"If you really like the music and want to know how it sounds what is recorded in your 9,000 LP's, you have to change your electronics, specially your amplifier: this amplifier, like all tube amplifiers, is a nice an expensive equalizer let me to explain it:
many people, like us, love music and through our analog system we want to reproduce what is in the recording ( there are many people that does not care about it ), that is that we need a system that can do that job: that can be ACCURATE TO THE RECORDING. The tube amplifiers can't do it, it is impossible by the physics laws), only can function like an equalizer sound reproducer. All the tube amplifiers change their frecuency response with the changes in the impedance of the speakers and this speaker impedance ( normally ) change with the frecuencies, so what are we hearing through a tube amplifier?: a hard make-up sound, a " clown " sound, not what is it on the recording. I think that almost all of us have a duty: take care for that the signal sound reproduction be the less degraded signal in our system.
So, if we want to hear what is in the recording first we need an accurate audio system and the electronics ( like the amplifier ) are a very important step to get that target. Now, if your target is other than to hear what is in the recording then you can do anything you want."
Raul, while I heartily defend your right to say things ( I am a lawyer and firm beleiver in the first amendment) I think you went a little overboard on two points. Too much emphasis on the importance of the cartridge and that comment about tube equipment.
Every component in every system either adds or subtracts something to or from the signal.
We have not come anywhere close to being able to measure all the characteristics of a music wave. Let alone measure the electrical signal that it has been converted to.
A tube is a natural device requiring much less trickery than solid state to convert or amplify a musical signal. Tube amps are usually very simple designs. Solid state amps are based on a transistor that is basically a switch. Just getting it to work involves major trickery.
Solid state guys always try to hide behind accuracy.
Flat frequency response, low distortion, megawatts of power etc., just doesn't get you alway the way home.
IMHO I have never really heard a horrible tube amp. I have heard some horrible solid state. In the early days solid state was a bad as cd was in its infancy. People tried to deny how bad ss was because they could not measure it. Both tube and solid state preamps and amps can be filters(equalizers). Anyone who has been involved with tube amplification is well aware of its abiltiy to be extremely euphonic sometimes intentionally. SS is more likely to be sterile and cold. Since music is not sterile and cold we can conclude that it too has left something out or added something.
The truth is both designs add and detract from the music. Both devices do somethngs easily and have to work really hard to do others. Getting them to do everything usually requires lots of money and designer trickery.
In creating the illusion of live music there is considerable trickery involved. RIAA phono equlization is a trick. Stero imaging is a trick. The lists goes on.
I wonder if any of has any idea how ragged the (you guys are smart, so I know some of you do) the final frequency response curve is for your system being played in your room. And that is after all the tricks that have been played at each and every stage of the music chain. Most of the curves we see are weighted and manipulated by the speed and response of the machine making them.
Every component in the chain is extremely important, things reproduced properly in one component can be easily lost in another.
The ultimate evalustion is the final result. Does a trumpet sound like a trumpet. You will know. You may be impressed by sonic wow in the beginning. In the long run if it does not sound like music, you will see it for sale on Audiogon |
Suttlaw: you might want to consider the Aerial SW-12. |
Raul, If I could listen to 20-30 hours of live music per month I'd sell my stereo and move on.
I enjoy the music and my sytem.
your freind gregadd. |
Raul, I wasn't going to say this, but I do have to respond to your statemnt "I have a lot to learn." Truth is I tracked the rise of the high end over the last thiry years. All these arguments have been made already. While it makes for fun discussions, I have no desire to "prove the world is round again."
If the only thing wrong with tubes is frequency reponse that can easily be fixed. The frequency response of every component, and software for that matter, has had it's frquency respone manipilated.
The faults of transistors seems to be infinite. Usually requiring considerable genuis and money to manipilate.
Harmonic distortion generated by tubes. Heard that argument before. Transistors generate harmonic distortion which is far more objectional.
Yeah I've looked at my share of impedance vs frequency curves. (When I started that was all magazines like Audio did was print measurements.
