Tube vs Solid State?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

... 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

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.)

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

[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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300A

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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."

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300A

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300A

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
MikE

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300A

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mtrycraft

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.

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.

Too bad some are really out of it. If you, Crafts and Skeptic, understood what DA and DF meant, you wouldn't have made such stupid comments.

DA is the most important of the two, and is the slow release of electrons from the insulation when discharging or reluctance to accept electrons when charging.

Instead of discharging and charging perfectly, the incoming note, say bass note, there is a slower release, causing a distortion (not harmonic or intermodulation distortion that is typically measured) of the note. This is Physics and can be measured. This causes the note to sound fuller, extending longer, Not an actual change the amplitude as you would try to have us believe.

One can easily do ones own test by simply purchasing two capacitors of the same UF, one electrolytic/bypolar, and one polypropolene and inserting them into a circuit. I don't think the public needs you twos permission do they???????? Let them decide or are you afraid of what they might find out??

As mentioned before, in audio subjective testing, DBTs are worthless. Scholars themselves won't use the terms "factual" or "proof" only "indicates" or "seems to indicate". Hardly factual.

Get back to reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 300A

Too bad some are really out of it. If you, Crafts and Skeptic, understood what DA and DF meant, you wouldn't have made such stupid comments.

DA is the most important of the two, and is the slow release of electrons from the insulation when discharging or reluctance to accept electrons when charging.

Instead of discharging and charging perfectly, the incoming note, say bass note, there is a slower release, causing a distortion (not harmonic or intermodulation distortion that is typically measured) of the note. This is Physics and can be measured. This causes the note to sound fuller, extending longer, Not an actual change the amplitude as you would try to have us believe.

One can easily do ones own test by simply purchasing two capacitors of the same UF, one electrolytic/bypolar, and one polypropolene and inserting them into a circuit. I don't think the public needs you twos permission do they???????? Let them decide or are you afraid of what they might find out??

As mentioned before, in audio subjective testing, DBTs are worthless. Scholars themselves won't use the terms "factual" or "proof" only "indicates" or "seems to indicate". Hardly factual.

Get back to reality.

---

Where do you get this nonsense? You been reading the wrong stuff. Since you can measure it, please give us the data. The ones I have seen are at the 5th decimal place. Be my guest, claim you can hear that stuff.

Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones.
DBT are only worthless to the less inforemd ones, as one would expect. Thanks for the info from fantasy land. LOL

People who have something exotic, esoteric, or just plain different to sell that is expensive but can't demonstrate any sound electrical engineering proof of their claims of superiority through those measurements which invariably describe mathematically completely the faults in transferring or amplifiying electrical waveforms always come up with some off the wall gobbledegook hocus pocus like strand jumping, fermi velocity, DF, DA, and LaDeeDah, to explain the unexplainable or at least impress and confuse those who are untrained and don't know technobabble when they see it. And they are always right and the electrical engineers and mathematicians are always wrong. If capacitors were a bad way to decouple a loudspeaker from the dc bias of the output stage, the world could just as easily have stuck to transformers or have gone completely over to dc coupling. The plain fact is that not only are electrolytic capacitors cheaper than transformers for output decoupling, they beat them every which way there is. And not only that, but your loudspeakers have electrolytic capacitors in them as well, including in the crossover to the mid range where the human ear is MOST sensitive.

I'm a SS guy. I've had SS equipment for over 25 years, From my days of the "big" Pioneer SX-1280 and EPI speakers (which I still have) to my current "big" PS Audio amp driving my 3.6 maggies, I've been happy with mostly all of it. I never really had a chance to play with tubes, or even much cared too. However, I just got back from a visit to the "in-laws" for Thanksgiving, and got a chance to use a very interesting piece of equipment. A 1964 vintage Top-of-the-line Sears console! Before you guys start laughing, Sears was just about the ONLY way you could buy Hi-fi stuff if you weren't in the major cities like NY or LA back then. @ $469 in 1964 money, this was one expensive item too. Sears gave you three years to pay it off! This puppy was in MINT condition, the wood lovingly oiled over the years, but unfortunately it had seen little service since 1979, the year of the loss of the owner. A quick check of everything showed it all works. I didn't have a tube tester (or even know where to find one) but I changed out the tubes to a set of new-in-box Sylvania tubes that were there. OK, put on some FM, and guess what..SOUND!
Sweet, euphonic, rolled off, easy to listen to all day, music! Got out the old Christmas records, changed out the "electro-voice" stylus (with diamond tip)! and we had sweet, euphonic, rolled off, easy to listen to all day, Christmas music! Anything below 100 or above ~5000 or so was out of it's range, but what it did, it did sweetly, and was very pleasant to listen too for many hrs. (the eggnog was flowing pretty freely too)! Now I'm sure that the THD was much higher than any SS gear that I've ever owned, but it sure didn't stop us from enjoying it. I've got a soft spot now in my heart for old equipment. I'm not going to toss my gear out and go get a vintage console, but I did have some fun with the old gear, and was not unimpressed with it's sound. Actually, it was quite good reproducing the female & male voice. One of the FM stations had a Beatles marathon going on, and it was good fun to imagine that we were back in 1965, transported back in sound by this vintage console. (did I say the eggnog was flowing pretty good)?

