solid state vs. tubes. Pros and Cons

[emack27]

I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps. Do they sound bright or smooth compared to solid state? What type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?

[JoeE SP9]

To my ears there is more there there with tubes. I use solid state only for bass frequencies below 80hz. I have tried various SS amps and preamps over the years and always return to tubes.:cool:

[emack27]

OK so would it be fair to say that high efficient speakers sound good with tubes and low efficient speakers sound good with SS?

[jrhymeammo]

Are you considering a tube amp? How big is your room? I believe your speakers have efficency rate of 88-90dbs. As long as you str noy considering a tube amp with 6-10watt output you should be okay.

[emack27]

No, I'm not considering a tube amp. I like my amp just fine. I was just wondering.
BTW, Do you know when solid state amps were started to be manufactured over tubes?

[dean_martin]

OK so would it be fair to say that high efficient speakers sound good with tubes and low efficient speakers sound good with SS?

Actually, there's not a bright line rule on that, but it is more likely that high efficiency speakers will work better with lower watt tube amps. But there are some solid state designs from makers like Pass Labs and Sugden that run totally in class A that work better with high efficiency speakers. These amps are usually rated at 25-30 watts per channel.

When it comes to tubes, I think economics has more to do with this than anything else. You can get a 100wpc solid state amp for around $300 - 500USD that can drive something like a Dynaudio speaker (4 ohm, 84dB) while a 100wpc tube amp that can drive the same speaker might cost 10x more. Most entry-level tube designs are rated at 25-40wpc and need to drive a more efficient speaker. There are big bucks tube amps that can drive just about anything.

Then there are the extreme examples of low powered tube amps such as SET, 300B, and 845 designs that are rated at about 2.5 to 15 wpc. They make really high efficiency speakers for these that are often single driver designs in the 97dB to over 100dB efficiency range.

So, it usually works out the way you stated it, but it's not a rule. I think the rule can be stated more generally, i.e., lower powered amps (whether tube or solid state) sound/work better with more efficient speakers.

In describing sound characteristics I would have to say in my limited experience that tubes do sound smoother and I believe they sound more natural. You don't have to give up detail with tubes. In fact, I've been trying different tubes in my amp recently and I found a pair that really opens up the treble adding more detail and "air" in the high frequencies. Without balance such as midrange detail and bass weight, this would sound "bright". I'm trying to decide whether these tubes have too much treble emphasis but I don't think they are fatiguing. With my old solid state gear, music with lots of treble info like strings would become fatiguing. The best thing to do would be to take some of your favorite recordings to a dealer that carries tube equipment and audition. Interestingly, it seemed that until recently some tube amp manufacturers were trying to make their tube gear sound more like solid state. Find a dealer that carries brands that have the more traditional tube sound like Conrad-Johnson, Cary and Jolida. Heck, if you were going to get a tube amp that sounded like solid state you might as well get a solid state amp from Krell or Bryston.

Anyhow, I got my first home audio tube amp in November of last year. I've enjoyed the music, but I've also had fun learning about tube amps and trying different tubes.

[JoeE SP9]

OK so would it be fair to say that high efficient speakers sound good with tubes and low efficient speakers sound good with SS?

The only answer to that is no. You really have to give the different types a listen in your own room. You might like tubes with your speakers and you might not. I like tubes no matter what kind of speakers are in use. :cool:

[theaudiohobby]

I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps. Do they sound bright or smooth compared to solid state? What type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?

I will be contrarian here, and say that tubes SS divide is more an expression of preference that any inherent sound qualities per se. For example, the last tube preamp that I had in my system sounded opaque and the last SET power amplifier that I heard at length was brighter sounding than my current SS amplifier. So far, I have heard a ground total of zero tube amplfiers that I prefer to my current SS amplifier.

Saying that, tube amplifiers especially those that are of the SET variety tend to be low powered <20Wch, therefore speakers with sensitivity >90dB/m are best. Also many especially those of the no feedback variety tend to have high output impedance, therefore a speaker with a resonably high impedance ~8ohms are advised, This is general rule of thumb as there are exceptions to rule, It not unheard of for folks to like specific speaker-amp interactions.

[ruadmaa]

BTW, Do you know when solid state amps were started to be manufactured over tubes?[/QUOTE]

It was in the late 50's early 60's. Actually the process tooks quite some time. At first many "hybrid" amps/tape recorders/record players etc. began to appear. These were devices that had both transistors and tubes. As transistor technology became better, more and more tubes were replaced with transistors until finally, there were no tubes at all. I had several reel to reel tape recorders that had both tubes and transistors. I also have a 1959 Seeberg jukebox that has one or two transistors and the balance tubes.

[E-Stat]

I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps.
It would require a lengthy essay to fully answer your question as this topic has raged on for decades. Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I confess my preference has changed as I have gotten older, (hopefully) wiser, and my musical tastes have evolved. Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion. Quantity alone is not a good measure of musical faithfulness. It has been proven long ago that the even order harmonic distortion produced by tube amps is far less audible than the higher order, odd harmonics generated by solid state amps. Tube amps distort right in the audible blind spot so to speak. Another problem with the metrics is that they are measured with steady state signals, not dynamic musical content.

When I started my journey back in the seventies, engineers found a way to reduce the amount of measured distortion by several orders of magnitude of what was found with tube amps. While a typical tube amp had one to two percent harmonic distortion, SS designs incorporating high levels of negative feedback got that down to 0.001%. Better, right? Not exactly. Under analysis, the concept of NF is the notion of changing what has already happened. Corrective feedback works well in moderation, but the extreme amounts used back then resulted in brutally hard sounding amps. Witness the early Crown designs (I owned one myself when I was 17). The IC-150 preamp was notorious for horrible sound despite wonderful measurements. Over time, engineers learned and the best of todays SS crop uses very minimal or no feedback whatsoever. The Pass Labs XA, GamuT, ASR Emitter, Parasound JC-1, Edge Signature, Dartzeel are just a few of many excellent examples.

In my early twenties, I purchased a Threshold Stasis amp highly regarded for its excellent bass and high end response. It used no overall NF. I valued tight, low end response and crystal clear extended high end. Limitations? It did not offer the same best-of-class midrange response of the vaunted Audio Research D-150 of that day. Huh? How do you NOT get good midrange? Reviewer Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound stated decades ago that getting the midrange right was key to musical faithfulness. It took me nearly thirty years to fully understand what he meant. That is where tubes excel. Ultimately, your choice will be based upon not only factors of cost and practicality (where tubes are most unfriendly), but musical preferences. Today I use female voice or symphonic music for ultimate evaluations. If the amp cannot float a voice or allow me hear all the nuances of stringed and brass instruments, then I am not interested.

I have had the good fortune of knowing some reviewers such as John Cooledge and Harry Pearson of The Absolute Sound since 1976. That has afforded me both the unique exposure to equipment I would have never otherwise heard and benefitted from these highly knowledgeable in music mentors. I bought my current tube amps shortly after hearing their big brothers on HP's incredible system. You do not necessarily have to compromise power in tube amps as the VTL Wotans offer 600 watts in triode and 1250 watts tetrode. Albeit at a price. My more modest MB-450s put out 200 watts triode and 450 in tetrode. They get the emotional behind the music right. That is what is most important to me. Cost no object, I would have a pair of VTL Sigfrieds in a heartbeat.


IWhat type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?
Tube amps do not offer the high damping factors required by quite frankly, most speakers. As a result, the bass response is less tight and the frequency response can vary. Low powered tube amps are a great match for high efficiency horn speakers. High powered flavors excel with my full range electrostats which are naturally high impedance drivers.

Summation: solid state clearly provides more bang for your buck and the gap between the two has narrowed. I would be quite happy for example with the ASR Emitter amp and its battery powered four chassis flotilla. There is still, however, a magic with tubes that most solid state amps are unable to duplicate. You can do that to a great extent by using a tube preamp or by using front end components with tube line stages. With my vintage system, I use a tube output Manley DAC with the Pioneer PD-54 CD transport driving the Stasis directly (no preamp) into double New Advent speakers. While the Advents clearly benefit from the control of the SS amp, the tube line stage provides much of the tube magic.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

Nice way of putting it E-Stat. Tubes do get that all important midrange right. I have tried SS many times and I always come back to tubes for the midrange magic.:cool:

[Mike Anderson]

I really love super-tight, highly controlled bass. I like my integrated amp w/tube preamp and SS power section. Seems to offer the best of both worlds.

Someday, when I have the scratch, I might check out a pair of Manley 250 or 500 monoblocks to see what the tubes can do, but for now I'm very happy with the hybrid arrangement.

[JoeE SP9]

I wonder if the simpler circuits of tube amps contribute to that glorious sound. Could this be a case of "less is more"? Some of the better sounding SS gear I've heard has been Nelson Pass' single ended SS gear. That stuff is truly minimilist as far as SS circuitry goes.:idea:

[theaudiohobby]

<SNIP> It has been proven long ago that the even order harmonic distortion produced by tube amps is far less audible than the higher order, odd harmonics generated by solid state amps. Tube amps distort right in the audible blind spot so to speak. Another problem with the metrics is that they are measured with steady state signals, not dynamic musical content.
<SNIP>


Tube amps as well as SS amps produce both even and odd order distortion, anybody who interested in verifying this should look at the measurements published at Soundstage.com or Stereophile.com. Certain circuit topologies produce relatively high amounts of 2nd order Harmonic distortion but that more of function of the circuit design rather than amplifying device. A measurement taken with dynamic content will not produce less distortion, steady state signals are used for simplicity.

[Feanor]

... There is still, however, a magic with tubes that most solid state amps are unable to duplicate. You can do that to a great extent by using a tube preamp or by using front end components with tube line stages. With my vintage system, I use a tube output Manley DAC with the Pioneer PD-54 CD transport driving the Stasis directly (no preamp) into double New Advent speakers. While the Advents clearly benefit from the control of the SS amp, the tube line stage provides much of the tube magic.

rw

How is it that putting a tube component in the circuit, say a preamp, can yield a tube sound even when that sound has been or will be filtered through a solid state component?? :confused5:

I just don't get that. On the face of it, the tubes have got to be adding something. Maybe 2nd order harmonic distortion that masks the even and/or higher order harmonics added by the s/s components???

