I hear they are warmer, but everyone that I have heard hisses.
G-Man
Posted on
Whatever a vacuum tube can do in audio equipment solid-state does better, more reliably, cheaper, and cooler. Just as we all know that heat is the enemy of car motors, we should similarly know that heat is the enemy of electronics---and tubes create a lot more heat than solid state devices.
The world's best designed tube amplifier will have higher distortion than a competently designed transistor amplifier. And it most certainly will need more servicing (tube replacements, re-biasing, etc) during its lifetime.
Regarding the supposed "warmth" of tube sound, since solid state passes a less distorted signal that is more identical to what it is "fed" than do tube amplifiers or preamps---the sound can only be explained by one, two, or all of the following.
1) inherent distortion in the design 2) deliberate coloration introduced by the manufacturer to appeal to "corrupted" tastes 3) A figment of the audiophile's imagination that has been passed down as "truth"----like speaker wire BS :-)
IMHO---Why use an antiquated, less reliable, and inferior technolgy---when a better and cheaper one exists?
A horse and buggy may get you 2,000 miles, but I prefer a good car.
LaRon
Posted on
Thanx, I knew they sucked but old guys keeped telling me they were great.
G-Man
Posted on
The reason it is mostly older guys is because they are mostly the ones that own the tube companies, the manufacturers of equipment, and the publishers. It is audio salon owners that sell most of this expensive stuff, many audiophile magazines that promote it(look at all the tube equipment that is advertized in them), and the sad misinformed customer that is victimized by the code words, belief systems, and junk science.
But I know plenty of young guys that buy into this nonsense. It is like a religion. They are flattered to be included in the "quackery" of the audio priesthood. You never read an audio engineer print in a peer reviewed journal any of this tube nonsense or talk about advantages of tubes-- or find a state of the art recording studio that uses tube equipment.
Derek
Posted on
I agree with G-Man 100%. Tube amps ARE less accurate than transister amps. When the transisters were starting to take the place of tubes, they weren't very powerfull and transisters inherantly clip very suddenly. The tube amps though less accurate (warm) where easier on the ears.
Those problems have been solved today though things like soft-clipping circuitry and high dyanmic headroom (Carver, Proton, NAD etc.).
Less accurate, less power, less reliablity with more heat and more cost? PLEASE!
Hope that helps.
G-Man
Posted on
Right on Derek---Obviously a good engineer can build a good tube amp or a good solid state amp that performs to spec and is pleasing. The only advantage a tube amp may have is that tubes "clip" very mildly and don't get harsh like solid state does. However, I have never clipped a well made and sufficiently powered solid state amp. I have clipped a few tube amps. I am always far more annoyed by the loudspeaker distorting way before the amp clips. But I haven't bought a receiver or amp that has less than 100 watts/channel in more than 15 years.
All things being equal, most people who at times want to listen to music/movies at very loud volumes should be interested in having a powerful amp with good "headroom" (amps---push behind the electrons). This ensures that the movie explosions and the musical blasts in Rock and Symphonic music don't clip the amp and allow the loudspeakers to have all the "clean" power they can handle before the loudspeaker distorts too much. You always want the loudspeaker---not the amp--to be the limiting factor.
The sad fact with tube amps is they are rarely above 50 watts per channel---and when they are the price is astronomical. You could buy a great 200 watt per channel solid state amp for a lot less than most 50 watt tube amps, nevermind 100 watt/channel tube amps.
Anonymous
Posted on
It depends on your application. If you guys are using low-efficiency speakers (which will inherently restrict dynamics), you will not be able to use anything less than megabuck solid state (cheap solid state + metal tweeters = AARRRGGGHHH) or really $$$$ tubes. If you buy a nice high impedence, high sensitivity speaker, you can buy a very nice tube amp for a fraction of the solid state garbage and get incredible sound. (You'll finally learn what they mean by microdynamics). I even used my ASL tube amp for home theater, and while it wasn't a 250 watt plinius, I had no complaints. I didn't need the headroom - my speakers were very sensitive Ref 3a's. In general, though, SS is the way to go for HT. But let me give you some free advice - ditch the 4 ohm, 86 db speaks and get something with sane specs and highly-regarded tube amp. If you don't like the sound, you can always go back to what you had. But I don't think you'll even think of going back.
