Tube vs Solid State?

[bpaulovich]

Can somone tell me why the tubes are so highly thought of yet the WPC are so much lower than solid states? In other words, why such a high price for only 25-35 watts with a tuber? How can such a low wattage give such a great sound. Want something (sterio) good for medium voulume classical/jazz in a fairly large room, currently have JBL Decade 26's, may upgrade them, but I just like the accurate highs. Currently have an intergrated Yamaha A-500 (100 watt I think? -bought used) Novice here of course. Thanks in advance, bobpaulo

[topspeed]

Can somone tell me why the tubes are so highly thought of yet the WPC are so much lower than solid states? In other words, why such a high price for only 25-35 watts with a tuber? How can such a low wattage give such a great sound. Want something (sterio) good for medium voulume classical/jazz in a fairly large room, currently have JBL Decade 26's, may upgrade them, but I just like the accurate highs. Currently have an intergrated Yamaha A-500 (100 watt I think? -bought used) Novice here of course. Thanks in advance, bobpaulo

Bob, this is question that has been debated since the dawn of time (or at the very least, the dawn of the transistor).

Here's my take: It's an absolute myth that tubes don't/can't provide the same wpc as ss. However, it's easier and usually far cheaper to get a truckload of wpc from a ss vs. tube. That said, wpc is all about bragging rights for the most part. Sort of a techno-geek's version of mine is bigger than yours. Consider that the vast majority of speakers are rated for anywhere from 84db-99db (or higher) at 1 WATT measured at 1 meter. That's just 1 WATT! Believe me, 84db is plenty loud and 99db is approaching ridiculously loud! Now, it takes TWICE the watts to affect a 3db increase. Therefore, a 200 watt amp will be 3db louder than a 100watt amp. Barely noticeable. So you can see, massive watts are nice but not necessarily the best way to judge an amp. More watts will allow more headroom for fast transients and might be better for really tough loads. Current is far more important, imo. Which would you rather have: 35 watts of pristine, gorgeous power or 200 watts of grating, etched, crap?

Now then, why are low wattage tubes so expensive? They certainly don't have to be (witness ASL) but given the market and opportunity, lord knows they can be (see Hovland, Cary, ARC, and hundreds others).
One fact is that the parts in tubes are simply more expensive than ss. A transistor is what, 20 cents? A vintage Svetlana tube can be hideously expensive by comparison. Bare in mind tho, that ss amps can be every bit as overpriced as tubes. A solid state Krell Master Reference is $75,000usd...EACH! Bottom line, all amps are as expensive as they are because the market allow them to be. This is especially true in the "hi-end" where mythology, black magic, and in particular ego run rampant.

Finally, tubes vs. ss is simply personal preference. Broad generalization are that tubes offer better musicality and are more euphonic (some would say "colored") sound than ss. SS proponents claim they have more accurate highs and much better slam and energy in the lower octaves. Digital amps are a new technology and they claim the best of both worlds. Are any of these true? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Which one is best for you? Go listen to as many as you can matched to your speakers and then you tell us. It's your taste, your room, and most importantly your money.

Good luck and buy what moves you.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

... as it's very helpful. First off, speakers and amplification [whether tubes or SS] need to considered TOGETHER. The higher your speakers efficiency the less wpc you'll need [fact]. The next issue is that of what exactly are're paying [or looking] for; wpc, aesthetics, build quality, topology, sound [or lack of artifacts or possibly they're introduction]. Cost doesn't relate to one and not the other factors. I.E. the most powerful amp is not always the most expensive. And power isn't the sole consideration from your amplification. Trust me, the attraction of tubes has nothing to do with wpc. The short answer, is that proponents believe they sound more lifelike than SS and make the replay experience more enjoyable. And judging by my avatar and signature link, which do you think I prefer? Naturally, YMMV.

MikE

[300A]

1) Read the 3 articles under the the posting 3 interesting articles. They describe just about everything you need to know.

2) Wattage has absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the quality of sound. In fact, go down and listen to a string bass live, then go home and listen to SS system of string bass. Many SS amps and speakers bloat the bass, making it appear to have more, but it is Not accurate. Electrolytic caps are a main reason for bass bloating. Some SS amps are great in the bass, just depends.

3) High cost is do to expensive high quality parts (superior sounding parts) used in tube amps, and SS amps. For example, some sonically superior resistors cost $5.00/resistor.

