solid state vs. tubes. Pros and Cons

[theaudiohobby]

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.

I am still waiting for you to set up the Quad ESL v. Audio J/Spe blind test after over 7months, .

[E-Stat]

In the most polite terms possible, your contribution to this thread (and other threads) strongly indicate that you know very little about the numbers ...

May you enjoy your numbers.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

May you enjoy your numbers.

rw

Point of correction, it is may you enjoy the music and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.

[musicoverall]

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.

The test I participated in certainly showed where the myth was i.e all cables sound alike. The question of cables sounding different has now been answered - the next question is WHY do they sound different.

Anyway, the main reason I'd never do another is it was a PITA!!!! It was very stressful, even though the point of my test was to be able to identify (or not) two DUT's during a normal relaxing listening session. When there is an agenda other than the simple joy of music, it changes a rewarding relaxing experience to a "job", thereby causing stress. And yes, that goes for sighted auditions, too!

[musicoverall]

Point of correction, it is may you enjoy the music and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.

The numbers "can" be a good aid in that cause. I agree with you that it's all about preferences. I also agree that whether or not most audiophiles admit it (or understand it), we are all seeking not sonic neutrality but rather the particular variety of colorations that we find most pleasant. By "pleasant" I mean whatever combination of items makes our systems most closely resemble our memory of live music. That may or may not be a measurably "accurate" piece of equipment... and it doesn't really matter.

I had the extreme displeasure of listening to a system composed of the most "accurate" by-the-numbers system awhile back... a very well respected speaker brand, solid state electronics, CD player and basic cables. The recording was a good one and this "accurate" system made it sound like hammered sh*t to my ears. It would have been perfect to offset a muddy recording but good recordings suffered.

That example is what I think E-Stat meant when he said "enjoy the numbers". Quite honestly, that system was one of the very few I've ever heard (including an old GE console stereo playing scratched up 78's) that would cause me NOT to want to listen to music.

[Geoffcin]

Anyway, the main reason I'd never do another is it was a PITA!!!! It was very stressful, even though the point of my test was to be able to identify (or not) two DUT's during a normal relaxing listening session. When there is an agenda other than the simple joy of music, it changes a rewarding relaxing experience to a "job", thereby causing stress. And yes, that goes for sighted auditions, too!

Even something as simple as switching out amps can be a PITA. Try that three or four times, waiting each time till the amps stablize, play the same music selections over several times, bla-bla-bla. It simply takes all the joy out it.

[Resident Loser]

...I was asking have you ever tried any in your stereo? If you haven't how can you "diss" them outright?

...utilize urban utterances...I have no disrespect for the technology...it has a long (over a hunnert years) and important history...and quite to the contrary, anything that will allow me to listen to Talking Heads "Life During Wartime" after being subjected to a thermonuclear EMP gets a hats-off from me...And I mean the old DuMont wouldn't have worked without 'em...I pretty sure the radio in my father's Studebaker had 'em...

Triodes, pentodes...the point is I don't see much innovation coming from the technology...You can maybe design more efficient circuitry around them, but the basic premise has been around since around 1875...electrons jumping around in a vacuum...Last big thing was miniaturization...I don't see any American companies producing them...You have to rely on Sovtek or Chinese items or NOS from jobbed companies like Lafayette...All of which equates to inflated prices...and for what? Can't even bring them to Davega's tube-tester...ain't no Davega's...ain't no public tube-testers.

Maybe when vinyl was produced using tubed gear there might have been some sort of synergy or rationale for using valves, but now it's all pretty much digital and SS used in the production end of the industry...tubed playback would seem to be the weakest link in the chain...

I'm not sayin' it's bad, just why bother...the argument for musicality, or depth or soundstage is really a pipe-dream given today's software...it's all contrived, built in a lab...

Maybe I'll just don my smoking jacket, fill my Kaywoodie with some Amphora and spin some Mantovoni on the Garrard...perhaps that beehived blondie will slip off her opera gloves and we can get frisky...

jimHJJ(...Ahhh! An ice-cold Michelob in a tall pilsner glass will help set the mood...)

[E-Stat]

That example is what I think E-Stat meant when he said "enjoy the numbers".

Not exactly. I just think that the metrics do not a complete picture paint. Remember those who thought the first gen CD players were good? The engineers either didn't know what they didn't know or vastly underestimated the damage wrought by jitter and the analog brick wall filters..

Quite honestly, that system was one of the very few I've ever heard (including an old GE console stereo playing scratched up 78's) that would cause me NOT to want to listen to music.

There is a debate among some who think that the very best systems will always sound worse with poor recordings than lesser systems since they reveal all the sins. I don't believe that. True, a recording may be flat and non-dimensional, bright, thin, etc., but unless the media was worn, I just hear what's there. Untamed RF, on the other hand, can instill a hard, edgy character to some systems in my experience.

rw

[E-Stat]

I'm not sayin' it's bad, just why bother...the argument for musicality, or depth or soundstage is really a pipe-dream given today's software...it's all contrived, built in a lab.

