I just switched back to my ss equipment and can't see how I listened to ss for so many years and thought that I had a good system, maybe the equipment needs to be left on for some time. But regardless of that, the difference is startling. I know that my tube equipment is not the same degree of excellence as my ss, but now ss sounds lean, thin lifeless. Have my listening priorities changed? One thing I noticed; my listening perception adapts to the sound present in the room. As I write this the sound is improving incremently. Anyone share the same experience?? I will post as I will continue to listen and notice differences. Ss is simaudio p-5 w-5, tubes are Cj premier 4 amp and audio experience a2se preamp. Are there ss preamps that will satisfy or am I smitten by bubes I mean tubes.
Hi Sam, IME the most transparent systems I have heard are also some of the more relaxed, but of course I have heard many systems wherein 'transparent' equates to 'analytical'.
This has to do with the types of distortion the system makes. If the higher ordered odd harmonics are not being enhanced (distorted), **and** if the system is also lacking on lower ordered distortions, then it will be both transparent and easy going. Believe it or not there really are not very many ways to do that: somehow you have to get rid of distortion without using feedback. It can be done, but those that have accomplished it are few.
I think you are right in the emotionally engaging systems also having an 'organic' quality. IMO music itself has an organic quality- the fullness of reality- and if a stereo is violating basic human perceptual rules there seems to me no way the system will be 'organic', emotional and transparent all at once.
I was under the same inpression, but after selling my juicypeach and buying a resolution audio cd50 and connecting it directly to a belles 1 power amp it is amazing the detail I was missing and this setup is not at all harsh sounding, I am truly shocked! because I love the sound of guitar tube amps.
Dr Herbert Melcher (famous in the world of neurochemistry) has done some recent studies that show that the more an audio playback system violates human perceptual rules, the more the processing moves from the limbic system to the cerebral cortex.
Provocative position, Ralph. Given the "perceptual rules" and their "violation" I'm left to contemplate whether this explains, to some degree, why "analytical" systems may be described as transparent and "emotionally" engaging systems may be characterized as organic.
I have heard great music out of both, but SS works for me with my current system. SE tubes are the Best of the Genre IMO, but they are usually not enuff to drive the large speakers i always find myself gravitating towards. So for me Tubes will not work in my setup, nothing to do with better or best , more horses for courses.
Atma:
Great input and discussion on NF and it's effect. very similar effect when comparing digital to analog. why do so many find dragging a diamond nail thru vinyl grooves to sound better ... Technically poor , yet ultimately it is the best for sound, of course with that perfect setup and recording.
Digital with all of it's clever bits and bytes and superior duplicating ability has it flaws , but captures music differently , what it does well it does better than analog and same for analog, hence same for SS and tubes...
Good SS recreates the dynamics, and energy of live music that Tubes can't , tubes recreate the intimacy and nuances of live music that SS can't, while they both do all of the above to some degree, that is there apparent strengths and weakness's IMO.
regards,
PS: Ohhh, stay away from SS manufacturers who try to make their equipment sound like tubes , i find those to be the worst of the genre.
Never say never. I have auditioned some very nice equipment, tube and solid state and I can tell you in my humble opinion, that one typically becomes comfortable with certain sound and distortions. The amps are not reproducing the electronic signal 100% perfectly. They are designed to produce a particular sound. But, I have heard the top of the line Audio Research amps, Mark Levinson and Boulder to name a few and I would take anyone anytime. The Boulder Pre and power amp through top Wilson speakers matched or beat anything I have heard before. Tube or otherwise. It was simply wonderful. The Audio Research REF 610T, same. for some reason, the Krells are still too bright to me, can't say why. But, never say never. It comes down to when you hear the real thing and know it, it doesn't matter if it is tube or not. However, some people are solid state religious or tube religious and won't hear about anything else period. I care about the music (and my budget). enjoy the music. life is short. enjoy
This is the beauty of the hobby, isn't it? So many different Nirvanas!
Well said, Guido!!! And so refreshingly different from one of our other members who recently wrote that there was "only one road to Rome" and apparently he was the only one w an up to date map!!!
Now that I have sold my ASR Emitter, I can comment on it a bit more with no conflict of interest.