There are cheap tube amps out there that sound like crap, using the same crappy cheap parts. The price usually reflects the quality. You usually don't get something for nothing. (However, some may sacrifice some portion, like cosmetics, or long lasting parts etc.)

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Why the very old [pre-1935] and obscure monikor? Do you have some? Considering they're cost, pray tell actually use them!? Or is it just an "older is better" thing? I'm partial to single-plates in 2a3s and globes in 45s myself but the later has been replaced by a current production 45 tube. Which is very hard to believe but so is the fact that anyone would build them again. And actually, there are now more than just one manufacturer building that tube type today. As for me, usually I'm of the "older is better" mindset, least with my valves... but not my women!

MikE

[DMK]

[QUOTE=Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]... And power isn't the sole consideration from your amplification.

With my speakers which are 103 db sensitive, 100 or 200 watts would be superfluous! Hell, even the 25 in the tube amp I use aren't all necessary.

The reason we use tubes is just as you said - they are more lifelike sounding, or "live-like" sounding than SS. I don't find the difference between tubes and SS to be nearly as dramatic as the sound of vinyl is superior to CD, but the diffs are musically significant.

[RGA]

First of all be careful of those that claim Tubes are superior than SS. They can be but not always.

Like the others have said - most of the power you get from your speakers are generated by the first watt....many speakers require more watts for dynamics because they are not perfect at efficiency devices.

In the 1970s the Sugden A21 was one of the best amplifeirs available at a mere 10 watts and it would drive practically anything. Interestingly the Sugden's are not High Current amplifiers. Another misnomer that does not equate to good sound. High current is need because of less effiecent careless speaker builders who make speakers that require huge beastly amplifiers - and still produce LESS volume than many high end systems with a 3 watt amp.

High Speaker sensitivity and higher impedence will be much louder with a few watts than low sensitivity and low impedence with mega watts.

Fo instance. An Owner of a 110db klipshhorn 8ohm will get 110 decibals(volume) with a 1 watt amp. If he had that old 10 watt Sugden he would get:
110db 1 watt
113db 2 watts(double the power for a 3db gain)
116db 4 watts
119db 8watts
~120db 10watts. on that 1970s Sugden

During the 80s the big receiver makers came out with high watt crappy sounding receivers - but because they were crappy they needed something to sell...guess WATT? Yes WATT is WATT was the things they sold to the masses who ddn't know better.

Speaker makers of course would rather stick drivers in a cheap box and fill it with foam, than actually design a high quality box free of resonances. So the speaker makers slugged the sound with ferrofluid cooling, foam and stuff to weigh it all down to make up for the 2 cents worth of cheap garbage wood that would ring like a bell. sensitivity dropped like a stone in the range of 82db.

Do the Math. You want to get 120db with an 82 db speaker(and let's say it is 8ohm to be nice as typically they were 4 ohms which would "really be like 79db sensitive.

82db 1 watt
85db 2W
88db 4W
91db 8W
94 db 16W
97db 32W
100db 64W
103db 128W
106db 256W
109db 512W
111db 1024watts
115db 2048watts
118db 4096watts
121db 8192watts

Guess WATT. Most speakers can't handle more than 200 watts. So even with a mighty 250 Watts per channel and assuming the speaker rated at 200 watts can actually take that power at a sustained period(most can't), you;re still significanly behind in the volume department.

None of this talks about quality either. Most high watt amps are noisy. You pay more to get more watts, when you could have purchased a speaker from a competant designer that used a good box. Where would you rather put your money. A GOOD high sensitive speaker and a GOOD low watt amp and get better sound quality and much LOUDER volume or buy an incompetant heavily damped speaker to make up for poor boxes and HUGE power amplifiers to get Less volume???

I have seen JVC ghetto blaster advertising 400 watts. I have heard an 11 watt Tube amp running my speakers. Guess which ones sound 3-5 times louder...not the JVC, guess which sounds a lot clearer has more bass better highs - not the JVC.

Sadly I see receivers priced from $600 - $900.00 in a given line. The difference is say 70 watts to 90watts. Basically no difference in volume. They throw in some silly feature or a 4rth VCR input or Stadium surround mode which doesn't resemble a stadium - and more to the point why would you want it to? Hefty premium that cost the company an extra dollar MAYBE.

The ASL AQ 1003DT tube amp is 30 watts and won't run a difficult to drive loudspeaker that well. It's pur class A but not High Current(whatever the hell this misnomer means. It doesn't need to be because buyers of these amps would not buy stupidly designed 2 ohm speakers(Stats and Planars are exempt from this rant because they offer something that is generally the nature of the design).