[Geoffcin]

How is it that putting a tube component in the circuit, say a preamp, can yield a tube sound even when that sound has been or will be filtered through a solid state component?? :confused5:

I just don't get that. On the face of it, the tubes have got to be adding something. Maybe 2nd order harmonic distortion that masks the even and/or higher order harmonics added by the s/s components???

A lot of people like it on their ice cream, tastes better they say. Or salt, a lot of people like to salt their food no matter what it is. Think of those second order harmonics as syrup, or salt.

[JoeE SP9]

How is it that putting a tube component in the circuit, say a preamp, can yield a tube sound even when that sound has been or will be filtered through a solid state component?? :confused5:

I just don't get that. On the face of it, the tubes have got to be adding something. Maybe 2nd order harmonic distortion that masks the even and/or higher order harmonics added by the s/s components???
The one thing I'm certain tubes add is a smile to my face.:smilewinkgrin:

[Florian]

There is good SS, good Tubes, good Hybrids etc.... Single Ended, Direct Drive, OTL, Triode mode and Pentode mode....blah blah blah....there is not general advice.

:-) I would go for six 100wpc tube monoblocks with custom made 2ohm transformers.

[E-Stat]

Tube amps as well as SS amps produce both even and odd order distortion, anybody who interested in verifying this should look at the measurements published at Soundstage.com or Stereophile.com.The relative amounts, however, are for the most part different. Again, the nature and spectra a tube amp's distortion falls within the the human auditory system's blind spot. Even small amounts of high order distortion is audible. It is only after forty years of solid state development that the best ones are beginning to fully challenge the best tube designs.


A measurement taken with dynamic content will not produce less distortion, steady state signals are used for simplicity.
THD measurements are averaged over time which does not show instantaneous peaks. The positively dreadful sounding Crown IC-150 measures only 0.001% THD under those conditions. The metric really doesn't relate to real world performance.

rw

[E-Stat]

How is it that putting a tube component in the circuit, say a preamp, can yield a tube sound even when that sound has been or will be filtered through a solid state component?? First of all, I did not say that adding an otherwise superfluous tube based gain stage would "improve" the sound. I have enjoyed improvements only when I replaced a solid state gain stage such a preamp with a tube design. All sins are cumulative. The more dirty panes of glass you look through will further obscure the view.

It for that reason that I don't use a preamp at all in either of my music systems. So long as you match gain and impedance, I've found that eliminating a gain stage altogether, whether tube or solid state, will improve resolution. I've yet to meet a perfect preamp at any price. That, by the way, is part of the magic of the ASR Emitter amps. While they are considered "integrated amps", in fact there is no separate line stage as commonly found. The input stage of the amp is of high enough gain and is battery powered to further drop the noise floor.

rw

[E-Stat]

Think of those second order harmonics as syrup, or salt.
And the odd order harmonics as vinegar. ;)

rw

[Geoffcin]

And the odd order harmonics as vinegar. ;)

rw

More like sand in your food. It doesn't take much to make you want to spit it out.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Whenever you listen to a tube amp... that not all tube amps sound alike. Now you may be blown away when you hear your 1st tube amp. I was when I hooked up a Dynaco st70 to my Infinite Slopes and Rickie Lee Jones was suddenly in the room. That was enough for me but 15 years later I'm on tube amp number four. It kills the others [well, the VAC was special too] and I've heard numerous other tube designs in friends systems, show rooms or Audio get togethers. And like the others have mentioned, It important to find the right speaker for the amp your using. My combo is hardly ideal and it still makes magic to my ears. People tend to side with higher efficiency speakers with tubes because mega-watt tube amps can be expensive. Tubes are more like analog, whereas SS is more like digital. You should consider that tube amps require some fiddling with. Biasing and tube rolling. Trying different tubes is half the fun of tweaking the sound to your liking. SS is plug-n-play. Kinda boring. People will generalize that tubes are great in the middle registers but weak that the edges. My system has a nice top end extention and while my dual 6" drivers won't do deep bass the bass from the 45-based amp is some of the most musical I''ve heard. It really comes down to where your replay priorities are. No one component type can do all things well. So choose wisely.

[theaudiohobby]

The relative amounts, however, are for the most part different. Again, the nature and spectra a tube amp's distortion falls within the the human auditory system's blind spot. Even small amounts of high order distortion is audible. It is only after forty years of solid state development that the best ones are beginning to fully challenge the best tube designs.

The two diagrams below show the distortion spectrum @1KHz/10W of a typical SET and that of unbalanced SS, The main difference between these two graphs is that magnitude of distortion in one is considerably higher than the other. The SET amplifier has considerably higher distortion across the whole spectrum.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/wyetech%5Ftopaz%5F572b/distortion_noisespectrum.gif

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/odyssey_khartago/distortion_noisespectrum.gif



THD measurements are averaged over time which does not show instantaneous peaks. The positively dreadful sounding Crown IC-150 measures only 0.001% THD under those conditions. The metric really doesn't relate to real world performance.

rw

THD is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, as the distortion spectrum of any audio signal can be captured, And it is the distortion spectrum of the signal that is relevant here.

[E-Stat]

The two diagrams below show the distortion spectrum @1KHz/10W of a typical SET and that of unbalanced SS
Who said anything about single ended triodes? I use 450 watt tetrode amps.


THD is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, as the distortion spectrum of any audio signal can be captured, And it is the distortion spectrum of the signal that is relevant here.
I'll take the upper trace with the more linear spectra and far lower in relation high order harmonics.

rw

[jrhymeammo]

I use 450 watt tetrode amps.


That's evil.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

Who said anything about single ended triodes? I use 450 watt tetrode amps.

Myself, among others.

[theaudiohobby]

Who said anything about single ended triodes? I use 450 watt tetrode amps.

Well, here is a VTL reference tetrode amplfier

http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205VTLFIG11.jpg

Now here is an SS

http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/CS5FIG7.jpg

I hope you catch the significance of that graph, it clearly shows (even more clearly than the previous example) that the VTL has higher distortion across the whole spectrum.



I'll take the upper trace with the more linear spectra and far lower in relation high order harmonics. rw

What is your definition of more linear? it seems that you overlooked the scaling in the graph, The final distortion harmonics shown for the SET are considerably larger and it also has a higher noisefloor. as stated previously it has higher distortion across the whole spectrum.

[Resident Loser]

...redeeming virtue of tubed gear is that it will still work in the aftermath of the EMP that accompanies a nuclear explosion...Why do you think the Russians and Chinese still produce parts for this antiquated technology?

jimHJJ(...it ain't magic...)

[JoeE SP9]

A question for theaudiohobby and Resident Loser. Have you spent any time listening to tube gear in your respective systems?:cool:

[Resident Loser]

A question for theaudiohobby and Resident Loser. Have you spent any time listening to tube gear in your respective systems?:cool:

...6L6GCs, 7025s, 12AX7s and 12AT7s in my forty year-old Fender Bandmaster...and that's where they and their "musicality" belong, providing that wonderful harmonics-rich distortion...SS guitar amps (other than my original Pignose) sorta' don't cut it...

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

[JoeE SP9]

I use them in my Ampeg B15, Fender Bassman and my Traynor YBA3. My Sunn Collesium Head is SS. I was asking have you ever tried any in your stereo? If you haven't how can you "diss" them outright?:ihih:

[theaudiohobby]

A question for theaudiohobby and Resident Loser. Have you spent any time listening to tube gear in your respective systems?:cool:

Back then (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=148805&postcount=8), I said


I will be contrarian here, and say that tubes SS divide is more an expression of preference that any inherent sound qualities per se. For example, the last tube preamp that I had in my system sounded opaque and the last SET power amplifier that I heard at length was brighter sounding than my current SS amplifier. So far, I have heard a ground total of zero tube amplfiers that I prefer to my current SS amplifier.

It is all down to preference...

[E-Stat]

What is your definition of more linear?
Linear as in a consistent slope of the harmonics. Let's also read Atkinson's specific comments about this graph:

"At high powers, the S-400's low loop feedback means that higher-order harmonics make an appearance (fig.11, tetrode; fig.12, triode), though the fact that the harmonics decrease linearly in level with increasing order works against their audibility, especially in triode mode.". I don't listen to compressed music at full power representing this particular situation. Note the term "makes an appearance". As in they are not always there.


it seems that you overlooked the scaling in the graph.
Not at all.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

Back then (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=148805&postcount=8), I said



It is all down to preference...

Sorry I didn't mean to be rude. Can't say I disagree with you. SET's are so speaker dependant it boggles the mind. I have never been able to use them. ESL's just don't work with them. :cool:

[theaudiohobby]

Linear as in a consistent slope of the harmonics. Let's also read Atkinson's specific comments about this graph:

"At high powers, the S-400's low loop feedback means that higher-order harmonics make an appearance (fig.11, tetrode; fig.12, triode), though the fact that the harmonics decrease linearly in level with increasing order works against their audibility, especially in triode mode.". I don't listen to compressed music at full power representing this particular situation. Note the term "makes an appearance". As in they are not always there.


@85W the VTL is tested at a fraction of it's rated power, the distortion spectrum shown is typical of the amplfier at that frequency and it is an order of magnitude higher than that of Coda across the whole spectrum.

And in direct contradiction to your original post, it is pretty clear from the graphs that tube amplfiers produce both even and odd order distortion as well as high order distortion harmonics (though the spectrum is definitely circuit dependent). Audibility of the distortion is besides the point, as it cuts both ways, if the distortion produced by the VTL is inaudible, then the much lower distortion produced by Coda S is certainly inaudible by the same token.


Not at all.

Well there is no point pressing this point as the new graphs are pretty conclusive. They demonstrate the superior linearity (following your definition) of the Coda S in comparison to the VTL Reference at the measured frequencies. Like the VTL the dominant distortion harmonic is second order, the distortion harmonics fall more rapidly than that of the VTL and it is has a lower noise floor.

[Pat D]

I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps. Do they sound bright or smooth compared to solid state? What type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?

Generally, the advantages of good solid state amplifiers are:

Low noise
Flat freqency response into a speaker load (consequence of low output impedance)
Low distortion
Good current capability


Generally, the advantages of tube amplifiers are . . . none of the above.

Oh, you can get tube amplifiers that do have low noise, low output impedance, low distortion, and good current capability but the ones I've heard of cost several times more than a lot of very good SS amps do.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

SET's are so speaker dependant it boggles the mind. I have never been able to use them.

