Kingrex
Active member
https://www.audionirvana.org/node/125767
Read this thread. Richard sites some very compelling "science" near the end.
Read this thread. Richard sites some very compelling "science" near the end.
Tubed Power Amplifiers. Are the disadvantages too great ?
- Thread starter Joseph R.
- Start date
13th Note HiFi Reviews
Banned
Of all the ones I’ve tried there are only few (eg audio research) that don’t degrade dynamics and speed.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
No. That is anti-science, zero evidence belief. Sorry.
Any decent non pathelogical SS amp will have magnitudes lower harmonic distortion than typical SET amps. And much lower output impedance.
That's not the reason people like SETs. The opposite. They have doses of distortion, both harmonic and amplitude, that some folks find pleasing.
It's called preference. Unortunately, that sweet syrup is applied to everything, panacakes...and steak, like it or not.
The only "off" switch for this special effects, is the power button.
Note that the SS does what he said, starts higher, goes lower with output. Opposite for the SET, starts low, goes high.
But look at the magnitude, the SS starts at 0.06% at 1mW, whereas the SET is a 0.2%. IOW much higher (but highly doubtful either is audible unless your speakers sensitivity is through the roof...and the SET still loses).
By 1w game is long over. Plus it's a total load of BS you listen mostly at 1w, unless you listen only to dreary audiophile elevator crap music. Any sort of symphonic is going to demand FAR more on peaks, even with high sensitivity speakers.
I guess some folks crave anemic, colored audiophile sound. That's a preference, not an absolute. Not everyone does. YMMV.
cheers,
AJ
Attachments
Kingrex
Active member
Agreed AJ. Science was the wrong word to use. I don't know your 2 graph are either. They arn't ties to any particular amp /speaker combo.
Does low power or high power really matter. I have read so many times, well deaigned amps on paper that have the most perfect "insert engineering speak" can still sound awful. On another thread the fight is between 500 watts and 2 watts. Both say theirs sounds best.
Does low power or high power really matter. I have read so many times, well deaigned amps on paper that have the most perfect "insert engineering speak" can still sound awful. On another thread the fight is between 500 watts and 2 watts. Both say theirs sounds best.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Well you did have it in quotes, which was appropriate.
The top one is a (typical) SS amp doing what your quoted guy said, starting at "high" distortion at low levels (the bottom scale is watts, so we are starting at 1/10th of a watt, just like the bottom graph. Distortion as a percentage is the vertical scale. As he said, the SS amp has decreasing distortion with output, until it is overdriven >200w, where it rapidly rises.
The SET OTOH, starts "low" at 1/10th watt, then increases. His "argument" is that this is better because it's "lower" at 1/10th watt...except it clearly isn't. 0.2% is more than 0.06%, not less. It's higher overall, even at 1/10th watt, than the SS.
It's yet another false crutch that people will attempt to use to "bolster" their purely subjective preference. As I noted, the real reason is the opposite. SETs have far more distortion....but it can be the pleasing variety, depending on several factors. Including preference!!
If you listen only to elevator music and have zero real ear training/ability, so unable to discern supressed transients, amplitude distortions, gross distortions, etc, etc, etc. no.
If not, say you listen to symphonic music with huge dynamic swings/peaks, then yes, output power matters a great deal and having more than plenty isn't a bad idea.
All YMMV.
Kingrex
Active member
It's yet another false crutch that people will attempt to use to "bolster" their purely subjective preference. As I noted, the real reason is the opposite. SETs have far more distortion....but it can be the pleasing variety, depending on several factors. Including preference!!
This is a very interesting topic and totally off track, but I have heard that is the reason so many like Tape.
This is a very interesting topic and totally off track, but I have heard that is the reason so many like Tape.
atmasphere
Active member
The distortion issue is a bit more complex than it appears on its face.
The ear's masking principle appears to play a role too. The ear also converts distortion into tonality. This is why the 2nd produces a 'warmth' and the 7th imposes a metallic quality.
Apparently the presence of enough 2nd and 3rd (both of which are treated by the ear the same way, which is to say they both contribute to 'warmth' and the ear is otherwise relatively insensitive to them) is helpful to mask higher orders. This is why tube amps can have overall higher distortion yet sound smoother. Its also why tubes are still around; they have been 'obsolete' now for longer than they were in production. Normally when a superior art appears, it supplants the prior art, but that didn't happen in this case for a reason and IMO/IME its all about distortion- but not because people want coloration so much as they feel they are getting away from coloration!
Most solid state amps lack not only the overall distortion but also the percentage of 2nd and 3rd, enough so that the higher orders apparently are not masked even though they are at a lower level- and the ear treats them as brightness and harshness. This coloration can be quite annoying- thus tubes.