But tubes are not inherently better. The Sugden Is a low powered solid state amp. Generally GOOD tubes offer a kind of distortion which is much more agreeable than the brick wall sort that non Class A SS amps give out.

[Mr Peabody]

Not all tube amps are low power. Audio Research makes some that are 100 wpc and higher. Tube technology must be improving some because, yet somewhat expensive, I have heard Audio Research and VTL monoblocks that have impressive bass response for any amp tube or SS. Some SS amp companies also try to immulate the sound of tubes. So it is really a matter of listening and trying to find what appeals to your ears. My take, and realize these are generalizations, is that tubes excel in the midrange frequencies where they can present a haunting reality feel. Solid State amps are faster and better able to deliver transcients and dynamics of music better. SS I find typically extend up to higher frequencies. I think it's pretty well recognized that most tube amps are bloated or loose in the lower frequencies where most SS amps, especially higher current amps, can deliver a fast clean bass response. It's a fact that entry level tube amps can be noisy. It's the single ended triode tube amps that are in the extreme low power and you will have to have a mega efficient speaker. Which to me seems to be an oxi-moron because I have yet to hear a good sounding efficient speaker. I have found that efficiency seems to be a trade off for sound quality.
I don't know what price range you were in but Audio Research make a nice integrated amp which I think is around 50wpc. It's strong, I heard it drive a pair of Martin Logan's which is no easy task for any amp. It's priced around $3k. You can find good deals on Krell integrated amps. They have a new kav-400iL that sells for $2,500. that is 200 wpc with class A preamp section and fully balanced circuits. This new amp at this price is also driving down the re-sale price of Krell's used integrated amps. If you are not needing big power the British integrated amps from companies like Arcam or Creek offer great sound for the money. Some may match a tube preamp with a SS power amp to try and get the best of both worlds. You'd think from the posts here that tube owners were the majority, but the old tube forum was more than dead and look at what people own under the poll on "General Audio", not too much tube gear listed. Not bashing it, I'd love to have a second system of tube gear. I choose solid state for the very observations I listed above.

[mtrycraft]

1) In fact, go down and listen to a string bass live, then go home and listen to SS system of string bass. Many SS amps and speakers bloat the bass, making it appear to have more, but it is Not accurate. Electrolytic caps are a main reason for bass bloating. Some SS amps are great in the bass, just depends.

3) High cost is do to expensive high quality parts (superior sounding parts) used in tube amps, and SS amps. For example, some sonically superior resistors cost $5.00/resistor.

Hogwash. One only has to check the Fr plots and see how flat the SS amp really is in the bass band. No bloating. Garbage.

High cost part superior sounding? Yet another audio mythology. You have zero evidence for this, nor do your referenced articles.

[mtrycraft]

Can somone tell me why the tubes are so highly thought of yet the WPC are so much lower than solid states? In other words, why such a high price for only 25-35 watts with a tuber? How can such a low wattage give such a great sound. Want something (sterio) good for medium voulume classical/jazz in a fairly large room, currently have JBL Decade 26's, may upgrade them, but I just like the accurate highs. Currently have an intergrated Yamaha A-500 (100 watt I think? -bought used) Novice here of course. Thanks in advance, bobpaulo

As Mr Peabody stated, not all are such low powered one. Usually/all SET are though. Perhaps that is what you are reading.

The price is high because people will pay it Simple marketing. If noboby bought it, price would come down for sure, or go out of business.

Great sound is very subjective and most are based on unreliable perceptions only, not based in reality.

What you have in the Yam should be very nice as is. Audio is full of hype and mythology.

[spacedeckman]

