat condescending towards tube. Is it me, or does the opinion of others, (that contradict yours), really seem to bother you?:scratch:
If someone could point out the _*Perfect receiver, CD deck, and speakers*_, *Perfect for every ear, room, situation*. I would really appreciate it. Parts would be cheap, as everything would be the same- *Perfect*, so the price should come down. Oh and I'll be needing the *Perfect* music catalog to go with the Utopian sound. onder:


----------



## lcaillo

Tubes certainly require more care in choosing the right components to work together for a given application. Solid state, as noted earlier, is quite forgiving. For the vast majority, the quality of a reasonably good AVR these days is perfectly adequate. For many of those same people, the trad-offs with tubes would be a step backwards. If you like how they sound and have the right system and are willing to limit the range of your listening, they may be great. It is just like the vinyl vs cd issue. Different people have different priorities.

There are a few generalizations that you can make. Tubes are less efficient and less reliable. Solid state amps can be built to be much more powerful over a wider bandwidth and operate very reliably into many loads. Tubes may provide softer clipping and relatively less odd order harmonic distortion, but SS can be made to model these if desired and have lower distortion overall, with much higher output. Tubes can certainly have some sentimental and novelty value. 

Beyond these generalizations that most would accept as correct, there seem to me to be no myths worth busting. While we could do a better job of trying to discover the nature of what many audiophiles feel are the subjective aspects of sound reproduction that are poorly described by current testing, the differences between solid state and tubes are relatively well understood.


----------



## RIKKITIK

> For the vast majority, the quality of a reasonably good AVR these days is perfectly adequate.


 In a world where AVR's, HTIB, MP3, etc., constitute what qualifies as _adequate_, I would agree. As stated earlier, tubes aren't for everyone and I'm not interested in _adequate_.



> willing to limit the range of your listening


??
By having -3 dB points of 10 hz and 50k hz? 



> Solid state amps can be built to be much more powerful over a wider bandwidth and operate very reliably into many loads.


 True, but that becomes as much a speaker design issue, (efficiency and impedance), as an amplifier design issue.

Just for reference,
Mains, tube preamp and amp, .5 meter, REW, ECM8000 (calibrated), M-Audio pre-USB
Not too rolled off on top, is it?


----------



## lcaillo

So are you saying that there is no significant power/bandwidth trade-off for the vast majority of tube amps as compared to solid state? I am not quite getting your point, but if that is it, you are arguing a point that is very limited in its scope of correctness. What exactly is the myth that you think needs busting?


----------



## RIKKITIK

> So are you saying that there is no significant power/bandwidth trade-off for the vast majority of tube amps as compared to solid state?


Not at all, in fact technically, I agreed. I was trying to show with the above graph, that modern tube gear is not necessarily the choked, constricted beast you seem to wish to perpetuate. 



> If you like how they sound and have the right system *and are willing to limit the range *of your listening, they may be great.


I'm saying you don't have to compromise (audible) range. Something _*was *_mentioned in this thread about properly designed gear. There is alot more good tube gear out there than you seem to want to acknowledge. But agree, equipment selection _*is *_important, (in either camp, yes?), to achieve good sound. My gear is not particularly expensive, but _was_ carefully chosen. Alot of components visited my system, (SS and tube), before I found what I wanted.
As in the CD vs vinyl discussion, you seem solidly entrenched in the idea, the medium _you_ do not choose, cannot possibly sound better. I choose to disagree.
I _*know*_ neither of the above, (tube or vinyl), are as bad as you make them out to be. As I have shown above, (Nelson Pass, etc.), sometimes you just have to listen. I have _*nothing*_ against SS, I just chose another path.
The myths I'm trying to bust are that tubes are slow (slow sound???), constricted (in the audio band),
and lack dynamics. I'm just trying to show there is a different path, to a common goal = GOOD SOUND. And since it apparently is a niche market, (on this forum), I'll leave you to it. :wave:
_*Feels good to win, don't it? But what did you win?*_


----------



## lsiberian

RIKKITIK said:


> "More speakers are blown due to a _lack_ of amplifier power, than too much power".


