Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.


I never thought transistor amps could hold a candle to tube amps. They just never seem to get the "wholeness of the sound of an instrument" quite right. SS doesn't allow an instrument (brass, especially) to "bloom" out in the air, forming a real body of an instrument. Rather, it sounds like a facsimile; a somewhat truncated, stripped version of the real thing. Kind of like taking 3D down to 2-1/2D.

I also hear differences in the actual space the instruments are playing in. With tubes, the space appears continuous, with each instrument occupying a believable part in that space. With SS, the space seems segmented, darker, and less continuous, with instruments somewhat disconnected from each other, almost as if they were panned in with a mixer. I won't claim this to be an accurate description, but I find it hard to describe these phenomena.

There is also the issue of interest -- SS doesn't excite me or maintain my interest. It sounds boring. Something is missing.

Yet, a tube friend of mine recently heard a Pass X-350 amp and thought it sounded great, and better in many ways than his Mac MC-2000 on his Nautilus 800 Signatures. I was shocked to hear this from him. I wasn't present for this comparison, and the Pass is now back at the dealer.

Tubes vs. SS is an endless debate, as has been seen in these forums. I haven't had any of the top solid state choices in my system, so I can't say how they fare compared to tubes. The best SS amp I had was a McCormack DNA-1 Rev. A, but it still didn't sound like my tube amps, VT-100 Mk II & Cary V-12.

Have any of you have tried SS amps that provided these qualities I describe in tubes? Or, did you also find that you couldn't get these qualities from a SS amp?
kevziek

Showing 6 responses by kevziek

BWHITE, you're right. How short-sided of me to ignore the power differences of the MC-2000 & the X-350. My friend w/the MC-2000 complained of how it was unable to deal w/ the complexities of full-scale, loud passages. Of course -- it don't have the juice!! Whether it would detail as well as the X-350 at lower levels -- well, I'll have to ask him if he listened to that.

MURALMAN1, as far as "continuous space" (my phrase) vs. "blackness", I don't agree w/you. When I listen to live music, I don't hear "blackness" around the instruments. I hear the space, and I especially hear it when the instrument is playing. The reverberance & reflections of the instrument rush through that space, defining the space & , to a degree, the instrument . BUT I do admit that there may be some tube "sound" that is part of the sound of the space, and not completely accurate. Again, it's a question of a WHOLENESS & REALNESS of the sound. I'm not saying SS can't do that, but I haven't heard it, though it seems that some here have and believe it can.

DBURDICK, a string pluck or the attack of the stick on a cymbal sound more defined & real on tubes to me. The fact that you find the opposite to be what you hear, makes me want to do more comparative listening.

Doesn't this comparing become wearying, though? I can't tell you how tiring it is to disconnect & reconnect and relisten. Especially when you biwire and use spade lugs! And then listening to the same cuts, back and forth. I'm sure many of you can relate.

The GAMUT sounds worth checking out. I have heard the high praise given to the Atmasphere and the LAMM amps, but they are too pricey for me.

The response to this thread has been great ---- hope it continues.
Muralman, strangely, I never seriously considered a tube CD player, thinking this was the ultimate use of tubes as coloration devices. Perhaps my thinking was awry. Which CD player you have?

I do realize the majority of recordings undergo a mixing and panning process, but for my comparisons, I use audiophile recordings, such as Reference Recordings, Chesky, etc.

I will have to try a Pass amp. I hear mostly good things about them; although I do read criticisms as well, mostly about bass quality and midrange asepticness and thinness.

As far as manufactured warmth, I don't perceive this in my Audio Research VT-100 Mk II. Indeed, some tube fans think it too SS-sounding, although I consider that a misnomer. My Cary is unfortunately not broken in yet, and with a recent move and things in an uproar, I don't know when my system will be up and running.
The accuracy thing bugs me. Nothing out there is accurate. Every amp presents a facsimile of the musical event, and none is true to it. Some of the SS people just want to push the "science" thing, but it's all for naught.

Again, measurements basically mean crap. I agree with Twl that this should have been discarded long ago. I remember all the older SS amps I had with 0.0001% distortion. They sounded like garbage.

The ultimate question is: which sounds more like real music being reproduced -- tubes or transistors? My experience tells me tubes, but I started this thread to see other's opinions, and I'm open to them. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking what we are listening to is accurate.....nothing is.
Asa, your well-spoken comments on "SPACE" are helping us get closer to defining some very important tube / transistor differences.

When you say the Pass amp will make "leading transients possess a certain dryness", I interpret this as follows: When a SS amp initiates the attack, there seems to be a certain sterility in that attack. There is a certain bluntness and deadness when compared to tubes. Yes, the attack is there and it is quick, but it doesn't sound quite right. It lacks the reality of the attack tubes provide. I believe this is what you are trying to convey, but I am afraid others will interpret "dryness" as accuracy and lack of exaggerated bloom or air. I don't believe it's that at all, but rather as I described.

I'm not sure what you mean by, "Air around sources is more pressurized, but dissipates as you move away from sources." The pressurized thing needs explanation. I agree that the air dissipates more quickly on SS -- it doesn't shoot out as far or for as long as tubes. It is truncated or damped out. It dies out.

Again, this observation is based on my limited exposure to the best of SS amps. But I fear that this will be the case with any SS device. I'm sure others will beat me over the head for this comment, but my fear is that this is the nature of transistors, i.e. switching silicon devices.

Asa, your response to what I say above will be valued. But hurry, before Muralman hits me over the head with his X-150.

space has sterility rather than aliveness
By the way, LIQUID does not have to mean colored or smoothed over. LIQUID to me describes a quality in tubes that is a certain form of transparency, where an instrument's attack and sound has a freeness to it, a clarity. A sound that has an aliveness to it, that is often lacking in SS. SS has more of a facsimile-type sound. A reproduced sound. A mechanical sound. Tubes just seem to RING OUT freely. All the many intricacies and components of the sound of an instrument seem more clearly defined and separated, yet they are integrated into the whole much better.
An update. My friend who borrowed the X-350 and raved about it, said that it still lacked the naturalness and realness of tubes. He also just installed a dedicated line (10 g.) and is astounded with the improvements. His MC2000 now sounds more dynamic, lowered noise floor, more clarity. He doesn't have the dealer's X-350 now, but is still using a Threshold S-550e, and he says that with the dedicated line, the differences in the amps is more apparent. He is now convinced he doesn't want solid state. I will be going to do some comparing this Sunday, and also bring my VT-100 along. Will post after that...........