2. amps-preamps
  3. 1342812008

Tube guy gets a B&K: tubes vs solid state

You folks probably already know all this, but maybe these observations will be helpful for some newbie... (tubey newbie?).

I've been looking to understand how to improve the sound of my tube system and decided to try a SS amp as a point of reference, and potentially as a permanent switch. Thanks to many here, the desirable choice seemed to be a McCormack DNA. But being unsure I decided to take a cheaper approach and bought a B&K ST-140 ($202 on ebay + $27 shipping), version 2, toroidal transformer. It is like new. After swapping back and forth with my Marantz 8B I have the following observations. Rest of system is stock CJ PV-5, ProAc One SCs, ordinary car audio speaker cable (next upgrade), all Kimber PBJ interconnects.

The issues I have with my system are a desire for tighter bass, more openness, less of a congested presentation. I got my system in 95 or so, and did some comparisons to SS then, but sometimes you have to relearn old lessons.

1) I am amazed at how pretty and smooth a sound the B&K has. It is a "lighter" sound, more even and polite or reserved, and the various instruments don't seem to be congesting together. For a $200, 20 year old amp, it is quite amazing.

2) The sound of tubes is different from the sound of solid state. It's difficult to overstate the significance of this. The tube sound is palpable and dimensional. I knew this before, and these have to be the most commonly used terms but it's true. But it's a bit stunning to hear it again.

3) I would never be happy with solid state because no matter how pretty, it does not have this tangible substance, palbability, or dimensionality. It is key to enjoyment of the sound. It is sonic sculpture versus sonic painting.

4) I expected the bass to be deeper, larger, and tighter with the B&K. At first blush I thought it was. But after several comparisons, it is none of these. It is stronger and...tighter doesn't seem like the right word but it is as tight with the 8B. More importantly it is more real, because of the palpability, and that makes it sound more accurate or defined. On recordings with fuzzy bass, though, I think the even, clear, laid-back presentation of the B&K renders the bass with more seeming definition whereas the 8B seems to be trying to make it full and tangible but having nothing to work with, it just puts forth a kinda warm and soft bassiness.

5) I now believe the comment I read here, that a SS amp with a tube preamp will not give the dimensionality and palpability of tubes. One needs a tube amp for this.

I no longer feel I need tighter bass; I see it differently and very much like the bass I have with the 8B. I do think I could use more openness, a bit better high end (PV-5s, I'm told here, have rolled-off highs), and a less congested sound when the band gets busy, which somehow seems to be linked to the palpability or substance of the sound. It's like the thick palpability is a bit too thick and things get congested together.

I'm not sure whether changes to the amp or preamp will solve those, but the experience with the B&K suggests the next move is the preamp. I'm trying to decide whether to pick up something less romantic/lush like an ARC or VTL, or to send my PV-5 off for upgrades, or buy a newer CJ. At this point not knowing which will be the more effective it's a coin toss unless a killer deal comes along. I'm getting more reluctant though to alter the nature of my PV-5. Since getting back into hifi I have never seen one for sale.

Any suggestions or thoughts on my next move would be most welcome.

Jim
river251

Showing 4 responses by jmcgrogan2

jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
LOL Jim...I didn't think that a cheap SS amp would satisfy you after using a tube amp. You are right about tube amps, tubes just have that *special* fuzz on the peach quality. Good SS certainly gets better than the B&K, but it's still SS.

Cheers,
John
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Jim, I agree with Swampwalker that the preamp is the heart of the system, we both use VAC preamps, though his is several steps up from mine. I am using a VAC Auricle preamp which also has a great built in phono stage. I paid about $1150 for it with some special tubes several months ago. VAC, like ARC, seem to be some of the most revealing tube preamps out there. I would say that ARC is the most revealing, while the VAC is a tad more musical, yet still very revealing.

The BAT gear that I've owned I had a love/hate relationship with. I've owned 9 pieces of BAT gear, obviously I love the sound, but I've had mechanical issues with all 3 BAT preamps that I've owned. No issues with the 2 CDP's, 2 phono stages or 2 amps. BAT sound is hard to characterize. I would say that it is very powerful and dynamic, but a tad on the warm side. Certainly not as warm as CJ or Cary, but warm none the less. However, I've also seen many who claim that BAT equipment is bright. So maybe BAT is just perfectly neutral, as many find it dark, many find it bright and many find it just right, I don't know.

Sonic Frontiers gear I would avoid. I agree with most others from what I've read in that Sonic Frontiers will sound as close to solid state as any tube gear out there. In fact, so close that I've heard many SS units that better them. I prefer tube gear that sounds like tubes over tube gear that sounds like SS.

A word of caution, be careful that you do not go too far in your search for more resolution. You have higher resolution speaker cables coming in and you are looking for a higher resolution preamp. You still should be OK, but in my experiences, one can go too far, as you are now experiencing with too much warmth and musicality. You can also get so much transparency that the music becomes sterile and uninvolving. The key is to find a nice balance, one where you can listen for a long period of time with no sense of falling asleep or grinding your teeth.

Cheers,
John
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Csontos, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree with you.
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Charles1dad, I agree. For the sake of simplicity, I was trying to keep it basic, as generally there are two directions to go towards as far as tonality is concerned with audio gear. Someone either wants more warmth or they want more resolution.

For the sake of this being Audiogon, I am strictly dealing from a audio gear veiwpoint, not comparing to live music. As you noted, yes, there are many pieces of audio gear that define themselves as transparent, but actually emphasize the upper midrange and/or highs, which is not accurate. They sound thin, clinical. I was merely pointing out to the OP that just as he is dissatisfied with a system that is now too warm for his tastes, it is entirely possible to go too far in the opposite direction (transparency/resolution/whatever you wish to call it) too.

If you wish to call it pseudo transparency, that is fine, I know what you are talking about and I agree. I was just trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Cheers,
John
More to discover