A speaker can't be blown until it exceeds it's xmax. This can only happen when it receives too much power at too low a frequency. I think the correlation is largely coincidence. Blowing a tweeter is the result of many things. If your amp is clipping then your probably near the limits of your tweeters anyway. If you have a scientific paper in argument of this view please share it. 

Tubes provide warmer sound because they make the room warmer.

Personally I think tubes look better than solid state amps. And looks matter to me. :T However the prices are crazy.


----------



## RIKKITIK

OK, I can't resist
http://www.prosoundweb.com/article/clipping/
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/audio/clipping/page1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clipping_(audio)


> Ferrofluid helps, but virtually no hi-fi tweeter can withstand that sort of continuous power for any duration.


http://sound.westhost.com/tweeters.htm


> Clipping is the arch enemy of speakers, especially higher frequency drivers. It is probably the biggest cause of speaker failure. Looking at the diagram below which shows a clipped sinewave we see from the time axis that the waveform remains at a high amplitude (either positive or negative) for a period of time which is longer than the time it spends when the sinewave is not clipped. The result of the speaker cone “spending” too much time at one end of its travel will cause voice coil overheating, deformity of the cone/spider assembly.


http://www.zedaudiocorp.com/Technical/Amplifier-Clipping.htm


----------



## lcaillo

RIKKITIK said:


> Not at all, in fact technically, I agreed. I was trying to show with the above graph, that modern tube gear is not necessarily the choked, constricted beast you seem to wish to perpetuate.
> 
> 
> I'm saying you don't have to compromise (audible) range. Something _*was *_mentioned in this thread about properly designed gear. There is alot more good tube gear out there than you seem to want to acknowledge. But agree, equipment selection _*is *_important, (in either camp, yes?), to achieve good sound. My gear is not particularly expensive, but _was_ carefully chosen. Alot of components visited my system, (SS and tube), before I found what I wanted.
> As in the CD vs vinyl discussion, you seem solidly entrenched in the idea, the medium _you_ do not choose, cannot possibly sound better. I choose to disagree.
> I _*know*_ neither of the above, (tube or vinyl), are as bad as you make them out to be. As I have shown above, (Nelson Pass, etc.), sometimes you just have to listen. I have _*nothing*_ against SS, I just chose another path.
> The myths I'm trying to bust are that tubes are slow (slow sound???), constricted (in the audio band),
> and lack dynamics. I'm just trying to show there is a different path, to a common goal = GOOD SOUND. And since it apparently is a niche market, (on this forum), I'll leave you to it. :wave:
> _*Feels good to win, don't it? But what did you win?*_


I have no problem with the fact that there is good tube gear, nor am I trying to perpetuate anything other than what I said. I said that there are advantages to SS that are well understood. I said that there are trade-offs in using tubes. You agree. Identifying a system that works to the satisfaction of the user simply supports my contention that "it depends." There are reasons to use tubes for some and many more reasons that transistors make sense for the majority. Please do not make attributions to my meaning nor to my intent that go beyond what I said. The fact is that there is great agreement on the relative atributes of tubes vs SS and there are reasons that justify both when the context of the application and individual are considered. 

We do not need to engage in comments about other's intent and wishes. If you want to differ, either in fact or opinion, with what I say, then that is fine. Do not make an argument where there is none.


----------



## DougMac

I wonder how much of the current argument is based on lingering myths.

My dad was a hi-fi nut back in the '50's. Our modest circumstances kept him from ever owning TOTL equipment, but his best friend opened up a stereo shop and I had plenty of opportunity to hear some of the best available gear of the time. I was around when there was the big leap from tube to transistors (SS). The purists were horrified when McIntosh released their first SS gear.

At the beginning there were some truly horrible sounding SS amps. I once owned a Scott 299T and of course compared to a McIntosh tube amp or even a tube Dynaco, it sounded nasty. It didn't take long for advances in SS devices and SS design to overcome the sonic limitations of the first generation, but the damage had been done.

I've heard wonderful sounding modern tube and SS amps. If they are well designed and operated within their limits, there should be no reason they would sound different. To me it then becomes a question of economics and convenience. My needs are average, I have and average sized room and listen at moderate levels. I can meet my needs more inexpensively and reliably with SS but I understand there are those who prefer tubes. The music is the thing. It's all good.


