solid state vs. tubes. Pros and Cons

[jtgofish]

How about a tube amp with a damping factor of 200.
All the old concerns about tube amps being speaker fussy will be negated.
These devices are on their way.
I can't divulge the source quite yet but when they are on the market I will let you know more.
These involve a radical new approach to cricuit design.

[E-Stat]

The fact that anyone owns a direct radiating speaker automatically puts you into Baboon territory -- maybe a gorilla or neanderthal man if you at least own a Crown and a Bose or AR 9.

That is Skeptic/Soundmind for sure!

Indeed, there is no point debating the issue further - I didn't realize TAH would continue his "but how about THIS graph, huh?" approach. My ears were opened to the irrelevancy of conventional metrics in 1972 when I took my AR Integrated amp to the McIntosh clinic. Measured great but ultimately sounded mediocre.

Bottom line for both of us: my solid state amp (a rather nice Threshold Stasis) doesn't reproduce a female voice on the Sound Labs as convincingly as the VTL 450s. Only one captures the emotion of the event.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Indeed, there is no point debating the issue further - I didn't realize TAH would continue his "but how about THIS graph, huh?" approach. My ears were opened to the irrelevancy of conventional metrics in 1972 when I took my AR Integrated amp to the McIntosh clinic. Measured great but ultimately sounded mediocre.

So after entering the thread with great flourish saying

It would require a lengthy essay to fully answer your question as this topic has raged on for decades. Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I confess my preference has changed as I have gotten older, (hopefully) wiser, and my musical tastes have evolved. Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion...

After much prodding to get you to back up your comments with some credible information. You provide absolutely nothing and exit there thread thread with a whimper saying

.Bottom line for both of us: my solid state amp (a rather nice Threshold Stasis) doesn't reproduce a female voice on the Sound Labs as convincingly as the VTL 450s. .

In other words, it was simple preference all along.. sigh...all that meandering ...when I prefer A to B and stopped there will have been sufficient and a lot more credible.

... The measurement technique was chosen long ago and favors SS and CD (over tube and Vinyl).

Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

(...music should be musical, not the playback gear...)

Well, we've had this debate numerous times, That in principal the argument makes sense but in reality, given the current SOTA [let alone mid-fi], that there are so many issues and processes that manipulate the finish product [disc or album] that the integrity to the source argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I mean what exactly is "the source"? What happened at the point of creation or what you hold in your hand? And would the musicains even reconizie that? The way I see it there are many people involved in the final product that touches your ears. Untill we have a universal playback system, where we can eliminate the effects of [replay] technology we should admit that we [system builders] are involved in this process and that at this point of it's development there are so many embellishments - beyond the point of creation - that there isn't a "universal truth".

And honestly, I don't know if that is what I would prefer. As I feel my involvement in the process is something I enjoy. And for all the talk about "distortion" and "inaccuracy" that is not the impression my playback system leaves the listener. Not that that is paramount to me. My intention was to assemble a vehicle to transport me to places I could never visit, not build the impossible. And I think if we ever were able to perfectly reproduce sound with some universal playback "component" that would kill the hobby as we know it.

[theaudiohobby]

(...music should be musical, not the playback gear...)

I largely disagree with these comments because it assumes an underlying premise that is everybody seeks neutral playback, which is highly unlikely as audio is like many other scenarios, folks preferences are all over the map.

I am of the opinion that everybody should be given free rein to build a system in whatever manner pleases them, whatever it takes for the individual to enjoy his/her music will suffice. Your misgivings are entirely rational and simply underline the fact that in many situations our musical enjoyment is derived from more just the actual sound that emanates from our audio systems or the fact sometimes we prefer to have our own stamp on the sound that emanates from the system.

Measurements are no more than simple markers in the ground to define the objectiive performance of components. The main problem I see here is that some folk attempt rather unsuccessfully to couch their preferences in terms of objective performance, the misguided appeal to authority prevalent in many audio circles is unfortunate, and more often than not it makes many audiophiles the subject of well deserved ridicule.

[RGA]

Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.

Ahh the depth of your ability to misrepresent others -- there is more to measurements than distortion -- which umm I did not mention. .

[Feanor]

That is Skeptic/Soundmind for sure!
...
rw

Amongst all the rest of this, he is a socio-economic "Objectivist" too, viz. an Ayn Rand supporter. This renders all his preferences irrelevant to me.

[theaudiohobby]

... there is more to measurements than distortion -- which umm I did not mention. .

