Thanks for the information, DF96! I will (or might?) study this further. Unfortunately you cannot give a good example of competent CFP. I have tried to improve the P3A but I couldn't. I have tried to create CFA with CFP output using latfet, but the result was not as expected...
I do like how CFP amps sound. But I realized that all of what I have heard is "different" sounding amps (so not hifi by your criteria).
Now that you say CFP has higher transconductance, may be I can increase transconductance of LATFET by putting it in CFP? Member Fab has an interesting "F5 clone" with CFP output. Is there any good chance having a great CFP amp (especially with latfet)? I'm reluctant because I'm almost giving up this topology...
What was the original question again. Oh, who cares but my system sounds the absolute best!!!! My ears have been calibrated. My brain has been tuned to reject any the distortion and .....
Guys we getting carried away again by totally nebulous concepts of what and how something is perceived - I vote, everybody is right and all systems, especially those you own sound the best.
Guys we getting carried away again by totally nebulous concepts of what and how something is perceived - I vote, everybody is right and all systems, especially those you own sound the best.
A new question... Which amps are aesthetically most pleasing valve, solid state, chip amps or class D?
Nico - I think the original question is buried somewhere herein
But since the question was posed - I've always somehow been drawn to the Harley Davidson aesthetic of vintage McIntosh gear, yet the Buck Rogers meets Nikola Telsa mash-up that is Josh Stippich's work has its own strange appeal
electronluv: hi-fi vacuum tube audio - if nothing else there is a degree of artisanship to his work that beggars the question - how does he come up with - or build - these?
ps - don't know how that dead image link tag originated, and it doesn't seem to want to be edited out?
thereupon much fun ensued and many bytes and pixels were sacrificed to what often becomes a never-ending exercise in polemics and circular thinking - of which I think few of us are completely innocentThere is much hype about vacuum tube amplifier equipment "sounding better" than solid state equipment. What if one were to present a scientific paper on why this is, if it has not been done already?
I agree very much that tube amplifiers generally sound better than transistor units. My own perception tells me so. From here until now, I bought too much into the subjectivity and emotional appeals that go with the audiophile worldAt the end of the day, perception may be reality, but it still is credulous.
So how does one go about confirming the so called "better sound" scientifically? I have done some limited research and have a rough, general idea about what goes on electrically.
Part of the exercise should involve studying human psychology, into how harmonic distortion is perceived, etc. This portion is beyond me, and would need help.
But since the question was posed - I've always somehow been drawn to the Harley Davidson aesthetic of vintage McIntosh gear, yet the Buck Rogers meets Nikola Telsa mash-up that is Josh Stippich's work has its own strange appeal
electronluv: hi-fi vacuum tube audio - if nothing else there is a degree of artisanship to his work that beggars the question - how does he come up with - or build - these?
ps - don't know how that dead image link tag originated, and it doesn't seem to want to be edited out?
Last edited:
😀Hi Chris, Good answer. I was hoping people see these questions the same light we do.
I have a new proposition to the threaders, Instead of arguing the best sounding stuff rather tell us what the system you have sounds like. Because nobody can actually hear your system, we could vote on the one that uses the best adjectives in the description as the best sounding system.🙄
Let the reviews roll....
I have a new proposition to the threaders, Instead of arguing the best sounding stuff rather tell us what the system you have sounds like. Because nobody can actually hear your system, we could vote on the one that uses the best adjectives in the description as the best sounding system.🙄
Let the reviews roll....
I was considering low frequency behaviour - and using quite a simple model. My criterion was that the transconductance of the output stage at quiescent current (i.e. both sides contributing) should be equal to the transconductance at much higher current (i.e. just one side conducting). Roughly speaking, this requires a single CFP to have a transconductance equal to the inverse of the 'emitter' resistor at quiescent current so then two CFPs and two resistors give the same transconductance as one resistor plus a high current CFP.scott wurcer said:
Self had run simulations - I don't know how realistic his transistor models were. He was surprised at the low quiescent currents needed to get low crossover distortion from a CFP output. My simple model explained his results - although explaining his results was not what I intended to do but it was a useful confirmation that I was on the right lines.