The Emitter is the best amplifier I have ever had or heard, and it gives up _nothing_ to any tube amp. It is absolutely as smooth and holographic as the best tube amps, with completely accurate timbre and body, and additionally with the bandwidth and power benefits of direct-coupled transistors. I am not saying it sounds like tubes - it sort of does but sort of doesn't - in ways in which it differs it is absolutely not inferior, only different. [DHSET amps still have their own sound - that 'glow' - if you are after that then they are the ticket.]
This amplifier completely changed my beliefs on what is possible with solid-state.
Agree, Tubes do magic if done right. So can SS amps. But, still, IME, best SS amps still can't give 3D sound that best tube amps produce. Tubes give a whole new 'complete' 3rd dimension.
I have two good phono pres ( 1 ss and 1 tube) and the difference in sound is dramatic- SS is addictive and very good hifi-like and tube one life like. It is always fun to play both back to back and realize the differences. I had SS vendeatta research phono preamp ( which I was stupid enough to sell few years back) which sat smack in the middle giving best of the both worlds.
With that said, I have had few very good SS amps (which I would never go back to, however ;-)) I would buy Vendeatta Phono pre back, for sure
I have had 2 CJ preamps in my system: the venerable CJ Premier 14 and later the Premier 17LS2. To my ears, as advertized, the CJ's sound just right !
The Ayre KX-R to my ears has a similar sound ... just better, with lower noise, better bass, and less hassle. I am done with my preamp quest. I am not looking for a replacement.
I assume you are fond of CJ preamps, and if so, there is some common ground between us.
Likewise Pinkus. . . I'd love to have your ears. . . while a direct comparison between Capri and KX-R may not be terribly meaningful, KX-R outcosting little Capri by a factor of 5, I could get the KX-R and sell JRDG Criterion. . . unfortunately I have not been able to find a pre yet that I prefer to Criterion, and unlike VTL TL7.5 Mk.2 and the CJ flagship series, KX-R is not on my current shortlist. . . The 2 of us seem to suffer of terminally diverging tin-ears. This is the beauty of the hobby, isn't it? So many different Nirvanas! G.
of course feedback can be applied to preamps, and in fact most do ! If your preamp uses an opam for volume control, then most likely your preamp is using lots of feedback.
I wish I had your ears :-) That way I could get rid of the KX-R and just go with a Capri.
It is becoming conventional wisdom that the sound of tube and solid state are converging. Perhaps in some respects that is the case, but, there are aspects of certain tube gear I haven't heard matched in solid state stuff. In general, better tube gear presents a larger scaled soundstage and a more natural, relaxed sound (I am not talking about warmer and sluggish). The initial attack of notes seem more realistic (less brittle and artificially edgy) and the notes seem to bloom into space and then decay more naturally. Better tube gear also tends to sound less "dry" (I am describing a sensation more than a particular sound).
I am a bit leery of making statements about tube being superior in sound to solid state because, frankly, I think a lot of tube gear sounds worse than the equivalently priced solid state alternative. I really don't particularly like most high-powered tube gear. If a speaker is efficient enough, I like the sound of well-built single-ended triode amps; if more power is required, I like output transformerless tube amps.
That said, I've heard a lot of solid state gear that have certain aspects of performance that better my tube gear and I could easily with such. For example, the Lyra Connoisseur linestage and phonostage sounded pretty good to me--very dynamic and beautifully dense and realistic harmonic structure. A friend has a First Watt J2 amp that sounds reasonably good on his horn system (he says it does less well driving his Spendor SP100s). I've also heard nice sounding systems driven by Ayre amps and Belles amps too.
Guidocorona, feedback is very definately a factor in preamp design. A very famous Ampex recorder (model 351-2), used by RCA and Mercury as well as many others, featured a zero feedback record circuit.
EQ of phono preamps is often handled in the feedback loop of the preamp. The Dyna PAS-3 is a good example as is the ARC SP-3. If not, you will often see the term 'passive equalization' used by the manufacturer. Harmon Kardon used passive phono EQ in their famous Citation 1 preamp decades ago. IMO/IME passive EQ is harder to execute, but allows the phono preamp to sound better- smoother, with less ticks and pops. Refer to my prior posts as to why that is.