That's why the salesman tried to sell me a Krell w/my M/L CLS I. M/L has a wicked impedance curve. Technically correct but horrible sound.
"I only care about what makes music the best." If that is true you really should try to stay away from hyperbole like "tubes is clown music." The fact is neither tubes or solid state have been able to get me all the way home. At least in my price range. I even tried hybrids, that did not do it either.
Lastly there is no reason to even respond to the claim that I have not heard the equipment you have unless you want to name that system. If all else fails then fall back on the "goldedn ears" argument. Please, spare me.
Finally I know a musically correct(as opposed to what some call "accurate") system when I hear one. There is no way to prove that. You'll just have to trust me.
Your friend, Gregadd |
"The ideal amplifier's mission is to work as a perfect voltage source, regardless of the load impedance presented at its output terminals"...
"Tubes are voltage devices, whereas transistors are current devices."
Is this an inadvertent mistake or a blatant inconsistency?
"Tubes will always add sweetness to the music, at the expense of accuracy, that to many music lovers as myself means fidelity."
The truth is that distortions of tubes is much less objectional to the human ear becasue it is a "natural device" God is a much better designer than man will ever be. Raul you confuse confuse the absence of euphonic colorations(some disingenuous solid state designers have added that distortion in order to compete with tubes.)with accuracy. The fact is that transistors have added a cold sterile quality to the sound either by adding or taking away something from the music. It reminds of the argument that a vpi motor was noisy and that could be proved by listenig to a tunrtble with a magnetic bearing. Shouldn't we be comparing motors.
..."using vacuum tubes this task is almost unsurmountable" You previously said "impossible". So we are making some progress.
Those of us who have been around for awhile remember that using amplifer specs as a means of evaluation is more of a madison avenue ploy than science. It was an attempt to convince us that transistors must be better than tubes because they measure better.
Raul as indeed your own post which refers us to $350,000.00 amp proves. It is the ss electronics that require major trickery to cure it's inherent problems. Everytime I read about or hear a ss amp that I can live with it is priced way beyond my reach.
As a huge fan of conrad johnson I look forward to auditioning thier Premier 350. It is suppose to achieve low distortion without any feddback. Somtimes that means only no global feedback. Examination of its spec's indicate it does not "double down" like Krell. I have nothing against ss per se.
Enjoy the music and playing with your equipment!(stereo) Thanks to all you guys for whetting my appettite for stereo again. Pardon me while I earn some money to buy some equipment! |
Perhaps we can talk some time about the real weakness of tubes. Diminshed performance at the frquency extremes. Less than optimum perfomance when it comes to transient attack. See, the absolute sound issue 147 "tubes vs transistors" Can you get true dynamics from a two watt amp? What problems do horns or otherwise highly efficient speakers cause?
That's a new thread.
I always learn something from Rauls' comments. Unfortunately it's not always what he was trying to teach me. I think the point he was trying to make is that output impedance can effect spectrum balance. Fair enough! To say that you can't design around that problem in a tube amp goes to far.
Raul is right on another point. Paying attention to specs can help in trying to match components. For example amp and speaker should be thought of as a system in istself. Turntable, tonearm, catridge and preamp should be purchased as a mini system. All too often we go out and by the product of the month and jam it into an incompatible system. Many reviewers and salesman simply don't know how to match components. We also need to avoid the spec of the month club.
Thanks TWL for doing the research for us. I looked at the amp tests in Sterophile. I can see how Raul was misled( or misinterpreted the data.
Raul, keep punching! Converts are won one at a time! |
If you want to know what kind of frequency reponse your system is getting into your room you will need a spectrum analyzer. If you are getting on in years, you should also have you ears tested(you could be surprised just by taking the sterophile test cd and playing the frquency sweep section and seeing what frequencies you can't even hear). Once you see the huge peaks and valley's in the frequency response of your room, you may rethink the whole notion of flat from 20-20khz. I contend that was always more of an advertising ploy than indication of how equipment sounds.