----------



## Oleson M.D.

O.K.

This is turning out to be quite interesting.

Here is a question......has anyone ever listened to Bob Latino's Tube Amps? He sells kit versions, and fully assembled models. They run in price from $695 for the 35 watt kit to around $1,300 for the assembled 60 watt amp. From the feedback I've read, the reviews are nothing short of stellar.

But back to my original post........when I did the side by side audio trial, my ears could detect little (if any) difference in the sound between the tube gear and the SS. And the components used were all of high end quality, with each pre/power combo costing $2200 - $3000. No names, please, so as to not bias any readers.

And it's not because my middle age ears have lost their ability, for I can readily discern the audio variance between CD's and vinyl (Beatles re-mastered CD's vs. MoFi's half speed mastered vinyl). 

A number of people employ bi-amping, and use tubes on the mids/tweets and SS for the bottom. It's reported that this achieves a very nice result, although I've never tried this.

And, with regards to the heater issue, my Sound Valves SS (300 Watt) Mosfet 32 power amp does tend to run warm, but not hot. The manufacturer stated, this was due to the amp being highly biased into class A operation for sound quality.

But, as stated before, there is something magical (retro?) about a glowing set of tubes.


----------



## DougMac

Oleson said:


> And it's not because my middle age ears have lost their ability, for I can readily discern the audio variance between CD's and vinyl (Beatles re-mastered CD's vs. MoFi's half speed mastered vinyl).


I think that is as much of a test of your ability to discern between two different mixes of the same source as it is differences in sources. ;-)

BTW, I've compared my original Capital/Apple LP's, the first released CD's and the new remastered CD's for "Past Masters", "Rubber Soul" and "The Beatles". I can tell more difference between the more newly released material and the older material.


----------



## lcaillo

I don't think that there is much of an argument. I think most people pretty much agree on the relative merits of the two types of devices.


----------



## JoeESP9

Oleson said:


> Tubes sound better than solid state. No, solid state is just as good as tubes, perhaps even better!
> 
> I started a raging debate well over a month ago that is still going on at another audio forum, with the above topic.
> 
> First, a few quotes..............
> 
> "When it comes to my personal system, you will not find any tube gear, it's all solid state. And I manufacture VERY GOOD tube components." source - High end audio manufacturer in MN
> 
> "Had I performed a blind listening test, I would have chosen the tube amp to be solid state, and the solid state amp to be tubed!" source - Sam Tellig, Stereophile
> 
> "A few music listener's still have the illusion that.....tubed products are in some mysterious way better than present solid-state models. The overall superior performance of solid-state design has been scientifically proven.....Anyone investing in contemporary vacuum tube products will experience less than the best available performance." source - McIntosh Electronics / The Absolute Sound Magazine
> 
> Now, the above quotes ought to be enough to get anyone's blood flowing, regardless of which camp you reside in.
> 
> But wait......there's more!
> 
> In my own system you will find tube gear as well as SS. Most recently I had a pure class A system (tube pre-amp and tube power-amp), plus solid state. This made it very easy to do direct A/B comparisons.
> 
> Speakers employed were VMPS. CD source was a Samsung SACD / DVD Audio player.
> 
> The CD's utilized were various Piano, female vocal, and big band jazz samples, all of which are very well mastered and recorded.
> 
> As my listening room incorporates speaker source switching (the same speakers powered by multiple sources) it is very easy to do the A/B testing. This is not a blind test, as I administer the event and am the subject at the same time.
> 
> Now, after very careful listening (I am a trained musician), there was no discernible difference in the two systems.
> 
> Prior to the listening trial, both systems were volume matched using a hand held DB meter.
> 
> Both the class A tube setup and the class A/B solid state gear sounded very, very good.
> 
> Now, one last quote and I'll be done!
> 
> "How does it sound, you ask? I will state that all well executed and well designed gear pretty much sounds alike. So you will have to listen for yourself." source - Julian Hirsch, Hirsch Labs (Stereo Review)


First of all: 
Being a trained musician has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than playing an instrument. Some of the worst systems I've ever heard belong to trained musicians. I also am a trained musician FWIW.

