The second part is more accurate than the first.
There's nothing "magic" about "tube sound"; in a recent long thread, it was obvious that no-one agreed on what "tube sound" was, much less offer any evidence that it exists, separate from frequency response, noise, and distortion. Your observations on the non-auditory aspect absolutely lines up with mine, certainly a large (maybe the largest) part of the reason my system's electronics are mostly tube based. I just... like them.
But if you're working on a limited budget and music is a priority, I still would leave tubes alone- that eye-candy is NOT cheap to build and have it perform well!
This looks like a classic case of projection - if in your case tubes are just eye candy then they must be the same for others. But they're not. To others tubes can sound better than a lot of solid state (maybe not SIT amps but few have heard those) for purely sonic reasons. And the individual listener has no need of a round table convention on "tube sound" - he or she merely has to prefer the sound of a particular tube amp to the alternatives. And it's not about technical specifications or telling people what they "ought" to be liking - listeners have ears and on this forum they usually have pretty sophisticated brains and musical tastes as well. They can make their own minds up.
Who knows how value for money stacks up here - it depends what's available. If a better speaker is a better system choice in the first place, the amp may be secondary. I'm not going to disagree with that for a moment. An Apogee full-length ribbon with a solid state amp will sound better than an average speaker with a tube amp. And a SIT amp will probably see off almost all tube amps. But apart from such esoterica, there are a lot of good tube based systems about, and they're not necessarily very expensive. There are always deals on ebay and there are numerous kits about including some good ones.
No data to support that. If that's your religion, fine. I am certain that you sincerely believe this.
Let’s look at two pieces of research:
1. The Hawthorne effect. Both increasing and decreasing factory illumination resulted in an increase in productivity. This remained illogical until you included the “user” and his/her attendant human factors into the research.
2. Learned Helplessness. Rats that “moped” were excluded from research on mazes because they didn’t fit the criteria the researchers were seeking. When researchers actually looked at why rats moped this revealed a new line of research.
Research like this repeatedly tells us that in cases where there is a user interface, that user needs to be included in the research findings.
Similarly, research into low distortion amps has immense value in improving the product. When used for measurement purposes this may be all that is required. But when you introduce human listeners and music of different kinds, you are no longer exclusively measuring the hardware. When you go on to look at user preference, you add another boatload of potential factors. You end up needing to add psychology and other disciplines to the engineering if you want an overall explantion of phenomena that is as complete as possible. So rather than chiding humans for their illogical behaviour it becomes more interesting to look for actual explanations why they think and act the way they do.
Please don't be condescending. I'm a university lecturer and I write textbooks on psychology. And I'm not religious either.
Then you're certainly aware that your handwave isn't data. I don't question your sincere belief.
Since I'm not moderating this thread, that's not a valid argument. Data and evidence is, OTOH. But you have proved my point about "quasi-religious assertions and emotionality," so I thank you for that. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying, "I prefer using tube amps." So do I. Unsupported fact claims in a technical forum may not go unchallenged- you do the OP no favors by appealing to a "tube sound" for which there is no agreement on the meaning of the term nor evidence of its existence.
I'm honestly baffled at why, "That's what I do because I like it," is insufficient for you. And if the music is more important to the OP than the other esthetic issues, my recommendation still stands.
You know quite well that my arguments are about the listener interface, which as a performance psychologist specialising in musicians I know a lot about. Fundamentally different conceptual frameworks. It's pointless continuing this conversation when you skew everything back to your own territory of technical engineering and ignore the wider implications. It's also pointless continuing any argument where rhetorical trickery takes the place of debate, and as I said before in previous cases posts simply get deleted. So all in all, let's please leave it at that.
Last edited:
If you go about saying tubes are better, turntables are better you're denigrating modern technology thus irritating science men. It is irrational though to ask for data that doesn't exist. Science controls the playback, the listening experience it is controlled by us. Consciously or unconsciously. Now, it is true, it is true that science ALSO wants to explain our listening experience. Why not? They want to explain everything. Well, good luck with that one.
Having expressed a firm preference it is quite normal for people to seek to explain their preference by giving (what appear to be) objective criteria. Sometimes these criteria (whether valid or not) genuinely contributed to their decision; sometimes they were added afterwards, however firmly the person believes this not to be the case.
I'm usually one arguing for the side that says we can hear more, or care about different things than we're measuring, etc... Usually arguing that I can hear something, while an engineer w/ inferior ears thinks because he doesn't hear it, and his text book doesn't mention it, I must be imagining things..
BUT, in this case, for any GOOD amplifiers I have built, SS vs tube, I cannot hear any difference worth mentioning..