From time to time,audio reviewers decide that they need to be more objective. Remember when Peter Aczel of the Audio Critic decided the most important thing about speakers was errors in the time domain. I remember when stereophile decided they were going to publish measurements. They, like all hope to find some correlation between the way components measured and how they actually sound. No doubt TJN thought he was on to something. |
I hope this puts an end to this discussion. "...Gregadd,this is not how it measure it is that any one can hear that big mistakes. The output impedance in the tubes amplifiers, usually, goes from 0.5 to 3 OHms ( high one ) and the output impedance in the SS goes from 0.02 to 0.5 OHms ( very low one. That's is one of the parameters why the SS has a high damping factor ). This is the point and the problem on the subject and you can hear it ( any one )."
Raul this is from an earlier post by you. The audioholics does not agree with your conclusion that a tube amp is an ucorrectable equalizer. In fact what they say is,any non zero impedance signal source can affect frequency reponse. Your own admission verifies that an ss amp is not a zero impedance source. They go on to say that as little as +/-.1 db can be audible. However they do not say it is uncorrectable. Or that because of this tubes amps are unacceptable equalizers or inherently inferior to ss.
For a discussion of this issue and how to solve it, See,http://www.transcendentsound.com/amplifier_output_impedance.htm
MERRY CCHRISTMAS |
I think I'm going to hit myself in the head with a hammer...
"OTL
Lets look at the Transcendent T8 as an example. It uses 8, EL509 tubes in push-pull. Each 509 has a plate impedance of about 150 ohms. 150 ÷8 = 18.75 ohms. This is unacceptable. Negative feedback is employed to achieve proper performance. The amplifier uses 33 dB of negative feedback which reduces the output impedance to 0.4 ohm thereby achieving outstanding woofer control and the ability to drive 4 ohm speakers. This specification was verified by Stereophile when they reviewed the amplifier."
Direct quote from the link in my previous post.
Now here is a quote from Raul:
"... The output impedance in the tubes amplifiers, usually, goes from 0.5 to 3 OHms ( high one ) and the output impedance in the SS goes from 0.02 to 0.5 OHms ( very low one..."
Consequently, given the range that Raul has given, there is a tube amp with output impedance in the range of SS. If the Transcendent amp is an uncontrollable equalizer so is a ss amp.
Others can see that Raul conitnues to move the goal post.
Pardon me while I continue to bang my head...
As I stated above before you make major changes in your system to obtain full spectrum frequency balance you should study what a real frequency curve of a real speaker operating into a real room (not an anechoic chamber)looks like. Moreover you need to examine what empahasis the human ear puts on the frequency spectrum. |
Raul I guess we will,"have to agree to disagree." I knew you would counter with the negative feed back argument! Please, negative feedack was invented to cure the ills of ss! Anyone who does not like feedback couldn't possibly be a fan of solid state.
"Moving the goal post" means you change the facts to suit your argument. You claim you never discussed damping factor when you did so extensively. You gave the lower range of output impedance for tubes as 0.5 Ohms. Then you changed it to 0.3 Ohms. This was done curiously after you read my post concerning the Transecdent amp's output impedance of 0.4 Ohms.
No, the laws of physics cannot be violated. However we can use another law of pyhsics to counterract it. I say this as I sit before my computer suspended in air with gravity pulling me toward earth but the force of the floor preventing me form crashing to the ground.
I don't think you are an idiot. You are dogmatic. |
Rushton, I went back and read the Stereophile article which is the subject of so much discussion on this thread. If I had done that in the beginnig I would have ended my comments on this thread long ago. I will continue to read Raul's post but I have nothing else to say on this thread.
TBG... This is your first post on this thread. I can only assume you did not read my previous posts. I continually caution people not be sucked in by the spec of the month and the component that claims to be perfect because it claims to solve that problem. I continually caution people that the true evaluation of music reprodction is what you hear through your speaker in your room.
