Here some more waffle to ad to the rabble
I'm not sure I fully understand…
Some people seem to be of the view that if you hear a difference between valve vs. S.S amp you imagined it or if it wasn't a double blind test, you imagined it?
Once I upgraded my amp from a 60 watter S.S to a 200 watter S.S - there was a big difference in sound: for example through the 60 watt amp the bass was 'relatively' vague, nondescript. Through the 200 watt amp, the bandwidth seemed to increase and I could now identify that the bass player (of a album/track that I was a favourite at the time) was playing with a 'swing' feel. The general fidelity of 200 watter was on a whole other level.
Another example: I've spent occasions (a couple/few of hours) listening to 'Gillian Welch – Revelator' album, on a valve system, then coming home, and straight away listening to same album on my S.S system – the differences were'nt subtle. And not a factor of the room, the speakers etc.. Amps are critical to the signal chain, they're not sonically benign or not transparent/invisible.
Is it reasonable to say that there are sonic characteristics or properties typical of valve amps and typical of S.S amps? IMO there is, although there can be exceptions. The fidelity, sound, music you hear, is from a result of the interactions between the amp and the SPEAKERS, and the room. IMO valve amps seem to interact with speakers (and cables for that matter) 'relatively' more than S.S amps do. They're 'spongier' or under damped, relative to solid state. Some might say that S.S amps are overdamped. Then there is the distortion profile or lack of a measurable distortion, or no distortion profile. Whether this is good/bad is a matter of opinion/taste/ones own philosophy.
But the idea that I can't, I don't or I imagine hearing a difference or that amps don't, in real world reality have a characteristic sound of their own, is absurd, overly theorised nonsense IMO.
If amps with different circuit topologies: SET, PP or Class A, A/B whatever, sound a bit different/interact differently with any given pair of speakers, I don't see why 'tube sound' could be such a contentious issue?
IMO: there is a general 'tube sound', I'm satisfied I have a pretty good idea of 'tube sound'. Having said that, it's not to say there aren't exceptions, or designs where a tube amp can have characteristics, we might normally associate with S.S amps. BUT I purpose that in matching some of those S.S characteristics, some other characteristic will be compromised. For example: you can't have a melodious midrange/treble like honey, as per amp A, and bass grip like granite as per amp B - in the one amp, in achieving A you forfeited B. A is achieved by amp being under damped, B is achieved by amp being over damped, but you might find a middle compromise.
I'm not sure I fully understand…
Some people seem to be of the view that if you hear a difference between valve vs. S.S amp you imagined it or if it wasn't a double blind test, you imagined it?
Once I upgraded my amp from a 60 watter S.S to a 200 watter S.S - there was a big difference in sound: for example through the 60 watt amp the bass was 'relatively' vague, nondescript. Through the 200 watt amp, the bandwidth seemed to increase and I could now identify that the bass player (of a album/track that I was a favourite at the time) was playing with a 'swing' feel. The general fidelity of 200 watter was on a whole other level.
Another example: I've spent occasions (a couple/few of hours) listening to 'Gillian Welch – Revelator' album, on a valve system, then coming home, and straight away listening to same album on my S.S system – the differences were'nt subtle. And not a factor of the room, the speakers etc.. Amps are critical to the signal chain, they're not sonically benign or not transparent/invisible.
Is it reasonable to say that there are sonic characteristics or properties typical of valve amps and typical of S.S amps? IMO there is, although there can be exceptions. The fidelity, sound, music you hear, is from a result of the interactions between the amp and the SPEAKERS, and the room. IMO valve amps seem to interact with speakers (and cables for that matter) 'relatively' more than S.S amps do. They're 'spongier' or under damped, relative to solid state. Some might say that S.S amps are overdamped. Then there is the distortion profile or lack of a measurable distortion, or no distortion profile. Whether this is good/bad is a matter of opinion/taste/ones own philosophy.
But the idea that I can't, I don't or I imagine hearing a difference or that amps don't, in real world reality have a characteristic sound of their own, is absurd, overly theorised nonsense IMO.
If amps with different circuit topologies: SET, PP or Class A, A/B whatever, sound a bit different/interact differently with any given pair of speakers, I don't see why 'tube sound' could be such a contentious issue?