The critical partnership between amp and speaker is hardly limited to SETs. I've heard numerous tube amps and many SETs. Some I liked, others I didn't. But the only amplification device that has provided long term satisfaction is a SET. And it's harnessed not to a horn or super hi-efficiency speaker but a real world design [93 db]. Far from ideal but it still makes me smile - everyday.

[JoeE SP9]

The critical partnership between amp and speaker is hardly limited to SETs. I've heard numerous tube amps and many SETs. Some I liked, others I didn't. But the only amplification device that has provided long term satisfaction is a SET. And it's harnessed not to a horn or super hi-efficiency speaker but a real world design [93 db]. Far from ideal but it still makes me smile - everyday.

I have heard some very nice systems using SET's. Unfortunately they were almost all horns. I own ESL's. I have owned nothing but panels of one type or another since 1976 and will probably never own anything else. SET's just don't have enough power for any of the speakers I like.:cool:

[Feanor]

Well, here is a VTL reference tetrode amplfier

http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/1205VTLFIG11.jpg

Now here is an SS

http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/CS5FIG7.jpg

I hope you catch the significance of that graph, it clearly shows (even more clearly than the previous example) that the VTL has higher distortion across the whole spectrum.

What is your definition of more linear? it seems that you overlooked the scaling in the graph, The final distortion harmonics shown for the SET are considerably larger and it also has a higher noisefloor. as stated previously it has higher distortion across the whole spectrum.

I have done very little listening to tube equipment, unfortunately -- except for my Behringer T1951 "tube" equalizer. So I don't presume to have an opinion as to whether tubes or SS sounds better.

Nevertheless the graphs presented by both E-Stat and theaudiohobby do not present a convincing evidence of the usual argument in favor tubes. I have often heard that tubes produce mainly 2nd order harmonics and generally less odd-order harmonics than SS.

But it is clear from both sets of graphs that the tubes are producing far more distortion overall, including 3rd and higher odd-order harmonics. In the E-Stat's graph, it isn't until you get 7th order harmonics that the SS distortion becomes higher than the tube's. At point the distortion is very low in total, although I suppose you could say it's significant. Is there any objective evidence that it is significant?

By the way, by Behringer does soften the sound, depending on the tunable "warmth" setting. Behringer is up-front about the fact that it does this by introducing distortion. The unit also sligtly reduces micro dynamics. As far as I'm concerned the tube effect in this case is useless and I only continue to use the EQ for the equalization which is certainly worthwile.

[E-Stat]

At point the distortion is very low in total, although I suppose you could say it's significant.Have you ever heard an old Crown preamp? The IC-150 preamp had 0.05% distortion maximum from 20-20khz. Yet, it was horrible sounding. When I bought a Crown amp back in '75, the dealer talked me out of buying the ICK. It was cold, sterile and the top was much like fingernails on a chalkboard. While I cannot find a spectral graph, let's just assume the "worst" and say that ALL of it was high order.

The spectral analysis of a single frequency (50 hz at that!) is hardly a conclusive arbiter of the ten octave reproduction of music. Yes 0.05% worth of inherently obnoxious atonal distortion is evidently clearly audible!

rw

[theaudiohobby]

Have you ever heard an old Crown preamp? The IC-150 preamp had 0.05% distortion maximum from 20-20khz. Yet, it was horrible sounding. When I bought a Crown amp back in '75, the dealer talked me out of buying the ICK. It was cold, sterile and the top was much like fingernails on a chalkboard. While I cannot find a spectral graph, let's just assume the "worst" and say that ALL of it was high order.


Are you trying to infer that your experience with the Crown preamp (of 1975 vintage!) is representative of ALL SS preamps and power amplifiers.



The spectral analysis of a single frequency (50 hz at that!) is hardly a conclusive arbiter of the ten octave reproduction of music. Yes 0.05% worth of inherently obnoxious atonal distortion is evidently clearly audible!

Then how do you square these graphs( note the scaling ) at 1KHz (i.e. in the midrange)? :6:

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/coda%5F12/distortion_noisespectrum.gif

against this

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/aes_six_pac/distortion_noisespectrum.gif

or this

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/grommes_360/chart5.gif

Of note in the final graph (tho' not relevant to me), is that the 3rd Order harmanic is actually larger than 2nd and it is a tube amp.

[E-Stat]

Are you trying to infer that your experience with the Crown preamp (of 1975 vintage!) is representative of ALL SS preamps and power amplifiers.
Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps? What I am pointing out is this:

Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.


Then how do you square these graphs( note the scaling ) at 1KHz (i.e. in the midrange)?
Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.

rw

[Geoffcin]

Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps? What I am pointing out is this:

Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.


Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.

rw


Let me give you some insight from my own experiences. This has to do with two SS amps. One with MUCH more distortion than the other, but both of them rated "A" by Stereophile. I regularly switch these amps out of my setup JUST so I can hone my ability to hear sonic differences between amps. (I also enjoy both amps)

To make a long story short, I PREFER the one with the higher distortion, but not because of the distortion. It's high frequency response is a tad more mellow than the other one. The difference is on the order of 1db between them, but I can hear it. With my speakers that makes a difference. The higher distortion amp is also a bit "looser" on the bottom end, which slightly adds to the apparent bass. Also more enjoyable with MY speakers. A different set of speakers and the tables might be reversed.

The point I'm trying to get across is that an amp cannot be thought of as an entity. It's part of an amp/speaker closed system and as such that's how they should be evaluated.

Probably another reason why measurments made with a simple resistor are not picking up the true measure of performance.

[theaudiohobby]

Are you trying to infer that your experience with an SET is representative of ALL tube power amps?
I never suggested such....here a link (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=148966&postcount=14) to my original post, also see my response to Joe.



What I am pointing out is this:

Harmonic Distortion measurements are next to useless to convey any useful information as to the musical performance of an amplifier.

I do not disagree with this statement as long as 'musical performance' implies your personal preference. Or are you using 'musical performance in another context'?

More importantly, why then did you say all this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=148824&postcount=10)in an earlier post

_SNIP_ Each has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. I confess my preference has changed as I have gotten older, (hopefully) wiser, and my musical tastes have evolved. Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion. Quantity alone is not a good measure of musical faithfulness. It has been proven long ago that the even order harmonic distortion produced by tube amps is far less audible than the higher order, odd harmonics generated by solid state amps. Tube amps distort right in the audible blind spot so to speak. Another problem with the metrics is that they are measured with steady state signals, not dynamic musical content.

That post is totally contradicts you new stated position, in addition to the obvious inaccuracies in the former, there are too many inconsistencies between both posts. Moving on


Same answer. There is not as yet a metric that weighs the human auditory's "blind spot" with quantifiying what is relevant and audible and that which is not. There are a number of amplifiers today whose measurements are worse that their earlier counterparts yet sound a lot better. This is true of Crown as well as some excellent SS models from companies as Pass Labs.

How do you know that 'tube amps distort in the audible blindspot', when you just said that there is no metric to correlate harmonic distortion to musical performance? The graphs shown previously show that those tube amplifiers have higher distortion across the whole spectrum, so comments about "human auditory blindspot" (what is that?) are essentially moot.

Back to my original point, In direct contradiction to your original comments, tubes amplifiers produce both odd and even order distortion like their SS cousins, the spectrum of the distortion is circuit dependent. The big difference is that on average, they produce a lot more distortion that their SS cousins. The graphs that I have linked to amply demonstrate that.:17: :18: :7:

[theaudiohobby]

The point I'm trying to get across is that an amp cannot be thought of as an entity. It's part of an amp/speaker closed system and as such that's how they should be evaluated.

Probably another reason why measurments made with a simple resistor are not picking up the true measure of performance.

I agree with the first comment entirely, and the second is probably self evident, though it must be said that an amplifier produces higher distortion into a resistor is unlikely to produce less distortion into an actual speaker load.:6:

[RGA]

I've listened to solid state my whole life and was just wondering what are the characteristics of tube amps. Do they sound bright or smooth compared to solid state? What type of speakers sound good with tube amps high effiency or low effiency?

I've listened to SS my whole life too. If you want what is considered accurate -- go to your local studio and buy their Bryston and PMC (though the Bryston is actually overkill since the entry level receiver from a company calle "Quest" is every bit as capable and it runs $90.00Canadian will do the job assuming you don't crank it quite as loud.

Oh you want something that sounds good - that is an entirely different question sorry I read your post wrong -- well guess what -- you;re the only guy who is going to be able to determine what actually sounds better to you. Tube amps don't sound ver much the same at all -- and some of them sound less tubey than some SS amps. Relative High efficiency in my experience sounds better no matter what amplifier you use -- but it makes sense to use them with lower powered amps.

Everything you listen to -- the stereo and the music itself comes down to your personal preference of it. Why does one guy love Tupac while hating Mozart while someone else can't stand Hip Hop but loves Rage against the Machine.

Most people who have gone to High efficiency and tubes were people who owned set-ups like Bryston and PMC. And not the other way around. They decided that they wanted their music to sound good rather than be someone else's idea of more perfect.

"Joe Robert’s "Sound Practices" magazine had a major effect on the North American market by exposing it to schools of audio design from Japan, Italy, and France. The overseas ultra-fi fans didn’t have sour memories of the "West Coast Sound" marketing disaster, and continued to hold the classic high-efficiency theatre speakers in high regard.

Outside of the Anglo-American orbit, the design philosophies of "old" Western Electric theatre speakers, Altec and JBL studio-monitor systems, and P.G.A.H. Voight's Tractrix horns are still taken quite seriously. The appeal isn’t nostalgia; brand-new drivers and horns made from exotic materials appear on the market at prices that would astound Western audiophiles. These alternate-paradigm speakers work especially well with flea-power amplifiers using direct-heated single-ended triodes; a 3 watt 2A3 amplifier simply doesn’t work with room-sized electrostats or planars, but works beautifully with a 104dB efficient all-horn system.

To those who think amplifiers have already reached near-perfection (almost all of the AES establishment and home-theatre vendors), this embracing of archaic "foreign" technologies looks like some kind of bizarre joke. The slick high-end magazines explain away the horn/triode phenomenon as retro-chic, just another trendy example of mythologizing the past.