expensive because of the iron. SS amps will always be cheaper by the watt since they need no output iron. A tube amp is totally dependent on iron to survive. Sure, some are more expensive than they should be, but your answer should have been more factual and less emotional. You're slipping boy.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Is that SS bass is better than the bass from a tube-based system. Sure I've witnessed SS amps pump out some serious tight bass notes [yeah] and I've seen old [Dynaco] tube amps produce soft, warm bass [yuk]. And yet the most musical bass I've realized in my system is from my three [3] watt single-end triode with NOS "ST" [shouldered] 45 output tubes. My amp is switchable between 2a3 and 45 operation and the difference is obvious between those types. And while all the 45 tubes [NOS ST, globe or current production] sound fabulous, the bass is still different depending on which type I use. The globes are the least reliable, while most of the ST 45's produce a wonderful, musical bass that is tuneful, nimble and shaded with all the flavor of a real acoustic instrument. Of course, this is dependant on many other factors but in my system replace the amp and that same bass is missing in action, replace the 45 for a typical double-plate 2a3 and the rollicking timing is absent. As a point of clarification, the amp I use isn't cheap and uses a simple but sound topology and has killer output transformers. Which is the equivalent of drivers in a speaker. It also has upgraded parts of my choosing [and the designers blessing]. Though as suggested, the carbon film resistors I chose have a very minor effect over the stock units. The teflon coupling caps are hideously [comparitively] expensive and have a greater effect on the signal. Still, resistors, caps and wire are small beans compared to design, transformers and the selection of tubes.

MikE

[300A]

Not all tube amps are low power. Audio Research makes some that are 100 wpc and higher. Tube technology must be improving some because, yet somewhat expensive, I have heard Audio Research and VTL monoblocks that have impressive bass response for any amp tube or SS. Some SS amp companies also try to immulate the sound of tubes. So it is really a matter of listening and trying to find what appeals to your ears. My take, and realize these are generalizations, is that tubes excel in the midrange frequencies where they can present a haunting reality feel."

Good points as generalizations, although some tube amps surpass SS in bass and high reproduction.

"Solid State amps are faster and better able to deliver transcients and dynamics of music better. SS I find typically extend up to higher frequencies. I think it's pretty well recognized that most tube amps are bloated or loose in the lower frequencies where most SS amps, especially higher current amps, can deliver a fast clean bass response. It's a fact that entry level tube amps can be noisy. It's the single ended triode tube amps that are in the extreme low power and you will have to have a mega efficient speaker. Which to me seems to be an oxi-moron because I have yet to hear a good sounding efficient speaker. I have found that efficiency seems to be a trade off for sound quality."

Again, very good points. I also have yet to hear a really good high efficiency speaker. Horns, contrary to popular belief have inherently high distortion. Radiotron designers handbook states basically that with a 3 1/2 octave bandbass, a horn will theoritically have 8% distortion, although measurements are generally around half that. And they don't do bass, period. They drop of at around 36 db/octave I believe.

"I don't know what price range you were in but Audio Research make a nice integrated amp which I think is around 50wpc. It's strong, I heard it drive a pair of Martin Logan's which is no easy task for any amp. It's priced around $3k. You can find good deals on Krell integrated amps. They have a new kav-400iL that sells for $2,500. that is 200 wpc with class A preamp section and fully balanced circuits. This new amp at this price is also driving down the re-sale price of Krell's used integrated amps. If you are not needing big power the British integrated amps from companies like Arcam or Creek offer great sound for the money. Some may match a tube preamp with a SS power amp to try and get the best of both worlds. You'd think from the posts here that tube owners were the majority, but the old tube forum was more than dead and look at what people own under the poll on "General Audio", not too much tube gear listed. Not bashing it, I'd love to have a second system of tube gear. I choose solid state for the very observations I listed above.

Because of the way electrolytics change the sound, the bass can be somewhat not accurate with SS amps. Good ones will be excellent.

Nice post Mr. Peabody.

[300A]

Hogwash. One only has to check the Fr plots and see how flat the SS amp really is in the bass band. No bloating. Garbage."

One piece of the story. If you think "one plot", one measurement, tells the whole story, you are in a dream world. Each part, each design has its own sonic signature, with electrolytic capacitors being about the worse, although some resistors are about as bad. It is called DA and DF, which are very real problems and measureable (see http://www.capacitors.com/picking_ca...rs/pickcap.htm). Special tests are performed to measure it. It is pure physics my friend.

High cost part superior sounding? Yet another audio mythology. You have zero evidence for this, nor do your referenced articles.

Live in your own fantasy dream world. The AES, Electrical Engineers who print their Journal etc are all wrong and you are right. Visions of grandeur have we? Please come back to reality, ok?

[300A]

As Mr Peabody stated, not all are such low powered one. Usually/all SET are though. Perhaps that is what you are reading.

The price is high because people will pay it Simple marketing. If noboby bought it, price would come down for sure, or go out of business.

Great sound is very subjective and most are based on unreliable perceptions only, not based in reality.

Baloney. There are real sonic differences between systems, and room acoustics, but there are systems that bring "home" more correct information than others. To think otherwise is nonsense.