If you have a P3A to play with I suggest two things to try:Jay said:
1. drop the quiescent current down to the 5-6mA region
2. change the 220R in the output stage to 100R, and then try currents around 9-10mA
I thought that I might add some of my own deluded rantings. Since we're on page 9, it might be helpful to review the OP comments and take them a paragraph at a time. Unfortunately, this is going to have little to do with electronics or THD...
"Better" is qualitative not quantitative. Therefore no serious scientist will conduct research on whether something is better than something else. No funding body will pay for qualitative research as actually by definition it's not scientific. Ergo no scientific papers.
That leaves us with the manufacturers. Most valved equipment manufacturers are small niche organisations. They don't posses the will, funding or expertise to conduct double blind audio studies. The Matrix-HiFi test was only that. It was very poor scientifically, but yet the results were clear - no audible difference relating to reasonable kit quality.
The valve sound is unmistakably different (though not better as discussed), and I'll continue this in the last paragraph.
Since "better" cannot be scientifically quantified, I'll address this anecdotally.
Valve technology is outdated, unreliable, expensive, power hungry, hot, slow, bulky, fragile and of poor quality compared to modern electronics. It's basically (forgive me) crap.
The hint at the answer is starting you in the face. Why valves only for audio? Audio is nothing special. It goes in through the ears, but some is perceived through the musculoskeletal structure. You may feel it through your bones, finger tips and through my neighbour's wall. If valve technology is so terrific, why so we not see it everywhere there is audio? BluRay players? Playstations? Dolby cinema systems? Tactile transducers under gaming chairs?
And then we might extend this reasoning to ask what is audio? 20Hz - 20kHz? The 20kHz limit relates to the mean young healthy hearing frequency threshold. It does not relate to the electro mechanical construction of a thermionic valve. There are no valves whose operating specification stops at 20kHz. Therefore, if they are an electronic panacea they would be used in other realms of electronics, adjacent to the audio spectrum. Ultrasound scanners? Rear parking sensors? One of those scare the cat /dog off my lawn machines? You probably wouldn't be concerned with micro phonics at 250kHz. But they're not.
And, they're not used in the modern production studio /concert hall. This is the by far the smoking gun. Why does Yo Yo Ma not want valve amplification? Would Itzhak Perlman use one for his latest album? What about Adele? She's a "pop" star and surely she would make more money and sell more albums if her sound were improved my severely clipping her highs and then distorting them? (Turn it up to 12).
This is the area where the true answer lies. I'll probably offend but I don't mean to, so apologies in advance. It's not the sound per se. It's not the spectrogram or THD. It's entirely psychology but not in the sense you might initially expect. The analysis should be conducted not of the hardware, but of the owners (not the listeners). You will find that they are prominently white middle class males with significant disposable income. They speak English and live in the western world. They will be retired /nearing retirement with time on their hands.
According to Milgram, all people do what they are told to a greater or lesser extent. Valve equipment companies tell them that their glass based kit is better, therefore they believe it. Some will buy or make it. It may also be over compensation for Adler's "Inferiority Complex". I have one but you don't therefore I'm satisfied. Perhaps it's one up man ship. Valve kit is expensive in comparison to Sony Walkmans. It also looks expensive, and is specifically designed (sometimes at the detriment to the electronics) to look so. electronluv.com looks expensive, and I would categorise it as art ,assemblage or sculpture. These elements feed the ego and instil a sense of superiority to those that can't afford one. A good example is a Ferrari. Ferraris go fast but are crap. They look great, but break down all the time, cost a fortune and can only be serviced in specialist centres. Functionally compared to a Honda Civic, the Honda beats it hands down. Yet the rich have Ferraris. Someone here suggested that it was a fashion statement.
So in a nutshell, valve equipment sounds the way some like it, and it makes them feel better owning it. This probably makes for uncomfortable reading, but someone asked why there is the hype. What time is it..?
P.S. I'm working with valves too 🙂 🙁
"Better" is qualitative not quantitative. Therefore no serious scientist will conduct research on whether something is better than something else. No funding body will pay for qualitative research as actually by definition it's not scientific. Ergo no scientific papers.
