Hello Allen, you are factually inaccurate. I placed a large, straight and factual response here which explained things to you. However it was wilfully deleted by Mr Weldon because (irrespective of his words) he did not like me being ‘very straight’ with you.
You have missed the underlying point.
It is factual that tubes do not have a signature, just as solid state does not have a signature. If they did then every piece of audio equipment in the world containing a tube would have to have the same ‘signature’. Surely any reasonable person can see that this is not the case.
Each component has a set of characteristics, and components with the appropriate characteristics must be chosen for the job at hand. I understand that some people with a sentimental, romantic, reactionary or non-analytical approach to engineering will most likely never understand this, but their approach does not change the facts. Their approach simply ends up with those that follow-on being mislead by phrases such as “tube lushness”, “transistor bass”, “detailed cable”, and other absolute nonsense.
When assessing anything it is unwise to draw shallow conclusions from an unrepresentative sample, yet that mentality pervades and saturates the audio world, and it is both misleading and very sad.
Then it must be factual that i suffer a delusion. Beginning to suspect my 4000 lps are also identical, just different covers.
Then you need to take another look.
The B1 is one example, some of the iterations of the Zen series, makes good examples as well.
Magura
Never heard a CD player that did not benefit from a good Pre-amp. CD players driven directly lack dynamics and life by comparison, using a passive setup is absolutely the worst IMO...
I would think the difference would be the load being driven as i have heard both SS and tube pre-amps that sounded great, ultimately i do favor SS...
*Sound
*Convinience
*Reliabilty
Works for me .....
Last edited:
Member
Joined 2009
Paid Member
even if source and amp have compatible impedances you might want a pre-amp if the power amp has insufficient gain for a given source and speaker, or to provide volume control where none exists, or to provide source selection etc. Then it can be beneficial to have at least an active buffer in the pre ?
Points were made here regarding the idea that as little as possible should exist between source and amp.
Amp in my terms and in this discussion, means power amp.
When referring to "source", we have differing levels from those sources, so conventional power amps are in need of a proper minimum level, hence the need for a pre amp to raise the below minimum required output levels of phono, microphone, electric guitar, etc.
Coming from a different discipline than many here, I'll enjoy my simple, but scientifically curious perspective to state that a conventional power amp obviously lacks a wide enough sensitivity (min/max) to simply be able to amplify all the known source outputs without the use of a pre amp, as is commonly referred.
Doesn't this imply that it is possible to create a power amp - a device that powers and controls speaker systems, to have a wide min and max input sensitivity, to service the speaker?
Oh wait, if it is one complete system of components in a chassis that would be an integrated amp!
Seems that there is a minimum number of sequentially increasing gain staging required to go from source to speaker.
The difference between a tube and non-tube amplifier - pre or power variety, is well known here.
Even though when designed thoughtfully, I believe that both kinds will amplify satisfactorily- regarding the proper output level needed for a conventional power amp-quality of sound not with-standing.
There must exist an empirical difference as measured and additionally to a musically trained ear.
If I am wrong, I still have not heard the two sound the same when examining subtleties.
I assume that when wide-ranging, meaningful and exhaustive measurements are compared, knowledgeable people (without knowing the device under test) would be able to distinguish tube from ss designs just by the examination of those measurements without seeing the schematics... is this true?
Perhaps the two can be made to sound indistinguishable, but I have not presently seen this.
If the highest level of non-deviation from source to power amp is the subject here, which it is from my perspective and the interface device between the two shall be called a "pre amp' by common convention, whether it be located in the output stage of a CD player, etc or as a dedicated box, then in the strictest sense regarding almost perfect transfer, I would be surprised that both types could accord the same result in an exact manner, especially as measured diligently.
Please keep in mind that I am not an audio electronics engineer, no surprise!
This is very interesting to me and I hope that responses to this debate will show forth some pros/cons and why some may be able to explain what limitations between them should exist.
It doesn't seem possible that both can perform electrically to produce the exact same output analysis.
Amp in my terms and in this discussion, means power amp.
When referring to "source", we have differing levels from those sources, so conventional power amps are in need of a proper minimum level, hence the need for a pre amp to raise the below minimum required output levels of phono, microphone, electric guitar, etc.
Coming from a different discipline than many here, I'll enjoy my simple, but scientifically curious perspective to state that a conventional power amp obviously lacks a wide enough sensitivity (min/max) to simply be able to amplify all the known source outputs without the use of a pre amp, as is commonly referred.