I believe this is one of the reasons why opinions vary. I listen to quite a few "uncontrived" recordings with acoustical instruments or voice. Perhaps if my choice of music (and recordings) were different, I might share your viewpoint.

Ahhh! An ice-cold Michelob in a tall pilsner glass will help set the mood.

I'll drink to that!

rw

[musicoverall]

[QUOTE=Resident Loser

Maybe I'll just don my smoking jacket, fill my Kaywoodie with some Amphora and spin some Mantovoni on the Garrard...perhaps that beehived blondie will slip off her opera gloves and we can get frisky...

jimHJJ(...Ahhh! An ice-cold Michelob in a tall pilsner glass will help set the mood...)[/QUOTE]

For me that would be an Ashton Pebble Grain filled with McClelland's #24 and some Coltrane on the VPI with an ice cold Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale. Beehived blondies welcome!

[musicoverall]

Not exactly. I just think that the metrics do not a complete picture paint. rw

Sometimes they paint something not even close to complete.

I think they should be used as a guideline but, as in my example, measured accuracy can be painful to listen to!

[Resident Loser]

For me that would be an Ashton Pebble Grain filled with McClelland's #24 and some Coltrane on the VPI with an ice cold Samuel Smith's Nut Brown Ale. Beehived blondies welcome!

...to keep it all somewhat comtemporaneous with the technology...'Trane would fit, I'm not sure of the rest, although the McClelland may be a bit much for a roomfull of blondie...

jimHJJ(...besides, nowadays some trail-mix and Poland spring are more to my, and my brunette sweetie's, liking...)

[musicoverall]

...to keep it all somewhat comtemporaneous with the technology...'Trane would fit, I'm not sure of the rest, although the McClelland may be a bit much for a roomfull of blondie...

jimHJJ(...besides, nowadays some trail-mix and Poland spring are more to my, and my brunette sweetie's, liking...)

I just hadn't heard anyone mention Kaywoodie since the early 1980's and even then they were considered relics of a bygone era... which was obviously what you were saying in the first place!

[theaudiohobby]

Hi musicoverall,

I am glad that you largely agree with me with respect to preferences and 'actual' goals when we seek to build an audio system, This issue I discussed a while back with another and here are someof my comments on that occasion..

but my point here is simply not everyone will prefer a flat measuring speaker for their particular circumstances. A recording professional may need to insist on flat measuring speaker for their particular situation, but there absolutely no requirement for home audio speaker to be flat measuring, its first and foremost goal is to provide musical enjoyment to its owner, if it deviates from flat to achieve that, so be it.

Moving away from that to discuss metrics for a fiew moments, I am reasonably confident that metrics give a very good picture of the electrical performance of various components, but they do not give a good picture various individual preference, neither are not intended for that purpose. Saying that, metrics available from hobbyists magazines such as Soundstage and Stereophile were never intended to provide complete picture, but a snapshot of the performance of the equipment under review and should be seem as such. As a result any person who uses measurements in hobbyist magazines as basis to criticize the measurement regime as inadequate is grossly mistaken and very green with respect objective assessment in general. Owing to the nature of the market, there is a paucity of technical information for domestic audio products, this is in contrast to professional audio area where some pretty comprehensive performance measurement information is available for many products.

Your experience with the "most accurate by-the-numbers" system is unfotunate and suggests to me that it was probably not accurate at all even though it may have had flat requency respone, as the hallmark of accurate systems is their even handedness over a very wide range of recordings.

[RGA]

The numbers "can" be a good aid in that cause. I agree with you that it's all about preferences. I also agree that whether or not most audiophiles admit it (or understand it), we are all seeking not sonic neutrality but rather the particular variety of colorations that we find most pleasant. By "pleasant" I mean whatever combination of items makes our systems most closely resemble our memory of live music. That may or may not be a measurably "accurate" piece of equipment... and it doesn't really matter.

I had the extreme displeasure of listening to a system composed of the most "accurate" by-the-numbers system awhile back... a very well respected speaker brand, solid state electronics, CD player and basic cables. The recording was a good one and this "accurate" system made it sound like hammered sh*t to my ears. It would have been perfect to offset a muddy recording but good recordings suffered.

That example is what I think E-Stat meant when he said "enjoy the numbers". Quite honestly, that system was one of the very few I've ever heard (including an old GE console stereo playing scratched up 78's) that would cause me NOT to want to listen to music.

Yes there are numerous stress ralated issues in the DBT for audio that clearly negativly impact these tests. While my field is indirectly related to this I am fairly well versed in psychology and very well versed in the "test" environment and brain cognition (which includes the five senses). Engineers look at the DBT I assume strictly from the medical science creation of it decades ago -- test seems logical and there are a bunch of statistics -- but they don't really understand the big picture of the test and what it is showing versus what it outa be showing. But going into this more is too time consuming and they would not get it anyway I suspect.

[RGA]

I am still waiting for you to set up the Quad ESL v. Audio J/Spe blind test after over 7months, .