G-Man
Posted on
Anonymous---
I agree with the intelligence of matching speaker impedance and amplification. However, electricity doesn't care whether it comes through a tube or solid state. A well designed solid state amp passes an electrical signal with less distortion on all levels. It is a myth that it makes the input sound hard or any different from what the recording engineered passed to it. What you get out is what was given it. If you prefer a "tube" sound, the only explanation that is remotely logical is you like either the distortion or the altered output from the designer of the amp. To you it may sound better, but don't confuse that with passing a truer signal or hearing what the original recording engineer had in mind.
You will never find an electrical and/or acoustic engineer that agrees with your position. A great electrical engineer--like Bob Carver---markets some amps under the Sunfire name, where he alters the output to mimic a "tube" sound. Of course, Carver is aware that this is passing a less true signal. But he is also aware that giving "tube afficianado's" a choice will increase his market share.
gman--I am glad to see you listen with your test equipment. God gave us ears way beyond any capabilities of test equipment! After 20 years in this industry I can say that without hesitation the any absolute statement like either the "tube" camp or even the "solid state" is always better--is absurd! Different equipment intercts differently and if the purpose is to enjoy music(not specs on a paper)then I can tell you both camps have merit. Of interest is that all recording studio's --are dependant on a combination of both solid state and tubes--the case and point is--every major recording with any sonic merit uses tubes somewhere in its process to ensure the musicallity of the recording. The finest guitar players alive all use tubes--Do not throw tubes away because your test equipment does not live up to your hearing--or maybe in your case it does. Maybe test quipment is the limiting factor! My ears are far more discerning than that! Am I A Tube guy--No--I am looking for a system to realistically make music sound like music. Your arguments are all based upon The japanese spec game--The power race and thd race are long since gone. The real quest today is to make amps perform better in the real world using real word stuff (i.e. Speakers). Maybe you need to listen to music more and equipment less.
You see, I like that "tube"-sound but, It is not normal that every week you have get the amp fixed because it gets out of "shape"! I am sick of it!
I have a Peavey classic 30 and I like it when it´s in a good shape, the sound is great but the heat is killing me!
It´s like being in a sauna!
Now I have a buzzing sound in it, I don´t know who or what makes that sound but I have to get it fixed again, that is!
G-Man
Posted on
Audioman--
Your argument is the argument of every tweako--"You may have the science and numbers, but I have my ears". Of course, I have never met a tweako that could pass an ABX test on amplifiers when the db's are within 0.15 db's. They all fail.
"God gave us ears way beyond any capabilities of test equipment!" This statement is so ludicrous as to beggar description. Test equipment on sound is far more sensitive than the human ear. The human ear isn't all that sensitive---just ask your dog :-) Equipment can measure frequencies far below and far above what we can. Equipment can measure all types of distortion we cannot even discern. Equipment can measure to the thousandth of a db--the human ear cannot differentiate that.
Anything you hear from equipment is measurable. If it weren't, even tweako equipment couldn't be reproduced by the manufacturer with any degree of surety. To think that manufacturers of all stripes don't rely on measurable performance numbers is insane. All engineers that design and build equipment rely on numbers.
Whether or not an electric guitar player uses a tube amp or not is meaningless. It is an altered output anyway and electric guitarists are notorious for wanting even more alterations on the sound. Anyway, habit and "group think" effects what many groups think and do---from electric guitarists to different religious groups. Often it has nothing to do with reality, but with feeling comfortable in the group.
Tubes sound different because they are voltage controlled voltage sources. Many of today's top preamplifiers use Field Effect transistors, which have characteristics that are close to those of a tube. Better yet, MOSFET's are the solid state equivalent to tubes, and provide the ability to design simple circuits that voltage driven.
Low voltage sources can deliver very low current, which did not fit the capabilities of traditional bipolar devices. The invention of the Field effect transistor (FET), which has tube-like characteristics (high input impedence, voltage controlled voltage source) is the primary reason why we have low distortion solid state amplifiers.
