I have decided on getting a tube amp and it will be the integrated Mastersound 300B driving a pair of Living Voice Avatars, so at least that decision has been taken.
My main question is what you see as downsides of having a tube amp. As I've decided on getting an integrated tube it's really about what the downsides are I might want to know about beforehand.
The ones I'm aware are the following.
-The tubes need to be replaced and in the case of a 300B this will be somewhat costly.
-Bias is another issue but I'm not sure how big an issue. Do you plug in your meter every so often or just when you roll tubes or replace a dead one? The meter as such isn't gonna be a big issue as I don't think it's that expensive.
-Heat won't be a big issue as we have no kids nor a nosy dog that could get burned. Hope my electricity bill isn't gonna go through the roof, but then again, I can't quite imagine that.
I'd appreciate if you could add whatever your experiences are regarding this question are as I'd like to know more before I buy it.
Dave_b I was wondering what your view of "the tubes getting in the way" means? Do you feel that the solid state gear you listed equals or excels better than tubes as far as being able present the being there experience? I enjoyed solid state before tubes but it just didn't seem to be able to reach that goal for me.
I respect what Dave-B shared with us, and I know many friends who also prefer the sound of SS over Tube designs and that is fine... even mixing tube and solid states in the audio chain brings very good results to some systems.
A world full of colours, options and tastes is what keeps this hobby interesting.
Rleff, what I mean is that even in my best ARC reference based system, I found a subtle dulling of transients and a fine layer of film that precluded me from feeling directly connected to the music. In other words, if I put on a great live jazz recording I know well and have heard on various systems over the years, it should fill my listening space with energy and excitement...more "thereness" if you will. The feeling I expect to hear is like walking into a live jazz club while the band is smokin'. That energy, vibe and "aliveness" is what better SS does for me over the many virtues of tubes:O)
In defense of Dave_b here, I understand what he has written. As a tube diehard here, I have owned many tube preamps (ARC SP-10, LS5, BAT P10/31SE, Aesthetix Io/Callisto Sig) in the last 25 years that did indeed have a layer of grain and haze compared to the ultimately transparent solid state models that I have heard: Krell, Mark Levinson, klyne, Spectral. But these solid state products tend to be dimensionally flat compared to the tube products I have listed. But the above tube products had a level of musical realism that the sterile solid state products could not match.
No matter how "transparent" the sound may be, if the notes are instantly truncated and the harmonic overtones die rather quickly as well, I am not interested. Every time I have tried another preamp (line stage) in my system, I go for piano music. And then I run upstairs to hit a few keys on the piano. It's amazing and quite sad at how many line stages, tube products included, fail this test. But a few tube products nail it unlike any solid state line stage I have tried. And this is why I still have no tolerance for a solid state preamp. Surely there must be one that stands out from the crowd, but I have not heard it.
As for the issue of getting a preamp that excells in the 3D and clarity departments, my quest is over with the Aria WV. The other products I owned are quite a ways back from this performance. And with a little effort with trying various tubes in the line and phono stages and the PS, this product can be taken to a whole new level or performance than its stock EH/Sovtek tubes.
With tube products, and a lot of effort and patience, I can tune the system to my priorities and to the room to achieve a great balance of tonal coherency, dynamic contrasts and 3D. With solid state products I am stuck with the sound of the base product. At best I can move the speakers around or use cables as tonal bandaids to integrate the system to the room. But I have little to no control of the dynamics or dimensionally.
Knowing what I found out about tube variety, I will not buy amps, and preamps. The cost is just too high.
This is total nonsense. Trying a budget product and giving up on tubes because of a few problems is hardly a valid reason to dismiss tubes wholeheartedly. I have discovered a number of small signal tubes in the $30-50 per pair that quite easily destroy tubes selling these days at $500 or more. But it takes a well built product to show the strengths and differences.
Audiofiel follows me around, like a rabid dog. I take his criticisms as a badge of honor. It shows my cage rattling is being heard. I loudly profess nearly all commercial grade cables are a sham. For a dealer, like audiofiel, those are fighting words. Also, the amps and preamp I am using can only be bought direct sale.
