+1
A "good' transistor amp will beat a "bad" tube amp any day. Tube "flavour" or the like is more indicative of the circuit than it's constituent parts.
For me, I think it's about the linearity and simplicity a triode circuit brings. The triode is a voltage controlled resistance. Save for the SIT at least in curves, as far as I know, all other amplifying parts are voltage or current controlled current sources.
A "good' transistor amp will beat a "bad" tube amp any day. Tube "flavour" or the like is more indicative of the circuit than it's constituent parts.
For me, I think it's about the linearity and simplicity a triode circuit brings. The triode is a voltage controlled resistance. Save for the SIT at least in curves, as far as I know, all other amplifying parts are voltage or current controlled current sources.
And it will work in a somewhat acceptable manner for a selection of sources, loads and environment. They all come with a set of compromises made to meet a certain objective, you may want to consult Anatoliy about testing proper amplifier designs for impact resistance if you disagree.
How do you determine if the sound you hear is transparent or not? IOW, what do you compare it to?
Sure I have.
Edelweiss-3 amplifier project
More videos on my Facebook page
Structure of magic
Wavebourn - Soft clipping in real life, Edelweiss high end audio amplifier | Facebook
Last edited:
If you try my Edelweiss-3, you would understand that this thread is full of nonsense based on beliefs only.
Yes, measurement tools are objective. But what to measure is highly subjective.
For example, when you are tuning grand piano, would you measure alignment of strings against magnetic field of the Earth, to judge it's quality?
But why do you think that measuring how close is the transfer function to straight line in NARROW DYNAMIC RANGE that we BELIEVE TO BE SUFFICIENT is the main criterion of sound reproduction quality?
Second, if your hearing is dynamic, why do you think that better static measurement means better sound reproduction?
This 2 basic beliefs are foundations of many other nonsense, like "People love euphonic second order harmonics", "tube amps add second order harmonics", "we can simulate tube distortions in order to get tube sound", and so on.
Watch my videos and tell what you think: can 6W single ended amp control woofers better than 50W PP amp? Can pentode amp with 3 nested feedbacks sound better than no feedback amp with greatly overpriced 300B tube? Can 6W amp sound louder and at the same time cleaner than 50W Solid state amp? And, finally, can we model a sound of a single ended vacuum tube amplifier using tube preamp, complex analog, or digital modeller, in addition to a solid state class AB amp?
I.e. can we add absence of nasty dynamic distortions of a single ended class A amp to the push-pull solid state class AB amp that has them? Can we at all add absence of inaudible distortions to the sound that already has audible distortions?
Yes, measurement tools are objective. But what to measure is highly subjective.
For example, when you are tuning grand piano, would you measure alignment of strings against magnetic field of the Earth, to judge it's quality?
But why do you think that measuring how close is the transfer function to straight line in NARROW DYNAMIC RANGE that we BELIEVE TO BE SUFFICIENT is the main criterion of sound reproduction quality?
Second, if your hearing is dynamic, why do you think that better static measurement means better sound reproduction?
This 2 basic beliefs are foundations of many other nonsense, like "People love euphonic second order harmonics", "tube amps add second order harmonics", "we can simulate tube distortions in order to get tube sound", and so on.
Watch my videos and tell what you think: can 6W single ended amp control woofers better than 50W PP amp? Can pentode amp with 3 nested feedbacks sound better than no feedback amp with greatly overpriced 300B tube? Can 6W amp sound louder and at the same time cleaner than 50W Solid state amp? And, finally, can we model a sound of a single ended vacuum tube amplifier using tube preamp, complex analog, or digital modeller, in addition to a solid state class AB amp?
I.e. can we add absence of nasty dynamic distortions of a single ended class A amp to the push-pull solid state class AB amp that has them? Can we at all add absence of inaudible distortions to the sound that already has audible distortions?
Transparent sound is not comparable but rather that which is not. So when you are presented with sound that is truly close, it is remarkable just because of your hearing experience in general...it sounds actual and real. For example, to a lesser extent, high end components vs mid-fi or lower. Lesser because imo, high end doesn't equate to transparency necessarily. However it does usually arrive in that category. I have a Charlie Byrd direct to disc jazz LP that is so real sounding the only comment I've ever gotten is "sounds like they're right there", in astonishment. Sure, the source is important but the gear I play it on gives lots of glimpses into the same window with lesser recordings. Fast, dynamic, and upfront but musical is where it's at. With the ESLs, I have no rival in ss. My Acoustat Monitor 3 with there direct drive servo charge OTL monos remain unrivaled only because there is no ss counterpart. I have Acoustat "Model 3" also that I can use any amp, ss or tube with, via usual interface. The speakers are identical in every way except for the interface vs direct drive. In fact, I can switch the interfaces for the Model 3s around with the OTLs for the Monitor 3s and one will become the other. So I have an accurate comparison, not of tubes vs ss, but of direct drive vs interface. But I can attest that regardless, direct drive OTL trumps 'interface' driven ss 'or' tube. Until there's a ss competitor, that's all I know. But that's plenty
If comparison isn't possible, how does the listener know if the sound heard is transparent to X, Y or Z?
Close to what? Remember, the subject is about electronic sound replaying equipment.
I didn't say comparison isn't possible, just that it happens the other way round, with what you're used to. Close to "actual and real".
Seems to be a 'forest for the trees' thing.
I suppose.
Transparent sound is not comparable but rather that which is not. So when you are presented with sound that is truly close, it is remarkable just because of your hearing experience in general...it sounds actual and real. For example, to a lesser extent, high end components vs mid-fi or lower. Lesser because imo, high end doesn't equate to transparency necessarily. However it does usually arrive in that category. I have a Charlie Byrd direct to disc jazz LP that is so real sounding the only comment I've ever gotten is "sounds like they're right there", in astonishment. Sure, the source is important but the gear I play it on gives lots of glimpses into the same window with lesser recordings. Fast, dynamic, and upfront but musical is where it's at. With the ESLs, I have no rival in ss. My Acoustat Monitor 3 with there direct drive servo charge OTL monos remain unrivaled only because there is no ss counterpart. I have Acoustat "Model 3" also that I can use any amp, ss or tube with, via usual interface. The speakers are identical in every way except for the interface vs direct drive. In fact, I can switch the interfaces for the Model 3s around with the OTLs for the Monitor 3s and one will become the other. So I have an accurate comparison, not of tubes vs ss, but of direct drive vs interface. But I can attest that regardless, direct drive OTL trumps 'interface' driven ss 'or' tube. Until there's a ss competitor, that's all I know. But that's plenty
I guess what you call "transparent" is actually "convincing"...
That has been my understanding of the term, yes.
I know what I hear, akin to the one who sees a painter's rendition of an @ss and declares " I know what I like"
Close to actual and real thing would be the job of recording / mastering engineer. The job of sound replaying equipment is to replay the recorded source faithfully which is where the term hi-fi (high fidelity) has a role in.
Again, in the realm of sound replaying, the quality of equipment is judged on the level of its faithfulness of output signal when compared to input signal which I outlined on this thread earlier.That has been my understanding of the term, yes.
I know what I hear, akin to the one who sees a painter's rendition of an @ss and declares " I know what I like"
I would say, "fooling imaginations as if it is real". Either you hear and say, "How nice the amp and speakers sound", or you hear sounds and react, and only after that can realize that sounds were reproduced.
We are not interested in reproducing of some signals, we are interested in recreating of illusions.
We are not interested in reproducing of some signals, we are interested in recreating of illusions.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.