How about telling us which measurements were formulated to make vinyl or tubes look bad? Is it SNR, FR, IMD, rumble or wow and flutter?

Hint: All the measurements preceded CD. SNR, FR and IMD preceded transistors.

[Feanor]

...

In other words, it was simple preference all along.. sigh...all that meandering ...when I prefer A to B and stopped there will have been sufficient and a lot more credible.

Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.

... is lacking still. It ought to be possible to devise experiments that could determine which characteristics of reproduced sound most pleasing to the human ear. This sort of research might some day unify 'objective' measurement with 'subjective' impressions. Some research has been done, I gather, but the results are inconclusive. It remains an hypothesis that lower order and/or even order harmonic distortion is more agreeable than high order and/or odd order harmonics.

At this point it's pretty clear that all objective measurements indicate the SS is more accurate that tubes, but not perfectly accurate, nor inaccurate in the same way as tubes. So there is no conclusion possible as to which is psycho-accoustically better.

I'm content with solid state, at least with the likes of my "digital" Bel Canto; (granted, my old Phase Linear sounded pretty grim on last listening). Then again I'm blessed in two respects:

1. At 61, I'm stone deaf to sounds much above 10kHz, and
2. I can't afford a high-end set up of the sort that seems to drive out the differences for some audiophiles.

So I just enjoy the music oblivious to what I'm missing.

[E-Stat]

Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.

Thirty years of listening continues to prove to these ears that the numbers alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.

Solid state reproduction is more like smelling the scent of say cinnamon from an air freshener. While clear and distinct, it lacks the body and nuance of the real thing. Wtih tubes, voices and unamplififed instruments reveal more of their harmonic structure and possess better depth.

Yes, more realistic musical reproduction is my preference.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Thirty years of listening continues to prove to these ears that the numbers alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.

In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Solid state reproduction is more like smelling the scent of say cinnamon from an air freshener. While clear and distinct, it lacks the body and nuance of the real thing. With tubes, voices and unamplified instruments reveal more of their harmonic structure and possess better depth.

Well said. The real difference at hand is that some guys engage things more from a analytical angle while others embrace their passions emotionally. Considering the subject at hand - music - I'll stick with the later.

[Geoffcin]

In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.

I see nowhere in your posts that tells me the metrics used today are an accurate discription of the sonic performance of an amp. Far from it, to me the most commonly used one, THD, is only the most basic reading of performance. Audio engineers still have not figured out the correct metrics for amps yet. A simple educated listen will tell you that.
You do listen to different amps right?

[Geoffcin]

Well said. The real difference at hand is that some guys engage things more from a analytical angle while others embrace their passions emotionally. Considering the subject at hand - music - I'll stick with the later.

My SS amp will not fit that mould, and any of many other good ones too.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

My SS amp will not fit that mould, and any of many other good ones too.

No offense intended. My comment wasn't about tubes vs SS. I just found his comments reflective of what attracts me to my amplification choice. It was more about how you engage audio, not your preference in the delivery devices.

[Geoffcin]

No offense intended. My comment wasn't about tubes vs SS. I just found his comments reflective of what attracts me to my amplification choice. It was more about how you engage audio, not your preference in the delivery devices.

I feel that a TRUE audiophile (and I'm not afraid to call myself that) is on who always looking for the path to audio nirvana, wherever it may lead. Much like the quest for the grail, it is the journey that is the true calling.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

I've never been afraid to call my an audiophile, even when some people would have you believe that is a bad thing. I pursued the "absolute sound" even if my intrepretation didn't exactly fit the precise definition. I was striving for more, given my means. That was then. These days I think I've turned in my "audiophile card" as I'm no longer searching. Not that I've found "the truth" but I'm comfortable and happy with where I'm at. Admittedly my system is no closer to perfection than it was four years ago but save for a recent cable upgrade [the 1st in three years] I'm not sure my behavior or attitude fits the profile of "audiophile". Not that I think of that term as some sort of badge of honor, instead just a descriptor.

[Feanor]

I've never been afraid to call my an audiophile, even when some people would have you believe that is a bad thing. ....

Mwalsdor, Geoff,

I've already denounced myself as an inadequate audiophile: too willing to accept "good enough", too pragmatic. And not sufficiently dedicated to compare components for hours on end to conclude that, perhaps, there is some tiny difference among them. I accept too that the differences I do think I hear might be imaginary, conditioned by my expectations, my mood, my fatigue level, ambient noise, or the time of day.

I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.