IMHO I have heard many systems come errily close to producing an accurate reproduction of one or more musical instruments. Unfortunately they disappointed me in other areas.
I have been involved in audio for thirty-something years. I am not so sure that there has been that much progress in the high end. Most of the "ground breaking" equipment has been either impractical or too expensive for me. What has changed over that period is my abilty to identify good source material, identify musical equipment and too wade through the bullshit that permeates so much of the high end. I also am able to spend a little more money.
I have stated before that we lack sufficent measurements to examine what music reproduction equipment is actually doing. Unlike mans law the laws of physics cannot be broken. We may not know how to quantify them, we may ignore them, but we can't break them.
Rushton... now I'm finished. |
It would be a dull world if everybody agreed.
I figured that comment about not much advancemt in audio would get me into trouble.
I say it because there is not that much new.
Moving coil cartridges? Not new.
Direct heated triodes? Not new.
Cables? Not new.
Speakers? Not new...etc.
I couldn't help but notice that the Linn turntable and Quad speakers won Stereophiles product of the year awards.
I thnk what has happened is the dust has settled on a lot of the theories. We have a lot better class of materials to work with. Finally the consumer has a lot more discretionary income to take advantage of exotic designs.
I thnk this would make a good article for a magazine. Put up a vintage system say AR SP 3/ D79, quad speakers/Linn tt/Lin itok arm shure V15 catrdige up against a comparble system of today. For source material you could pit Living Stereo or shaded dogs against some of the best vinyl of today. |
Sidebar: Eleven A Measurements (from September 1995, Vol.18 No.9):
I performed a full set of measurements on the C-J Premier Eleven A, but I'll show just a couple here. In the measurements accompanying WP's review of the original Eleven amplifier, Tom Norton found a suspicious-looking distortion spuriae trace (fig.1) that implied the amplifier suffered from crossover distortion. It appeared that the culprit was the circuit that drove the biasing LEDs; the A revision of the amplifier was said to have been fixed in this regard. Fig.2, taken under much the same conditions as fig.1, shows that, indeed, it has been. The distortion is now primarily second-harmonic rather than the original's third-harmonic; both are generally regarded as innocuous unless present in much higher quantities than in the C-J.
Fig.1 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 10W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).
Fig.2 Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A, 1kHz waveform at 2W into 4 ohms (top); distortion and noise waveform with fundamental notched out (bottom).
Second, it has been postulated that all audible differences between well-designed amplifiers are due to the differences in frequency responses caused by the voltage-divider action between the loudspeaker impedance and the amplifier's source impedance. The latter measured between 0.48 and 0.56 ohms for the C-J, varying only slightly with frequency; and 0.28 ohms for the Krell KSA-50S, giving rise to response variations when loaded by the B&W Silver Signature (fig.3). The top trace is the Krell; the bottom, offset by 1dB for clarity, is the Connie-J. It varies by about twice as much as the Krell, reaching ±0.25dB. The tube amp's more depressed top two octaves were audible as a very slight lack of air, yet it was the C-J's lower mids that sounded warmer—the opposite of what these curves would suggest.
Fig.3 Krell KSA-50S (top) and Conrad-Johnson Premier Eleven A (bottom), frequency response at 0.5W into B&W Silver Signature loudspeaker (0.5dB/vertical div.).
Neither of these amps will be all things for all listeners. If you just have to have the most forceful presentation of rock music's low-frequency foundation, then the Krell will be the better choice. The Conrad-Johnson, on the other hand, will be the better amplifier for soundstage freaks and those in love with the sound of the human voice. You pays your money, you makes your choice. Be sure to listen to both.—John Atkinson
|
To see the graphs go to stereophile archive for conrad johnson.click on premier 11 review. At the end of the article click on "measurements for premier 11.
You'll see the frequency curve for ss Krell KSA 50 and tube CJ Premier 11a are virtually identical over the audible spectrum driving a real speaker load. http://www.stereophile.com/amplificationreviews/403/index9.html
Sorry Rushton. I couldn't help mysel. |