Cheers all!

AAAHHH,,,,,, Some heat. Some light. Some catfights.

First, have y'all noticed those double-underlined green nouns that are really imbedded ads? Roll your mouse over them and get an ad. Click on them and you probably go to a commercial website. Now I see the reason for this new format: MONEY!

[I edited this to respell a certain common term to be the 'word' Hye-Fye
because the correct version automatically adds an advertising link.]

I paid $500 for a NEW pair of mirror-matched mono-100 Futttermans, direct from Mr Futterman, when the rest of you were Ga-Ga over solid state in 1976. (I bought my Stereo-60 Futterman in 1974 for $300.) After 15 years of very substantial use my mono-100 Futtermans were retubed and updated to the self-biasing NYAL versions in 1991 for $400. The Mono-100's now cost me a grand total of $900. So tube amps are not expensive IF you did not wait until someone is spending big add dollars to dangle them under your nose! Timing is Everything.

Unless you have heard OTL's such as the various Futtermans and maybe the Fournier driving 8-ohm (and better yet, 16 ohm) Tympani, do not presume to say that "SS is better than tubies". Because the Futtermans driving Tympani combination will match live recitals of instruments and vocalists. Most speaker-amp combinations simply cannot.

BUT!
A Futterman driving KLH-9's sounded EXACTLY the same as a GAS amp driving KLH-9's which also sounded EXACTLY the same as an HK Citation 12 driving KLH-9's.

Note that:
Futterman = OTL Tubie
GAS amp = full push-pull Bongiorno SS design
HK Citation 12 = quasi-complimentary SS amp.

So.... it all depends on the speakers you are using!

Oh, when the above amp test was repeated on the Tympani, the results were
Futterman = Lifelike
GAS amp = Good smooth Hye-Fye Audiophile but not like the recitals.
HK Citation 12 = Full of metallic whiskers. Not pleasant to rub on your ears.

SS amps replaced tubie amps because there were a lot of bad tubie amps in the 1960's and earlier, and inexpensive SS simply sounded better to most consumers than inexpensive tubies. Audiophiles are quite willing to pursue the year's new holy grail, and prestiege manufacturers quickly found a deep well of SS-amp "improvements" to offer every year that would obsolete last years SS-amp products and put audiophiles on the trade-up treadmill. Every year, without fail, prestiege manufacturers would discover a "problem" with last years products which this years products managed to "solve". This is the basic trait of technology-driven products: whatever you buy will be obsoleted by next years offerings.

But if your rig can match live recitals, then you do not have to care, because the live recitals ain't gonna change!

There are just as many, if not more $10K amps on the SS side.

General comment from me was that tube will always be more expensive to produce and, hence, buy since you need to include output transformers. Even you can't find anything wrong in that statement.

If the economies of scale for both SS and tubes were exactly the same, tubes would still be more expensive due to the output transformers.

Nothing controversial said or inferred.

Space

Spacedeckman

OTL tubies do NOT have output transformers, while some SS amps also did have output transformers.

NYAL bought the rights and patents for the Futterman amps in 1976. Julius was selling the Futterman mono-100 for $500, and he had a 1-year backlog that was strictly generated by word-of-mouth. NYAL made minor improvements to the Futterman mono-100 with Julius' guidance, and then NYAL hyped and sold the NYAL version for $3000.

So you see, the cost of parts has a rather modest influence on selling price. The costs of hype and advertising does drive selling price. The financial desires of the principals also drives selling price. But the cost of manufacture is a more modest influence on selling price.

>>OTL tubies do NOT have output transformers, while some SS amps also did have output transformers.<<

Yes, this is one of the more interesting things about amp tech. Not all amps use the same topology. My SS amp has inputs for both direct coupled, and capactive coupled. I can tell you that at least with my amp, DC is the way it sounds best.