The flip side of this coin is the fact that the most articulate horn/triode advocates have already owned, and discarded, mainstream audiophile systems. As a fairly mainstream speaker designer myself, I can attest that raising the efficiency of conventional direct-radiators is most certainly worthwhile ... you get a significant improvement in clarity, immediacy, and naturalness, and your choice of amplifier opens up to much more interesting technologies." (Lynn Olson)

You simply have to listen and decide if what the tube set-up is doing sounds better -- it doesn't measure better -- so it comes down to the peripherals -- those two things that stick out the side of your head. I can tell you that it sure sucks not to be able to point to a graph and say see that is why it sounds better. But having had Bryston in my home and after spending time with brethtakingly good measuring gear with all the technical jargon sighting its absolute superiority -- well it ultimately sounds sterile.

Here is a fellow who owned for decades top Bryston PMC and numerous other Tom Nousaine, John Atkinson and enginnering guru's dream systems (of which I have heard as well) -- in the end you can either own what those guys think is best or what actually sounds good. http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.pl?forum=general&n=345133&review=1

[E-Stat]

I do not disagree with this statement as long as 'musical performance' implies your personal preference. Or are you using 'musical performance in another context'?
If you use your amps for the purpose of generating graphs, then so be it.


How do you know that 'tube amps distort in the audible blindspot', when you just said that there is no metric to correlate harmonic distortion to musical performance?
Averaged THD or isolated single tone spectra are not particularly useful for providing a complete picture when the objective is listening to music. Individual tests, however, on tones have proven differences that would suggest a mechanism behind the audible differences.

I find one of the best measuring amps, the Halcro, to be quite sterile sounding.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

If you use your amps for the purpose of generating graphs, then so be it.

Sigh..In other words, it simply meant preference.



Averaged THD or isolated single tone spectra are not particularly useful for providing a complete picture when the objective is listening to music. Individual tests, however, on tones have proven differences that would suggest a mechanism behind the audible differences.

THD is irrelevant to the discusion. You tests obviously seem better than the single tone tests presernted here, could you reference some of them, afterall you said it had been proven long ago?

[RGA]

E-Stat

Don't want to jump in but be clear about what you are trying to argue with TAH. First don't bother arguing over technical merits of tubes with him or any arm chair or real engineer. The measurement technique was chosen long ago and favors SS and CD (over tube and Vnyl).

SS and CD have used the technical arguments for a long time because they need it to sell. Certainly the sound has not. If the sound quality did then the other two formats would have been abolished. And they will point out that VInyl and tubes are all but dead -- but that is only the mass market not the audiophile community. CD was purchased largely due to the fact that it is small - portable and recordable (which is why Tape was popular before). Laserdisc in every measurable way was superior to VHS tape but only the audiophile videophile community chose sound and video quality over features -- the masses will and always do choose functionality over quality.

So you have the up market audiophile music lover and even musicians who have adopted the "inferior measuring" and E-STAT -- with the measuring standards in place they are clearly inferior. But so what? Why argue the point. Some stuff was designed to measure in certain tests very well so they'd have something to advertise and some stuff was designed to sound good regardless of the measurements. As an example you don't buy SET because it measures good -- Even SET owners should know that. You also don't buy SET because it is cheap, or has any features, or looks good. You can't be seduced by things like big power specs or measured response, or spec sheets. In fact it has only one thing going for it -- the sound. (and even then it has to be connected to something that will not stress it out).

So I don't see why you don't resign yourself to stating this as a preference like I have done. In every measurable way the Bryston and all my other SS amps over the last 15 years is vastly superior to my tube amp -- I bought the amp that made music sound like music.

The engineering types I'm not sure of their motives -- is it to educate tube owners on this -- I doubt it because I already know the Bryston measures better? Not sure what the motive is but I have a feeling it is to satisfy their inferiority complex...I hear better and am logical because I buy gear based off the books and engineering white papers while you little moron baboons only buy tubes because you got duped into liking distortion artifacts -- I have better hearing than you as a result of this superior knowledge.

Get the picture of these folks E-Stat -- you should have learned after talking with Soundmind. He has this all down to musical taste as well. If you like Rock/Rap/Hip Hop/Pop then you sir are a BABOON -- If you like Coltrane you have no taste in quality musicianship. Not only that he has it down to individual instruments -- Piano is the absolute top of the grade because it covers the complete frequency spectrum (it therefore measures best) while an Oboist or flutist is a hack in absolute terms. Every instrument is graded from supreme quality to lowest. If you like a violinist over a pianist then you sir are a Baboon! And singers are of course rated for octave coverage and pitch -- so forget Ella Fitgerald -- dog crap vocalist compared to real singers.

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

[jtgofish]

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

[E-Stat]

The fact that anyone owns a direct radiating speaker automatically puts you into Baboon territory -- maybe a gorilla or neanderthal man if you at least own a Crown and a Bose or AR 9.
That is Skeptic/Soundmind for sure!

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

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

rw

[theaudiohobby]

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


So after entering the thread with great flourish saying

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

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

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

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


... The measurement technique was chosen long ago and favors SS and CD (over tube and Vinyl). Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

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

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

[Feanor]

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

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

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

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

[Feanor]

...

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

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

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

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

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

At 61, I'm stone deaf to sounds much above 10kHz, and
I can't afford a high-end set up of the sort that seems to drive out the differences for some audiophiles.So I just enjoy the music oblivious to what I'm missing.
:17: :16: :21:

[E-Stat]

Oh the depth of your ignorance, suffice to say that harmonic distortion spectrum measurements were already popular when both SS amplification devices and CD were just the stuff of science fiction.
Thirty years of listening continues to prove to these ears that the numbers alone do not fully characterize the sound of an amplifier.

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

Yes, more realistic musical reproduction is my preference.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

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


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

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

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

[Feanor]

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

Mwalsdor, Geoff,

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

I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.
:16:

[theaudiohobby]

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

What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?

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

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

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

[Geoffcin]

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

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

[Geoffcin]

Mwalsdor, Geoff,

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

I still persue the hobby with some vigor. But I'm no longer much concerned with tiny differences as among, say, half-decent interconnects, or quality tube versus quality SS amps. Instead I have shifted my attention to things that make an undoubted differences, for example equalization and multi-channel.
:16:

But your affliction is still most apparent!

[theaudiohobby]

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

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

[RGA]

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

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

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

[RGA]

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


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

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

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

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

[RGA]

What is the sonic performance of an amplifier?

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

[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,:sleep: :6: .

[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:cornut: and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.:7:

[musicoverall]

The same applies to home audio, however the resultant implications are one of the of many reasons audiophiles hate DBTs:o 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:cornut: and the numbers are a good aid in that cause.:7:

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?:ihih:

...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! :D

[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! :D

...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,:sleep: :6: .

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.:cool:

[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 :ihih:

[JoeE SP9]

Hey Flo, there are some very good American beers. Samuel Adams is one Yuengling is another. :thumbsup: 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. :ihih:

[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.:cool:

[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.:cool:

Well I don't drink Molson either. :nonod: 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.

[JoeE SP9]

If I have it right Kronenbourg is actually made in France. If so, it along with Champagne is the only thing France is good for.:cool:

[JoeE SP9]

Feanor if you can get Pilsner Urquell in Canada give it a try. Chimay Grand Reserve and Pilsner Urquell are my two favorite beers. :thumbsup:

[Feanor]

Feanor if you can get Pilsner Urquell in Canada give it a try. Chimay Grand Reserve and Pilsner Urquell are my two favorite beers. :thumbsup:

I'll look for them. Thanks a lot. :)

[RGA]

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. :)

There is strictly speaking nothing wrong with a Good DB test. Like any test it is a tool. Just as it is in my field of Education. And just like in education tests have serious problems for several psychological factors. In education the goal is about learning and the ability to learn. Tests do not necessarily indicate or show a person;s knowledge of the subject material -- and for most of this century including most of the black and white right wing governments who can only think in terms of simple answers that a person who scores 95% is smarter or more knowledgable than the person who scores 60%. Which is not in fact the case. It is really unfortunate that the scientific evidence in education has not yet made it to the universities or the public school system but it's an area where politicians need numbers to sell even if the tests don't measure that which it oughta test.

DBT's simply do not prove anything -- the very definition tells us this thankfully that as a result of such tests A does not = B. The fact that in such a test person A can not statistically differentiate A from B tells us little as well beyond the confines of the test environment. Put simply -- 1) test stress is a big factor which engineers know nothing of since they never engage the debate (because they know they're wrong). 2) Their duration tests are not set-up the same way as a normal listening session - this is a softer case but it is very credible that in tests we listen FOR something that we do not listen to in a normal listening session or even in a buying mode. The duration of long term fatigue cannot and has never been accounted for or tested for in DBT's. So yes the idiot audiophile who claims to hear a difference between two cables within 1 second of listening anywhere all the time can easily be shown the door in such a test -- and the DBT is very good at illustrating to those people they can't.

It just goes on and on -- from statistical analysis (which is about as poor a math as you can hang your hat on as there is as it is ENTIRELY based on probability). Consider the coin flip -- everyone knows that you have to a 50% of flipping heads on your next coin flip -- but this is actually total nonsense. You want to know why -- flip the coin and then ask the question. You flip and it comes out heads you don;t say ahh I have a 50% chance that I flipped heads. No it is either 100% or 0%. This is why Philisophy as a course of study is highly beneficial -- it is ABOVE science on the ladder of intelligencia. ou either have a fact or you don't. In a 16 trial test or a 50 trillion trial test the fact that people fail or succeed on the .05 level is not indicative of anything OTHER than someone's ability to be consistant -- that is something very different than KNOWING whether one can actually determine the difference. On listen one person Fred may actually hear a difference between the two componants FULLY accurately and have it bang on right. He may completely suck ass for the rest of the day and not do anything right -- but on trial one if we could actually KNOW that he was actually RIGHT -- then the difference would ACTUALLY be proven to exist.

The problem is we don't know so we develop science on probability and are now testing people's abilities to be good under tests and to be consistant and yada yada. I don't really have a problem with them relying on them -- but it's no different than expecting the sun to come up tomorrow merely because the sun has always come up in the past as long as Scientists and people have been counting But expecting and knowing is not the same thing. The probability is absolutely ENORMOUS that it will come up tomorrow -- Just as it is enormous that one will not ever win a lottery until of course when in fact the sun does not come up and a person not only wins the lottery once but twice. You either 100% won the lottery or you 0% did not win the lottery.

