Let's remember, that to build an amp that has a rich harmonic structure is our choice. Many valve amps are built to, and do, produce very little distortion.ThSpeakerDude88 said:
The source is really the cat amongst the pigeons. The reproduction chain seems to get some of the blame for the production.rdf said:
I sometimes toy with amplifying my kids voices (to them, it's a karaoke party
). More to you rdf oh I know, Just pointing out that tubes do it best
many tube designs can be made with low distortion, but for my listening.. I guess I prefer ss because of heat and size. Although a mc275 would be gorgeous in my room and I'm sure would sound beautiful.......alas I will never be able to afford one
many tube designs can be made with low distortion, but for my listening.. I guess I prefer ss because of heat and size. Although a mc275 would be gorgeous in my room and I'm sure would sound beautiful.......alas I will never be able to afford one
I'm not normally a Cash fan but this album is astonishingly well recorded and is a compelling listen on a great system.
I think it is interesting that technology preferences tend to be expressed in terms of differences in failings rather than differences in successes.
It is as if the mental model is one where, say, two amps are considered near perfect except for one or two distortion mechanisms. So the discussion revolves around those mechanisms.
What if the true model was that the two amps both create a plethora of distortions except that each gets one or two things really right? What if we concentrated on what they each do right and try to understand why they do it right...and then, with this insight, try to design something that does both things right?
For example, is it not more insightful to identify what a SE triode amp does really, really well and then ask why it does this so well and why a push-pull transistor amp doesn't?
I would also like to pint out that the reason most people are hifi nuts over tubes is because when tubes were still around and ss was just coming out, most ss amps sounded like crap. Thus tubes were much more "hifi" than ss. I also belive a lot of the reason people new to the hobby see tubes as sounding so good is because of the guitar world- where tube amps truley do sound better. I think people have to keep a level head when anylizing this stuff. You can place a well-designed tube amp side by side with a well designed transistor amp and some people wont even notice a diff. Now where classes come in is where it makes a difference. Class A does sound better than A/B , ive found in audio that to be true. I have also found that in guitar a SE triode tends to sound better than an SE pentode, and A/B amps like the ac30 sound good as well, and some of their distortion is caused by crossover distortion, which in a tube guitar amp sounds fine.
I do know one thing- tub amps look way cooler than ss amps! I do see that their responce is typically flatter than most ss amps, and goes a little lower. But the hard thing to overcome in a tube design is the output transformer - the source for low and high end rolloffs, as well as distortion caused by losses and crossover distortion ( in A/B designs)
Not a lot of small "hifi" tube amps use great trafos, if you look at the design of the mcintosh amps and acrosound transformers, their unity coupled impeadance matching designs make sence.
I do know one thing- tub amps look way cooler than ss amps!
I do see that their responce is typically flatter than most ss amps, and goes a little lower. But the hard thing to overcome in a tube design is the output transformer - the source for low and high end rolloffs, as well as distortion caused by losses and crossover distortion ( in A/B designs) Not a lot of small "hifi" tube amps use great trafos, if you look at the design of the mcintosh amps and acrosound transformers, their unity coupled impeadance matching designs make sence.
traderbam said:
Cash lost me around 'A Boy Named Sue' and I didn't go back until he hooked up with Rubin. American V is an incredible musical testament. I can't think of another like it.
I never thought of it that way but it makes sense. The ideal amp for most (by no means all) is one that does nothing audible. How do you quantify nothing in words? Uncontested defects on the other hand are something else again. I wish I knew how to quantify this, I could quit my day job.
johndiy said:
You have an uphill climb demonstrating that in a scientifically meaningful way.
I respect this may be your opinion.ThSpeakerDude88 said:
OK, so you won't have 20-20 within 0.01dB. I will not begrudge an amp a portion of a dB at the extremes. I honestly don't need it. What is important to me is how it gets there.johndiy said:
I feel it's the same as having a low Q closed box speaker. Sure it rolls off early, but the info is all there; and it's relaxed, carefree and trouble-free sounding, I find.
Are all solid state amps naturally good on the specs? or are some pushed there? I reckon that if someone built a triode based amp with a diff amp front end with cascoded current source tails and current mirror loads etc. etc. and put a whopping great feedback loop around it (not knocking feedback), it'd likely sound in many ways like a lot of modern amps.
johndiy said:
Indeed, I don't listen to LP often. But I don't say LP is better than CD. Logic and facts say that it can't be. But my experience was that that LP sounded much better and much more realistic to me than the CD version. That's all. And I am well aware of things like expectation bias, influences of other factors than sound, etc. Still, the difference was so large I cannot attribute it all to non-sound factors.
So, what was the reason?
Jan Didden
johndiy said:
AFAIK, the main reason for (generic) solid state circuits being so complex is a side effect of the distortion wars of the past. It seems right (in a perfectionistic sort of way) that the devices should be configured in a way so as to keep each other in line.
One example of, how should I put this, getting devices to fight productively (?), or each do their part, is the Aikido circuit. I have built this, and it seemed to me to have control, without the feeling of being controlled. I see this as an interesting example of a (relatively) complex stage of amplification.
If anyone has built a solid state Aikido, it would be interesting to hear your critique. I suspect that the two versions would sound fairly similar.
Anyway, at the end of the day it can be nice to shake off the complexity. So often it seems, that complex circuitry sounds, well, complex. So I look to a device that can be used in simple circuitry.
Janneman wrote:
There always seems to be a tendency for people to think something newer is better in ALL respects. I'm not sure why this is such a common assumption. Perhaps its the fault of the marketers or maybe it comes from watching too much Star Trek. Anyhow, it is certain folly to assume something old is inferior in all regards. We should strive for new technology to KEEP the good qualities and improve the weaker ones of the predecessor. There is no law of physics that guarantees this. CD has certainly improved some of the weaknesses of vinyl but has also lost some of its strengths. CD wasn't invented as a panacea for audiophiles - it was invented as a cost/convenience replacement for vinyl for the mass market.
I can think of a lot of logical reasons why LP "could" sound better than CD. Think of all the extra processing stages and the lossy encoding of CD and the conversion stages and so on. It seems to me that although the format is itself robust the reconstruction of the original analogue signal is very, very difficult.
There always seems to be a tendency for people to think something newer is better in ALL respects. I'm not sure why this is such a common assumption. Perhaps its the fault of the marketers or maybe it comes from watching too much Star Trek. Anyhow, it is certain folly to assume something old is inferior in all regards. We should strive for new technology to KEEP the good qualities and improve the weaker ones of the predecessor. There is no law of physics that guarantees this. CD has certainly improved some of the weaknesses of vinyl but has also lost some of its strengths. CD wasn't invented as a panacea for audiophiles - it was invented as a cost/convenience replacement for vinyl for the mass market.
traderbam said:
Exactly my points in the beginning of the thread
That is why I proposed to record a CD from the phone preamp outputs, and compare that CD to the LP, using as much as possible the same equipment (preamp, power amp, speakers...). That should provide some interesting information.
My hunch (but still unproven of course) is that the difference will be either non-audible or very, very subtle. IOW, that CD will sound like an LP with all attendant surface noise, pops, clicks and distortion...
Jan Didden
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.