Yes, tubes to sound different, as they give a sense of space to the music. This is most useful in certain types of music (classical, jazz) where the high dynamics of rock, rap, hard R&B may be better served by solid state amps. Of course, the solid state descendent of the tube (FET) is in there giving you a better sound.
Anonymous
Posted on
Tube amps have their applications. Yes, they are not as quiet as solid state amps, but I prefer them because my ears like the sound they produce. They seem to soften up harsh sounds, particularly digitized music. It's a matter of preference I guess. If tube amps sound "bad" (or not good as solid state), you have to wonder why so many professional musicians (particularly guitar players) use tube amps. Contrary to what people think, many guitar players use tube amps for cleaner sound.
Derek
Posted on
I think we need to decide what we want our equipment to do:
1. Some want the equipment to be part of the performance as in a tube electronic guitar amplifier where the ringing, harmonic distortion and gentle clipping is part or the guitar sound. I mean, have you listened to a guitar or synthesizer when it's not connected to an amp - pretty boring.
There may not be an acoustic sound to compare an amp to for comparison because so much of our music is electronic. Listening to guitar music on a fuzzy tube amp on a set of squawky stage monitor MAY ACTUALLY be appropriate for that type of music because (electric) guitars don't have a sound of their own. It's hard to reproduce and compare to other systems, though. Oh well. Other sounds, Organ music, the 1812 overture, movie recordings of bird calls or massive but detailed orchestral works would be completely lost on tube equipment because these sources require amps with high damping factor, low noise and a flat stable frequency response that isn't prone to oscillation. Tube amps just can't do that [easily].
2. The equipment should enhance the performance. This is the direction that Bose, BBE, SRS-Labs and a few of the garish DSP mode on almost all early signal processors. This is probably the most enjoyable music. Quite simply -- ignorance is bliss.
Most in this camp have never heard acoustic music or someone singing without microphone/amplification. All the music sounds good them because that's the way they have the bass and treble controls set. The only downside is that this person listening to this type of equipment is always missing something. Some good recordings may slip by because what's reaching the persons' ear has no resemblance to the actually recording, let alone what the recording engineer wanted. Oh well. It sure does sound "interesting" though.
3. The instrument should be a transparent reproduction device. This mind-set (I include myself in this group) wants what approaches the ear to be as close as possible to the actual recording.
Digital Audio, at first sounded unpleasant because the recording engineers were so used to compensating for the droopy responses on tape decks and over-driving digital recorders to fit the music above the tape deck noise floor. Neither of these were required for digital recordings. The same is true of transistor/tube amps. As unpleasant as some recordings sound, you are probably listening to the recording more accurately with a transistor amp in more cases compared to tube equipment. You're free to alter the music all you want to make it sound to your liking but once in a while a good recording will come along and surprise you. You are much more likely to hear it on a transistor amp and it's very easy to reproduce.
I will stick by my (and G-MANs) comments above.
Sorry to disappoint you.
Dick Hertz
Posted on
Tubes are not better...do you see any tube equipment in the space shuttle???
Isaac L
Posted on
Wow. I never thought I'd ever see a thread so absurd.
I'm not a sound guy. Not an electrician, engineer, or any of that such. Neither am I an entirely serious musician. However, I do know what I like and what I don't, and I know my hearing isn't out of whack.
Alright, all of you need to consider something. First of all, that much of the popular (guitar-based) music for the past fifty or so years has been based off distortion. Clipping. Unpleasant, unwanted acoustic crap that is not wanted anywhere in any other field of sound to my knowledge. Now, if so much of it is based off an unwanted effect that originally tubes had, why in God's name does audio fidelity, integrity, and remaining true to the source mean anything? Have you ever heard an electric guitar plugged into an amp not entirely designed for an electric guitar? It sounds flat, dull, and dead. Uninteresting and not pleasing to the ear. The amplifier in electric guitar-based music is as much of an instrument as the guitar is, with all of us properties adding to your sound.
Even things like Reverb - consisting of false frequencies not in tune with the original that created it from bouncing off other sources - are not at all a desirable thing, however in terms of guitars near always make the sound more pleasing to the ear? If you haven't noticed, we are most definately *not* computers or machines by any means. We can't discern tiny distortions or volume changes below a single decibal, and so just because something is "correct" does not by any means mean we'll enjoy it.