NY Audio Labs exhibited at the 1983 AES convention at the NY Hilton and later gave a very interesting presentation to invited AES members at the WQXR auditorium in the NY Times Building. Their engineers discussed the death bed testimony they took from Julius Futterman and the voluminous technical papers they got from his widow. They made several significant improvements including an excellent solid state power supply and they designed a test rig that allowed them to adjust the critical bias controls in five minutes instead of the entire day it took Futterman with his setup. These struck me as among the best sounding amplifiers I have ever heard, certainly the equal of anything any other tube manufacturer produced although I would say that there are solid state amplifiers that sound just as good to me. BTW, their A/B comparison was McIntosh 3000s, the source was a master tape played on an Ampex studio console and the speakers were JBL bookshelf models which as I recall belonged to Harvey Rosenberg's daughter. Harvey was the founder and president of NYAL and someone told me recently that he had died. The ingenuity of this design is that it allows vacuum tubes to deliver power to loudspeakers directly without the need for a transformer. This is the major reason IMO for its superior sound, the lack of an output transformer, not that it is tubes.

Nothing brings out a firestorm of debate like tubes vs solid state, unless it's cd vs vinyl.

A couple observations from some of the posts.

When advising how much power one should buy, 35 watts may fill the room with sound but it takes power to reproduce bass. I don't want to open up another can of worms, I didn't say more power sounds better necessarily, it's just a fact that it takes power to reproduce ample bass. A 35 wpc rated amp may be able to do this as well, but then someone would have to admit that high current amps exist.

To those who think that newer is always better, I'd like to present as evidence the IC chip. This did nothing for amplification except make them cheaper to produce and sound quality to go down. The term "discrete circuitry" is not just a marketing term in my book. Manufacturers are not above "smoke & mirrors" to make a buck. Look at 7.1, is there actually any movies in 7.1? No, not to my knowledge. I'm just saying don't discard old technology without just cause.

It would stand to reason that closer tolerance parts would cost more and improve sound quality by using these parts, thus driving the cost of better amps up.

Manufacturers must know this debate rages on, why hasn't someone offered me an amp that has the slam and dynamics of a Krell along with the lushness and presence in the midrange of a good tube amp?

Those interested in capacitors may like to look at the large Dynaudio monoblocks they use for their listening tests. I have been told you can unplug them and they can run for another 24 hours off their capacitor banks. Sorry I do not have a link to offer.

[QUOTE=RGA]First of all be careful of those that claim Tubes are superior than SS. They can be but not always.

True. I've heard some poor tube amps. It's generally dangerous to make absolute claims. I even have some LP's that sound terrible so I can't say that LP's sound better than CD's ALL the time. But in my experience with many, many amps of both SS and tubes, the tubed products usually outperform their SS counterparts.

You mentioned the Sugden A21 which I've never heard. But the A21A is the finest solid state amp I've ever listened to. Interestingly, I didn't find it spectacular because it sounded like tubes. I found it so because it didn't do the things that SS does that make me cringe. I found no grain or etchiness, just smooth and lifelike music. If I were to buy an SS integrated amp, the Sugden would win, hands down.

SS has many more fans than tubes. I think they tend to fall into several categories - the ones who don't believe their own ears but only believe measurements, the ones with inefficient speakers, the ones who don't want to mess with biasing and changing tubes, the ones that haven't been exposed to tubed products, and the ones that have listened to tubed amps that exhibit all the poor characteristics that one reads about in the debates. It's true that some tube amps sound mushy, rolled off and distorted. The better ones don't unless they are trying to drive inefficient speakers. And efficient speakers tend to sound better anyway, IMHO so I'm in good shape using tubed amps.

OTLs are cool, but have a bit of a limiting factor when it comes to speaker selection. Not exactly a good choice for the uneducated masses. I am NOT unfamiliar with the layout.

Output transformers on SS...Outside of some of the bigger Mac gear, I've never seen it, but again it really doesn't exist in reality.

To completely clarify my statement then..."The VAST majority of tube amplifiers use output iron, and the VAST MINORITY of SS designs do not. We cool now?

Space

http://www.capacitors.com/picking_ca...rs/pickcap.htm

Picking Capacitors by Walter Jung and Dr. Richard Marsh from MIT.

Read the actual measurements for DA of electrolytic capacitors, the capacitance change vs temp, frequency etc.

DA factors of several percent for electrolytics, not what you seem to mislead below:

"The ones I have seen are at the 5th decimal place. Be my guest, claim you can hear that stuff"

5 decimal places refers to film types. Do you even know the difference between an electrolytic and polypropylene, crafts??

That roughly translates to distortion some 25db down.

1) Turntables have rumble factors of some 70db down and we hear that

2) "High distortion" tube amps, which you attack, have distortions only 25 - 30db down, and we can hear the sonic change, that by your own incinuation and attacks. If you can here it, then we can hear capacitor distortions, or are we playing games. But:

3) So we cannot hear -25db down? Here is what you stated:

"Oh, the cap test, better be under DBT. The last one was null but hey, we are still waiting for all the positive ones." (craft's quote)

So DBT tests show we can't hear 25db down distortions. Wow, that sure proves how accurate DBT tests are. And what is really embarrassing is you shot down your "own" DBT results (although no reference is given). You just keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Let me get this correct. So you are saying we can hear distortion from tube amps, but not from capacitors which have as much or more distortion than tube amps. And DBT tests show we cannot hear electrolytic capacitor distortions down only -25db.