Second :
Why quote Julian Hirsch, the man who never met a piece of gear he didn't like? The most notable thing he never said was, "Of all the receivers I've reviewed this certainly is one.". He is known to have admitted off the record that he heard differences in gear but didn't think they were important. My response to that was/is, "Not important to whom?".

With that said: I don't care if there is a tube or a transistor inside the box. What comes out of the speakers is all that matters. I use tubes to drive my electrostatics solid state to drive my sub's and a hybrid preamp to drive them all.

The only thing I agreed on with Julian Hirsch was that you have to listen for yourself. My standard admonition about buying gear and most especially speakers is. "Don't buy unless you've heard it yourself. What others like you may not and vica versa."


----------



## Oleson M.D.

I stand corrected. I should have stated that I was given a gift to hear things that most people do not hear. In a test administered in order to determine musical and listening ability, I was the only one to score 100% out of a group of 50 people. 

My being a trained musician (jazz, classical, music theory, as well as performance) has nothing to do with it.

The first and most important part of musicianship is the ability to listen. And the ability to hear what you are listening to.

Do not overlook the quote from Mac Electric with regards to SS. Also, Sam Tellig, and F. Van Asltine. J. Hirsch was thrown in to round things out.


----------



## JoeESP9

Although I've been an audiophile for 43+ years and musician for 52+ years that's not really important. I was lucky enough to be (at one time) married to a woman with extraordinarily acute hearing. She could walk in the front door and hear that I had changed a cable on the system in my man cave. She taught me to listen to and hear many of the things she heard from stereo equipment. I have found that when you can get a female to take an interest in this "hobby" their insight and comments can be very enlightening because they generally have better hearing than males.

She thought tubes sounded better than solid state. I think it was because of the gentle overload characteristics inherent in tube amplification. On that issue I agree with her. When SS amps distort the transition is abrupt, grating and very audible with lots of odd order distortion products. Tubes on the other hand start to gently compress and slowly add even order distortion products. Used within their operating parameters it's hard to tell which is which.

My ex became quite angry when I traded in a pair of Magneplanar MG-III's for a pair of Acoustat ESL's. She said “the Maggy's sounded warmer although not as accurate”. I still have ESL's (different ones) but not the ex.


----------



## doctorcilantro

From the other thread:



> There was a time when tube amps tended to be similar to one another, as did SS amps. But now, you can get single ended, low parts count SS with no negative feedback (see First Watt or Ayre Acoustics), and you can also buy giant tube amps running all sorts of pentodes with a bunch of gNFB wrapped around them. If you compared the two, I'm positive that many listeners would hear a difference, and they'd think the SS was tubes and vice versa.
> 
> Tubes are, in general, more linear amplifiers than transistors. So, it is easy to implement them in simple designs with low or no feedback. But that doesn't mean that you can categorically say there is a tube sound, and an SS sound. Different amplifiers sound different, and that difference depends on all sorts of things. Be glad we live in a time and place where we have more variety than ever, at price points for everybody and if not complete agreement, a better understanding of why things sound the way they do.


----------



## Derry

more vintage gear rumbling,,

one of the better sounding (vinyl) systems I ever had was my Dynaco S70 running my Altec Voice of Theaters, A7-500,, those speakers (still have them) were so efficient that the volume knob never exceeded about 1/3,, I can still hear sprach zarathustra opening, so sweet and warm,,

they are now fed by a Marantz SR9600, all SS,, yes there is a difference,, they both sound great but if I was 100% music I would go back to the tubes,, 

Derry


----------



## mdrake

Derry said:


> more vintage gear rumbling,,
> 
> one of the better sounding (vinyl) systems I ever had was my Dynaco S70 running my Altec Voice of Theaters, A7-500,, those speakers (still have them) were so efficient that the volume knob never exceeded about 1/3,, I can still hear sprach zarathustra opening, so sweet and warm,,
> 
> they are now fed by a Marantz SR9600, all SS,, yes there is a difference,, they both sound great but if I was 100% music I would go back to the tubes,,
> 
> Derry



I have an affinity for Tubes as well.  

Matt


----------



## bob91343

I enjoy tubes but, as an engineer and musician, I claim that the best amplifier is one that only amplifies. In other words, the output is as precise a duplication of the input as possible.