Certainly probability I am not chucking out completely so I don't to be misread -- obviously Casino's are in the business (a VERY lucrative one and so are life insurance agents and warranty providers) because they are in the business of knowing probabilities and in the long run they can determine which games are going to be in their best favor and good gamblers will know which games have the best chance of winning provided they make the perfect bet everytime. But every game is in the house favour and over the long run they win -- but that still does not stop that big winner from beating the probabilities.

Then we have not even got onto the problems of knowing our brains and what that is doing for different people - there is a plethora of arguments just on right left hemisphere issues, femal versus male and on and on that goes.

None of this is to say just go ahead and blindly, Ahem, trust every sighted review going (of course why anyone would trust a review anyway is beyond me) when it ultimately comes down to the only person who needs to be involved -- the person spending the cash. Of course you run a risk of being duped by price name brand appearance biases -- such is life. There are many other issues but I'm too tired to go into it all.

[theaudiohobby]

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.

The context of my posts here and elsewhere does not support your inference. Better measurements imply better performance not perception. Better perceived sound production is largely determined by an individual's preferences.However accuracy and neutrailty can only be reliably determined by measurements. A trained listener can also identify neutrality and accuracy, but not as accurately or reliably as a thorough measurements regime.

[theaudiohobby]

-SNIP-
Simply put, tubes and solid state differ in the way they distort the signal. The human auditory system also comes into play because we have different sensitivities to different kinds of distortion. Quantity alone is not a good measure of musical faithfulness. It has been proven long ago that the even order harmonic distortion produced by tube amps is far less audible than the higher order, odd harmonics generated by solid state amps. Tube amps distort right in the audible blind spot so to speak. Another problem with the metrics is that they are measured with steady state signals, not dynamic musical content.

SNIP

Tube amps do not offer the high damping factors required by quite frankly, most speakers. As a result, the bass response is less tight and the frequency response can vary. Low powered tube amps are a great match for high efficiency horn speakers. High powered flavors excel with my full range electrostats which are naturally high impedance drivers.
rw

I could not help but note the striking similarity of your post to VTL's marketing blob (http://www.vtl.com/pages/whytubes.html):biggrin5:


Music has great dynamic swings, and in tube amplifiers the onset of clip/overload as maximum power is reached is gradual, with a low even-order harmonic.

Even-order harmonic distortion is somewhat benign, and less offensive to the ear than the harsh, odd-order harmonic distortion characteristic displayed by solid-state circuits, even though the distortion figures for tubes are somewhat higher.

Transistor amplifiers generally reach their power limit and clip in a mostly odd-order harmonic, which is more fatiguing to listen to. In such a transistor amplifier the distortion rises very quickly as the maximum power level is reached, with an almost square wave characteristic, and a high DC component, (which can destroy loudspeaker drivers).



Not much difference:)

[hermanv]

Started as a great thread... Then comes name calling, mudslinging. Why is this so common on this forum?

Anyway the whole question of tube vs solid state couldn't be more of an apples and oranges comparison. It deserves far more space and time than I gave it below, but what the hell.

Here's my opnion:
1. Using medium power equipment say 75 Watts on a typical 89-90 dBSPL speaker: On simple accoustic sounds, tubes can bring forth a sound more like a caress, truly magnificent, but let the music become very complex and the tubes give up. Ditto for ultra low bass, small tube gear just can't deliver enough amps to drive a 15" woofer down to 19 Hz.

2. Now change to a 450 Watt or more tube monster amp and we have a different issue, suddenly damping factor and low frequency amperes aren't the problem, the air conditioner and the mortgage on the house is.

3. Well made SS gear gives the greatest bang for the buck as far as all around sound goes. In many subsets of music either tube or solid state holds an edge. Do you like giant drums, pipe organ, and you have a limited buget, then go SS. Like small accoustic ensembles, human voice solo's, then maybe tubes are best for you.

4. Solid state gear rarely changes its' sound with age, tube gear always does.

Generalizations, but mostly true in my listening experience. The best tube gear can (not all brands) bring out an intemancy that transistors rarely match. If you can afford multi kilobuck tube gear, you can afford multi kilobuck SS gear, much of this stuff is very good.

I dissagree a little that it's all about preference, tube and solid state gear sound has started to converge, the differences are a little less each year. Both kinds of designers are heading for a middle ground, more neutral more accurate.

Like I said, just my opinion. Trust your own ears, the only one that needs to be happy with your decision is you.

[theaudiohobby]

Started as a great thread... Then comes name calling, mudslinging. Why is this so common on this forum?


An unfortunate by product of internet conversations... I hate it but ad hominen attacks are very common in internet conversations cos many folks hold emotional or ill-informed rather than logical, rational opinions. An emotional position is very difficult to back up and as result the holders tend to lash out with ad hominem attacks on anyone who questions the rational of their opinion.


Using medium power equipment say 75 Watts on a typical 89-90 dBSPL speaker: On simple accoustic sounds, tubes can bring forth a sound more like a caress, truly magnificent, but let the music become very complex and the tubes give up

I suggest you look at the power delivery curves of many these amplifiers and high efficiency speakers as it will give some insight into their behaviour, the Zu Druid loudspeaker provides a very good intro' to this behaviour, a lower midrange lift if well executed can have a very alluring effect. As stated previously, I am of opinion that the primary goal of home audio amplifiers is not accuracy, that is borne out by the preferences expressed by many of us in our audio equipment selection. This is very different from the professional user who demands accuracy of delivery and the market provides him/her the necessary information to make a decision on that basis. On the other hand, the professional user dials in distortion to taste and equaliser etc are an indispensable tools. In general the key difference between both user is knowledge, the professional HAS to know about the tools of his trade to survive, not so the domestic user.

[E-Stat]

Like I said, just my opinion. Trust your own ears, the only one that needs to be happy with your decision is you.
Which nicely parallels mine.

In April, I had a chance to meet the engineer behind the Sound Lab speakers and hear his new Majestics. Dr. West is a very passionate guy. Brian Walsh, the local dealer in Chicago, used a pair of Parasound JC-1s on them. Very clear and drove them to very satisfying levels in the large room. As you mentioned, however, the intimacy and "liveness" on voice and piano to which I am accustomed was absent.

Somehow, I don't find that "less accurate" as tah constantly suggests.

rw

[Resident Loser]

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.:cool:

...that you obviously missed the overall gist of my post...Oh well...guess I'll just hop into my Rambler Ambassador and head down to the local Rexall for a package of Gillette Blu-blades...Maybe even have the counterman prepare a lime rickey for me...

jimHJJ(...BTW, my last indulgence in a potent potable was hi-test Wild Turkey back in late '90...beer...like New Years Eve... is for amateurs...)

[JoeE SP9]

...that you obviously missed the overall gist of my post...Oh well...guess I'll just hop into my Rambler Ambassador and head down to the local Rexall for a package of Gillette Blu-blades...Maybe even have the counterman prepare a lime rickey for me...

jimHJJ(...BTW, my last indulgence in a potent potable was hi-test Wild Turkey back in late '90...beer...like New Years Eve... is for amateurs...)

Unless I'm mistaken you were saying that tubes are obsolete technology. If that's so we just don't agree.
My comment about American beer stands.:ihih:

[Resident Loser]

Unless I'm mistaken you were saying that tubes are obsolete technology. If that's so we just don't agree.
My comment about American beer stands.:ihih:

...earlier, the technology is indeed obsolete...you can use the most up-to-date semiconductors in the power supply or other ancillary parts of the circuit but your signal is still passing through outmoded components and circuit topology...today's SET amp (which by it's relatve simplicity is suited to the DIY hobbyist read: cottage-industry types) is essentially no different than one of forty years ago...Oh, it may have wunderkaps or solid silver, "directional" wire, but it's a done deal. As a technology, it simply has higher distortion figures and is inherently more subject to the vagaries that IMO have given rise to the mythological underpinnings of the whole break-in/warm-up debate. Until that 600V gets those heaters up to snuff (and is able to keep them at optimum levels) there's no telling how the sound will differ from session to session...

jimHJJ(...just another facet of the "Grail" mentality IMNSHO...)

[Geoffcin]

...earlier, the technology is indeed obsolete

From dictionary.net;

Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere. See Obsolescent.]

1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied chiefly to words, writings, or observances.

2. (Biol.) Not very distinct; obscure; rudimental; imperfectly developed; abortive.

Syn: Ancient; antiquated; old-fashioned; antique; old; disused; neglected. See Ancient.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Obsolete can be used to discribe tube tech as it pertains to military electronics, modern avionics, computers and the such. However, it is NOT correctly used when discribing audio electronics.

[RGA]

The context of my posts here and elsewhere does not support your inference. Better measurements imply better performance not perception. Better perceived sound production is largely determined by an individual's preferences.However accuracy and neutrailty can only be reliably determined by measurements. A trained listener can also identify neutrality and accuracy, but not as accurately or reliably as a thorough measurements regime.

Where's the proof of all of this? You can't know accuracy without the reference -- you got nothing on this.

[Resident Loser]

From dictionary.net;

Obsolete \Ob"so*lete\, a. [L. obsoletus, p. p. of obsolescere. See Obsolescent.]

1. No longer in use; gone into disuse; disused; neglected; as, an obsolete word; an obsolete statute; -- applied chiefly to words, writings, or observances.

2. (Biol.) Not very distinct; obscure; rudimental; imperfectly developed; abortive.

Syn: Ancient; antiquated; old-fashioned; antique; old; disused; neglected. See Ancient.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Obsolete can be used to discribe tube tech as it pertains to military electronics, modern avionics, computers and the such. However, it is NOT correctly used when discribing audio electronics.

...dueling definitions?...semantics?

In the grand scheme of things, tubes account for exactly what percentage of gear sold? I haven't a clue, anyone have an answer? If anything, it's on life support and I doubt that the support units keeping it alive utilize tube technology...Is that why hospital-grade components are de riguer among those of like mindset?

Given the disparaging difference in units sold and the lack of public clamor, yeah...I'm quite comfortable with calling the technology obsolete, despite the supplied definition(s)... AND despite those manufacturers who glamorize and give it a mystique that quite frankly falls right into place with the rest of golden-eared, audio tweakdom. Rarefied, anecdotal gobbledegook...Repeat: hard-to-get/expensive imported components or domestic NOS that's older than many of our members...MikE (walsdor) had gone in on some custom-built tubes, an experience (I dare say) he won't be trying again any time soon.