IMO: there is a general 'tube sound', I'm satisfied I have a pretty good idea of 'tube sound'. Having said that, it's not to say there aren't exceptions, or designs where a tube amp can have characteristics, we might normally associate with S.S amps. BUT I purpose that in matching some of those S.S characteristics, some other characteristic will be compromised. For example: you can't have a melodious midrange/treble like honey, as per amp A, and bass grip like granite as per amp B - in the one amp, in achieving A you forfeited B. A is achieved by amp being under damped, B is achieved by amp being over damped, but you might find a middle compromise.
SY nailed it early on. It's mostly FR errors due to high source impedance. That's why older Class D amps (e.g. the old Panasonic receivers that were an audiophile fetish for a while a decade or so ago) and solid state amps with resistors on the outputs (e.g. Sunfire) are often described as "tubey."
Stereophile's tests of tube amps into their simulated load show the FR differences clearly (into that load at least).
Occam's Razor suggests that looking for smaller differentiators is silly, when a big differentiator (FR errors that vary with the driven loudspeakers' impedance) is well known.
Sure they do. Especially if you tap them lightly with a spoon! 🙂
That's one of those comments that's simply not based in actual reality.
That kind of statement is consistent with FR errors (often elevated midrange) due to high source impedance in tubes.
Problem is, most "audiophiles" think they're RG3 with invincible knees, when they're really more like Ryan Leaf's third string high school backup...
Yes, but my point is that that you should be "distinguishing" input from output in the SAME medium. If you are listening to the output in a DBT, then to distinguish it from the input within the same medium (which seems the whole point to me) you have to listen to the live instruments that create the input. And at the same volume. The electrical input to the amplifier is no use as a listening experience because it's at a fraction of the volume.
Hi Daniel,
Indeed a very good read. I totaly agree with your aproach.
Did you make a PC software to measure TAD available to public?
Best regards,
Radu
That's what you say, but most audiophiles I know are rather humble and tend to underestimate their abilities. Don't be blinded by Internet boasting, in person very few audiophiles are like that. They do make mistakes, but I don't know any who think they are infallible or invincible.
If your reality is purely based on the typical measurements taken that may be true. However, if you listen to amplifiers actually functioning as intended, and under different levels of "stress", then the reality is very different ...
You might as well say that all cars that have similar acceleration figures will feel the same to drive ...
Anyone who thinks that, for instance, they can walk into a room at a show and "hear" the effect of amp or the wires or whatever...that's the kind of idiocy to which I prefer. That's the "think they're RG3, actually more like the 3d string high school QB" effect in action.
Likewise, a discussion of "tube sound" that barely mentions source impedance is just a circle jerk.
Sorry, but no, it's not. Try some real speakers (preferably not part of an Aldi TV) and get back to us.
Thanks! That's a fairly common type of retort from "audiophiles." The problem with that kind of half-baked analogy is, taking an electrical signal and making it bigger (which is all an amp should do) is a one-dimensional thing. (The important things in an audio system all happen elsewhere. The amp just does one job.) The feel of an automobile is a multidimensional thing. (Never mind that acceleration has very little to do with feel of a car, unless it's just a crude engine box like an old Detroit drag racer. Spring rates, camber, shift action, etc. are all far more important to feel in an automobile.)
The automotive acceleration analogy to amplifiers that makes actual sense is to say that all cars with similar acceleration figures will get from 0 to x in roughly the same amount of time.
One could say, perhaps, that most tube amps are like a car with a stick shift and no traction control. That is to say, its acceleration varies quite a bit based on who's "upstream." By contract, a solid state amp is like a modern with a slushbox or automated manual and computer-based "launch control" that basically takes the driver out the equation so long as s/he mashes the go pedal down. Even though I hate that analogy, because my strong preference in cars is three pedals and no electronic nannies.
Last edited:
Interesting that all amplifiers are the 'same', but all speakers are 'very different' ... 😉. Well, I have listened to hundreds of "real" speakers over the years, and on the basis of what they sounded like at that moment and on the 'assumption' that all the SQ issues I could hear are solely due to the speakers misbehaving, then for the vast majority I would be happy to biff them into the rubbish bin by the back door ... 🙂
And, the behaviour of an amplifier is a multi-dimensional thing ... which is the 'subtle' point I was trying to make ... 🙂
Having spent years very significantly altering the behaviour of amplifiers by modifying the environment in which the nominal amplifying circuitry operates, internally and externally, the statement that an amplifier is a generic black box of standardised and well behaved functionality is quite laughable ...
Sure, you can cherry pick whatever stories you like to make a point.