If not this year, next year, at an audio show, I will demonstrate the truth behind my assertions.
I have tubes only in my DAC. All the layering, spatial clues, and tonality of the tubes are expressed,
I have tubes only in my DAC. All the layering, spatial clues, and tonality of the tubes are expressed,
You just keep on convincing yourself of this.
I tried the H20 amp in my system a few years ago and the one thing that the old and lowly backup Counterpoint NPS400 amp did was to significantly outperform the H20 amp in the context of portrayal of space and decays. And this is a hybrid amp with small-signal tubes on the input. The main amps I use, CAT JL-3 are of course in a completely different league than this. But a JL-2 or the Atmasphere MA1's would be fine to show what tube amps would do to take this to the next level. So one can be convinced that all they need is tubes in their DAC to achieve the strengths of tubes, but my experience paints quite a different picture.
And if you need an amp to drive 1-ohm loads, the CATs can be tweaked to accommodate this and not blink an eye.
Jayfox, Re: "In defense of Dave b". I too understand what he means but more importantly I understand why he arrives at his conclusions. That I think his reasoning is flawed, and certainly not in accord with mine (or yours) but what pleases his ears is all that counts in his house. However, anyone who considers his observation as any form of 'truth' certainly risks great disappointment.
BTW Jafox I agree with your views, especially those suggesting that signal decay is more often than not a signal truncated prematurely by most SS (and some tubed stuff as well) which makes their sound initially sound more "transparent", "detailed", etc, when in fact it is really inaccurate and creates a sterile, fatiguing sound, even though the frequency response is relatively flat. But some folks like this sound. I'm sure they would find 'my sound' thick, bloated, dense, slow, etc.
Dave b, A question - regarding your analogy involving the sound of music in a jazz club as reproduced by your system. Are you referring to performances you actually attended and that you have heard unamplfied performances, or that you have actually heard the events live that you are now listening to in a recorded form and that you are confident that you are in fact hearing something that occurred in the performance, not in the mixing booth (etc)? FWIW, I always find the assertion that someone finds any recording played over any equipment ever sounds like a live performance. It typically suggests to me that the person doesn't know the clues to listen to or doesn't get out much.
For example, consider that most live jazz club performances are not played with out amplification for each instrument and their sound is blended in with the sound of the acoustic (room) that may be overly resonant or damped, or that the amplyfing equipment itself, or speaker placement, produce an overly dense source, isn't it then possible that a SS system which truncates the signal length only makes the recording/your system sound move like a real live and unamplified one? Just a thought...........I don't understand how you can sort out all of these varibles. I always think that the best we can hope for is that we own the equipment envisioned by the recording engineer and that his efforts to make it sound 'live' are successful.
Hey Bill, Keep stiring the pot! But, why not share with us your underlying reasons for arriving at and making your terse observations. That way we could see some meaningful mud slinging! :-)
I am saying to all you never hear the H2O. My sound was crap at first. I learned I was hearing my preamp, wires, and speakers. I am not Bsing. I have found, through trial and error, what works, and what doesn't. The H2O builder was so disenchanted with preamps, he made his own. It is the perfect match. No more preamp worries. Next came the cables. Naked ribbon is the clear winner. Thirdly, the source is of critical importance. I have been working with the H2O builder to make a killer Audio Note DAC. The result is nothing like what stock AN DACs sound like.
Jafox, the advantage you hear with Aria may owe more to TX2575 resistors than to tube vs. SS paradigm. Lately to get a better grip on the tube vs. SS debate I've been all out modifying a SS ARC PH-2 in parallel with an Atma-Sphere MP-1 phono section. The usual assumptions about SS being flat, sterile, and lacking tonality relative to tubes does not apply once one replaces the red rectangular Wima MKP caps often used in ARC and many other SS gears. TX2575 resistors as used in Aria are peerless and found in no other commercial gears AFAIK. This story is unfinished until I've put 20-30 of them in SS ARC, but so far these highly modified tube & SS phono sections are pretty close.