Look, tubes sound great for instrument amplifiers, but that branch of the audio tree has tended to produce colored sound, rich in even-ordered harmonics as part and parcel of the whole thing. Early transistor amps just plain s*cked with a capital s*ck! Putting single-coil or humbucking pickups through a more analytical form of amplification showed how lousy and thin the instruments' output tended to be...think early analog-to-digital transfers...talk about a synergy...You really need the sound imparted by tubes for the proper balance...SS guitar amps have circuitry to mimic the sound of tubes, effects pedals are available to do the same and not vice-versa...that to me speaks volumes. Again, futzing with the source, the raw materials is way different from altering the finished product... AKA: your source material.

jimHJJ(...musical, schmoozical...personal preference is just that...)

[E-Stat]

Given the disparaging difference in units sold and the lack of public clamor, yeah...I'm quite comfortable with calling the technology obsolete, despite the supplied definition(s).
The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto? Forty million Frenchmen are frequently wrong. I got over the McIntosh THD numbers game in high school. Why do the numbers on my AR integrated look so good and yet sound so bad? Hmmm... Maybe they don't mean Shack Jit. If you really believe in the relevance of low distortion stats, I sentence you to life with a Crown IC-150 (Ick) preamp.


Look, tubes sound great for instrument amplifiers, but that branch of the audio tree has tended to produce colored sound, rich in even-ordered harmonics as part and parcel of the whole thing.
Tended perhaps. Your broad comment applies today only when desired - as with Marshall amps and the like. Such widespread use of "musical amps", however, does keep the tube market alive.

There are more high fidelity tube amplifier companies today than there were twenty or even thirty years ago.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

:smile5:
The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto?

From the FI site (http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/14/496.html)


The majority of modern Formula One cars use seven-speed semi-automatic gearboxes. Regulations stipulate at least four forward gears, up to a maximum of seven. All cars must also have a reverse gear. Constantly Variable Transmission (CVT) systems are not allowed and cars may have no more than two driven wheels.

In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.

[Geoffcin]

:smile5:

From the FI site (http://www.formula1.com/insight/rulesandregs/14/496.html)



In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.

While they use the word "semi-automatic" the F1 transmission has very little in common with your buick automatic.

It's better understood as an auto-clutch.

[E-Stat]

In other words, automatic transmission is not permitted so that certain cars do not gain unfair performance advantage.
I see you are completely unfamiliar with paddle shifters. If you had ever attended a Grand Prix such as the one at Silverstone (I've been to Indy), you would understand. They are also available in some exotic street cars such as Ferraris as well.

There is one considerable difference between paddle shifters and automatics: automatics shift themselves. Drivers, on the other hand, control the gear selection and are freed from having to depress a clutch. That's the point of using a manual. If allows the driver to select the appropriate gear to pull through corners.

There is nothing like the sound of a V-10 running at 18,000 RPM rapidly downshifting from 14,000 rpm four gears to enter a fast hairpin curve. :)

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I see you are completely unfamiliar with paddle shifters.

I had paddle shifter aka Ferrari in mind when I wrote the original post


There is one considerable difference between paddle shifters and automatics: automatics shift themselves. Drivers, on the other hand, control the gear selection and are freed from having to depress a clutch. That's the point of using a manual. If allows the driver to select the appropriate gear to pull through corners. There is nothing like the sound of a V-10 running at 18,000 RPM rapidly downshifting from 14,000 rpm four gears to enter a fast hairpin curve. :)


Yes, there is difference between paddle shifters and automatics and you missed the main point of my post, automatic gear shifting in guise of Continously Variable Transmission (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission) (the ultimate expression of automatic gear shifting) is banned in F1, Why?It gave the original cars that employed them an unfair performance advantage.

PS: Research before you comment...

[theaudiohobby]

While they use the word "semi-automatic" the F1 transmission has very little in common with your buick automatic.

It's better understood as an auto-clutch.

As I live in the UK, I do not need to think of an automatic in terms of Buick Automatic, an outdated form of automatic transmission, I am thinking of automatics in terms of the latest technology i..e variable transmission. CVT were banned in F1 because the unfair performance advantage they accorded the cars that employed.

By the way, the automatic transmission employed by US vehicles are widely regarded in Europe as clunky :) .

[Geoffcin]

As I live in the UK, I do not need to think of an automatic in terms of Buick Automatic, an outdated form of automatic transmission, I am thinking of automatics in terms of the latest technology i..e variable transmission. CVT were banned in F1 because the unfair performance advantage they accorded the cars that employed.

By the way, the automatic transmission employed by US vehicles are widely regarded in Europe as clunky :) .

Actually Buick uses a very sophisticated electronically controlled 4 speed auto that has nearly inperceptable shifts. In tech terms, these are wonderful examples of modern CAD produced engineering.

[E-Stat]

Why?It gave the original cars that employed them an unfair performance advantage.
Why do you suppose there are zero high performance cars available today using CVTs?

rw

[Resident Loser]

The same could be said of manual transmissions. Their use is in the decided minority. What does that have at all to do with performance? Ever see an F1 car with an auto? Forty million Frenchmen are frequently wrong. I got over the McIntosh THD numbers game in high school. Why do the numbers on my AR integrated look so good and yet sound so bad? Hmmm... Maybe they don't mean Shack Jit. If you really believe in the relevance of low distortion stats, I sentence you to life with a Crown IC-150 (Ick) preamp.


Tended perhaps. Your broad comment applies today only when desired - as with Marshall amps and the like. Such widespread use of "musical amps", however, does keep the tube market alive.

There are more high fidelity tube amplifier companies today than there were twenty or even thirty years ago.

rw

...with a broad brush...or are you planning to put up some wallpaper...

Re: the car analogy...You cite instances were driving itself is an art...obviously better control can be had when the driver uses his instincts and abilities as opposed to some sort of pre-sets...How is there any parallel in hi-fi? Driving is active, listening (no matter how involving it may be) is a passive activity.

There are any number of folks who are of the off-road, stump-jumping mindset...some want manuals, others say slush-boxes are the way to go...others who prefer the normal aspiration of a carb (even if off-camber travel hangs up their float now and again)...others who want EFI and spend big-bucks to retrofit. Each has advantages that are use specific...rock-crawlin' or mud-boggin or anything in between...the last time I looked, listening to music involved source material and a listener.

Good numbers/bad sound...well with all due respect, sez you! Your personal preference is just that...all of the unsolicited testimonials in the world (IMHO the fertilizer that keeps the tweakier stuff a-growin') mean very little...Maybe a solution would be SS amps which could be dialed-in to mimic tube characteristics...in fact didn't Bob Carver do something like that some time ago...analyze some waveforms and distortion components, design a circuit to replicate them and bada-bing-bada-boom "musicality" to order...sorta' like the pre-RIAA EQ standard...instead of having settings like "Columbia" and "European" you could have "Audio Research" and "SET"...of course, to be totally accurate the knob/switch should be labeled Color...or perhaps given the penchant for audio things of European origin, perhaps Colour...just an add-on to impart a sound...

Re: tube gear mfrs....I've got some old issues of Audio Engineering (formerly "Radio") and the precursor to AUDIO that shows me at one time there was nothing but tubed electronics...and slowly, but surely, things changed...and much the same arguments of mono vs. stereo and analog vs. digital accompanied the transition...go figure...

jimHJJ(...always fodder for endless debate...)

[E-Stat]

You cite instances were driving itself is an art...obviously better control can be had when the driver uses his instincts and abilities as opposed to some sort of pre-sets...How is there any parallel in hi-fi? Driving is active, listening (no matter how involving it may be) is a passive activity.
Evidently, that is where we differ. The active pursuit of hearing subtle differences (if one is so inclined) requires training, experience, and exercising lots of neurons. When I was much younger, I confess that I did not hear quite a few things that my older and more experienced (in music) reviewer friends were consistently observing.


There are any number of folks who are of the off-road, stump-jumping mindset...some want manuals, others say slush-boxes are the way to go.
Right, few corners to set up the weight balance.


in fact didn't Bob Carver do something like that some time ago...analyze some waveforms and distortion components, design a circuit to replicate them and bada-bing-bada-boom "musicality" to order.
In the parlor games sense that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.


...and much the same arguments of mono vs. stereo and analog vs. digital accompanied the transition...go figure...
Bad example. So, how many labels release mono recordings today? The answer is clearly economics - which also accounts for the success with MP3s.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Evidently, that is where we differ. The active pursuit of hearing subtle differences (if one is so inclined) requires training, experience, and exercising lots of neurons. When I was much younger, I confess that I did not hear quite a few things that my older and more experienced (in music) reviewer friends were consistently observing.


Right, few corners to set up the weight balance.


In the parlor games sense that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.


Bad example. So, how many labels release mono recordings today? The answer is clearly economics - which also accounts for the success with MP3s.

rw

...some parallel lines, but they aren't quite parallel to each other...you can build a vehicle that will be use-specific...as I recall, midget cars and some of their open-wheel, bigger brethren were built with body offsets and canted axles/chassis to take advantage of the oval tracks' banking...Mechanical lockers or the homebrew variant of "Lincoln lockers" can eliminate differential action for those motorsports that require it...long-travel suspensions are part and parcel for vehicles competing in Baja-type events...each option is actively chosen relative to the ends anticipated...different skill sets are required in the choice of parts, the fabrication of the vehicle and ultimately the use of said vehicle...That to me is active participation...you are goverend by the laws of physics and simple, quantifiable mechanical constraints...You can shave off some weight using modern metalurgy and alloys, adjust C of G, do almost anything within the governing body's guidelines, but you don't take a AA fuel dragster to Le Mans...There are objective parameters involved...You wouldn't de-tune an engine to make it "sound cool", which would be are a purely subjective, and most likely foolhardy, thing to do...

Very little, beyond specs, is particularly objective in nature relevant to this hobby...Starting with speakers, personal preference holds sway...At the other end, the software is mostly contrived; there is little or no sonic reality contained in the bits and bites or the groove walls, it's all approximation, close but no cigar...And even if one were to opt for a few least-contaminated examples of the recordists' art, few, if any, have the electronics, transducers or listening environment that existed and aided in the final sessions. We take a best guess approach.

Re: Parlor games...well, I think we all know such buffoonery to be what it is, impossible...Carver's demonstration was based on objective measurements and probably had something to do with subjectve perceptions, however fooling the ear is a distinct possibility...I'd venture a guess that if similar sonic manipulation supported a golden-eared precept, the flags would wave and the crowd (such as it is ) would roar it's approval.

