Power output of tube amps compared to solid states

Arthur, thank you for the insight, I appreciate it. There's a lot to think about there.

I believe the transmission analogy is a good one. Even if for me, accepting the inherent performance superiority of dual clutch transmission, nothing can replace the joy a clutch pedal provides. I'm also glad you touched on Black Body Radiation.

One point of contention is that Class A is not the exclusive condition of the single ended topology. And, conversely, push pull does not need to be Class A/B or Class B; plenty of PP amps operate in Class A.

Honestly, Arthur, these two you have submitted are among THE all time posts here on Audiogon. For my money, quite possibly, in fact, the best. I'd be more than interested and appreciative if you laid out as much of what you've concluded as you desire, be it here or offline, irrespective of length, depth, or breadth.

As you can see my coming to the thread four days late, I came quite close to missing it altogether. And, the laziness of not reading a thread from beginning to end actually caused me to overlook it completely in my first pass. It was only in bubbling up through the thread to get a point of reference for some of the back and forth that was going on was I lucky enough to stumble upon it. I'm surprised it didn't elicit a waterfall of subsequent discussion. Hopefully, it still may; even if calculus, and mathematics in general, is something we fall far short on as a society at large out of our irrational fear of something that should not to be feared, but embraced.

A few simplistic and personal audio examples that I'm sure most of us can relate to:
1) I used to have two integrateds manufactured by the same company, created by the same designer (if that's of any concern). One was a 120 wpc (hybrid - tube preamp/solid state output) solid state amp, the other a measly 11 wpc push-pull 2A3 tube unit. Apart from such characteristics as tone, (which is actually a quantum leap over the so-called "simple" subject at hand - power), the 11 wpc tube amp walked away from the 120 wpc in what I remember to be every loudspeaker I paired the two of them with. In fact, the order of magnitude difference in rated power seemed exactly backwards

2) That same aforementioned 11 wpc 2A3 tube integrated was also available in a 22 wpc 300B version. Again, obviously, the tale of the tape seemed to make it plain as to who was who. Again, the 2A3 amplifier readily eclipsed the supposedly more powerful 300B model. Any reasonable and average person who didn't read the product spec sheets and relied solely on their own personal being when asked to match amps and numbers in order to assign the power ratings would have chosen the exact opposite of what the paperwork stated

3) A week ago, my buddy and I visited a local dealer to listen to a pair of loudspeakers he was interested in. One of the amplifiers we used in the demo was the Manley Stingray. Initially, we listened in tetrode mode, which provides 40 wpc. As an adamant fan of triode tube operation, I badgered him enough so that at some point, he acquiesced, and we "moved down" to the low rent 20 wpc triode provided. Yet again, in any subjective real world listening test, one would think the ratings would have been the other way around. Triode operation was simply far larger and richer, putting some real meat on the bones and yielding more real world tractable power

4) One question (OK, I lied, this one is neither simple nor clean, and admittedly, maybe I've always missed the boat on this subject...) I've always wrestled with - from the methods we calculate power today, biasing a tube amplifier into Class A operation ALWAYS yields a lower figure than Class A/B operation. Yet this contradicts what would otherwise inherently be obvious (at least, to an admittedly stupid and simple person such as myself) that more current flow through a tube would equate to more (and not less) power. Anyway, my real world example is the Jadis integrateds (again, for those who care, another situation of same company/same designer). The Orchestra Reference is 52 wpc (published specs are usually 40 wpc, but taken from the smaller Orchestra figures) Class A/B, the DA30 30 wpc Class A - both amps using 2 output tubes per side be they EL34/KT77, 6550/KT88/KT90, etc. You know where I'm going here, along the lines of my argument, in my real-world experience with the two, the DA30 is readily the stronger amplifier

Continuing again with the arithmetic/algebra - calculus theme, attempts to correlate the steady state conditions that are the very nature of the measurements of amplifiers heretofore with the dynamic and instantaneously changing phenomena that music (and, the reactive load the partnering loudspeaker presents to an amplifier - something curiously ignored in these measurements) is has, and will continue to, create(d) more problems and confusion than solutions. Along those lines, we often become slaves to such measurements and the machines we have built to implement and execute them which your statement, "To think that a human can build something that would have the capability of human hearing is an ego trip that no one should succumb to. In my opinion. The day measurements can beat the human brain, our demise, and our goal, will have been reached." captures so well.

Then again, living in a world where "watts is watts" and "watts - more is better" is so much less difficult than asking the tough questions that you have, and provides for the quick and easy compartmentalization and subsequent rankings/judgements desired by the customer, salesperson, and (most unfortunately) even, the scientist/engineer/teacher.

