Ah! But the question of the day is not qualitatively which you prefer! Only whether tubes are clean, and is it the "un-cleanliness" of the tubes that gives them the sound that everyone enjoys and associates with tubes. I won't argue that gainclones "sound better" than other amps (besides, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to most of the high end tube amps), but I will argue that a good solid state design has a fundamentally better potential to generate electronically accurate high voltage mimics of low voltage inputs vs. a vacuum tube amplifier (um, I think my grammar was right there, but if not, I think you still get the point! 🙂 ). Whether this is musically accurate (IE truer to the original due to reinstating lost harmonics during the recording process), whether it is appealing, or whether it will make you think you are really listening to a piano is not a question for the amplifier at that point--it is a question as to the quality of the recording.pedroskova said:
Furthermore, I don't even think that "noise" will detract from musical enjoyment if you don't let it! I do, however, want for my system to have as neutral and accurate of an amplification stage as possible. I want for the amplification stage to represent what is on the recording. If it is a bad recording, so be it! Might my approach be less "musical?" I would certainly admit that my amp is not an additional musical instrument in my system, but I would hope that what I am listening to is as accurate of a representation of what is recorded as I can get. Does it sound as "good" as some higher THD tube setups? I am sure it doesn't, but I think that is primarily due to my budget restraints
! I feel better with accurate (relative to input) amplification. I feel better listening with speakers I built. I feel better listening through cheap interconnects (read "homebrewed") and saving money for better drivers. I feel better with these things based on MY opinions and background. I like black cars and motorcycles too (though it is a little too far off topic), but I don't claim that any of these things are fundamentally better or worse than any other items that I could use. I will, however, make objective observations about relative performance of certain components or items! My engine displacement IS smaller than the displacement of larger cars. I can measure that! I cannot say that larger engines are better based just on this, just that my car will probably be slower than a car of the same weight that has a bigger engine (distortion vs. wattage to explicate the analogy).
My argument has always been that tubes have (for the most part) higher distortion than SS components. I will not extend that to include any assertions about whether this distortion is good bad or neutral, only that it is typically not accurate amplification relative to input signals.
dfdye said:
This is simply, demonstrably and scientifically untrue. Has been since Williamson. It's far from impossible to design a tube circuit with noise and distortion components below most any generally accepted scientific critiea for audibility. If you want to say "the sound some people enjoy" I agree completely. It one element which muddies the discussion since there are more than one tube 'sounds'. Same can be said of solid state. Saying "everyone" is inaccurate and as someone else noted earlier demeaning. Sorry for being shrill and harsh but a person can only read the same distortion so many times before it becomes fatiguing.
I think I see the disconnect 😀
I can’t even begin to describe the cognitive dissonance I had to wrestle with when I first became a “glow-bug” convert. I was a spec. quoting “Audiophile” extraordinaire who happily believed that all I needed to know about a piece of gear could be gleaned from a careful reading of a Julian Hirsch review…then it happened. My room mate brought home a Dynaco Pas 3/ST 70 combo he got a “deal” on . I had recently finished a Hafler DH101/DH200 kit pair, and was stunned at how much better it sounded than the Nikko Gamma gear it replaced. My roomy insisted on temporarily replacing my Hafler gear with his Dynaco stuff..I finally gave in after a couple of days. After listening to a few albums I remember thinking that I must have set up the Hafler gear wrong somehow..no way was this old stuff better than my shiny new stuff. We then set it up so that we could rotate the pieces in and out, and over the next couple of weeks we listened to every album we owned..the conclusion was in-escapable, the tube stuff sounded more like music. As both of us worked in competing stereo shops at the time, we borrowed every quality SS piece we could get our hands on..nothing bested the dynaco for pure musicality.
This happened in 1979, and I still haven’t heard SS gear sound better than tubes…close, but not better.
Find a decent tube unit and live with it a while..you may come out the other end un-moved..then again, maybe not.
rdf said:
You are correct, and I agree I misspoke/typed. All apologies.
The original question was related to noise in tube amps, and I agree the discussion has gotten beyond that. My last intent is to be demeaning! Only to have a lively discussion and share opinions.
None taken. I wasn't really offended either (though I admit to often being overly dry in the humour department), but some will read your first statement and run with it literally.