Chatta, there is of course an intellectual preference that each audiophile carries. Despite this conscious preference, the human brain apparently knows when it is being fooled, whether we consciously acknowledge it or not. Dr Herbert Melcher, a famed neuro-chemical scientist, has proved this recently in tests using audio playback- its fascinating stuff: as the brain detects violations of how reality actually sounds (false noise floor, slow waveform delivery, etc.), the processing of music moves from the limbic centers to the frontal lobes of the human brain. When we are comparing cables or listening to MP-3s, the processing is entirely in the frontal lobes.
Is hard to decide between them because each person has different sound tastes, the tube lover will rather tubes and the same will happens to solid state amp lovers.
Pinkus, Our tin ears must be forged from different pewter alloys. . . I have never liked KX-R, but as you know have used lovingly a Capri for a year and a half.
BTW, I was not aware that feedback or lack there-of even applied to pre designs.
Pinkus, the only issue with transistors is that without feedback, they will make more distortion than tubes will. However, if the design is competent, the higher orders will not manifest nearly so much as they will if feedback is applied. Its my opinion that in time we (as designers) will sort out what must be done to make them work properly.
One of the best amplifiers I have heard is transistor, made by Ridley Audio. It was zero feedback and class A and fully differential. It employed a heater to heat the output devices to a fairly high temperature (and then regulated the heat) and made as much heat as any tube amp of the same power. The amp made 100 watts and cost about $100,000 for a pair (they could drive a 1 ohm load); a bit pricey for my blood but proof that the extra distortions of transistors can be tamed if handled right.
For the time being as I mentioned earlier, it is a lot easier to use tubes to keep the distortion down. It might be cheaper too. If one looks at the whole amp/speaker thing from the point of view of obeying human perceptual rules, the issue of higher output impedance of zero feedback amps becomes moot- that is 'what is' so you deal with it in the design.
I have. And although my sample is limited, I have found a very strong correlation between zero feedback designs and my long term satisfaction with the equipment.
Non-zero feedback designs that I have dealt with and discarded because of aural issues:
1. Rowland capri 2. Rowland Synergy 2i 3. CJ MV-60SE 4. Linn Klimax 5. Nagra PLL
Besides the CJ above, which I lived with for a year, I got rid of the other equipment within a matter of months, if not weeks.
Equipment, I have had a long term relationship with:
1. CJ Premier 14 (3-4 years) 2. Nagra VPA (bought it and never got rid of) 3. Ayre A7 integrated 4. Ayre KX-R 5. Dartzeel nhb-108
I did not start out with any biases towards non-zero feedback designs ... in fact it was the other way around. I would always (and still do) peruse the distortion measurements of equipment in Sterophile, Soundstage, and I had a strong bias against zero feedback designs, as they showed up poorly in the measurements department.
My ears simply lead me to the equipment that I now have.
Of course it is also possible that I am highly suggestible, and I am the one with the tin-ear.
Oh shucks, I must really be tin-eared, because I have never detected any correlation between 0-feedback and the sound I like, in any amps I heard, tubed and SS alike.
Minorl, of course there are electric cars too, and energy storage systems that are a lot better than the internal combustion guys would have you believe.
There have been improvements in amps in the last 50 years. There are new topologies that did not exist in the 1950s or 60s. So even if the parts had not gotten better (which they have) there would still be progress.
A lot of that progress comes out of the understanding of how the human perceptual system works. IOW we are not going to make progress if we design something to look good on paper, but the paper rules fail to take in how we hear sounds. Dr Herbert Melcher (famous in the world of neurochemistry) has done some recent studies that show that the more an audio playback system violates human perceptual rules, the more the processing moves from the limbic system to the cerebral cortex.