That leaves us with the manufacturers. Most valved equipment manufacturers are small niche organisations. They don't posses the will, funding or expertise to conduct double blind audio studies. The Matrix-HiFi test was only that. It was very poor scientifically, but yet the results were clear - no audible difference relating to reasonable kit quality.
The valve sound is unmistakably different (though not better as discussed), and I'll continue this in the last paragraph.
Since "better" cannot be scientifically quantified, I'll address this anecdotally.
Valve technology is outdated, unreliable, expensive, power hungry, hot, slow, bulky, fragile and of poor quality compared to modern electronics. It's basically (forgive me) crap.
The hint at the answer is starting you in the face. Why valves only for audio? Audio is nothing special. It goes in through the ears, but some is perceived through the musculoskeletal structure. You may feel it through your bones, finger tips and through my neighbour's wall. If valve technology is so terrific, why so we not see it everywhere there is audio? BluRay players? Playstations? Dolby cinema systems? Tactile transducers under gaming chairs?
And then we might extend this reasoning to ask what is audio? 20Hz - 20kHz? The 20kHz limit relates to the mean young healthy hearing frequency threshold. It does not relate to the electro mechanical construction of a thermionic valve. There are no valves whose operating specification stops at 20kHz. Therefore, if they are an electronic panacea they would be used in other realms of electronics, adjacent to the audio spectrum. Ultrasound scanners? Rear parking sensors? One of those scare the cat /dog off my lawn machines? You probably wouldn't be concerned with micro phonics at 250kHz. But they're not.
And, they're not used in the modern production studio /concert hall. This is the by far the smoking gun. Why does Yo Yo Ma not want valve amplification? Would Itzhak Perlman use one for his latest album? What about Adele? She's a "pop" star and surely she would make more money and sell more albums if her sound were improved my severely clipping her highs and then distorting them? (Turn it up to 12).
This is the area where the true answer lies. I'll probably offend but I don't mean to, so apologies in advance. It's not the sound per se. It's not the spectrogram or THD. It's entirely psychology but not in the sense you might initially expect. The analysis should be conducted not of the hardware, but of the owners (not the listeners). You will find that they are prominently white middle class males with significant disposable income. They speak English and live in the western world. They will be retired /nearing retirement with time on their hands.
According to Milgram, all people do what they are told to a greater or lesser extent. Valve equipment companies tell them that their glass based kit is better, therefore they believe it. Some will buy or make it. It may also be over compensation for Adler's "Inferiority Complex". I have one but you don't therefore I'm satisfied. Perhaps it's one up man ship. Valve kit is expensive in comparison to Sony Walkmans. It also looks expensive, and is specifically designed (sometimes at the detriment to the electronics) to look so. electronluv.com looks expensive, and I would categorise it as art ,assemblage or sculpture. These elements feed the ego and instil a sense of superiority to those that can't afford one. A good example is a Ferrari. Ferraris go fast but are crap. They look great, but break down all the time, cost a fortune and can only be serviced in specialist centres. Functionally compared to a Honda Civic, the Honda beats it hands down. Yet the rich have Ferraris. Someone here suggested that it was a fashion statement.
So in a nutshell, valve equipment sounds the way some like it, and it makes them feel better owning it. This probably makes for uncomfortable reading, but someone asked why there is the hype. What time is it..?
P.S. I'm working with valves too 🙂 🙁
Last edited:
P.P.S I would also add, that with modern digital signal processing chips, it would be very simple to build a solid state amplifier that sounds exactly like any valve amplifier you choose. After all, it's only a matter of encoding the Fourier transform. Press the "Marshal" button and hey presto.
Why isn't anyone selling those if it's only the sound characteristics that matter?
Why isn't anyone selling those if it's only the sound characteristics that matter?
Thanks, I will try that later. Just for info, Rod Elliot has P3B amplifier which is basically the same circuit as P3A. It's a class-A so the bias is much higher than 5-6mA. The bias is 1.5A. Rod didn't say that P3B is better with higher bias, but a friend (he's an audio professional) thought that it was the best amplifier he had ever built...
Of course for Class A you need much higher bias. My Class AB CFP stuff is then irrelevant as you never approach that region of operation - except perhaps during clipping on an awkward load.