I think my wife would kill me if that happened! 😀valveitude said:
I have heard tube amps that are very good, and I agree that they sound great! I just have not heard them all. I find nothing odd that some/many (not everybody--no more overgeneralizations 🙂 ) like what tube amps add--if you are using one of the amps that does add something.
Valveitude, will take your advice and the next time I have a chance to try out a low distortion tube amp, I will take a good long listen to it and see what I think. I have done this before with higher distortion tubes, and I never did quite like it for some reason, but I have always kept an open mind when it comes to things like this.
My final thought (I hope) since this is starting to get pretty redundant (not that the whole thread isn't but that's a different story! 🙂 ):
Getting back to the original post:
I would/have answer/ed that for amps that introduce distortion (not all tubes, just those about which the thread was started), I personally don't like what they do to music. My goal in reproducing music is making sounds as close to the waveforms captured on the recording as possible come through my speakers. THESE amps described do not accomplish this goal--so regardless of the other amps that were not the original focus of the thread, I think we can all agree that part of the sonic signature of the tube amps which comprised the original question is due to the distortion that they introduce. If you like it, I genuinely understand that it makes the music sound better to you! No demeaning/condescending intent! I swear!
Now I will quietly go back to lurking in the tube forum background while listening to my SS amps. 😀
(and I guess I learned my lesson about posting concerning noise in tubes in a tube amp section of the forum!
)
Hi,
Why you keep on insisting that tube amps "add" something is truly beyond me.
If that were to be the case than any differential measurement would throw it up and voila.....
It's not so much the amount of the distortion that matters but what's in the distortion.
IOW it's the harmonic content of the distortion spectrum that makes for a difference in sound.
Try to see it as the timbre (tonal signature) of an instrument if you like.
Well that's such a pity as the best recordings ever made are mostly made with tubed electronics.
And that's not just my opinion but I don't expect you to agree with me.
Obviously it takes more than just tubes alone to make a decent sounding recording but it sure helps endlessly.
It's not against the law to be a masochist.....😀
Cheers, 😉
Why you keep on insisting that tube amps "add" something is truly beyond me.
If that were to be the case than any differential measurement would throw it up and voila.....
It's not so much the amount of the distortion that matters but what's in the distortion.
IOW it's the harmonic content of the distortion spectrum that makes for a difference in sound.
Try to see it as the timbre (tonal signature) of an instrument if you like.
Well that's such a pity as the best recordings ever made are mostly made with tubed electronics.
And that's not just my opinion but I don't expect you to agree with me.
Obviously it takes more than just tubes alone to make a decent sounding recording but it sure helps endlessly.
It's not against the law to be a masochist.....😀
Cheers, 😉
dfdye said:Ah! But the question of the day is not qualitatively which you prefer! Only whether tubes are clean, and is it the "un-cleanliness" of the tubes that gives them the sound that everyone enjoys and associates with tubes. I won't argue that gainclones "sound better" than other amps (besides, I haven't had the opportunity to listen to most of the high end tube amps), but I will argue that a good solid state design has a fundamentally better potential to generate electronically accurate high voltage mimics of low voltage inputs vs. a vacuum tube amplifier (um, I think my grammar was right there, but if not, I think you still get the point! 🙂 ). Whether this is musically accurate (IE truer to the original due to reinstating lost harmonics during the recording process), whether it is appealing, or whether it will make you think you are really listening to a piano is not a question for the amplifier at that point--it is a question as to the quality of the recording.
Furthermore, I don't even think that "noise" will detract from musical enjoyment if you don't let it! I do, however, want for my system to have as neutral and accurate of an amplification stage as possible. I want for the amplification stage to represent what is on the recording. If it is a bad recording, so be it! Might my approach be less "musical?" I would certainly admit that my amp is not an additional musical instrument in my system, but I would hope that what I am listening to is as accurate of a representation of what is recorded as I can get. Does it sound as "good" as some higher THD tube setups? I am sure it doesn't, but I think that is primarily due to my budget restraints
I feel better with accurate (relative to input) amplification. I feel better listening with speakers I built. I feel better listening through cheap interconnects (read "homebrewed") and saving money for better drivers. I feel better with these things based on MY opinions and background. I like black cars and motorcycles too (though it is a little too far off topic), but I don't claim that any of these things are fundamentally better or worse than any other items that I could use. I will, however, make objective observations about relative performance of certain components or items! My engine displacement IS smaller than the displacement of larger cars. I can measure that! I cannot say that larger engines are better based just on this, just that my car will probably be slower than a car of the same weight that has a bigger engine (distortion vs. wattage to explicate the analogy).