I have recordings of concerts, both jazz and classical that I have attended. Both were unamplified. I have a piano, baritone, cello and flute in my house (my daughters have the talent). I don't need to convince myself or anyone else that what I'm hearing is more realistic. Audiofeil is obviously deeply disturbed going by the intensity of his anti-social rants. That said, I did not knock tubes or applaud SS...I've owned and enjoyed both. Right now I have a system synergy which does it for me on a repeat basis which happens to be SS. The special nature of the real thing is that it is clear, pure, accurate, extended and dynamic with no blurring, distortion or grain. Tonality of course must be dead on. The xtra something is that sense of energy that fills the venue when attending a concert, which many systems miss completely. Let's not forget that the material we listen to can effect our expectations as well.
Tvad- Further; making that statement would seem to imply that the individual had listened to, "most tube based components" that have been manufactured. A premise that I highly doubt!
Tvad, A good observation. It was this exact statement that got my 'interest' going and was the fundamental reason I posted. I suspect that if I heard his 'optomized' soundstage I would consider it as unrelated to the sound of a live event as the lack of reality that he seems to think would be introduced by the use of 'tubes'.
None of it sounds real, amplified in the venue or not. SS or tubes. And, IMHO, it is not even close, so why not just pick the sound that you prefer, tell youself that it is as close to your recall of real as you can get, and be happy.
He seems to have overlooked the fact that the OP didn't ask for a discussion on the benefits of SS v Tubes, a decision that had already been made. Seen in that frame, which was my frame of reference, I couldn't understand why he would bless the thread with his observations about his views of the strengths of SS and the 'apparently' universal weakness of tubes.
Oh my God, just listen to your tubes and get off already! Some tubes, most tubes, your tubes, my ex-tubes, her tubes, tubes tied...what the freakin' hell, are you guys for real? Most tubes "I've" owned and or listened to. I had ARC reference gear in one rig...don't even get me started on that horrid 6H30 tube:O( Did I mention I am around live music almost everyday? It aint tubelike and it aint SS...it's real.
Tube simply don't like some highly reactive loads. Some speakers, even some with benign impedance curves and medium and higher sensitivity won't mate well with tubes due to high phase angles.
Heat is my only complaint.( My listening room is only 10x10)
I have a Will Vincent rebuilt dynaco st70 currently in my system. My system consists of quad 11L mini monitors, classe dr6 preamp, sansui tu516 tuner, and denon cd/sacd player.
After buying the st70,I was very surprised at how wide,deep, andwarm sounding my system became after switching from a solid state marantz 2265b reciever.
I decided to try some different tubes in the dynaco and switched out the el34's for a set of gold lion kt66 repops. Unreal difference!! This dynaco is very detailed now with a fuller sound and is no longer rolled off on the upper end like it was with el 34's.
I wanted to try a "quality ss amp to see if I could get the same results as the kt66 tubed dynaco and dropped the money on a mint bryston 3b st....... while the bryston drives the mini monitors with tighter bass and more authority, it has a much thinner soundstage depth and does not sound nearly as good as the dynaco especially at lower volume levels.
Tubes sound better to me, and the only downside is heat, and ocassional tube replacement.
Now if I would just step up to the pump and buy a really nice tube amp like a cary........
So experience and the means to experiment indicates less understanding? You should work for Obama you nutball. This is becoming ridiculous. Why do some people have to shore up their emotional inadequacies at the expense of others? Audiofeil is THEE person who uses other peoples responses (out of context of course)as an excuse for an answer. Check HIS postings for anything helpful, useful or even remotely original. I enjoyed all of my gear and was fortunate enough to be able to play around quite a bit. Now I have more responsibilities and less expendable cash. I was not picking on anyone or attacking anyone. Enjoy what you have while you can...life is so fleeting:O)
Dav65mus, Be careful what you wish for, especially if you like what you presently are using. The road to audio hell is paved by folks trying to make a meaningful positive change to get only a small, or any, meaningful improvement. Different perhaps, degredation often. Buckle-up before you take this road! :-)
Dgarretson, Thanks for your input here. I had the PH2 for 6-7 years and loved it. This was the one sleeper in the ARC product line that truly was an outstanding product. I only "upgraded" to the BAT P10 as I wanted more phono gain and benefitted with a little more foundation in the bass. I can imagine that a parts update, 15 years later would open up significantly the PH2 in dynamics and clarity.
