Blind listening verses Sighted Listening..good read

[RGA]

All of the blind tests have said that people in general prefer tube amps - including the guys who build some of the best solid state amplifiers. I don't put all my eggs in blind test baskets however - I just find it interesting that every DBTer on every forum I run into owns SS amplfiers even though their precious tests indicate that tubes are in fact more desirable by the professionals.

And arguably the best recording studio for classical music is Chesky Records - they record and master with tube amplifcation and their Mastering engineer helped demo a room of tube gear.

Of course you and anyone else can prefer tubes or solid state - in fact it is not tubes that Colloms was making the point about - I like some SS amps over tubes - lots of crappy tube amps - I think the degree of tube gear varies far more widely than does SS and that hurts tube amp reputation in some respects. I don't cary for the CARY amps I've heard despite the prices and reputation - I do like Grant Fidelity and Antique Sound Labs at lower price points - less thrilled with Vuum, and Jolida.

Most SS tends to sound pretty much the same - kind of like McDonalds - there are subtle difference between outlets but generally it's the same Big Mac whether you're in Florida or South Korea.

The blind session I posted had more to do with negative feedback - and ESTAT posted one SS company (Pass) that believes in no negative feedback class A design - and Sugden's A21a is a Solid State Single Ended Topology (SET). The a21a has been selling since 1968 and it is imo the best sounding SS amplifier for relatively sane money.

As for foisting my opinion - well I think my opinion is right - I think there is a subjective elemant but people do hear things very similarly - just like we see things similarly - the human animal still follows a blue-print. Preference is a big factor of course we can both hear rap music and one of us could love it and the other could hate it with a passion. So yes my opinion is right for me as is yours for you.

Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

[Hyfi]

Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

Interesting observations. I am now closer to 50 and always liked tube amps but until recently only had tube pre amps coupled with SS amps. I do like that combo alot. I recently got what one would consider a decent tube amp, actually a hybrid Counterpoint NPS-400 which I just had serviced and re-tubed. My testing of sound utilizes two completely different speakers that have the same ratings of 4ohm and 87db. (Dynaudio 82 and Clearfield Continentals by Von Schweikert) The Counterpoint can't supply deep bass to either pair of speakers while the SS can shake the pictures off the walls with the same recordings and volume.

I've been told that the Counterpoint should be coupled with better speaker efficiency. But, that goes hand in hand with my earlier arguments about not every speaker sounding it's best with the same amp. The Counterpoint does deliver very nice sounding bass, correct tone and the length of notes you would expect and get used to playing bass, just no real low end extension.

Right now I am liking both SS and Tubes for different reasons. Since the Stratos runs dead cool, I will use it as my summer amp while you could warm your dinner on the Counterpoint, that will be my winter amp. It is nice to be able to roll equipment to keep from getting bored with one sound.

Now, with my smaller two pairs of speakers, Dynaudio 42s and JM Labs Tantal 509s, the Counterpoint brings out the best they have to offer including all the bass that can be expected from the small size of them.

I'm not sure what statistics you base the statement about going to tubes and never going back but it could be for a number of reasons.

1- Wife can't stand loud music and tube amps sound beautiful at low levels.
2- Your hearing is shot from years of loud SS amps and you think the tubes sound better or less fatiguing.
3- You now have more disposable money and can afford a decent tube amp where before you were 40 you could only afford a decent SS amp.
4- You just never understood what the rave about tube amps was about
5- you grew up listening to MP3s and never realized you were not hearing all the music so when you heard a tube amp and the complete notes, you thought it sounded off.

I'm sure I could go on and on but you get the idea. The best way to describe a Tube amp to SS is by using the sound difference of an Album as compared to a CD where all the notes are square and chopped off while the notes from a tube amp appear longer and more accurate. I swear that the music I was used to listening to on my SS amp is slower with the tube amp due to all the notes being longer but a 4 minute song is still 4 minutes on both systems.

[E-Stat]

The Counterpoint can't supply deep bass to either pair of speakers while the SS can shake the pictures off the walls with the same recordings and volume.

Tube amps are posed with a bit of a challenge when driving conventional magnetic speakers. The amp's high source impedance (low damping factor) does not have the same level of control to address the back EMF from the magnets. In my case, that is a non-issue with electrostats. Since they are essentially voltage driven devices and have no magnetic motors or EMF to address, bass extension and control are not compromised. On the other hand, stats offer a punishing load that requires a strong output section and power supply. My VTLs have 16 outputs and a 500 joule power supply.

4- You just never understood what the rave about tube amps was about

Bingo! While I've heard excellent tube amps going back to the 70s with the Audio Research D-76, I never really *got* what they do best - the midrange. Partly because I listened more to rock music back then. I was more focused on low end punch and top end extension at the time which was better served by a Threshold Stasis (which was designed specifically to drive one of the founder's Dayton-Wrights and worked great with my Acoustats). For thirty years, HP of The Absolute Sound has been saying that it is all about getting the midrange right. Even after briefly hearing the IRS driven by a C-J Premier One in his environment back in '80 and '83, I still didn't full understand the difference. It took many more years and more listening to fully grasp the difference. It is about their ability to more accurately convey the harmonics of voice, piano, strings, brass. etc.