My argument has always been that tubes have (for the most part) higher distortion than SS components. I will not extend that to include any assertions about whether this distortion is good bad or neutral, only that it is typically not accurate amplification relative to input signals.
...don't mean to be confrontational but, from the above statements, all or most all of your statements in this thread appear to have been based purely on theory... as in, you've never measured the "noise" of a tube circuit, nor have you ever been bothered by the "noise" of a tube component. Am I close? I am curious as to what tube componetry you've actually heard.
One little tidbit here...
It has been said (in this thread maybe) that pro audio has all gone digital... much less any real use of tubes.
One place where the tube has maintained a small but stout foothold is in microphone preamps... what do you suppose is responsible for this? And what advantage does the recording engineer have when he can listen to a playback through monitors or walk 20 feet and hear the real thing? The engineer is committed to putting the best/most/cleanest he can on "tape" at the moment it happens... knowing full well he salt and pepper the track to his liking anytime later. There is something to this.
Just a tidbit...
😀 😉
It has been said (in this thread maybe) that pro audio has all gone digital... much less any real use of tubes.
One place where the tube has maintained a small but stout foothold is in microphone preamps... what do you suppose is responsible for this? And what advantage does the recording engineer have when he can listen to a playback through monitors or walk 20 feet and hear the real thing? The engineer is committed to putting the best/most/cleanest he can on "tape" at the moment it happens... knowing full well he salt and pepper the track to his liking anytime later. There is something to this.
Just a tidbit...
😀 😉
Exactly
...which brings the discussion full circle..the need for a new set of metrics to predict perceived sound quality based on objective measurements. Shooting for a "waterfall" spectrum is a good start IMO, but like EC8010, I would like to be able to better quantify exactly what the "is" is....to paraphrase Slick Willie.In my mind, there are three areas to any amp,
1) the circuit design
2) the sonic character of the parts used
3) the layout and physical construction
..all three of these affect the sound quality. All three of these can be objectively measured to some extent. It sure would be nice to be able to measure how they interact.
Until then, we will just have to accept the "art" aspect of the science.
dfdye said:
These things would all be fine, were it not we were listening to MUSIC. For those of us who have made recordings, been in the presence of the artists (while the recoding was being made!) and then immediately compared the resulting recording to the event within a few moments of hearing the Real Event:
I can tell you, without the slightest hesitation, the slightest doubt- that what you hear on whatever medium you choose for your music: Isn't the faintest shadow of the real thing.
The technique of picking up vibrations in air, tranferring them to a tiny moveable diaphragm, changing that vibration to a variable voltage, which then passes through several stages of high gain amplification straight to the finest recording devices yet known to man- is hopelessly corrupted. Every recording you hear has been through processing to make it even remotely resemble the actual event. The art of mixing recordings is as far removed from measurement and science as chemical analysis is to fine cuisine.
I do not mean this as a slight, but 99.999% of audiophiles have no earthly idea as to what an unprocessed RECORDING sounds like. By that I mean, RIGHT FROM THE STUDIO TAPE MACHINE. The enormous gulf that lies between that event, and what gets to YOUR SYSTEM is almost beyond comprehension. The first time I am the company I work with did this, with combined over $650,000 worth of gear, assembled from some of the best quality recording equipment, with one of the best recording engineers I've had the good fortune to meet... We had $20K microphones on hand- six of them, of all different flavors, made by the same company, as well as one of the best studio mikes commonly used today, the names escape me, but the primary Soundelux mics were exquisite.
The dedication of recording engineers is incredible. They take the faint, ghostly remains of a recorded performance, the crumbling bones- and make something that can, infrequently, RESEMBLE the real thing. When you listen to a commercial recording, be it modern or vintage, it has gone through a transformation at the hands of a second, a third, or even hundreds of artists. What you hear is NOT the original performance! It simply cannot be. People wouldn't buy something that sounded THAT BAD. No, what you are hearing is a COLLAGE, put together by quite skilled ears, some more than others. The original images were in black and white- they've been colored in, adjusted to ghoulish life. The performers have been moved around a bit, that back wall was either recorded by a mike placed behind the performers, or its actually computer generated after the mix. The "space"- artificial. The bass response- boosted greatly.