Facts: Tube amps are muddier. They distortion easier, but it's definately softer, more pleasing distortion. Also, G-man, I'm not sure where you got your information from, but you're entirely wrong on a few things. First of all, that tubes run hotter. You're right that they do, but it's not a valid point because transistors are *harder* to cool, and can't deal with high temperatures as well as tubes can. The transistor in say... a home stereo receiver needs a massive heatsink on it to keep it cool when an equivelent powered tube can operate without anything actively "cooling" it besides stationary air, or in extreme cases, a simple fan can cool it sufficiently. Tubes are *much* easier to cool, and can be by simple pumped air or water around them.
Now, all real-world applications use transistors for cleaner sound, or some such babble? Hardly. When something needs an extremely high level of power, tubes are used. Even today. Why? At lower power levels (let's say, a small gig's PA system or maybe even a smaller-sized concert) transistors can be used because you only need a few, and having equivelent powered tubes would simply be more difficult to use. However, in something like a radio station, tubes are even used today. For transistors at that power level, you need to do something like cascading (My memory's slipping tonight) all of them and using many more transformers, and then there's the problem of mixing all the signals from all the transistors to get your output. At that point, background noise becomes hideous and the heat levels way too high. So what does the radio station use? Tubes, because at that point they're cleaner (less hiss), easier to implement and are much, much easier to cool (a fan over the power tubes would do it) and not nearly as much current/voltage matching is needed as with transistors.
For lower power necessities, yes, transistors are better, cooler, and cheaper. However, there's a reason why almost every great guitarist has insisted on tubes in their amplifiers, and still do. There's also the fact that we're not computers, and perfect audio fidelity is rarely necessary. I personally don't care about what's "right" when it comes to music. I care about what sounds pleasing, which is near never what's absolutely "perfect."
Though, of course, it just depends on the situation.
Dick, your space shuttle comment is ridiculous. I mean, we all know all the high-fidelity audio power needed on the space shuttle. *rolls eyes*
Dick Hertz
Posted on
Yeah, I know it's ridiculous...just playing in the ridiculous thread in and of itself... To each his/her own is what I believe in. I'm actually surprised I haven't been flamed horrendously for that yet... *rolling eyes while pulling up flame retardant blanket*
G-Man
Posted on
"Even things like Reverb - consisting of false frequencies not in tune with the original that created it from bouncing off other sources - are not at all a desirable thing, however in terms of guitars near always make the sound more pleasing to the ear?"
We are talking about home applications--not guitar or studio applications.
Musical instrument amplifiers are fundamentally different from hifi or stereo amplifiers. Where stereo equipment is and should be as completely distortion and coloration free as humanly possible to design. Musical instrument amplifiers on the other hand have always had limitations, distortions, and coloration that musicians have exploited to make their music more expressive. It is that exploitation of defects for expressiveness that has come to be what we expect in the sound of a guitar amp. As a group, both musicians and audiences expect the kind of sound coloration that tubes add.
So to compare guitar amps and home consumer amps is nutty. In the home you want the most accurate amp possible. You want to hear what the recording engineer had in mind--even in the recording engineer used distorting tube amps--you don't want to add to that on your own--you want to accurately reproduce it on your system.
Why are you talking about guitar amps? People in this forum are looking for and talking about home theatre applications--not recording studio applications. They are two totally different things. People want to accurately reproduce the recorded signal--even if it has a twangy distortion on the cd--but they don't want to add to that distortion or twang with more unwanted break-up.
Who cares whether tubes or solid state are easier or not to cool? The bottom line is that hardly anyone ever replaces or needs to replace their transistors from heat degradation or from any other reason. Tubes always have to be re-biased and replaced. Heat is the big bugaboo of tubes.
What tube amps for the home are more powerful than solid state home amps---I am not talking about recording studios. There are lots of solid state 200 and 300 watt per channel home amps. I can't think of any home tube amps at 20o watts per channel--and tube amps cost a fortune.