I challenged two owners of the Quads -- one of them was you, no? -- and both backed out claiming it was too inconvenient. One lived not far from me. He invited me to audition his but everytime I agreed he backed out claiming his sound was not good because of the room or because the new sub integration -- it was always something. My Dealer who onwed the 20.1, and several other big boys such as $40k Soundlabs said that while he liked some of them the biggest issue he always had was just like this fellow putting me on the "another time" burner seems to have ...he could never get them to actually work properly -- you move em this way or that and something got better but what got worse was much worse and he and several other owners of such speakers I know personally all have the exact same things to say. I have listened to a lot of panels over the years so there is nothing overly mystic to me about them - They simply have problems that are too prominant for my tastes. This is a preference -- I would take a number of big horns over any panel I have so far heard -- though I can point to "more" flaws it comes down to being so superior in what they do so well and the value I place upon those so far that would have me spend on something like a Klipschhorn over the Apogee Duetta Sig and the stats and planars I have heard from ML, Innersound, and Magnepan. I knew a gu who owned both the K-horn and the Prodigy and he was also a salesman -- it was not hard to get access to very good stuff and the education of what really works for me and my view of the reproduction.

One of the big reasons I'm not going to say another bad word about Quad is because three owners of AN E's who all used to own Quads still say to me such great things about them - (and 2 of these guys in Quads defense who went to the E went to em simply because their Quads were beyond repair that they even bothered to throw their hat back into the audiophile world). There are simply far too many Audio Note lovers who also love Quad for me not to give it a FAR more serious second go-around - but next time with gear that dealers are not just trying to flog but gear owners believe really makes em sing. Hell Quad hired Andy Grove to boot so those Brit companies seem to be a little more on the same side than the average consumer knows about.

All of this is off the original topic -- if you want to associate "better measurements" with "better perceived sound reproduction" -- well even John Atkinson replied to me that his measurements don't indicate that in the least (which is obvious to anyone who reads the reviewers comments). Of course in fairness to you you never directly state such a thing -- you imply it to death but you know you have no proof of such an absurdity so you would rather imply, imply, imply, and perhaps a few people will think it is so.

[Florian]

We LOVE AudioNote boxes. Where can i trade my Aps for them?

[musicoverall]

Your experience with the "most accurate by-the-numbers" system is unfotunate and suggests to me that it was probably not accurate at all even though it may have had flat requency respone, as the hallmark of accurate systems is their even handedness over a very wide range of recordings.

This system is a testament to the need to listen to components before buying. The specs may not tell the whole story. There's also the interaction between the components and the interaction of one's listening environment.

I absolutely agree that we seek listening pleasure, not flat frequency response (necessarily) or so-called accuracy. We may try very hard to do both, and we should. But the bottom line is we listen to the system and decide what we like.

[musicoverall]

Yes there are numerous stress ralated issues in the DBT for audio that clearly negativly impact these tests. While my field is indirectly related to this I am fairly well versed in psychology and very well versed in the "test" environment and brain cognition (which includes the five senses). Engineers look at the DBT I assume strictly from the medical science creation of it decades ago -- test seems logical and there are a bunch of statistics -- but they don't really understand the big picture of the test and what it is showing versus what it outa be showing. But going into this more is too time consuming and they would not get it anyway I suspect.

Do you think correct answers under dbt are harder for hearing than for sight, taste, smell? Ok, I think sight is a given but how about the other two?

If you have a high level of knowledge of the test environment AND brain cognition, your insight into dbt could be quite valuable on this board.

Oh, and I still owe you for recommending the Audio Note DAC.

[JoeE SP9]

...jimHJJ(...Ahhh! An ice-cold Michelob in a tall pilsner glass will help set the mood...)

Because the thermionic valve is a mature technology is no reason to discount it. When the next BIG war comes I'll be listening to music to the end while your SS gear succombs to the EMP's. Michelob!? I could be snide and say your taste in beer is reflected in your taste in gear. Seriously, anyone who likes the taste of pilsner beer (virtually all American beer) should give Pilsner Urquell a try. It's why they call it pilsner.

[Florian]

I am sorry but Americans cant make beer. We checked in 120 Americans in our Hotel and after a visit to Munich they came back loaded. And the guy told me he had 1 Mass of beer. Hahaha

[JoeE SP9]

Hey Flo, there are some very good American beers. Samuel Adams is one Yuengling is another. I would drink either in place of my two favorites Chimay Grand Reserve and Pilsner Urquell. It's just the major breweries like Anheuser Bush and Miller that make that watered down swill.

[Feanor]

... To drink beer.

For example
....

[JoeE SP9]

... To drink beer.

For example
....

Sorry Feanor. Canadian beer doesn't taste much better than American beer to me. You can keep your Moulson. Give me a Becks, or a Grolsch. I'd really rather have one of my favorites but beggers can't be choosey.

[Feanor]

Sorry Feanor. Canadian beer doesn't taste much better than American beer to me. You can keep your Moulson. Give me a Becks, or a Grolsch. I'd really rather have one of my favorites but beggers can't be choosey.

Well I don't drink Molson either. The smaller brewers is where the great beers are. Sleeman's for example is a small-medium brewer and makes a super product that gives up very little to anyone.

For imports, I do like Kronenbourg, but it's hard to get in sourthern Ontario.