The problem is that a truly zero distortion amplifier is impossible- so the issue is, if the lower orders are helpful in masking the higher orders, is there a way to introduce them into a solid state amp without also significantly messing with the linearity? Apparently Nelson Pass thinks 'yes' as he has a few DIY circuits that seem to be designed around the idea that the lower orders aren't that harmful. From all accounts I've heard they sound nice too (I've only built his SIT amp which is one of the better solid state amps I've heard) so this seems to be borne out in practice. Its unfortunate that the SITs he likes aren't being made- they seemed to be a solution to the tubes/transistors debate; Sony could have done well to produce more than just power devices in this regard- a range of driver transistors would have been nice to work with too.
In retrospect this seems typical of Sony: come up with a good idea, and then don't let anyone in on it, thus shooting themselves in the foot with the results being something that is mostly sidelined... SITs, Betamax, Elcassette, minidisk, etc.
The ear's masking principle appears to play a role too. The ear also converts distortion into tonality. This is why the 2nd produces a 'warmth' and the 7th imposes a metallic quality.
Apparently the presence of enough 2nd and 3rd (both of which are treated by the ear the same way, which is to say they both contribute to 'warmth' and the ear is otherwise relatively insensitive to them) is helpful to mask higher orders. This is why tube amps can have overall higher distortion yet sound smoother. Its also why tubes are still around; they have been 'obsolete' now for longer than they were in production. Normally when a superior art appears, it supplants the prior art, but that didn't happen in this case for a reason and IMO/IME its all about distortion- but not because people want coloration so much as they feel they are getting away from coloration!
Most solid state amps lack not only the overall distortion but also the percentage of 2nd and 3rd, enough so that the higher orders apparently are not masked even though they are at a lower level- and the ear treats them as brightness and harshness. This coloration can be quite annoying- thus tubes.
The problem is that a truly zero distortion amplifier is impossible- so the issue is, if the lower orders are helpful in masking the higher orders, is there a way to introduce them into a solid state amp without also significantly messing with the linearity? Apparently Nelson Pass thinks 'yes' as he has a few DIY circuits that seem to be designed around the idea that the lower orders aren't that harmful. From all accounts I've heard they sound nice too (I've only built his SIT amp which is one of the better solid state amps I've heard) so this seems to be borne out in practice. Its unfortunate that the SITs he likes aren't being made- they seemed to be a solution to the tubes/transistors debate; Sony could have done well to produce more than just power devices in this regard- a range of driver transistors would have been nice to work with too.
In retrospect this seems typical of Sony: come up with a good idea, and then don't let anyone in on it, thus shooting themselves in the foot with the results being something that is mostly sidelined... SITs, Betamax, Elcassette, minidisk, etc.
I have tubes up front with tons of power driving highly efficient speakers. i like dynamics and impact and i believe i get the best of both worlds with the combo. but that is just my perception...
Puma Cat
Well-known member
At the end of the day, all that matters is what YOU like.
AJ Soundfield
Well-known member
Yes, preference is absolute.
p.s. Edward and I have a mutual friend with 100+ db Avantgarde Trios, who dumped his low powered tube (SET?) amp for some 100w tube monoblocks...and hasn't looked back. Coincidentally, he's a classical guy like me.
True. He has an OTL from Berning and it never sounded right. I loaned him these BAT VK55SE’s I took on trade and he loved them. Those Russian tubes put off major heat.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Kingrex
Active member
That's great to hear. Basically how my system setup. 55 watt kt88 pentode tube amps running 96 DB speakers. Since adding some of the best power conditioning I've found lately, my Dynamics and overall play Astound me. I don't see any need for 200 300 400 watts.
In first place, I believe that the question in the title was also about the possible sonic disadvantage of tube amplifiers.
Many years ago I had one, but from a certain point on, I started looking for the realism of reproduction,
Yeah, that´s it! (*)
So I went in search of power, and turned to the SS.
The truth is, I still remember a fantastic tone that i don´t know if i already reached again today.
Would that be a lie?
Despite of the timbre accuracy, I do not regret the option since over the years, from what I have heard within reasonable values for my pocket, I always notice some distortion / compression in the sound of the valves. Without looking at the price limits, I can say that one of the best sounds I've heard to date, if not the best, was with valves - VTL Siegfried Series Monoblocks -
(*) Turn up the volume
https://vimeo.com/358369065
Many years ago I had one, but from a certain point on, I started looking for the realism of reproduction,
Yeah, that´s it! (*)
So I went in search of power, and turned to the SS.