In this respect, solid state amplifiers excel. Ir's entirely possible to build a tube amplifier as good as a solid state amplifier but I don't know of one. Transient response, frequency response, distortion, noise, all are better in solid state. I am referring to carefully designed and built gear here, not high volume commercial stuff.

You can also, with minimal expense, get more power from solid state. Sure, there are kilowatt tube amplifiers but just lighting the heaters is a major expense.

These are my thoughts, and of course many will disagree. I'm not trying to start a fight, just saying what I think.


----------



## lsiberian

I personally would love to have a tube amplifier for the aesthetics alone. They can be very beautiful devices and are historically important to our hobby. Just like I'd love an old 66 Camaro when in reality the new ones are better engineering. There is something to be said for appreciating the past.


----------



## gsmollin

Distortion-products-when-overdriven is the difference between SS and tube amps. This was true in 1968 when it was called "transistor sound" and it still is true today. Back then, both amps were 35 W/channel, and the tube amp was a clear winner when both were turned up loud. At low levels, the SS amp had lower distortion, and hum, hiss and microphonics were absent. This is still true today. What has changed today is that a good SS amp can run 300-500 W/ch., while it is still rare to find a tube amp over 70 W/ch. So the SS amp can be turned up without being driven into overload. Of course the SS amps are still cheaper, even when they are 10X the power of the tube amp. So in terms of audio-experience/dollar, the SS amp is the winner.

A really good tube amp is quite the sonic experience, since they still have greater headroom than SS. But you have to be buying McIntosh quality to get this experience, and I know I've never been able to justify the expense, going back to 1968 when I first heard, and loved one.


----------



## lsiberian

gsmollin said:


> Distortion-products-when-overdriven is the difference between SS and tube amps. This was true in 1968 when it was called "transistor sound" and it still is true today. Back then, both amps were 35 W/channel, and the tube amp was a clear winner when both were turned up loud. At low levels, the SS amp had lower distortion, and hum, hiss and microphonics were absent. This is still true today. What has changed today is that a good SS amp can run 300-500 W/ch., while it is still rare to find a tube amp over 70 W/ch. So the SS amp can be turned up without being driven into overload. Of course the SS amps are still cheaper, even when they are 10X the power of the tube amp. So in terms of audio-experience/dollar, the SS amp is the winner.
> 
> A really good tube amp is quite the sonic experience, since they still have greater headroom than SS. But you have to be buying McIntosh quality to get this experience, and I know I've never been able to justify the expense, going back to 1968 when I first heard, and loved one.


I think the best solution is to build your own tube. 
http://diyaudioprojects.com/Solid/12AU7-IRF510-LM317-Headamp/:bigsmile:


----------



## gsmollin

If I were going to build another DIY amplifier, I would be using slicon-carbide JFETs in the output stage, just because I know I'll be the only kid on my block who has one. They may even sound good.


----------



## ricklgt350

I have mod'd Dynaco Mark IIIs, DIY cathode follower pre and a SACD connected to my Maggies (modd'd too). I think the tubes sound pretty nice.

I have swapped out to SS (Hafler 280 amp, modd'd 101 pre that I built in 79!) and it too sounds pretty nice.

I think it depends on what your listening habits are and how the gear fits together.

I'm also using a Bassman head (DIY) for practice and a (bigger) SS head for gigs.

I guess I like 'em both.


----------



## KptKrunch

ricklgt350 said:


> I guess I like 'em both.


Me too - I have both SS and Tube setups and I like the variety. Though the tube amps I have do not sound much different from the SS gear I have. 