They are selling it. You can buy tube amp and tube mike plug-ins for digital audio workstations. You can even buy a plugin that faithfully gives you LP sound, including track run-in noise and ticks.
Jan
Paul Uszak
Someone is.
In fact many are. There are quite literally hundreds if not thousands of DSP plug ins available, some as freeware, which make your computer sound like pretty much any piece of classic tube or solidstate hardware you care to mention.
For guitarist there is this: https://www.kemper-amps.com/profiler/overview
I think that perhaps we're homing in on the truth at last. I wan't aware of these devices, so thanks both.
So. Why do valve aficionados then not buy them, instead resorting to building their own from 60 year old designs with all the associated redundant technology issues I described? Why would people living in exotic parts of the world pay a fortune to have heavy and dusty transformers shipped to them from America? Why do they risk death & destruction by building 750V power supplies? Why would anyone give a damn about raising their heaters? The OP suggests that the valve sound is undeniably superior, so you could just buy a digital one instead and save yourself all the building hassle. And the solder burns.
And consider my price argument. The Kemper Profiler looks great and is only €1700. A reasonable price for quality kit but a lot cheaper than a Nikon D4. How many D4's are sold annually? Don't know, but mirrored sales are about 30%. You don't have to admit it here, but in the privacy of your own basement, how many reading this couldn't afford €1700? This price would reduce dramatically in a competitive market if there was demand for this sound. After all, you don't need all the flashy knobs, just the DSP chip. But there seems to be no popular demand. Surely the masses would be clambering for this kit if it's sound was better than Adele in a professional studio (which is digital).
It's beginning to look to me that the sound characteristics of valve amplifiers are the least important part of this debate. Can we come to the realisation that it's the actual ownership of an expensive classical piece of electronic history? Is it really so different to collecting rare porcelain figurines? Or stamps? So the OP was actually right. It is psychology, not sound.
So. Why do valve aficionados then not buy them, instead resorting to building their own from 60 year old designs with all the associated redundant technology issues I described? Why would people living in exotic parts of the world pay a fortune to have heavy and dusty transformers shipped to them from America? Why do they risk death & destruction by building 750V power supplies? Why would anyone give a damn about raising their heaters? The OP suggests that the valve sound is undeniably superior, so you could just buy a digital one instead and save yourself all the building hassle. And the solder burns.
And consider my price argument. The Kemper Profiler looks great and is only €1700. A reasonable price for quality kit but a lot cheaper than a Nikon D4. How many D4's are sold annually? Don't know, but mirrored sales are about 30%. You don't have to admit it here, but in the privacy of your own basement, how many reading this couldn't afford €1700? This price would reduce dramatically in a competitive market if there was demand for this sound. After all, you don't need all the flashy knobs, just the DSP chip. But there seems to be no popular demand. Surely the masses would be clambering for this kit if it's sound was better than Adele in a professional studio (which is digital).
It's beginning to look to me that the sound characteristics of valve amplifiers are the least important part of this debate. Can we come to the realisation that it's the actual ownership of an expensive classical piece of electronic history? Is it really so different to collecting rare porcelain figurines? Or stamps? So the OP was actually right. It is psychology, not sound.
Last edited:
And glowy things. Men like glowy things
Music is more pleasurable when there is a fire burning in the room, despsite it messing up the noise floor and possibly not doing my cartridge a lot of good.
Music is more pleasurable when there is a fire burning in the room, despsite it messing up the noise floor and possibly not doing my cartridge a lot of good.
one resistor ? ,
but why in recent time Bob Carver mostly design and made tube amps and not SS amps ?
Attachments
Last edited:
Paul the Kemper Profiler is the top of the crop of DSP-based guitar amps.
If you are happy with fewer features and not having the ability to create your own emulations you can get a DSP guitar combo amp for £100 (Roland Cube).
Some say the little Roland hasn't got a good tone but it is good enough for Seasick Steve and I love the sound he gets but then he also plays guitars with 3 strings made from hubcaps.
If you are happy with fewer features and not having the ability to create your own emulations you can get a DSP guitar combo amp for £100 (Roland Cube).
Some say the little Roland hasn't got a good tone but it is good enough for Seasick Steve and I love the sound he gets but then he also plays guitars with 3 strings made from hubcaps.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.