As for the TX2575 contributions in the Aria, I do not know since I did not hear one with the "standard" Vishay resistors. But if you read my lengthy (sorry) review of the Aria, 2/3 of the way down, you will see that I did a major overhaul to a Counterpoint SA-2.
When the stock SA-2 died, I discussed many options with Michael Elliot. Ultimately it was a cap in the PS that failed. I suggested that he rebuild the PS with the same parts as the Aria. And to also switch over to a Plitron transformer....in an external chassis that I found on a DIY site. I was so overwhelmed by the performance of this that I bought another SA-2. Comparing these two units, it was the Plitron that was 70-80% of the performance improvements with the rebuilt SA-2. This was easy to verify as I could swap the old and new transformers between the two SA-2s. I knew then more than ever the importance of a PS transformer, in a preamp anyway. And I suspect this has more to do with the Aria's level of dynamics and clarity (as it too uses the Plitron) than due to the TX2575 resistors.
I went onto to replace 20 resistors in the SA-2's audio stage. This was a well spent $200. The improvement in clarity went up another notch, but otherwise the sonic signature was untouched. And finally, the remaining RelCaps in the audio stage were updated to Dynamicaps as used in the Aria and the SA-2's rebuilt PS. And again similar benefits but the 3D strengths of this unit remain.
So from these experiences, I attribute the Aria's clarity to the Plitron, the very simplistic circuit design of the phono and line stages, and most definitely the TX2575 resistors ..... in this order.
As for the Aria and SA-2 excelling as tube products, I attribute this to their tube PS more than anything. Even with stock tube in the PS, the sound is quite amazing. But I have discovered 3 tubes here that take this unit to a whole new level of 3D performance. This is one area that the above updates do not affect very much. And with nearly the same tube compliment in the Aria's PS, I have found these tubes to do the same thing here.
The other major benefit is that a very high percentage of tube line stages out there are 6922 based. With the Aria, I can run tubes in the 12AU7 family. And I have found a few types that significantly outperform (it's not even close) my coveted Amperex 6922 PQ pinched waist, and at a fraction of the 6922 cost.
So yes, the TX2575 contribute to the Aria's stellar performance, but a number of other factors, mainly the Plitron and the all new designs in the audio stages, coupled with the long proven tube PS here, have far more to do with this.
Jafox, from your comments and thorough review of Aria and Counterpoint, it would appear that these products owe their distinction primarily to tube power supplies. The flexibility of Aria in accommodating extensive rolling of tube families may also be a factor. Plitron and Dynamicap may be ruled out, as these are fairly common in high-end applications, and Dynamicap IMO is surpassed by several other types, particularly teflon. On the fourth hand, there is nothing like TX2575, which has proven superiority in disparate modded components in my system(e.g. BAT VK75SE, Merlin BBAM, Atma MP-1.)
On the point of rolling the Aria line section (particularly in view of poor results obtained with 6H30) I'm curious whether in addition to the switch between filament voltages, Aria obtains the optimal operating points across so many tube types. In phono section of my modded Atma MP-1, I've been back and forth between 12AT7, 12AV7, and ECC99. Each change requires fairly extensive R swaps for optimal operating point. Of these three tubes ECC99 sounds best-- which appears to have been an also-ran in Aria. So while I respect the versatility of tube rolling, I am cautious about pronoucing the superiority of any particular tube independent of circuit, and question whether a single preamp can do justice to so many tube types.