I'm actually now leaning toward getting a tube preamp and a SS amp. I hear that can be a nice combination - and am leaning towards the manufacturer from Minnesota on this onder:


----------



## HillCountry

Since it seems there are some on this thread that have used SS and tubes and don't seem severly biased between the two I would like to ask for some insight. I've been mainly a SS person. I listened to tubes a few years ago but it was old equipment and, for all I know, had questionable tubes or some other issue. The tube amp sounded very 'fuzz' and it wasn't to my taste at all. I still have an interest in a tube amp but I want to find one that is cleaner sounding. I looked at the possibility of a Mcintosh MC-275 but if there was something less expensive that would be helpful. I have speakers with a powered sub so the amp would need to drive that. 80hz and upwards is 4 ohms +-1ohm so it's fairly consistant and should work well with tubes. Efficiency is 90db


----------



## gsmollin

I remember tube amplifiers from the 1960's. In 1968 I was running a DJ operation with a Bogen CHB-100 amplifier. I could fill _two_ gymnasiums with sound using that one amp. Now one of the gyms was almost empty, and I had the speakers tapped down in there, but imagine running even one gymnasium, with as many as 500 high school kids. I look back on how much we hammered that amp, and I have to say that we must have been clipping the h3ll out of it. I can imagine doing that today with a 1000W Crown, but without clipping. Therein lies the essential difference between tubes and solid state. When tubes "clip" it is a very soft and musical experience. When transistors clip, it is a very harsh and sudden transition. So a 75 W/ch tube stereo can be turned up into clipping, and you can still listen to the music. If you go solid state, you had better have a 500 W minimum to equal it, and maybe more. On the other hand, you can buy a 1000 W solid state amp for less than a 75 W tube amp, so there is no barrier. Just be careful with your speakers with that 1 kW monster.


----------



## lcaillo

This difference in the distortion content between tube and solid state amps is at the heart of how we measure amps, and is the threshold for where we began to largely fail at identifying the nature of what sounds how. Harmonic distortion and noise were, of course, very good ways to consider the performance of tube amps. As we learned almost two decades after your experience, there was much more to the story, and other characteristics that might be important in the sound quality of transistors. We found that TIM could be an important consideration in many amps, and a few other minor considerations, but overall, we still have little more than THD+noise as a reference spec for amps. Would it not be nice if there was a way of quantifying the differences between amps and relating them to what people claim to hear, and sort out what is really present as differences in performance and what is not? What if there was a better way to do this, and even better, what if it could be applied to other products, such as d/a converters, processors, preamps, and even speakers?


----------



## robbo266317

> Therein lies the essential difference between tubes and solid state. When tubes "clip" it is a very soft and musical experience. When transistors clip, it is a very harsh and sudden transition.


I think this sums it up completely! In the early days of transistor amplifiers no one was aware that:-
a) The headroom required from an amplifier has to be 10x the normal listening level to accurately recreate transient impulses. If you had to turned the amp up to the level which reached "hard" clipping then it was obviously seriously underpowered. This is why the valves with their "soft" clipping were perceived to sound better.

b) The distortion components also were not fully understood and poor design will always yield poor results. Nowadays there is no reason for a solid state amp to have any noticeable non-linearity if it has been designed properly.

Again, as I always say, put the two up against each other in a double blind test with an independent person recording the results and then see which you actually prefer.

After that - Buy the one _*you*_ like the sound of or can afford.


----------



## ricklgt350

gsmollin said:


> I remember tube amplifiers from the 1960's. In 1968 I was running a DJ operation with a Bogen CHB-100 amplifier. I could fill _two_ gymnasiums with sound using that one amp.


We used VOT speakers and 75w amps (either tube or SWTC Tigers). Plenty loud.

I'm probably the only guy that still have tiger monoblocks working (regulated to bench testing amps).


----------



## lcaillo

What kind of testing do you do?


----------



## ricklgt350

Mostly tube stuff but generally tube and SS hi fi audio and band gear.


----------



## gsmollin

ricklgt350 said:


> We used VOT speakers and 75w amps (either tube or SWTC Tigers). Plenty loud.
> 
> I'm probably the only guy that still have tiger monoblocks working (regulated to bench testing amps).


IF you are referring to the 35 W/channel "Tiger" amplifier than Dan Meyers sold from SWTPC, then you are not the only guy who still has them working. I have a Tiger stereo amplifier that was rebuilt on a new chassis with large heatsinks and TO-3 transistors (I got tired of TIP-35s failing). Admitedly, I haven't had it in a sound system since 1974. These days it mostly languishes in a box of old radio parts. I did use it at work a couple of years ago to drive some toroidal drive transformers for an Axially Focused Resistivity Sensor (AFR) I was developing. AFR runs at 4 khz and 36 kHz, and the Tiger acquitted itself admirably.