What you have in the Yam should be very nice as is. Audio is full of hype and mythology.

And you are posting much of it. Go into a store and explain away the sonic differences between amps and preamps. I am sure you will take home the cheapest and worst piece of junk and delude yourself into thinking that it sounds as good as any other system. Hey, it should be easy for you to convince yourself.

Well, at least you saved some money and I don't have to come over to hear it.

Enjoy.

[skeptic]

Can somone tell me why the tubes are so highly thought of yet the WPC are so much lower than solid states? In other words, why such a high price for only 25-35 watts with a tuber? How can such a low wattage give such a great sound. Want something (sterio) good for medium voulume classical/jazz in a fairly large room, currently have JBL Decade 26's, may upgrade them, but I just like the accurate highs. Currently have an intergrated Yamaha A-500 (100 watt I think? -bought used) Novice here of course. Thanks in advance, bobpaulo

Tube amplifier quality and price vary all over the lot from relatively cheap to out of sight. From miserable performing to outstanding. So does solid state. Tube amplifiers can be made to be extremely powerful, but not quite as cheaply as solid state.

A few months ago, I wrote a few threads about why I think tube amplifiers generally cost more than comparable solid state amplifiers and why I think that the best solid state amplifiers can be made to outperform the best tube amplfiers. However each amplifier should be taken on its own merit.

Here are some reasons why tube amplifiers cost so much and much more than they used to;
relatively limited avaliability of suitable parts in a world that retooled for sold state 30 years ago, a small niche market means no economy of scale, the nature of tubes means more labor intensive to manufacture, fewer electronics engineers familiar with tube circuit design, and relatively little competition. Had tube technology remained viable over the last 30 years or so and not been replaced by solid state electronics, amplifiers which now cost $5000 would cost $50 instead.

Tube amplifiers for industrial use could be manufactured to produce hundreds or even thousands of watts but for home use, the practical limit is usually about 100 watts per channel. There are several reasons for this but among them is the cost of the output transformers and the need to dissipate a large amount of heat. 60 to 75 watt per channel amplifiers from companies like McIntosh, Marantz, Dynaco, Harman Kardon, and even Eico, Lafayette Radio, Bogen, Stromberg Carlson and others were among the most powerful and best available in the early 1960s with the first four manufacturers being at the top of the quality heap.

People looking to play very loud rock music through inefficient speakers will not be happy with smaller tube amplifiers. Neither will most users of inefficient electrostatic types. However, for most home use, 60 to 75 wpc or even 25 to 30 with more efficient speakers is adequate.

Vacuum tube amplifiers are not inherently lower distortion than solid state. In fact quite the opposite. Just look at the manufacturers' specs. Most high quality ss amps beat the best high quality tube amps by a wide margin. However, these specifications don't tell the whole story.

Sound systems for the home today are rarely engineered, they are thrown together like a tossed salad taking a piece from here, another from there with little rhyme or reason. There is a trend among manufacturers of so called audiophile speakers to market small two way ported systems that are very bright sounding. Audiophiles also for some reason like moving coil cartridges which often have a high frequency peak making their systems sound even brighter. As a consequence, they look to vacuum tube amplifiers which IMO always seem to roll off the high end (except the OTL types like Futterman or NY Audio Labs) probably because of their output transformers and do not provide a very high damping factor because of the high output impedence of vacuum tube plate circuits. These frequency response anomolies tend to cancel each other and so come together to form a kind of synergy resulting is a flatter overall frequency response even though it is somewhat hit or miss and unpredictable. One thing that can always bail them out is the availability of low cost subwoofers with high powered solid state amplifiers which take most of the power demands off the rest of the system. Avoiding equalizers like the plague, they also buy expensive speaker wires sometimes having very high shunt capacitance further attenuating the high end. This method of designing a sound system is neither efficient or always effective but it is never cheap in the long run. And when they find the nirvana they are looking for, they always will tell you that practically anything besides what they have selected as "best" is inferior.

[mtrycraft]

Live in your own fantasy dream world. The AES, Electrical Engineers who print their Journal etc are all wrong and you are right. Visions of grandeur have we? Please come back to reality, ok?

You have yet to show you correct. You present an article from 1972/3. That is supposed to do what?
Did it include a DBT listeing session? Have any to present?

[mtrycraft]

Because of the way electrolytics change the sound, the bass can be somewhat not accurate with SS amps. Good ones will be excellent.