Mono recordings? I'd take a guess nearly every record company sells mono stuff...any one who sells CDs of pre-stereo sessions does so...and there are certainly specialty labels such as Smithsonian Folkways who rely heavily on pre-stereo field recordings...Too small a niche-market you say...Well, that's what I would say about tubed electronics...

jimHJJ(...MP3s?...really bad example...)

[theaudiohobby]

Actually Buick uses a very sophisticated electronically controlled 4 speed auto that has nearly inperceptable shifts. In tech terms, these are wonderful examples of modern CAD produced engineering.

Point taken and correction accepted, however that said full automatic gear shifting in F1 is banned for performance reasons.

[theaudiohobby]

Why do you suppose there are zero high performance cars available today using CVTs?

rw
I have no answer for that question, however this blog from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_500) makes it quite clear that it is not because of performance, specifically it says

F500 uses an advanced Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT), similar to that used in F1 racing snowmobiles.
These advanced belt driven automatic transmissions are tuned to optimize the power curve of a two stroke engine, constantly keeping the engine at its peak power. One of the key benefits of the CVT is that it is a stepless transmission. This allows all of the engine's power to be transmitted to the drive wheels at all times
Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the transmission cannot be adapted for F1 if they were not banned.

[hermanv]

Don't confuse marketing and performance limits. I own and have owned several performance cars. For me and most enthusiasts, a manual stick shift is just more fun. I can not drive my performance cars at anywhere near their performance limits without a jail sentence so that last increment of speed isn't all that relevant.

I think the analogy of car transmissons vs. amplifier topologies is a poor choice made worse by including F1 racing, an excercise in ultimate extremism. I'm told to field a car today runs in the hundreds of millions, even cables don't cost that much although there are a couple of 2 Watts amps that come close:)

[theaudiohobby]

...
I think the analogy of car transmissons vs. amplifier topologies is a poor choice made worse by including F1 racing, an excercise in ultimate extremism...:

Point taken, I tender my apology for muddying the waters...:)

[theaudiohobby]

Where's the proof of all of this? You can't know accuracy without the reference -- you got nothing on this.

Your request for proof is equivalent to asking for proof that a well-calibrated simple thermometer is a more reliable reference for taking body temperate than an experienced nurse or doctor. Its obviousness is self-evident.

[E-Stat]

I have no answer for that question...
The answer speaks silently for itself.


Therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the transmission cannot be adapted for F1 if they were not banned...
These advanced belt driven automatic transmissions are tuned to optimize the power curve of a two stroke engine...
You are ignoring a significant qualifier: the power curve of a two stroke engine.

Next question: How many automobiles employ two stroke motors?
Answer: Same as my previous question.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

The answer speaks silently for itself.


You are ignoring a significant qualifier: the power curve of a two stroke engine.

Next question: How many automobiles employ two stroke motors?
Answer: Same as my previous question.

rw

Does a four stroke engine have posssess a peak power curve' (http://www.tq.com/product/cart/pdfs/MERLIN1.PDF) as well and then tell me why F1 banned CVTs.

[E-Stat]

Does a four stroke engine have a power curve' (http://www.tq.com/product/cart/pdfs/MERLIN1.PDF) as well and then tell me why F1 banned CVTs.
The answer to the first question is obviously yes, but is very different in nature.

The answer to the second question can be found in one of your original links.

"For safety reasons all cars must have a means of disengaging the clutch that is operable from outside the cockpit by marshals."

rw

[theaudiohobby]

The answer to the first question is obviously yes, but is very different in nature.

And in response to that, Williams did build a prototype CVT F1 and the times ahem were very good.



The answer to the second question can be found in one of your original links.

"For safety reasons all cars must have a means of disengaging the clutch that is operable from outside the cockpit by marshals."

rw

Firstly, this condition has absolutely nothing to do with performance and secondly there is no technical reason why a CVT cannot be disengaged from outside the car.

Here is an interview by Max Moseley (http://www.f1.on.net/view.asp?id=3536), and he said


There’s a little bit of controversy about twin clutch gearboxes. Cars these days have seven forward gears, and obviously the more forward gears you are allowed, the narrower the torque band for the engine can be and therefore the greater the power –you can have a really peaky engine – particularly now it’s all done by computer. You couldn’t have a seven speed box if you had to do it manually. But they can’t have more than seven speeds so if you then narrow this right down, what you really need is CVT. Now that’s illegal, but maybe if you have seven gears… with these twin plates clutches, what happens is that one set of gears is engaged while the other one is driving the car, so the gearchange becomes almost instant.

He makes the original point "optimize the power curve of an engine ...constantly keeping the engine at its peak power. And I repeat again, it has been already done before over 10 years ago!

Now for something rather very germane (http://www.lasercannon.com/cvt.htm) to these discussions.


Nissan is being careful not to over emphasize the CVT in their marketing of the Murano even though they have spent lots of money in the development of the technology over a couple decades, have used it for years in "foreign" markets, and some racing. I believe the reluctance is not due to the engineering I believe it's due to the ?????? Market". Our reluctance to embrace new ideas, especially given the Subaru experience. ,We tend to not let the facts get in the way, urban legends are much more important after all.

Now that is a sad indictment, and it effectively summarizes your contributions in this thread.

[E-Stat]

He makes the original point "optimize the power curve of an engine ...constantly keeping the engine at its peak power. And I repeat again, it has been already done before over 10 years ago!
I give up. Enter a corner at 10/10s in your Honda Insight or lawnmower with trailing throttle and see what happens as the weight shifts forward overloading the fronts. Note further comments:

"If they are just used as a means of speeding up the gearchange, it is unobjectionable. It’s only if it is used to expand the range of the gearbox."

What might be gained on the straights would be negated in the corners.


Now that is a sad indictment, and it effectively summarizes your contributions in this thread.
I guess ALL of the world's performance car engineers are inept since they do not agree with your wisdom.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

I give up. Enter a corner at 10/10s in your Honda Insight or lawnmower with trailing throttle and see what happens as the weight shifts forward overloading the fronts. Note further comments:

Surely you can read, a CVT F1 car was developed! a CVT system was attached to a production formula one engine and successfully trialed at Silverstone. Also, my posts it clearly states that Nissan has successfully used in CVTs in racing.

"If they are just used as a means of speeding up the gearchange, it is unobjectionable. It’s only if it is used to expand the range of the gearbox."

What might be gained on the straights would be negated in the corners.

Surely you are kidding, the guy is discussing the benefits of a CVT to transmission systems, i.e. the gearbox, one of the advantages of a CVT is that it expands the range of the gearbox. How can a transmission system that maintains peak power at all times negate gains in the corners!


I guess ALL of the world's performance car engineers are inept since they do not agree with your wisdom.

rw
Amazing comments! The world's performance engineers have already successfully employed CVTs in racing! It written right there in black and white yet you walked past it! Your willingness to ignore facts and stick to discredited myths is incredible and it weakens your credibility as a useful contributor.

[Feanor]

I give up. Enter a corner at 10/10s in your Honda Insight or lawnmower
...rw

Will you guys give it up? SS vs. values is wearisome enough, but cars -- and now lawnmowers? Oh, pull-eez.

[musicoverall]

Will you guys give it up? SS vs. values is wearisome enough, but cars -- and now lawnmowers? Oh, pull-eez.

My speakers cost more than my car which cost more than my lawnmower. This means I can't make hairpin turns and my lawn never gets mowed because I'm too busy listening to music.

[JoeE SP9]

My speakers cost more than my car which cost more than my lawnmower. This means I can't make hairpin turns and my lawn never gets mowed because I'm too busy listening to music.

My kind of guy!:cornut:

[Mwalsdor_cscc_edu]

MikE (walsdor) had gone in on some custom-built tubes, an experience (I dare say) he won't be trying again any time soon.

Thanks for reminding me Jim! Yes, the EML custom experiment was unfortunate but we knew there was a degree of risk going in. This was their only run of this tube and there were only 18 pairs made. This was not something they ever wanted to market, instead they were satisfying a request from an end-user to have them do a custom run. They were concerned about the "globe envelope" from the beginning, that it may not travel well due to the construction vs the production "ST" tubes. And they were right, 2 or 3 pairs didn't survive. One of which were mine that made the over seas trip but not the continential trip to Columbus. No, I wouldn't do it again, primarally because of the hassle I received from the USPS [even if I did receive my refund eventually]. I'm still a huge EML supporter. I think they make a great product. It's expensive but you know where your monies spent when you press play - the upside in performance and enjoyment is on par with a component upgrade. And I feel that I've yet to hear a "bad 45 tube", but the EML 45's are just that much better.

MikE [not obsolete, just unique]

[theaudiohobby]

I saw this post RGA, I laughed out loud..put this stuff into perspective...

Have fun...

http://www.audioasylum.com/forums/amp/messages/98815.html

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Will you guys give it up? SS vs. values is wearisome enough, but cars -- and now lawnmowers? Oh, pull-eez.

Word. This thread started off well, but the off topic curve thrown here is a little absurd. Amps to cars, what a stretch!

[Resident Loser]

Word. This thread started off well, but the off topic curve thrown here is a little absurd. Amps to cars, what a stretch!

...guess that happens when you shoehorn Bridgestone Potenza's onto your Yugo and think it's oliversudden a Ferrari...

jimHJJ(...sorry, couldn't resist...)

[E-Stat]

Word. This thread started off well, but the off topic curve thrown here is a little absurd. Amps to cars, what a stretch!
I guess you're not an automobile enthusiast. The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either.

rw

[Resident Loser]

I guess you're not an automobile enthusiast. The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either.

rw

Like what? Upgrade your air filter and exhaust system...do a before/after dyno...is there a diff in rear wheel HP? Maybe a hotter cam...after-market ignition...Power chip...port'n'polish...bore and stroke it...new tires and a change of gear ratios...nitrous...Suspension tweaks affecting the C of G...How do objective results in any way correspond to the subjective hoo-haa of audio tweakdom?

Most auto aftermarket performance-parts suppliers publish specs and test results in their ads...everything from dyno tests to seat-of-the pants road tests...rarely (if ever) do you read the equivalent of "mid-range bloom" and other such malarkey...

Most wrenchers work hard to pay for and install their tweaks...with the exception of power-chips, most cars don't have the convenient equivalent of an IEC connector...

jimHJJ(...and most aren't that gullible as a result...)