I used EV Musicasters with my Bogen CHB-100 amp. What are VOT speakers, and which 75 W amp did you use?


----------



## tsteves

One thing of value you might get with a late generation tube preamp over a new preamp in a receiver is quality equalization for TT. They do it on the cheap now, in most cases, whereas it was their priority back then.


----------



## lcaillo

In what way would it be better? At a similar price point to a tube preamp, you are likely to find solid state phono stages that are superior in almost every regard if there is one at all. There are very high quality solid state devices with which one can build a fine high gain stage with equalization very inexpensively.


----------



## gsmollin

Tubes-in-preamplifiers is another application where we have both schools of thought. My opinion is that the solid state designs are superior for sound reproduction because they have lower noise and distortion at low levels. For recording work many engineers still love tube front-ends because they have forgiving overload performance. You often can't control the levels at a microphone, especially when recording live performances. A tube preamp, properly designed, has a larger dynamic range than a solid state preamp, when you take the large-signal behavior into account. This is seldom carried on a spec sheet, maybe because it doesn't look pretty. Performance at 10% harmonic distortion may not be attractive on a spec sheet, but it's a real operating point with a 12AX7 tube. I think the only SS devices that can approach the overload performance of a triode are the high voltage JFET designs, and they are quieter. Not surprisingly, I use one of those.


----------



## lcaillo

Having nostalgia for tubes is one thing, but are there really recording engineers using tubes for mic preamps?


----------



## ricklgt350

gsmollin said:


> IF you are referring to the 35 W/channel "Tiger" amplifier than Dan Meyers sold from SWTPC. What are VOT speakers, and which 75 W amp did you use?


I have a couple of SWTPC mono tiger amps. Not sure the model number (275?) but these are rated at 60w and I recall measuring about 75w before clipping (and with a fan blowing on the T03 outputs). I've actually used the amps recently for a church event but *always* use a fan to keep them cool.

VOT=Altec Voice of Theater speakers. While some have these as home speakers, WAF is kind of low due to their large size.


----------



## gsmollin

lcaillo said:


> Having nostalgia for tubes is one thing, but are there really recording engineers using tubes for mic preamps?


Yes, really, and some of the favorite microphones in use in the recording inductry have the tube preamp built into the microphone.


----------



## tsteves

lcaillo
I'm not talking about really high quality solid state stuff built today or at the same time as the late tube amps. I'm talking about garden variety. From my experience they are bad, from reading a lot on the subject many people feel that inexpensive receivers today are horrid at EQ as well as sound quality for TT inputs. They don't don't do things properly to properly load a MC or MM cartridge. I'm not saying tube amps should be better in any way, but unless you want to spend a lot on a proper current preamp, you can do pretty well using an older high quality model from back when they really made phono stages a priority.


----------



## gsmollin

ricklgt350 said:


> I have a couple of SWTPC mono tiger amps. Not sure the model number (275?) but these are rated at 60w and I recall measuring about 75w before clipping (and with a fan blowing on the T03 outputs). I've actually used the amps recently for a church event but *always* use a fan to keep them cool.
> 
> VOT=Altec Voice of Theater speakers. While some have these as home speakers, WAF is kind of low due to their large size.


I didn't know there was a mono version of the Tiger. Mine is stereo. 

+1 on the Altec speakers. They are one of my all time favorites, along with EV's copy, the Sentry III. 75 W is a lot of power with those gorillas. I'll bet the WAF is a negative number.


----------



## gsmollin

tsteves said:


> lcaillo
> I'm not talking about really high quality solid state stuff built today or at the same time as the late tube amps. I'm talking about garden variety. From my experience they are bad, from reading a lot on the subject many people feel that inexpensive receivers today are horrid at EQ as well as sound quality for TT inputs. They don't don't do things properly to properly load a MC or MM cartridge. I'm not saying tube amps should be better in any way, but unless you want to spend a lot on a proper current preamp, you can do pretty well using an older high quality model from back when they really made phono stages a priority.


I've heard the same complaint from a vinyl lover I know. He tried the phono input on his Elite AV Receiver and promptly changed it.