Nice post Mr. Peabody.

You just don;t have the evidence for this. Care to post some FR spectrums where the SS is not accurate in the bass? What nonsense.

[mtrycraft]

expensive because of the iron. SS amps will always be cheaper by the watt since they need no output iron. A tube amp is totally dependent on iron to survive. Sure, some are more expensive than they should be, but your answer should have been more factual and less emotional. You're slipping boy.

Oh, come now. Output iron costs $10000? $1000?
Tubes cost more because people will pay the exhorbitant prices for yesteryears retro products.

[mtrycraft]

Is that SS bass is better than the bass from a tube-based system. Sure I've witnessed SS amps pump out some serious tight bass notes [yeah] and I've seen old [Dynaco] tube amps produce soft, warm bass [yuk]. And yet the most musical bass I've realized in my system is from my three [3] watt single-end triode with NOS "ST" [shouldered] 45 output tubes.
MikE

Well, that is a matter of perception only. And, perception may not be reality. Well known phenomenon.

[mtrycraft]

And you are posting much of it. Go into a store and explain away the sonic differences between amps and preamps. I am sure you will take home the cheapest and worst piece of junk and delude yourself into thinking that it sounds as good as any other system. Hey, it should be easy for you to convince yourself.

Well, at least you saved some money and I don't have to come over to hear it.

Enjoy.

No. I would base my choice on a DBT listeing. No difference, then flexibility.
I will leave delusion to the gullible ones.

[skeptic]

You just don;t have the evidence for this. Care to post some FR spectrums where the SS is not accurate in the bass? What nonsense.

High quality capacitively coupled solid state amplifiers typically show outstanding linearity of frequency response, negligable distortion, excellent input output linearity, low noise, and outstanding operating stability. In this regard they are usually far better than their vacuum tube counterparts which have irregular frequency response often exceeding +/- 1 db over the audio band, poor damping factors, and high distortion rarely if ever rated at less than 1/2 to 1 percent combined harmonic and IM. Additionally, they are subject to microphonics especially from low bass. Unless they have unusually large well designed output transformers, they usually have a 3db down point not far below 20 hz at best. I can't think of one sub woofer at any price that uses a vacuum tube amplifier. Does such a thing exist?

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Sorry not takers here. Not interested in re-visiting circular arguments. MikE

[skeptic]

Oh, come now. Output iron costs $10000? $1000?
Tubes cost more because people will pay the exhorbitant prices for yesteryears retro products.

The designs were the best that could be done at the time. They were abandoned for a reason. Technology passed them by. Even in the primitive days of bipolar transistors, outstanding products which eclipsed the best the tube manufacturers could do were possible. The Crown DC 300 introduced in 1968 was a watershed and benchmark. Even by today's standards, it is a rugged, reliable, excellent performer at what are now giveaway prices on the used market.

There have been absolutely no new developments in vacuum tube audio in the last 40 years. With the sole exception of slightly better interstage coupling capacitors, the parts are the same, the circuits are the same, and the limitations and problems are the same. Only the customers are new. In fact, many of the best parts commonly used way back when are difficult to find if you can get them at all.

[skeptic]

Tuned ported systems such as Theil Small designs depend on what amounts to an undamped resonance in the driver at a frequency coincident with the tuning of a resonant air column, allowing for very efficient coupling between the driver and the room around that frequency. There are a lot of drawbacks to this but its advantage is that you can get some relatively deep bass with low power from a surprisingly small driver. Vacuum tube amplifiers are ideal for this application because unlike solid state amplifiers, their high output impedence doesn't damp the driver's resonance peak. By comparison, solid state amplifiers having very low output impedence will damp out this resonance effectively reducing bass output and making the speaker sound relatively thinner and brighter. When coupled with a small dome tweeter these systems tend to be on the bright side to begin with and solid state amplifiers exaggerate this brightness while tube amplifiers with their high end rolloff due to eddy current and hysteresis losses in their output transformers tend to reduce it. The difference becomes especially striking with mc phonograph cartridges many of which have a high frequency peak due to their excessive moving mass compared to their damping or with a cd player and a poorly made cd having a high frequency peak as well. Small wonder that the major complaint today among audiophiles is that solid state amplifiers and cds sound shrill and harsh. But to those of us who grew up in the mellow mushy indistinct world of moving magnet cartridges with very flat frequency responses and indistinct sounding vacuum tube amplifiers, today's audiophile's cure is as bad as the disease.