Here's an audiophile story you'll love, you can add it to your collection. 🙂
A few years back I was at the RMAF show in Denver. Was walking down the hall and heard music coming out of a room ahead. The sound immediately struck me as familiar, so I stopped to listen and to get an idea of what was so familiar about it. I knew that sound - Tripath amps. Sure enough, it was the Red Wine Audio room. It was the first time I'd met Vinnie and heard his amps, but I knew the Tripath sound from down the hall. Now at the time I was spending many hours per day building and tweaking Tripath amps. I doubt I could do that ever again.
Of course some will say I simply recognized the sound of a familiar effects box. 😀
this is an ideal
In my experience valve amps generally 'feel' & 'sound' different to S.S amps
I don't get how by articulating the cause WHY, a characteristic is void
Audiophile story: I was listening to PP mono blocks with EL34's - and at it reminded me 'sonically' of an old Marshall stack.
No, it's not. Former has to exist, the latter doesn't.
To whom and for what occasion? And how do you know?
No, what you perceive can change by focusing on different aspect of the same reproduced sound.
Which expert's finding are you reciting? Or are you just expressing your personal opinion?
Did you mean "what do I do"? Because you are talking about what satisfies you. By the way, what do you mean "how 'natural' sound comes across"?
What sound difference have you heard from different amps that couldn't be measured?
That's what you say and that's called anecdotal evidence. Have you taken a poll among audiophiles in larger demographics than your own circle?
But he was describing the audiophiles on internet, was he not?
Yes, it's all about the amplifiers having 'signature' distortions, no matter what the measurements say - the 'ideal' amplifier will sound like ... nothing at all ...
A process I have followed over the years is that a system put together on the spur of the moment will have a certain quality, 'sound' to it. All recordings you're familiar with will be tainted by that 'sound' -- then gradually as the system is refined that 'sound' starts to fade, falls away - and the actual recording 'sound', the 'feel' of each album emerges as a distinct, familiar, "object" - an old friend is back!!
Completely different playback chains, and close to identical subjective impressions of the music played. That to me says I'm on the right path ...
Specifically an early 70's 100 watt super lead, non master volume. A colleague had lent it to me in the prospect I might buy it from them. I didn't, but in hindsight, I should've maaaan 😎
Last edited:
I didn't expect to see a forum moderator play spin. 🙄
You've stated,
so I asked,
and you've been spinning it ever since.Except for the loudspeakers, what other ways do electronic audio components work besides sending electronic signals?
I'll try not to get into a tit for tat .... 🙂
I was making the point that the only thing that counts, for us as listeners, is what registers in one's consciousness, at a particular moment. What measuring gear says is irrelevant to that experience.
That's exactly what I was saying ...
Could mention the experiments where beautifully cooked food is served under vile lighting, and people find the flavours disgusting - perception is very fluid, depends on 'everything' ...
Asking a rhetorical question. And, taking every opportunity to experience what normal acoustic instruments sound like in the flesh, sidling up to a couple of feet away from one being played - that becomes a reference "tonality" to chase after ...
Every sound difference can theoretically be measured, but as I said earlier the testing methodologies are still too clumsy, unrefined. One of the better attempts, DiffMaker, can be fooled very easily, and is far too fragile and awkward to use seriously ...
There are some reasons that one might almost call "trivial reasons" for why a tube amplifier may sound different from an SS amplifier. Namely, the higher output impedance, and deviations from flatness of the frequency response.
The claim has been made, and seemingly has not been refuted in any genuine double-blind listening tests, that an SS amplifier can be made to sound indistinguishable from a tube amplifier by adding a resistor in series with the output and an R/C network to appropriately "unflatten" the FR.
If it is indeed the case that there is nothing more to the "tube sound" than this, then it surely is important and worthwhile to know it? (Uncomfortable though it might be for those who wish to believe otherwise.)
Chris
Yes, listeners, as you said. Not as internet forum posters who want to talk about sound difference between amps.
Now you changed it from "if looking at a 'beautiful' girl, and then deliberately noticing and obsessing on every slight "defect" in her appearance, she will end up appearing quite repulsive to you ...! " Why? Couldn't confirmed the validity of your own theory?
Seriously? You sound like someone who knows nothing about acoustics.
Is that what you said? 🙄
fas42, you've got multiple problems communicating with others. It is now clear that trying to do that with you is a waste of time. Good bye.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.