Now, compare my old tube st35 w/ my old SS sansui receiver, and the tube vs SS difference is night and day, and everything you'd expect.. Tube is warm and maybe lacking a little highs.. SS is punchy and overly bright and gets annoying after a while. Neither the dynaco or the sansui are good amplifiers, by todays standards though.
Amplifiers aren't supposed to do anything at all to the sound, and if we're comparing good amps, tube vs ss, there should be no difference! And I cannot hear a difference comparing good modern designs.
BUT, in this case, for any GOOD amplifiers I have built, SS vs tube, I cannot hear any difference worth mentioning..
Now, compare my old tube st35 w/ my old SS sansui receiver, and the tube vs SS difference is night and day, and everything you'd expect.. Tube is warm and maybe lacking a little highs.. SS is punchy and overly bright and gets annoying after a while. Neither the dynaco or the sansui are good amplifiers, by todays standards though.
Amplifiers aren't supposed to do anything at all to the sound, and if we're comparing good amps, tube vs ss, there should be no difference! And I cannot hear a difference comparing good modern designs.
The common mistake on here is "What is preferred by me is correct for everybody"; the issue is not so much me vs. everybody but prefer vs. correct. This assumes, of course, that we know what we mean by "correct" - in the context of music reproduction this can only mean "output most like input".Cassiel said:
Some people prefer the signal degradation produced by less-ideal components to the relative transparency of more-ideal components. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their preference, but they usually want to insist that their preferred degradation is more accurate than relative transparency so they have to claim unknown distortions in the more-ideal components while denying the importance of known distortions in their favoured less-ideal components.
My power amp uses valves. My sources use a combination of analogue and digital, discrete and chip. I didn't use valves because they are better (or worse) - I used them because I have found more success in using them (e.g. simpler circuits so easier to debug), and I enjoy using them. I try to avoid 'tube sound'.
Last edited:
Input of recorded music to recording medium "could" be lacking harmonics originally present in live sound due to microphones inability to capture said harmonics. Play back through tube amp generating said harmonics "could" actually be closer to what was originally "in the air" at the time of recording.
Did I say that out loud?
Note the liberal use of the word: could.
Did I say that out loud?
Note the liberal use of the word: could.
First issue is speakers. All this talk about changing from one amp to the next and hearing a difference is most likely not just the amp, but the amp AND speaker synergy. I am unfamiliar with the speakers that jdrouin owns, but somebody needs to post a frequency/impedance plot. If the speaker isn't flat then depending on the damping factor you will get very different results. I still believe that speakers and room geometry are your biggest factors in what your brain will perceive. There shouldn't even be an argument about tube vs. solid state, if the op likes tubes and wants tubes then he gets tubes. And in my opinion along with most on here is if both SS and tube gear is properly designed you shouldn't really be able to tell the difference in a blind test. I stand by what I wrote earlier which is get the speakers you want and work with the room acoustics while saving up for a tube amp. If you want to "tubeify" your solid state gear just add some series resistance on the speaker output to lower the damping factor, I believe this is a Bob Carver trick
Perception is a funny thing. I think some posters are trying to say that there is a mystical force behind tube gear that can't be explained through science and textbooks. I do think there is such a thing as "tube" sound, which I will say is higher distortion artifacts, and lower damping factor that is usually associated with SET amps of low power (and are horribly dated). Pair a low power, low damping factor 5% distortion tube amplifier with a speaker that's frequency/impedance plot isn't ideal and you will without a question hear the difference between it and a modern hi-fi SS or tube amp. My buddy owns a tube power amp that at full rated power has 1% total harmonic distortion. The tube power amps I had completed about a year ago were tested side by side and the consensus was that his was "warmer". My PP all tube power amps have .06% THD at full power. Was it the distortion or something else that changed the overall sound? Either way most people in the room (but not all) preferred the higher distortion amp, so I guess I suck at building amps hahaha
Perception is a funny thing. I think some posters are trying to say that there is a mystical force behind tube gear that can't be explained through science and textbooks. I do think there is such a thing as "tube" sound, which I will say is higher distortion artifacts, and lower damping factor that is usually associated with SET amps of low power (and are horribly dated). Pair a low power, low damping factor 5% distortion tube amplifier with a speaker that's frequency/impedance plot isn't ideal and you will without a question hear the difference between it and a modern hi-fi SS or tube amp. My buddy owns a tube power amp that at full rated power has 1% total harmonic distortion. The tube power amps I had completed about a year ago were tested side by side and the consensus was that his was "warmer". My PP all tube power amps have .06% THD at full power. Was it the distortion or something else that changed the overall sound? Either way most people in the room (but not all) preferred the higher distortion amp, so I guess I suck at building amps hahaha
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.