[theaudiohobby]

I see nowhere in your posts that tells me the metrics used today are an accurate discription of the sonic performance of an amp. Far from it, to me the most commonly used one, THD, is only the most basic reading of performance. Audio engineers still have not figured out the correct metrics for amps yet. A simple educated listen will tell you that.
You do listen to different amps right?

What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?

Amplifiers are used in many other industries apart from audio and they do not have any issues defining the electrical performance of amplifiers. I mentioned some of the metrics in the post to RGA, though for audio, power delivery as a function of frequency and output impedance is a very important metric. In domestic audio, the specific electrical performance is not nearly as important as long as the product reasonably satisfies the expections of the consumer (which may be totally unrelated to its electrical performance) and is electrically safe( legal requirement). This is a characteristic that audio shares in common a number of other domestic products such TVs, cellphones etc. It is important to state that preferences will follow a bell curve, distribution, though a majority may prefer a core set of characteritics, but there will be those on both sides on the curve with more esoteric preferences for a variety of reasons.

THD was documented as inadequate as far back as the 1950's, before transistors had widespread application in audio amplifiers, THD is largely used for equipment specifications as opposed to a metric for performance measurement, much in the same same way that nominal impedance is for speakers. As it is a summation generally specified at a specific frequency, power and output impedance. However it a single number therefore easy to read ,tha explains its prevalance of a means of specification.

I have not suggested anywhere that audio amplifiers do not sound different, they do for a variety of non-esoteric reasons. However, E-stat's air refreshner example brings up the old DBT chestnut, will he or any person be able to tell the aroma of real cinnamon and from that of an air refreshner (designed to duplicate the aroma exactly) under blind conditions? A specific example of the critical importance of this phenomenon in operation is supermarkets that spray "fresh bread" air refreshners towards the entrance to lure folks towards the fresh bread bakery , Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.

[Geoffcin]

What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?
Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.

Engineers have "cracked the code" so to speak, on being able to imitate the performance of tubed based units through the use of DSP. My daughter's Fender G-DEC can emulate the sounds of many other amps, and it's quite fun to play with it. However, the thread at hand is "Tubes vs. SS. Pros vs. Cons as it applies to home audio. Right now, at least in the home audio arena, we do not have emulating amps. (although my conjecture is it's only a matter of time)

[Geoffcin]

Mwalsdor, Geoff,

I've already denounced myself as an inadequate audiophile: too willing to accept "good enough", too pragmatic. And not sufficiently dedicated to compare components for hours on end to conclude that, perhaps, there is some tiny difference among them. I accept too that the differences I do think I hear might be imaginary, conditioned by my expectations, my mood, my fatigue level, ambient noise, or the time of day.

I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.

But your affliction is still most apparent!

[theaudiohobby]

However, the thread at hand is "Tubes vs. SS. Pros vs. Cons as it applies to home audio. Right now, at least in the home audio arena, we do not have emulating amps. (although my conjecture is it's only a matter of time)

The same applies to home audio, however the resultant implications are one of the of many reasons audiophiles hate DBTs as it takes the sting out of the tail of some very treasured myths.

[RGA]

How about telling us which measurements were formulated to make vinyl or tubes look bad? Is it SNR, FR, IMD, rumble or wow and flutter?

Hint: All the measurements preceded CD. SNR, FR and IMD preceded transistors.

do your own homework as it is apparent you have not (see wow and flutter -- see dynamic range as two starting points on changes in measuring). You want people who prefer tube amps to say SS measures better? (since I can see no other reason for your dead horse beating posts -- well you have it from me -- SS measures better -- is the baby happy now that he has his milk?

[RGA]

In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers and their relevance to actual performance or perception and as a result you are not in a position to make judgement as to the appropriateness of the numbers. Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance, only assurance of your particular amplifier preferences.

Actually I am fully capable of running a Double Blind experiment and in the psychology aspect of this test (which is the ONLY RELEVANT field) I will be happy to oblige. I tried but you say it is too inconvenient.

Please tell me what it is exactly you wish to prove -- that in controlled listening people will prefer SS to tubes -- if so which SS which tubes which speakers which people are listening, how long and then where is your irrifutable proof? The implication you make is that people who buy tubes are being fooled -- either by the romanticism of tubes (the look the retroness of it all) or by the pleasing sound. ALL of these are very plausible things to hypothesize and any amateur scientist would be remiss not to at least have this enter their heads. Proving this hypothesis has certainly not been established by you or anyone else.