My overall point is this subject is far more complex (which we should embrace as a challenge/something fun, and not run away because we feel it's hard work, too dificult/esoteric to understand or just plain scary) than plugging in parameters like Watts, Volts, and Amps into a simple algebraic equation, solving for the one unknown of the three, then going home for the day because we think we're finished. In no way am I saying here that Ohm's Law is any less beautiful, valid, or even appropriate. However, the numbers that we're inserting into the formula when dealing in relationship of amplifier, music, and loudspeaker relationship clearly are.

Arthur (Aball), I'd like to both thank and congratulate you on one of the most enlightening and informative posts I've encountered in my 10+ years here.

!!!! *** BRAVO *** !!!!

Perhaps Bud Fried's (a man who claimed he was born 25 years too early - I believe the true number was far higher) favorite anecdote was the one about the ship's captain who set both sail and his watch (at promptly 12PM) by the clock tower in the town square, and let everyone know the clock tower was the ultimate reference. One day the keeper of the clock tower was asked what method he used to keep the clock in time, only to answer, "Well, every day, day in and day out, precisely at noon, there's a ship whose captain sets sail at that very moment..." and I'm sure you can figure out the rest of the story.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the mantra "watts is watts" represented a most (among, if not, the most in audio) fundamentally flawed proposition. Though I've not invested the requisite time, effort, or thought into why, the fact that music is nothing like the steady state test tones that measurements are should make obvious how far off the path the numbers can lead us. It's simply the difference separating arithmetic/algebra from calculus, and I believe we're missing that point.

Most everyone in this field can (and does) measure the things that conflict with the ear, then go on to regurgitate what they read or were taught (yet do not understand) why we are mistaken because the numbers say so. Very few prove the ability to transcend all of that, as you have here, and can as I like to say, "question the answers and answer the questions" en route to actually UNDERSTANDING the topic at hand. That is the difference between a technician and a scientist/enginneer. Regardless of the job title, in my life, I've met precious few scientists/engineers.

Thank you again!

Once again, I return to how radical a departure Arthur's posts are when discussing power in amplifiers.

Unfortunately, our posts are again dealing in the traditional means of trying to explain how the watts we measure in a tube amplifier versus a solid state amplifier still correlate in a 1 to 1 ratio. The point is, they don't. Well, at least, not in a useful way of the music / amplifier / loudspeaker relationship. As Arthur gave a glimpse of in such an utterly brilliant way in his initial post, tubes and transistors operate in VASTLY different ways. Like comparing an NFL running back coming through the hole on a play to a distance runner in a 10K event, both moving at 10 mph, living in a world where we use a steady state (linear, quadratic, or even cubic, etc.) measurement to compare them confuses the issue, and only delays us further from the questions and answers that will ultimately solve the puzzle.

Again, this is a question of calculus. Yet we're still attempting to shove it into an arithmetic / algebraic model. Sorry to say, but it just ain't gonna work. Until we come to grips with the fact that we need to operate under a completely different paradigm we're going to be splitting hairs on issues that bring us no closer to understanding.

Grant's question, "What's hotter, 85° in Miami, or 85° in Phoenix?" can get the dialogue back on track. Back in my days as a research chemist / material science engineer, I would use an analogous example in taking the first step in illustrating the difference between temperature and heat. When you open the 350 degree F oven you're baking a cake in, the air and metal oven racks / pans are obviously both at 350 degrees F. And while you are in no peril in putting your bare hand into the oven in contact with 350 degree air, you know not to grab the racks or pans which are at the same 350 degrees F without the protection of an oven mitt or potholder. Without going into the mathematics involved, the metal will transfer that 350 degrees F instantaneously into your flesh, the air does so in a much more gradual manner. In simple terms, that's the difference between temperature and heat.

What I'm getting at is we need to come up with the same type of "temperature versus heat" model when dealing with amplifier power. Then, we'll be capable of satisfying Unsound's relevant question.

The last thing I want to say is that we must also be on guard to not fall into the trap of trying to explain why some folks choose tube amplification as simply a matter of power. Power is but one piece in the puzzle.

Kirkus, "the particular set of energy-storage dynamics between a typical tube-amp power-supply and that of a typical solid-state amp are VERY different." Thank you for your insight! Finally, we now have something that tangibly advances the conversation.

My position throughout this thread has been that we are clearly measuring the wrong things (the most obvious being WPC), and that we need SOMETHING to bring us into the world of calculus, as opposed to arithmetic/algebra. Again, the complex relationship of loudspeaker/amplifier/music is not a static or steady state, but a dynamic phenomenon. Distortion, another steady state parameter, is most definitely not the answer.

What Kirkus has laid out on the duration of dynamic headroom pushes the discussion into the promised land of calculus. For that, praise, admiration, and congratulations are in order. Again, I thank you!