The truth is, I still remember a fantastic tone that i don´t know if i already reached again today.
Would that be a lie?
Despite of the timbre accuracy, I do not regret the option since over the years, from what I have heard within reasonable values for my pocket, I always notice some distortion / compression in the sound of the valves. Without looking at the price limits, I can say that one of the best sounds I've heard to date, if not the best, was with valves - VTL Siegfried Series Monoblocks -
(*) Turn up the volume
https://vimeo.com/358369065
atmasphere
Active member
That the ear has this property has been understood for a decades. But I think the significance of it is not well understood.
dlb2
New member
Tubes just sound better to me. They have an organic quality that I don't get from solid state. As far as I'm concerned there are no disadvantages.
Kingrex
Active member
Tubes sound better to me too. And a friend just called me from an audio show. He was listening to my speakers and said the sound was dry via the SS amp fronting them.
I don't find the maintenance to much to deal with for the sound they make. And as I noted before. Every dead unrepairable amp I have seen is SS. The tube amps only need minor repairs to get going again.
I don't find the maintenance to much to deal with for the sound they make. And as I noted before. Every dead unrepairable amp I have seen is SS. The tube amps only need minor repairs to get going again.
Paul
Senior Member
Well, even though I have the SIT3 SS amp but if I have to stick with one it would be my tube amps. I can’t even imagine myself without tube amps in my system.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
bluegrassphile
Member
I just hate it when people get on here and spew facts. Makes me feel really dumb. :weird: Seriously, I am truly in awe of the depth of electronics knowledge of many people on this forum. I know that some of these people are professionals in the field but I wish I had just a basic technical knowledge of electronics/electricity.
OTOH, I do have a very sharp set of ears (if I do say so myself) and, as a long time musician, I know what they like. Maybe that's all that's really necessary? Is that the real bottom line? You know...if it sounds good it is good?
I guess you can have crappy build quality and/or reliability, but good sound? And you can have both with ss or tubes. I'll go with whatever my ears like first, tube or ss. Reliability/build quality are a close second to that.
FWIW, I recently auditioned a gorgeous new VAC 170i tube integrated. Superbly built and sublime sound. I auditioned it with 6 other incredible sounding amps. All the other amps were ss...Gryphon Diablo 300, NAIM Supernait 3, Luxman 509x, Simaudio 340ix, Hegel H390, and Pass Labs int 60. Out of that bunch I picked the D300 for my main listening room amp but I could be just as happy with the VAC. Beautiful sounding amp and a work of art. I would like to assemble a secondary listening area in our upstairs living room in a couple years. The VAC is definitely on my radar for an amp.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a round about way is, superb sound quality is my main concern when choosing an amp. Whether it's a tube or ss amp is secondary to sound quality. I don't choose an amp based solely on whether it's a tube or ss amp. But that's me and my ears. YMMV.
OTOH, I do have a very sharp set of ears (if I do say so myself) and, as a long time musician, I know what they like. Maybe that's all that's really necessary? Is that the real bottom line? You know...if it sounds good it is good?
I guess you can have crappy build quality and/or reliability, but good sound? And you can have both with ss or tubes. I'll go with whatever my ears like first, tube or ss. Reliability/build quality are a close second to that.
FWIW, I recently auditioned a gorgeous new VAC 170i tube integrated. Superbly built and sublime sound. I auditioned it with 6 other incredible sounding amps. All the other amps were ss...Gryphon Diablo 300, NAIM Supernait 3, Luxman 509x, Simaudio 340ix, Hegel H390, and Pass Labs int 60. Out of that bunch I picked the D300 for my main listening room amp but I could be just as happy with the VAC. Beautiful sounding amp and a work of art. I would like to assemble a secondary listening area in our upstairs living room in a couple years. The VAC is definitely on my radar for an amp.
I guess what I'm trying to say in a round about way is, superb sound quality is my main concern when choosing an amp. Whether it's a tube or ss amp is secondary to sound quality. I don't choose an amp based solely on whether it's a tube or ss amp. But that's me and my ears. YMMV.
dlb2
New member
Yes, if it sounds good to you then it is good. There's nothing wrong with having a curiosity towards the technical side. Like any hobby perhaps the more you know and understand, the more you appreciate it. At the end of the day it's all about whether or not you're happy with what you have. Who really gives a shit what other people think? Besides, I have a feeling that many of these know-it-alls are just armchair internet experts.
Kingrex
Active member
I don't know I have heard crappy workmanship sounds good. Maybe, but it won't be consistent. I have heard equipment that does not spec well sounds great, and vice versa. Some of the best on paper and a scope sound like junk.