You are misrepresenting E-STAT -- he is talking about his preference which he has said numerous times -- then you create a STRAW MAN argument "Thirty years of listening does not provide any expertise in amplifier design or performance," great where did he say tht 30 years of listening made him an expert on amplifier design? I get the feeling - in fact I know - you are merely a blowhard who likes to create an argument where none exists. Having someone who likes tubes try to wrestle with the fact that gee there is something to this preference as SOOOOO many people who started with SS and wonderous measuring equipment go to tubes and usually HE stuff that measures worse there is an intangible element they are trying to explain. Intangible means not fully understood, but there's obviously something in it because we're not all deaf. And the hypotheses I mentioned above may have some influence -- but then again that certainly has NEVER been established even remotely - directly stated or implied.

Of course SS measures better than SET and tubes --- the issue is what sounds better -- and I see zero evidence from you or anyone else that has irrifutably or otherwise proved this over long term valid listening - or in the usual invalid blind sessions or otherwise.

[RGA]

What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?

Amplifiers are used in many other industries apart from audio and they do not have any issues defining the electrical performance of amplifiers. I mentioned some of the metrics in the post to RGA, though for audio, power delivery as a function of frequency and output impedance is a very important metric. In domestic audio, the specific electrical performance is not nearly as important as long as the product reasonably satisfies the expections of the consumer (which may be totally unrelated to its electrical performance) and is electrically safe( legal requirement). This is a characteristic that audio shares in common a number of other domestic products such TVs, cellphones etc. It is important to state that preferences will follow a bell curve, distribution, though a majority may prefer a core set of characteritics, but there will be those on both sides on the curve with more esoteric preferences for a variety of reasons.

THD was documented as inadequate as far back as the 1950's, before transistors had widespread application in audio amplifiers, THD is largely used for equipment specifications as opposed to a metric for performance measurement, much in the same same way that nominal impedance is for speakers. As it is a summation generally specified at a specific frequency, power and output impedance. However it a single number therefore easy to read ,tha explains its prevalance of a means of specification.

I have not suggested anywhere that audio amplifiers do not sound different, they do for a variety of non-esoteric reasons. However, E-stat's air refreshner example brings up the old DBT chestnut, will he or any person be able to tell the aroma of real cinnamon and from that of an air refreshner (designed to duplicate the aroma exactly) under blind conditions? A specific example of the critical importance of this phenomenon in operation is supermarkets that spray "fresh bread" air refreshners towards the entrance to lure folks towards the fresh bread bakery , Another example, I gather was published in the EE monthly were some electric guitarists were fooled by a solid state amplifier that was voiced to sound like a tube amplifier. Inherent to the last example, is the fact that the electrical performance of a specific amplifier can be defined and emulated in a totally different product.

Great would you be up to a challenge of "let's find the tube amp" if I let you listen to ten amplifiers and one is a tube amp -- in a blind test do you think you can know for certain which one is the tube amp? The SS amps will all be pre-tested as being indistinguishable from each other -- the only different amp will be a tube amp that I am familiar with. Tube amps you must not have much experience with -- this notion that one can make a SS amp sound like a tube amp implies that tube amps have a homogeneious sound (all tubes share the same traits). I know a number of people who thought it was a SS amp playing (and no it't not Audio Note to get this out of the way now). Seems to me this maker made his tube amp to sound like a SS amp -- big deal.

Lots of imitation products are made to fool consumers into thinking the "it's not butter butter" is the real thing -- my question is always with the magic is great it worked in the test environment but after eating the "it's not butter butter" and then going back to the real thing what happened then (that critical part of the test is never done." Goes back to speakers that "wow" you on the showroom floor as being "highly detailed with great resolution to holy cow this is an ear grating brain fatiguing pile of junk after a couple of months."

Digital technology can do a lot of wonderful things that can make you believe you are seeing something you are not -- and the first run through you may not pick up the illusion -- or the second or the third -- but quite often you will see the trick or the light in the CGI and yeah that is fake after all. It took a lot of folks a long time to realize that Deodato's 2001 version was completely made by computers -- no real instruments whatseover - or that the original Doctor Who theme is not digital and is not even an orchestra but ONE piano string. The "people can be fooled" argument is tired -- they are not foled forever.

This is why there are absolutely laughable arguments on forums with some putz who says gee I put a transister in the speaker wire and I folled the listener into thinking it was a tube amp -- and this person who was fooled who is he and the experiment for me to reproduce it is posted where? And which Tube amp? They all sound the same I guess.