----------



## tsteves

lcaillo said:


> Having nostalgia for tubes is one thing, but are there really recording engineers using tubes for mic preamps?


Lots of them! (mostly old school types)
Of coarse the s/n ratio on the latest really good solid stat preamps is so good that they don't have to worry about overloads, and the really good emulations give them the ability to add realistic tube amp type distortions when they want it.


----------



## ricklgt350

gsmollin said:


> I didn't know there was a mono version of the Tiger. Mine is stereo.


I'm pretty sure you could get 4 side by side in a 19" rack space. Not sure how tall (3 RU?). I worried they would burn up so I left a lot of space around them and used fans for frat parties (Cornwalls needed a lot of power  and other stupid stuff back in the day. 

A quick google images didn't find any pics of the mono blocks that I could point you to.


----------



## ricklgt350

gsmollin said:


> I've heard the same complaint from a vinyl lover I know. He tried the phono input on his Elite AV Receiver and promptly changed it.


a few friends did a phono pre shoot out with a few different pre amps and liked a DIY SS one the best (with only one cart). we really didn't have anything fancy (late 50's tweaked tube pre, early 70's McIntosh, early 80's Hafler, DIY SS, and others) but it was fun to listen to the differences. Might have been some 70's receivers too.

I really want to build a phono pre based on the RCA handbook schematic but not a current priority.

I don't know much about the new AV stuff (my 5.1 is 5 tube mono blocks, a couple of pre amps and a powered sub) but I'd dial in the RC for the particular cart.


----------



## angelod307

in a conversation with bob carver a couple of months ago, he made the statement that "you know, it only takes one tube to get that sound in your system". as i was talking about a sonic frontier hybrid preamp that i have, the sfl-1 which does just that. also as i was listening to his silver tube amps at carver fest, which does kill the talk of a average of 35wpc, the amps sounded well incredible. i thought about how much my ss carver tfm55's had a very simular sound, and if i did not know better, i would have said that those 20k vintage tube amps were indeed a solid state amp. as the discussion went on, the way bob described the interactions of a tube amplifier with the feedback of the speakers within a room and how all that interplay is what makes the entire experience magical. something that ss can't do by design. as i can't be quite as elaborite as bob, the room reflections that are picked up by the speakers that end back up int the tube amplifier to shape the sound a little more. also, if you ever want to take a ss amp and get it a little more tube like, then just add a 1 ohm 25 watt resistor inline with the speaker output to get either 85% or 95% (i forget which one he said) of what a tube amp would do. if you look at the sunfire and lightstar amps that he made, there is a current and/or voltage output on them. the resistor is what makes the difference. there are many reviews of these amps to be found. in my systems, 5.1 and two channel, i use a tube cd palyer to ss carver amps in both setups. first hand i can tell you, it is the pleasure that you get from listening to them that matters. the 20k tube amps did sound great, even awesome if i must, but it just made me realize that my 1k when new ss amps did much of the same thing (i could not tell that much difference really) and i have been enjoying them now for almost 20years. the biggest difference that i have heard recently is the addition of a jolida jd700mkII dvd unit with tube outputs as well as the normal, and a jolida jd100se cd player with the same tubes. when i compare it to the pioneer cld-704 laserdisc, yamaha dvs5750, toshiba sd3107 dvd, and yes even the carver sda-490t cd with tubes, they all have a darker, bass heavy sound that seemed to have a cloak or dampened sound as compared to the much more musical, tranparent and even a bit of bright sounding jolida's. the best part though as another member stated is that i will get some different tubes that will really make the cd and dvd unit magical. so, if that adds to the debate, there it is. oh, if anybody is interested, go to jolida.net for some awesome deals on their player's as well as other things tube in nature. cheers, angelo.


----------



## JoeESP9

Well, you could always get a Grant Fidelity DAC-09. It has five inputs including USB, coax and Toslink. It also has a switchable tube buffer, headphone output and a volume control. It can function as a preamp (great for computers) and best of all it costs $225.

Another option is the Emotiva XDA-1 at $299. It's absolutely gorgeous can function as a preamp and has a really nice aluminum bodied remote. Unfortunately it's already sold out and has no tubes.


----------