Doesn't this imply that it is possible to create a power amp - a device that powers and controls speaker systems, to have a wide min and max input sensitivity, to service the speaker?
Oh wait, if it is one complete system of components in a chassis that would be an integrated amp!
Seems that there is a minimum number of sequentially increasing gain staging required to go from source to speaker.
The difference between a tube and non-tube amplifier - pre or power variety, is well known here.
Even though when designed thoughtfully, I believe that both kinds will amplify satisfactorily- regarding the proper output level needed for a conventional power amp-quality of sound not with-standing.
There must exist an empirical difference as measured and additionally to a musically trained ear.
If I am wrong, I still have not heard the two sound the same when examining subtleties.
I assume that when wide-ranging, meaningful and exhaustive measurements are compared, knowledgeable people (without knowing the device under test) would be able to distinguish tube from ss designs just by the examination of those measurements without seeing the schematics... is this true?
Perhaps the two can be made to sound indistinguishable, but I have not presently seen this.
If the highest level of non-deviation from source to power amp is the subject here, which it is from my perspective and the interface device between the two shall be called a "pre amp' by common convention, whether it be located in the output stage of a CD player, etc or as a dedicated box, then in the strictest sense regarding almost perfect transfer, I would be surprised that both types could accord the same result in an exact manner, especially as measured diligently.
Please keep in mind that I am not an audio electronics engineer, no surprise!
This is very interesting to me and I hope that responses to this debate will show forth some pros/cons and why some may be able to explain what limitations between them should exist.
It doesn't seem possible that both can perform electrically to produce the exact same output analysis.
Last edited:
I forgot to mention that I would really appreciate comments on the pre amp that I mentioned earlier:
IRD Purist
This pre amp is claimed to be a very accurate, low noise device.
The low cost is, after speaker with the designer, is a matter of his philosophy or company morale objective- to supply a customer with solid high performance without typical mark-up as he apparently does not derive the necessary money for survival from this off-shoot company.
He is very involved in designing, building precision medical electronics and other OEM services.
However, I do wish to hear your thoughts on his design, please.
IRD Purist
This pre amp is claimed to be a very accurate, low noise device.
The low cost is, after speaker with the designer, is a matter of his philosophy or company morale objective- to supply a customer with solid high performance without typical mark-up as he apparently does not derive the necessary money for survival from this off-shoot company.
He is very involved in designing, building precision medical electronics and other OEM services.
However, I do wish to hear your thoughts on his design, please.
Based on extended listening through various passive and active stages (TVC as well) i fully agree. To anyone trying to explain this by mismatched impedances and long cables: my power amps have input impedance between 100k and 1M and the inteconnects are shorter than 1m.
Interestingly, i don't find it too musically offensive to use a passive preamp with an analogue source, it's digital that suffers the most: to me it sounds threadbare and lacking meat, the bass lines, while not missing, are difficult to follow. Dynamics are not convincing.
Statements like this make me nauseous so early in the morning.
Seems like a very simple, nicely built, pretty standard opamp pre. All the basics seem fine. No reason why it wouldn't sound very nice. Would i use it if i were given one for free? Not too likely.
Correction: For the selling price of $665 it appears very cheap indeed.
Last edited:
It's hard to comment on a design with only an advertising flyer to go on and no schematic. Make that "impossible."
It's nice to see that he's not pricing it like jewelry, though.
I personally find it bizarre that people here can argue about the relative merits of tube/ss preamps, or passive "attenuators" ( I refuse to call them "preamps" no matter how "straight" Gordy talks to me) when they all seem to consider CD players to be the default signal source.
Very few of you would be happy sonically or status wise with a opamp filled preamp - but 99% of all CD players have ONLY opamps in their audio sections, and very few audiophiles (or reviewers) seem to care. Arguing the relativ emerits of tube/ss/passive with only a CD player as the source seem to me a bit like fitting (Ferrari) Pirrelli P-Zero Roso tyres to a basic Hyundi and spending a forum full of discussions about the cornering difference.
SACD players are potentially 10x higher in resolution, but only sounds like it after their opamps have been replaced with real audio circuits, as well as many other tweaks.
Vinyl is still the worlds best and most highly used hi resolution format, and signal levels from a good MC cartridge are around 0.3mV - needing a PREAMP to equalise and get that level up to what poweramps generally need, circa 1V.