I'll add that the modded MP-1(which like Aria has the virtue of simplicity) includes replacement of 12AT7s with matched bipolar transistors in first gain stage of phono section(an Allen Wright idea planted in MP-1 by lewm.) This was a clear step up both sonically and in terms of gain. The latest factory iteration of MP-1 adds better CCS regulation to improve 12AT7 performance, so the question remains open from this experiment regarding relative superiority of tube and hybrid in phono. (My PH-2 rebuild will press the point further into FET. BTW, I also had a long run with BAT P10. The modded ARC PH-2 is the keeper.)
Perhaps the discussion boils down to tube vs. SS power supplies. On this point I can offer little other than to add that in my schema, the latest high-voltage silicon carbide zero recovery Schottky rectifiers improve significantly upon soft recovery discrete Hexfreds(or worse, 4-pin bridges) used in SS power supplies in most top gears. Some designers will argue that a tube power supply cannot equal the dynamics and energy of SS. Schottkys also raise the bar in terms of tube-like refinement. So the jury may be out on that one as well.
We ran tube-based regulation for years. I'm as a big a fan of tubes as anybody, but when we developed a proprietary regulator for high voltage, it was **immediately** so much better than the tube circuits that there was no going back.
There are a lot of factors in a regulated power supply! Essentially the regulators behave as a sort of power amplifier that you are listening to. They have to be very linear and wide bandwidth to really work right. The problem we ran into with the tube regulators is that bandwidth is a real problem. The result is right now that our regulators function with wide bandwidth and about 2 orders of magnitude less noise than is possible with tube regulators.
I'm not saying that tube regulation is all done in, but some innovation needs to occur before it can keep up with a **properly designed** solid state regulator.
I have two systems of good quality. One SS and one Tube (DAC, Pre, Amp). The SS is in the TV room with surround sound etc. The stereo tube system is in the living room.
Although I listen to music on the SS system I experience the music on my tube system.
100% of my friends will want to listen to music on the tube system over the SS system.
Never have any problems with the tube components and I keep a good supply of tubes to roll which I find enjoyable.
It looks like the answer to the question this thread imposed is that besides the extra care that tubes demand it worths it, based on many of your responses.
There were some other issues here (not that relevant to audio reproduction from my perspective) such as heat disipation whih might be troublesome for some.
Since your choice of getting a Mastersound amp is done, this shows that you have gone beyond the no-return point as far as at LEAST trying tubes. Here is what I would do.
1. Not go through with the Mastersound, but get a different type of integrated, like maybe a small Cayin T-30, the one imported by Buzzy Bee, if you can find one. Why? First of all, it runs on relatively cheap tubes, like the EL34. You can also change tubes (tube roll) to a number of variants of the 6550 and KT 88 family. When going tubes for the first time, it is a lot of fun to experiment with different-sounding power tubes. The Cayin (and other similar integrateds) will not set you back more than $ 600 - $ 750, and replacement tubes will cost you a fraction of the 300B that the Mastersound uses. Above all, you will have tried a reliable machine, easy to bias, and will probably be able to find out if tubes are for you without emptying your bank account.
Another possible route: I have gone from insanely expensive solid state and tube separates and integrateds (along with kilo-buck speakers, such as the Verity audio Parsifal), to a severe downgrade where I am now satisfied after years of the audiophile circus.
I a currently using (don't laugh now!) a Shanling MC-30 cd player-receiver complete with a single-ended amp built in, producing a WHOPPING 2 watts per channel! This amp is driving a pair of Opera quinta speakers, large, rich-sounding, and a perfect mate to this small wonder of an amp. Low level to moderate level volume only, but it is extraordinary in sound and resolution, smoking a past Sonic Frontiers Line 2 Power 2 combo in harmonic richness.
Why don't you give this little wonder a try? All of 600-700 will get you a tube preamp, set power amp, tuner, and a cd player that will compete with any $ 1,500.00 stand alone player when you finally add a separate power amp to it?
Tholt, The mastersound amp he was thinking of buying was mine. And no he couldnt get enough cash up. Times are hard for many it seems. No worries though I love the se300b and its running as I type in my office system.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