Isaac L
Posted on
Didn't know you were *only* talking about home amplifiers. In that case, you're absolutely right on every aspect.
However, not in the case of larger amplification systems. Tubes remain overall more cost-effective on large-scale amplification.
DennisA
Posted on
I have a 30wpc tube amp which is 30 years old. It's never been re-biased or re-tubed. It get's used alot. I assure you it still sounds fabulous driving my 25 year old planar speakers. So, no they don't need all that maintenance you speak of.
Black Math
Posted on
It is a stupid argument. There are good tube products and good solid state products. There is no "high end" conspiracy pushing tubes. In fact, many publications praise products from Levinson, Krell, PS Audio, Bel Canto, Bryston, and Linn which are all solid state.
The facts are:
1. Any component's sound quality can degrade over time. Tubes may do this faster, but it still happens with solid state. There is a higher failure rate with tubes.
2. They don't mass produce vaccum tubes anymore, so they are going to be more expensive than transistors.
3. There are fantastic tube amps and fantastic solid state amps.
4. You can easily customize the sound of tube equipment by using different tube combinations. You can do this with solid state gear, but is is difficult and I would not advise doing it (unless you want to risk ruining your equipment)
5. If you like tubes better then you are right.
6. If you prefer solid state, you are right.
The most important thing is being happy with your equipment.
If you have the remastered CD recording of "Kind of Blue" (Columbia/Legacy CK 64935O) and read the back of the case, you will see that it was originally recorded and remastered on an all-tube-three-track Presto machine. This is an example of a state of the are recording using tubes. Whether you like the album, or not I dare anybody to find a better engineered red book CD. There are modern artists that make brilliant recordings with tube equipment. It all depends on the guys recording, mixing, and mastering the recording, not if it was done with anolog, digital, tube, or solid state equipment.
Anonymous
Posted on
Correct me if I am wrong, but in the late 80's wasn't the "crown jewel" in the Carver line a pair of cost-no-object tube mono amps? I have read that Bob Carver is a tube guy at heart. His Sunfire amps have also had tube stages in them.
I'm not saying that tubes are better, but maybe Carver produced solid state amps to "feed the masses" and the real passion was tubes.
Food for thought...
mozart
Posted on
the best audio device is that thing between our head,go to the audio store listen and then decide what best for you .It may be a $50 amp or a $1500 amp,the important thing is that after a hard days work you can sit back and listen to your hearts content.
G-Man
Posted on
A fascinating interview with Bob Carver that addresses some of the above issues. "Anonymous"--Yes, Carver had a love affair with tube equipment as a youngster--but no--all his current amps are solid-state. He just makes some models with alterred outputs to mimic a tube sound. If you read the interview--he will explain it far better than me. Actually, Carver likes the "airy" mid-range and top end of quality tube sound. But he prefers the solid-state handling of the bottom end. So in his dual output Sunfire models he prefers to send the output of the tube-sounding signal to the midrange/tweeter of a speaker and then sending the solid-state output to the woofer.
So maybe I will buy one or more of his products and try them out. His genius of design will allow me to listen to either a tube sound and a solid state sound--ALL BUILT OUT OF SOLID STATE. Maybe this is the best of all worlds--but his products are not inexpensive. But one could never buy a quality tube amp with Sunfire high watt output at anywhere near his prices. I'll have to go somewhere and listen to his products. Lord knows, he is probably the greatest engineer alive in the audio industry today--even when I don't concur with his personal sound preferences.
GB: Your power amplifiers have two sets of output terminals: one for current source and one for voltage source. What's the point?
BC: The voltage source has very low output impedance like a solid-state amplifier, so it has the sound of a solid-state amp. The current source has output impedance like a vacuum-tube amp, so it sounds more like a vacuum-tube amplifier. With the current-source output, the output impedance is exactly one ohm. We did a survey of tube amps and they average about an ohm. Obviously, the point of this exercise was to build a solid-state amplifier that also could sound like a tube amplifier.
GB: Does the difference between tube and solid-state sound come down just to output impedance?
BC: Not entirely, but almost entirely. Over ninety per cent of the sound quality that we typically attribute to vacuum tubes comes from the output impedance.