[E-Stat]

Like what? Upgrade your air filter and exhaust system...do a before/after dyno...is there a diff in rear wheel HP? Maybe a hotter cam...after-market ignition...Power chip...port'n'polish...bore and stroke it...new tires and a change of gear ratios...nitrous...Suspension tweaks affecting the C of G...How do objective results in any way correspond to the subjective hoo-haa of audio tweakdom?
Huh? I think you completely missed my points. Here's what I said:

The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either.

Ok, so do 0-60 or 0-anything times, lateral G cornering (on a fixed 200 foot circle) give you any notion of how the car actually performs in the real world? No. Do THD and frequency response curves tell you how the component actually performs in the real world. Similarly, the answer is no.

Save your tweak rant for another day.

rw

[Resident Loser]

Huh? I think you completely missed my points. Here's what I said:

The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either.

Ok, so do 0-60 or 0-anything times, lateral G cornering (on a fixed 200 foot circle) give you any notion of how the car actually performs in the real world? No. Do THD and frequency response curves tell you how the component actually performs in the real world. Similarly, the answer is no.

Save your tweak rant for another day.

rw

...it's not a simple exercise in multiplication...I'm fairly certain the math governing the intereplay of the various physical foreces involved is quite complex...however computer modeling can most likely reveal better than a hint of the results...the only real-world variable in the equation would be the driver's ablities...

And contrary to your statement, those audio numbers (coupled with square-wave response, etc.) can be quite indicative of a component's performance...the only real-world variable in the equation would be the listener's ears...

jimHJJ(...today is just as good as any other day...)

[E-Stat]

...it's not a simple exercise in multiplication...I'm fairly certain the math governing the intereplay of the various physical foreces involved is quite complex...however computer modeling can most likely reveal better than a hint of the results...the only real-world variable in the equation would be the driver's ablities...
Good speculation, but that's not what happens in the real world of racing. As with audio, they begin with the numbers - that only take you so far - then the driver's feedback (as does a critical listener) fills in the gap(s).


And contrary to your statement, those audio numbers (coupled with square-wave response, etc.) can be quite indicative of a component's performance.
Fine. You take the Crown IC-150 preamp with 0.001% distortion and I'll gladly take anything else. ;)

rw

[theaudiohobby]

...it's not a simple exercise in multiplication...I'm fairly certain the math governing the intereplay of the various physical foreces involved is quite complex...however computer modeling can most likely reveal better than a hint of the results...the only real-world variable in the equation would be the driver's ablities...

And contrary to your statement, those audio numbers (coupled with square-wave response, etc.) can be quite indicative of a component's performance...the only real-world variable in the equation would be the listener's ears...

jimHJJ(...today is just as good as any other day...)


Precisely the point.. the only variables are the driver's abilities and the listener's ears, all other variables can be precisely modelled

[Resident Loser]

Good speculation, but that's not what happens in the real world of racing. As with audio, they begin with the numbers - that only take you so far - then the driver's feedback (as does a critical listener) fills in the gap(s).

rw

Is there a difference in cars built for Indy-style ovals than say for Grand Prix road events? Big diff between making nothing but left turns punctuated by straightaways then say meandering European-style road courses, no? Cars may be similar mechanically, but you think there might be a certain asymmetry in their suspensions...Again I mention the old dirt-oval cars and midgets...Off-camber, mismatched tire sizes, uneven A-arms L to R...Non-centerlined carbody placement...Waybackwhen, it was all trial and error based in common sense with some basic knowledge of physics...I would imagine all those things have been transferred to numbers and can now be quantified quite precisely...

Either way you start out with a car suited for it's environment based on those numbers and how they translate to real-world conditions...Negative driver feedback? Well he says "bla-bla" and you know the answer...maybe a more or less stickier tire or perhaps a change in spring rate in one corner's coil-overs...Maybe both? Are there realtime changes on race day based on track conditions? I'm quite sure they aren't arrived at arbitrarily...somebody, somewhere knows the numbers that apply...Even if we chalk it up to gut-feeling or instinct/experience, I'm fairly certain one of the pocket-protector crown could quote chapter and verse.

And what about those sanctioning bodies that require each car to be exactly like every other...everything down to the effective area of groun-effects...It comes down to driver skill and the support crew; other than that, the basic parameters would seem to be all numbers.

It's too big an "industry" to rely on flights of fancy IMO...

jimHJJ(...unlike audio...)

[hermanv]

There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. The math performed by computers is to all extents accurate so the cars would end up being set up identically year in year out. Of course this is not true, each year the cars get a little faster, some years more than others.

This is not due to the computers becoming more accurate, it is due to input from people who have new ideas or insights as to what's going on. Not better math. the new insights might produce better equations in the end, but the initial input was provided by concepts or insights provided by people not computers.

I realize that many improvements are due to changes at every level of a race car, such as tires, but even the tire people use computers. I don't think that improvments in tires are due to more accurate arithmetic.

Nor do I mean that computers aren't indispensible in reviewing or testing many of these new ideas or enhancements, computers are just another tool in the race car mechanic's toolbox.

[theaudiohobby]

There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. The math performed by computers is to all extents accurate so the cars would end up being set up identically year in year out. Of course this is not true, each year the cars get a little faster, some years more than others.

This is not due to the computers becoming more accurate, it is due to input from people who have new ideas or insights as to what's going on. Not better math. the new insights might produce better equations in the end, but the initial input was provided by concepts or insights provided by people not computers.

I realize that many improvements are due to changes at every level of a race car, such as tires, but even the tire people use computers. I don't think that improvments in tires are due to more accurate arithmetic.

Nor do I mean that computers aren't indispensible in reviewing or testing many of these new ideas or enhancements, computers are just another tool in the race car mechanic's toolbox.

There is basic misunderstanding here, the maths referred to by RL is about Performance evaluation, The maths for measuring performance is fairly well defined, there are advances in that area also but for the purposes of this discussion, but they are not pertinent to this discussion, The utilization of performance evaluation does not stagnate the flow of ideas in any fields rather it validates real advances in technology, despite strict rules in various such automobile engineering, aerospace technology etc, advances continue in earnest. Advances are generally new applications of established scientific or engineering (which is itself simplied applied science) principles.

[E-Stat]

I would imagine all those things have been transferred to numbers and can now be quantified quite precisely...
But that is the beginning to the story, not the end.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st100908.htm


Are there realtime changes on race day based on track conditions? I'm quite sure they aren't arrived at arbitrarily...somebody, somewhere knows the numbers that apply..
You're half right. In Formula One track specific testing runs for days with drivers experimenting with various tire, suspension, and aerodynamic settings. Why? Because the labcoats can only get close. Every year the chassis evolve based upon learning from the engineers and drivers alike. I assure you they do not know all the answers. Not yet at least.


Even if we chalk it up to gut-feeling or instinct/experience, I'm fairly certain one of the pocket-protector crown could quote chapter and verse.
And yet never have the ability nor the understanding of piloting a 1200 lb car with 800 HP across corners at 4 Gs.


And what about those sanctioning bodies that require each car to be exactly like every other...everything down to the effective area of groun-effects...It comes down to driver skill and the support crew; other than that, the basic parameters would seem to be all numbers.
Perhaps with NASCAR, but not with more sophisticated cars like you find in F1. The regs only go so far. Indeed it is very much the driver skill to tell the engineers to fill in where even the most sophisticated test gear ends.


It's too big an "industry" to rely on flights of fancy IMO...
Agreed. Ferrari's budget is something like $200M per year. That's why they never run a car out of the box based on engineering theory alone. It's not for lack of experience. They've been doing it for some time now.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

But that is the beginning to the story, not the end.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st100908.htm


You're half right. In Formula One track specific testing runs for days with drivers experimenting with various tire, suspension, and aerodynamic settings. Why? Because the labcoats can only get close. Every year the chassis evolve based upon learning from the engineers and drivers alike. I assure you they do not know all the answers. Not yet at least.

Your comments reinforce my opinion that your do not understand the way engineering is applied to pratical solutions, Performance evaluation and Performance modelling are two sides of the same coin, i.e. you model your solution i.e. performance modelling and then you field test your model in a real life scenario by measure the actual performance i.e. performance evaluation in this case of F1 cars very precisely, the purpose of models is not to provide all the answers, but discard poor solutions efficiently. A major part of fine tuning is carried out in the field test, where the parameters adjusted to performance in a field test. In your particular case, the drivers input is part of the field test, it does not validate the performance measurements, it is an efficient means of optimising the car to a specific driver's percularities in areas such as skill, physique, preferences etc. In a nutshell, using measurements as a means to capturing actual performance is a pretty fine art, when it is carried out after the 'final' solution is developed, it is very precise, The adjustments made to the car as a result of driver input all show up in those measurements.

[Resident Loser]

...There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. ...

...my responses have been in response to:


...The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either...

If I put new jets in a carb, drop in a cam with different durations or even increase or decrease the diameter of the exhaust pipe, using numbers alone, it can be readily predicted what effect these things will have in the horsepower/torque powerband...likewise the effects of wheel offsets, track width or spring rates...

Why was there a dramatic change from traditional open-wheeled Offenhauser-powered cars to the Lotus-Ford type of vehicle in the 60s?...Simple, just completely abandon the front-engined, less-aerodynamic, higher CofG style for a rear-engined ground-hugging design...I've got a funny feeling a little number crunching would reveal more metrics than one could shake a 5 speed stick at...The laws of physics are governed by numbers...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm neither much of a race enthusiast nor audiophile for that matter...I simply like music...)

[E-Stat]

it can be readily predicted what effect these things will have in the horsepower/torque powerband...likewise the effects of wheel offsets, track width or spring rates...
And yet - all of that like THD specs alone tells you little as to the real world system performance. That continues to be my point. There is a big difference between information and knowledge.

If it were as simple as you seem to suggest it is, racing teams wouldn't throw away hundreds of millions of development and testing dollars every year. Or maybe you think they're all nuts, too. :)

rw

[theaudiohobby]

And yet - all of that like THD specs alone tells you little as to the real world system performance. That continues to be my point. There is a big difference between information and knowledge.

rw

And this is the point that is incorrect, the metrics can and do measure real world system performance where necessary and relevant. On your second point, THD is a composite value, its popularity is down to its easier comprehension by end users because it is a single number, rather than its usefulness as a precise evaluation tool, which as you point out it is not.