I'm sorry. Who is Ralph? I would like to read his papers on the subject. Thanks, To touch on a subject mentioned earlier. as long as we are using solid state/tube devices, wires, capacitors, inductors, etc. we will have propagation delay, distortion, losses, etc. I wish I was a smarter Engineer, I would go the star trek approach and things would be perfect. Using light as the signal, recording and playback media would probably be better. Digital is always flawed, although much better now, because it cuts an analog signal into pieces and then tries to piece it back together again. Sound is analog in nature. Eliminate the distortion, additions, and losses and you are there. I wonder where we will be 100 years from now? Quite honestly, we really haven't changed much in decades in amp design. Yes, the amps are actually built better. The transformers, capacitors, resistors, inductors, etc. are better. and the transistors are much better, more linear. Tubes? wow! I'm not sure if they are better or not. but amps? you still have input stage, high impedance, differential inputs, cascode, current mirrors, voltage gain, current gain, output drivers, etc. Bias control has gotten much better, and current sources are creative and better, but my point is like an automobile, what has changed? it is still an internal combustion machine that drives axles and wheels. Like I said, I wish I was smarter. I am absolutely cerain that Nelson Pass can design and build high quality tube amps also. A good Engineer is a good Engineer. He just choose to go the solid state route. Same for good tube amp designers. They can do just as well with solid state. They found their nitch(?) and went with it. However, to get to the level where you really listen to music instead of as background music is tough without spending an amazing amount of money. That is why used equipment sales are going strong. I'll take a Mark Levinson older amp Ml3, Ml2, Ml23.5, etc. any day. Threshold amps (replace the pre-drivers and output drivers with more linear transistors and wow!), Audio Research, etc. My point? This older equipment is wonderful! The good thing about a good Engineer like Pass, is that they can explain the difficult subjects clearly make it down to earth. There are many out there. I love reading their stuff.
Minorl is touching upon what Ralph calls the power-paradigm/voltage-paradigm issue. Those white papers of his are illuminating regarding how amplifiers interact with loudspeakers.
Minorl, sounds to me as if you are saying something that I've been harping on a lot- that the playback system has to take into account the rules of human hearing/perception and obey those rules. Designing to specs on a piece of paper doesn't do it (unless those specs take the ear into account, which, these days, they don't).
Amazing and very interesting discussion. Please keep in mind that there are several lines of thought regarding amplifier design. 1) the amplifier is designed to drive specific loads, 2) look like an open circuit (impedance wise) so that it does not load down other electronics feeding it or 3) is specifically designed to accurately reproduce and amplify the input signal. If you design an amplifier to accurately reproduce and amplify the input signal without taking into account what loads it must drive, it will oscillate, blow up or just not work correctly. There is a difficult engineering dance that engineers must adhere to in amplifier design and also, compromises that must be taken in any amplifier design. The point that I was trying to make earlier and in other posts is that one must know what instruments and vocals really sound like first in order to understand if the equipment is designed correctly and working correctly. If it sounds as if you are listening to speakers, then, something is wrong. If you can't tell where the artist are on the stage, how deep the stage is etc. then either something is wrong or the music was recorded badly and maybe there wasn't a stage at all or instruments, but electronic instruments only. You never know what was recorded and how. It is hard to judge. I am not an advocate of classical, live unamplified, amplified, jazz, rock, etc. I love any music that is good. However, understand that most kids have no clue that they are listening to drum machines, electronic instruments instead of real instruments, etc. So, when they hear your system, they may not appreciate it because they have a bad point of reference to begin with. A short story. years ago, I took my daughter to a concert to hear (see) Roberta Flack. Outstanding in person, recordings, don't sound nearly as good as live. you could hear deep sighs and breaths and gasps from the crowd as she played piano and sang. That is when my yound daughter learned what signing really was. Remember, we are constantly trying to reproduce something that was recorded. 1) was the recording done correctly? 2) the mixing? 3) was the replay equipment and cables designed and build correctly? All of these inpact the ultimate sound. Did the artist step out of your speakers and can you see the room, instruments and maybe her face? if so, you are there. If not, then we aren't there yet. But, you got to admit, it is fun getting there.
A-S, of course I pretty much agree with your thoughts. (And I do not have your engineering knowledge.)
I think most agree Pass amps sound great but not really like [very good] tube amps.. dimensionality does seem to be a bit flatter for one thing. Of course they have advantages too. It is just a different sound - one with no real weaknesses I would say.
There are quite a few SS amps now that manage to avoid nearly everything in the telltale SS signature.