I think you have been caught again not knowing what you are talking about.


Now Skeptic and his total lack of understanding electronics.

"People who have something exotic, esoteric, or just plain different to sell that is expensive but can't demonstrate any sound electrical engineering proof of their claims of superiority through those measurements which invariably describe mathematically completely the faults in transferring or amplifiying electrical waveforms always come up with some off the wall gobbledegook hocus pocus like strand jumping, fermi velocity, DF, DA, and LaDeeDah, to explain the unexplainable or at least impress and confuse those who are untrained and don't know technobabble when they see it."

Only problem with this are the three articles listed in the string AES, Eric Barbour, and Journal of Electrical Engineers are Mainstream engineering mags or people. By the way, Dr. Richard Marsh is one too, and teaches at MIT. So who is misleading whom Skeptic??

"And they are always right and the electrical engineers and mathematicians are always wrong."

See above Skeptic. Please don't give out bad information or information you made up.

"If capacitors were a bad way to decouple a loudspeaker from the dc bias of the output stage, the world could just as easily have stuck to transformers or have gone completely over to dc coupling."

A total lack of understanding of electronics. Output stages of SS amps are DC coupled to speakers because capacitors are so bad. Tubes can't because they have neither the current nor the low output Z unless one uses an OTL or cyclotron design. Electrolytic capacitors are worse than OPTs, unless the OPT is poorly designed.

"...but your loudspeakers have electrolytic capacitors in them as well, including in the crossover to the mid range where the human ear is MOST sensitive."

In good designs, polys are used, except in very low frequency crossovers. Only cheap designs (and cheap prices) use bipolar caps.

Enough education for today to crafts and skeptic. But it isn't good to mislead people when you have no idea of what you are talking about.

Hey, Skeptic

The fancy NYAL (Futterman) Mono-100's that had the "excellent solid state power supply" I believe were the ones with TWO chassis per channel, and they were priced at $9000 per pair. A wee bit more that $500 per pair, would you say? Would you be willing to spend 15 minutes a month to bias your amps if you could save $8500?
Let's see:
$8500/(3 hrs/yr x 15 years) = $189/Hour
Naahhh...too low for you.

But I believe this is bogus: Pure Harvey-jive:
....they designed a test rig that allowed them to adjust the critical bias controls in five minutes instead of the entire day it took Futterman with his setup."

I knew Julius, and spent a little time with Julius in his lab. So let me fill you in:

1. Julius could complete a soldered joint, start-to-finish, in less time than it would take you to pick up the iron and point it in the right direction.
2. I could adjust the bias of my Futtermans in 15 minutes, and Julius was a LOT faster than I was. A LOT faster. So I doubt it ever took an entire day for him to complete any amp-building or amp-adjusting task. He simply built too many amps to be that slow. Remember, 5000 people showed up for his memorial dinner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffcin

A 1964 vintage Top-of-the-line Sears console! Before you guys start laughing, Sears was just about the ONLY way you could buy Hi-fi stuff if you weren't in the major cities like NY or LA back then. @ $469 in 1964 money, this was one expensive item too. Sears gave you three years to pay it off! This puppy was in MINT condition, the wood lovingly oiled over the years, but unfortunately it had seen little service since 1979, the year of the loss of the owner. A quick check of everything showed it all works. I didn't have a tube tester (or even know where to find one) but I changed out the tubes to a set of new-in-box Sylvania tubes that were there. OK, put on some FM, and guess what..SOUND!
Sweet, euphonic, rolled off, easy to listen to all day, music! Got out the old Christmas records, changed out the "electro-voice" stylus (with diamond tip)! and we had sweet, euphonic, rolled off, easy to listen to all day, Christmas music! Anything below 100 or above ~5000 or so was out of it's range, but what it did, it did sweetly, and was very pleasant to listen too for many hrs. (the eggnog was flowing pretty freely too)! Now I'm sure that the THD was much higher than any SS gear that I've ever owned, but it sure didn't stop us from enjoying it. I've got a soft spot now in my heart for old equipment. I'm not going to toss my gear out and go get a vintage console, but I did have some fun with the old gear, and was not unimpressed with it's sound. Actually, it was quite good reproducing the female & male voice. One of the FM stations had a Beatles marathon going on, and it was good fun to imagine that we were back in 1965, transported back in sound by this vintage console. (did I say the eggnog was flowing pretty good)?

Cheers all!

---

Nothing wrong with enjoyin the old, nothing at all:)