I'll differ a bit on the analog vs. digital thing. While I am a child of analog and have a decent vinyl rig, Redbook CDs are capable of wonderful midrange clarity. Their Achilles' Heel is top end extension although modern mastering at 24/192 and digital filtering has helped.

rw

[JoeE SP9]

E-Stat:
I totally agree. Tubes and Electrostatics, a marriage made in heaven. ESL's on tubes get the midrange right. That's why I switched to them in the early 80's. That sometimes harsh high end from CD's is something else we agree on.

[Hyfi]

Tube amps are posed with a bit of a challenge when driving conventional magnetic speakers. The amp's high source impedance (low damping factor) does not have the same level of control to address the back EMF from the magnets. In my case, that is a non-issue with electrostats. Since they are essentially voltage driven devices and have no magnetic motors or EMF to address, bass extension and control are not compromised. On the other hand, stats offer a punishing load that requires a strong output section and power supply. My VTLs have 16 outputs and a 500 joule power supply.


Bingo! While I've heard excellent tube amps going back to the 70s with the Audio Research D-76, I never really *got* what they do best - the midrange. Partly because I listened more to rock music back then. I was more focused on low end punch and top end extension at the time which was better served by a Threshold Stasis (which was designed specifically to drive one of the founder's Dayton-Wrights and worked great with my Acoustats). For thirty years, HP of The Absolute Sound has been saying that it is all about getting the midrange right. Even after briefly hearing the IRS driven by a C-J Premier One in his environment back in '80 and '83, I still didn't full understand the difference. It took many more years and more listening to fully grasp the difference. It is about their ability to more accurately convey the harmonics of voice, piano, strings, brass. etc.

I'll differ a bit on the analog vs. digital thing. While I am a child of analog and have a decent vinyl rig, Redbook CDs are capable of wonderful midrange clarity. Their Achilles' Heel is top end extension although modern mastering at 24/192 and digital filtering has helped.

rw

Great explanations for the sound of tubes. I am learning to let the deep bass issue pass while the midrange is incredible. I guess the new tubes in both the VAC and the Counterpoint have settled in a bit now and my observations are changing for the better.

I had a great listening session last night and moved the Danes around a bit to adjust the bass output a bit. I played "Party In The Basement" by Pete Levin. Yes, Tony's almost identical looking brother. He plays mainly keys but many other instruments on the disk. Lineup includes Mike Stearn, Lenny White, Mark Egan, Danny Gotlieb, Lew Solof, and others.

Next up was Jon Luc Ponty's "Taste For Passion" which does have some nice bass by Ralph Armstrong along with Allan Zavod and Jamie Glaser. Some truly awesome tracks on this disk.

[3db]

Most SS tends to sound pretty much the same - kind of like McDonalds - there are subtle difference between outlets but generally it's the same Big Mac whether you're in Florida or South Korea. .

Why on earth would you do a DBT test between SS and tube amps? They are 2 different beasts and the heavy generation of even order harmonics generated by tube amplifiers changes the sound. I would rather see it used between SS or between tube amps but not mixed. The DBT test mentioned here used the same speakers and they just noted how the test results changed with sight. Two simple tests were done. And if you want to argue this silly mathcing of amps, cables and speakers BS, well that was taken care of already. Here's the system, the bench mark like it or not. The only thing that was changed was the blind fold. So a reference was set wether it was matched to audiophool's tastes or not is irrelevant.

The blind session I posted had more to do with negative feedback - and ESTAT posted one SS company (Pass) that believes in no negative feedback class A design - and Sugden's A21a is a Solid State Single Ended Topology (SET). The a21a has been selling since 1968 and it is imo the best sounding SS amplifier for relatively sane money.

Most people under 40 started with SS - they go to tubes they don't go back. There is a huge misconception started by people who heard 50 year old tube amps and their soft mushy billowy sound and lumpy bass and veiled sound and then heard the clear crisp tight SS and then go around on forums and say stupid ass things like "put a resister in the cable and it will sound like a tube amp" as if all tube amps sound like 50 year old washed out distortion generators. Who knows maybe they can equal that sound.

But Chesky Records chose tube amplfiers because they chose "good" ones not 50 year old Pieces of junk.

A good tube amp directly compared to Bryston spearates systems - the tube amp had deeper bass, more pressure of instruments - real decay, faster cleaner tighter attack, far far better transients - no noise, no hums, no groans, no hisses. Granted there are "tubey" tube amps that some people like - I don't. What I don't like is having to sit through an incredibly fatiguing fake experience and then for some clown on an internet forum tell me that what I just heard was "technically" more accurate because it has less frequency response deviation with impedence. It's non-thinking idiocy from narrow minded sheep who never bother to actually test their claims.

Please back up these last claims or is this your perception?