Paulfolbrecht, yes, General Electric proved that humans use the 5th 7th and 9th harmonics as a means to determine the volume of a sound back in the mid-60s.
So how this relates to the TvsSS debate: The issue centers around feedback- by adding feedback to a tube amp you can make it sound 'solid state' on account of the chaotic harmonic noise floor. I believe the sound of 'solid state' is not so much that of transistors, rather that of a transistor amplifier that has a lot of feedback. Nelson Pass is a good example of someone making transistor amps that don't sound 'solid state'. Many of his designs use no feedback.
For decades, triodes have been known as the most linear form of amplification (at least as far as the specs of triodes appear on paper). The trick it to use the triodes in a way that they will not make distortion **without** also using feedback. IMO/IME this is the primary advantage of tubes- that you can do such a thing in a way that to me seems easier than with transistors.
People such as Nelson Pass are eroding that advantage; I think ultimately though that too few designers are trying to figure out how to crack the nut without feedback. We now know from Norman Crowhurst (55 years ago), General Electric (45 years ago) and the proofs of Chaos Theory (mid 80s to present) that feedback simply does not work- and won't until an amplifier without a propagation delay is somehow devised.
Olesonmd's examples bear this out- the amplifiers used in his examples all use feedback and so have more errors in common with each other and less in common with real music, regardless of being tube or transistor.
"A few music listeners still have the illusion that...tubed units are in some mysterious way better than present solid-state units. The overall superior performance of solid-state design has been scientifically proven...Anyone investing in a contemporary vacuum tube product will experience less than the best available performance." source: McIntosh press release/TAS
"Had I performed a blind A/B listening test, I would have picked the tube amp as being solid-state, and the solid-state unit as being tubed." source: Sam Tellig/Stereophile
"When it comes to tubes, you will only find solid-state in my personal system....and I manufacture some very good tube gear!" source: High end audio manufacturer in Minnesota(no names, please)
It sounds pretty fascinating. Can you reference any papers available online?
Of course, as you well know, the math only takes you so far because our knowledge of the ear/brain system is so limited. For example, who would have thought that upper-order harmonics are so much more objectionable than lower-order? I suppose you could argue that it makes sense that the harmonics closer the fundamental are going to be less objectionable, but I don't believe there's any theory that would have predicted the extent to which the brain objects to high-order HD. Same with stuff like timing of reflections, etc. It's just the way the brain (and to some extent the ear) works. Right?
Given an amplifier with a propagation delay (IOW, any amplifier), and a constantly changing waveform (such as a musical signal), the application of loop feedback (negative feedback) creates a 'non-linear dynamic system' which will have chaotic response including signal bifurcation (we audiophiles call bifurcation 'distortion').
In this case, the bifurcation will generate a large amount of harmonics- up to and past the 85th harmonic. There will also be inharmonic distortion- bifurcation that is not exact doubling or tripling due to interaction with intermodulations occurring at the feedback node(s).
The resulting harmonics will be low amplitude and we see this all the time in amplifier specs. The chaotic response cannot be avoided if feedback is applied, and forms an artificial noise floor quite unlike the normal noise floor seen in real life and also in audio circuits that do not employ feedback. The fact that the spectra of noise in a room or a zero feedback audio circuit is nearly identical should not be a surprise as the chaotic behavior of random elements (tubes, transistors, resistors) follow the same rules as is found in a room.
Our ears have the ability to hear about 20 db into natural noise floors, giving us the ability to extract spatial information even if the wind is blowing. The artificial noise floor generated by feedback (chaotic response) cannot be penetrated by our ears in the same manner so any spatial information below that threshold is lost.
This is why amplifier circuits that employ feedback seem to contain less soundstage information. It is also why they seem to sound brighter.
So Chaos Theory is telling us that loop negative feedback cannot be effectively used to eliminate distortion! Other means must be used. To create linearity, we must use the most linear forms of amplification known, otherwise signal bifurcation will be the result.