GB: Many people think the output transformer, and associated factors like soft clipping and core saturation, create the tube sound. Does the transformer raise output impedance, and thus create tube sound?
BC: The forward impedance of the output tubes and the transformer together usually comes out at about 10 ohms. When you use 20 dB of feedback, it reduces it to around one ohm. That's basically what a vacuum-tube amplifier is all about.
GB: If output impedance is what creates tube sound, why did you build the Silver Seven tube amplifiers at Carver many years ago? Why not just add a resistor to a conventional amplifier, as you've done with the Sunfire amps to generate the current-source output?
BC: Building a big tube amplifier was a dream I had carried with me since my childhood, when I saw a big beautiful McIntosh in a window. I went to college, went into the service, got married, had children. When I finally got around to building my dream amplifier, it got rave reviews by guys like Bascom King and Harry Pearson. Those guys love tubes in the first place. Also, I hadn't really thought about making a tube amplifier out of solid-state at the time. It took a number of years for that germ of a thought to take place.
GB: After you've designed an amplifier, does listening to it change the design?
BC: Not appreciably. But it changes some of the finishing touches. After I built the original Sunfire amplifier, I listened to it alongside a Silver Seven. The Silver Seven sounded like a tube amp and the Sunfire sounded like a solid-state amp. I modified the circuits slightly, so that the Sunfire sounded as close as I could possibly make it to the vacuum-tube amp. Part of that was putting in the one-ohm resistor; but there were other things we had to do to get the two amps to sound as much alike as possible. Essentially, this involved giving it the distortion profile of a tube amplifier - in the current-source setting. So the consumer can set it for a tube-like sound by using those outputs, or having the solid-state sound, by using those outputs.
GB: How audible are the differences between solid-state amplifiers?
BC: What I'm going to say will fly in the face of what most people believe. I believe that you can take two solid-state amplifiers, and provided neither one is overloaded in any fashion, they'll sound identical. That's a big if. Amplifiers are overloaded in three basic ways. They're overloaded in amplitude; they've overloaded in current; they're overloaded in speed. It's very easy to do this if you don't have a big juicy amplifier. Obviously a little Radio Shack amplifier is not going to be able to touch a big Jeff Rowland or a Mark Levinson or a Sunfire amplifier. Provided the amplifier has flat frequency response and sufficiently low distortion, both of which are trivial these days, and provided there are no interface problems, the differences will always be the subtle differences associated with overload, either momentarily, like slew-rate limiting or clipping, or just running out of drive current. So basically, all solid-state amps sound the same, except for rare overloaded instances.
GB: Can home audio reproduction get much better than it is now?
BC: It can get a lot better. Some day, your audio system is really going to fool you, so that you can close your eyes and believe you're in the presence of a real live orchestra. Today even the best systems can't do that.
GB: That sounds like getting the room to disappear. Some companies have spent a ton of money trying to do that, and haven't succeeded.
BC: Either the room has to disappear, which is very difficult Ä maybe insurmountably difficult, or we have to make the room part of the acoustic venue, and work with the room. That would be my approach.
GB: But you listen to an orchestra in a hall hundreds of feet long and wide. The largest home listening rooms are tens of feet long and wide. How do you bridge that gap?
BC: Here's one way to do it. Get two small speakers, like Cinema Ribbons, and put them at arms' length in front of you in the middle of the room. Then use crosstalk cancellation, and make a special recording so that what we would hear is so much in the near field that the bounces from the room walls are insignificant. Or we could use a very large room with lots of sound absorbing material - lots of traps everywhere. Then use lots of speakers, or two speakers with Sonic Holography, or a combination of both.
Joong-In Rhee
Posted on
I like the sound of tubes although I also like the Solid State. They are a different animal with their own charm to them. Tubes have magic - warm, smooth, harmonically rich, and solid states are faster and more satisfying dynamically. You should hear them and decide fo r your self which is your cup of tea.
Joong-In Rhee
Posted on
I like the sound of tubes although I also like the Solid State. They are a different animal with their own charm to them. Tubes have magic - warm, smooth, harmonically rich, and solid states are faster and more satisfying dynamically. You should hear them and decide for your self which is your cup of tea.