After all that, does it really make sense to argue that accuracy in reproduction is even attainable? Personally, I'm a tube man. Not just because they are what I build. When I first joined VAC, I had a pretty much all Pass Labs system- built by myself. I enjoyed listening, and tweaking, and building Solid State amplifiers. Through the years, I've used both. The bottom line is this: In all of my listening, and building, the amplifiers that brought the most enjoyment were always the ones that were built of the fewest parts. The Pass designs fit nicely into that, but once I heard Kevin's push pull 300Bs, my solid state days were over. Music is in the ears of the beholder. But somehow, I just find it easier to imagine music, when the speakers are being driven by TUBES. Although, I really like what a good solid state amp can do when driven by a tube preamplifier. I've broken many a solid state aficionado's brain with THAT one.
Gotta go... LOST is on.
dfdye said:
Of course tube amps can be clean....
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The above one also embarasses many a SS amp in the bass... (ie of course tubes can do bass, Frank's OTL is probably also stellar there)
and as an example the Kronhite amps have distortion -- measured in the usual way -- that rival almost any SS kit (whether they sound good is another question, a buddy who has had a few says the KH is one of the worst amps he has ever heard, a client in NZ loves his)
dave
I read and re-read the thesis. I don't know if his T.A.D. measurements make any sense, but I may try to duplicate some of them. I can borrow the 2 tone generator and the pulse generator, but I can't find the exact HP dynamic signal analyzer. I am looking for a suitable substitute.
I do believe that the higher order harmonics make a system sound bad. I have done some experiments that support this. here is a simple one that you can do that requires a tube amp, a variable power supply, and some FFT software (downloadable) and a PC with a sound card:
Connect the power supply into a tube amplifier such that you can adjust the plate voltage and bias voltage. Put on some music that you are familiar with. Adjust the plate voltage and bias voltage (tube current) until you get the most pleasing sound. Then connect up the FFT analyzer and measure the harmonic spectrum of the analyzer. In my case only 2nd and 3rd harmonics were visible. Amp was an SE 45. Then you can adjust the tubes operating point for a different harmonic signature (make sure that you don't exceed the specs) and re-listen to the same music. If you are using a SE amp, there are operating points that have many higher order harmonics, or those that have 2nd lower than 3rd, you might find that they don't sound as good.
The thesis also condems any amplifier design that uses large amounts of feedback to correct nonlinearities in the basic amplifier. I have built a few (P-P tube) amplifiers that were equipped with variable global feedback. Thes were listened to by many users in several different situations. Most people agreed that low, or no feedback resulted in a more realistic experience for most music. The people who prefered dance, rap, or techno music tended to prefer (lots) more feedback. Some people who normally listened to multi Gigawatt home theater systems also prefered some feedback, although more than one remarked that they had never heard any thing like the tube amp. Obviously musical preference will strongly influence your chioce of amplifier.
Not so difficult, just more expensive. SE up to 30 watts are pretty straight forward. It is difficult to get SE transformers above 50 watts, and many transformer designers believe that the limit is about 100 watts.
planet10 said:
Touche!
Without jumping back in, I must say I would love to have that just to look nice on my equipment rack!
Can I just hook up some tubes to glow and look at but still use my amp? 😀
Yeah, I am having trouble watching and typing at the same time.
I built a P-P 300B (the 300Beast) based on his design, back when the magazine article was published. I used cheap OPT's and generic parts. That amp remains connected into my system today, and gets used often. It sounds awesome (no feedback of any kind), the best punch of all my amps. I use two SE amps and a SS amp, all easilly selectable.
Whenever I am experimenting with a new amp design, it gets compared to each of these. They get the usual battery of testing also, as well as a tweaking of the operating points to optimize the harmonic signature, backed up by listening tests.
Going by what the RCA Radiotron Designers Handbook recommends, a 200 watt SE OPT (one channel) should weigh over 90 pounds.
I've got some 200W PSE 300B trannies under the bench, along with their parafeed chokes... Each measure about 14 inches on a side. The set weighs 550lb.
Attachments
Woah! 200 watts PPPPPPPPPPPPSE 300B's that would take at least 20 tubes per channel. Tube cost alone would stop me from building this one. The plate current would be about an amp! Where did you find such things?
I have got some 2HY 1.5 amp chokes. They weigh about 75lbs each. Military surplus.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.