Now many of you might well be saying 'isn't negative feedack a stabilizing factor in amplifier design?'. While in audio this has been accepted as fact, Chaos Theory teaches something a little different: that the non-linear dynamic system has a stable operating zone (this is the one where we apply a sine wave to the input). In order for the system to have a true stable condition, the feedback has to be **positive** and so will result in the amplifier going into oscillation- when the amplifier oscillates, its condition is now stable; it will not change until the system is shut down. Of course we have no use for that in audio amplification :)
This is the tip of the iceberg, but in this lesson we have seen that Chaos Theory predicts what Norm Crowhurst wrote about in the 1950s- that feedback injects noise into the amplifier. The energy of the distortion is not substantially reduced by feedback- it is chopped up (bifurcated) and spread out over a wide spectrum with a lot of the energy in the ultrasonic range.
Olesonmd has the critical point - the whole point of tubes in guitar amps is their overload characteristics - in audio, while the way tubes overload may *help* certain things, we want them out of that range!
Yes, Ralph, I would like to hear everything that chaos theory has to say about tubes and audio amplification.
I type this as I listen to an ASR Emitter, which is certainly among the very best, I mean the absolute best, amps I have ever heard, and no tube anywhere.
And the reason tube amps are loved by guitar players is that they overdrive them into distortion frequently. We all know about tubes even order harmonics when overdriven. How many of you overdrive your home stereo to get that classic distorted rock & roll sound that people like Clapton seem to enjoy so much? I'm not arguing against tubes, but it's my position that they have a much more practical application in the world of guitar amplifiers than in home audio.
Is it that live music is often reinforced by tube amplified equipment? I have read that many musicians prefer tube amplifiers over solid state, and, if true, then "live performances" would be closer to a home stereo system powered by tubes.
What is the ultimate goal of any design, SS, or Tube? Is it not the uncolored and neutral/faithful reproduction of the original recording? I will argue that any well engineered, well executed design will accomplish this goal. Tubes, as well as solid state designs, are equally capable. In a press release a few years ago from McIntosh, the statement was made that their SS gear was superior to their tube equipment. I own tubes, as well as SS. They are both very good.
I have played classical violin for years, listened to live unapplified music and applified music. Jazz, Rock, R&B, classical, etc. One first must have a good idea what the music is suppose to sound like, and even then, you don't know how it was recorded, the mikes, setup, equipment, patch boards, etc. There are so many ways to screw up a recording. I switched a while ago to an Audio Research REF 3 Pre-amp from an Audio Research SP-11. The SP-11 retubed was wonderful. The REF 3 is magic. The SP-11 was very forgiving of bad recordings. Great music, but bad recordings. The REF 3 didn't forgive anything. Many of my older CD's sound like crap now. But, the better recorded CD's are absolutely wonderful. go figure. I run an Sota Saphire TT, with SME IV arm and Blackbird cartridge, into a Audio Research Phono Stage, then to the REF 3, then to AR VTM 120 monos for the upper panels of my speakers and also to a wonderful Mark Levinson ML3 Amp for the bass drivers, all driven through an electronic crossover, which I just bought replacing my passive crossovers. So, as you can see, I am going from tubed pre-amp, to a solid state crossover, to tubed amps and a solid state bass amp. No way do I now have tube sound exclusively or SS exclusively. My point is do whatever you can to get realistic reproduction of the electronic signal and again, if you can sit for hours listening without fatigue and not feel as if something is wrong or missing, then you are there. Or pretty close.
It is great reading your posts, you people know your stuff. Enjoy
"Best attributes of each are pretty much present in either, differences are minute-"
That's arguable but since "Best attributes" is pretty subjective...
While I agree, in general, that the gap is closing between tube and SS is in many modern designs, I think the degree of closure is greatly influenced by tube type, eg. 300b, EL34, KT88.
The 'best' of both technology are converging with gaps closing in very rapidly today. Best attributes of each are pretty much present in either, differences are minute--if any. So imo, given the right choice of gears and proper system synergy one could easily live happily with either--with both seemingly striving toward the more neutral, live, musical camp. Unless of course when comparing classic tube sound and SS of yore, then taking preferences of one over the other more relevant.
Argyro is completely right. There are tube preamps that go down to 1 Hz and can pass a 10Hz squarewave without measurable tilt. IOW, as good as any solid state. Hum has nothing to do with either tubes or transistors- that points to a setup problem, a malfunction or a cheesy design.
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.