While you are doing that, you might as well provide a few dB's of gain for CD player sources, and a little more gain (say 10dB) for older tuners and tape decks. Including switching and gain controls rounds out the package - a preamp. Just as it was known in the 60's and 70's.
Regards, Allen
Very few of you would be happy sonically or status wise with a opamp filled preamp - but 99% of all CD players have ONLY opamps in their audio sections, and very few audiophiles (or reviewers) seem to care. Arguing the relativ emerits of tube/ss/passive with only a CD player as the source seem to me a bit like fitting (Ferrari) Pirrelli P-Zero Roso tyres to a basic Hyundi and spending a forum full of discussions about the cornering difference.
SACD players are potentially 10x higher in resolution, but only sounds like it after their opamps have been replaced with real audio circuits, as well as many other tweaks.
Vinyl is still the worlds best and most highly used hi resolution format, and signal levels from a good MC cartridge are around 0.3mV - needing a PREAMP to equalise and get that level up to what poweramps generally need, circa 1V.
While you are doing that, you might as well provide a few dB's of gain for CD player sources, and a little more gain (say 10dB) for older tuners and tape decks. Including switching and gain controls rounds out the package - a preamp. Just as it was known in the 60's and 70's.
Regards, Allen
I've just been looking at pictures of a bird in the Gulf totally mired in spilled oil. It's heartbreaking to me, I can't help but imagine what it feels like for the poor creature.
Perhaps the connection is tenuous, but it seems to me that in general we should all be making an attempt to use power efficiently.
I have tube amps for my guitars, but I wouldn't give a tube preamp houseroom, they're just so inefficient.
My wife and I use re-usable bags and avoid plastic carriers so that they don't end up choking some poor turtle somewhere in the Pacific.
I know there are many arguments about the economics of oil production and consumption, but on the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you rather be on the side of the good guys?
w
Perhaps the connection is tenuous, but it seems to me that in general we should all be making an attempt to use power efficiently.
I have tube amps for my guitars, but I wouldn't give a tube preamp houseroom, they're just so inefficient.
My wife and I use re-usable bags and avoid plastic carriers so that they don't end up choking some poor turtle somewhere in the Pacific.
I know there are many arguments about the economics of oil production and consumption, but on the balance of probabilities, wouldn't you rather be on the side of the good guys?
w
I hope you're feeling better.
As you suggested, an inexpensive, nicely built pre that sounds very nice, given to you for free, would probably not be of use to you.
Perhaps that means that you currently have a much better device(s).
Could you please let us know what you are using and why you prefer your preamp?
Certainly. http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/157376-my-new-6h30-pre.html
Same as Allen i would prefer not to use opamps if possible but would accept that remarkably good results are possible with modern opamps. Such results, at least IME, require extreme effort in the PS - either by using batteries or multiple high performance regulators.
As a comparison basis i have built clones or owned many original preamps by ARC, Pass Labs, Naim and others and also tried (unsuccessfully) living with an S&B TVC. I also keep at all times a high quality attenuator switch in order to compare preamps absolute transparency.
I agree that:
1. Adding dBs of gain, equalization, and switching can be useful.
2. True, many or most CD players use op amps for analog output. However, you add an additional interesting point. Namely op amps.
I'm hoping to get responses that address my original post.
Op amps certainly fill that requirement as they are a considered topology of ss preamps, so, I'm back to topic... ss versus tube, in which op amps would be part of the discussion.
The resolution, potentially of vinyl, tape or digital certainly is a consideration, but subjecting those signals to a preamp is still the subject.
As I stated earlier and in keeping to the point:
It seems to me that the two can not mathematically transfer exactly by comparison.
I do realize that no two units even of the same class, ss/tube be exactly equal as well, but the subject here is what are the inherit or empirical differences.
Passives, by my definition, do not use powered circuitry, therefore the only purpose for these would be attenuation or impedance conditioning and possibly passive equalization. Since they can be inserted between source and power amp, I'm open to their discussion as such, but I have no experience with their audible effects.
As has been shown here, schematics submitted for evaluation for both types (power amps as well) are generally open for remarks as to either corrections or suggestions.
This means to me that regardless of which type, ss/tube, a clearly superior ultimate winner or reference piece has not yet been created beyond criticism.
Why a designer will choose either is interesting and this is of interest since I assume that those designers have a strong conviction about either.
Also, as one of the respondents stated that he has designed both types to his satisfaction, surely he must be able to show that their are differences.
What are they and what compromises, limitations and so forth.
I want to keep on subject.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.