Tube/Valve vs Solid State Amps

Manish Pal Bronze Member Username: Pal Pune, Maharashtra India Post Number: 34 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Tuesday, June 22, 2004 - 19:36 GMT I was just wondering, do the Tube/Valve based amps really sound different than the Solid State Amps ? If yes then why ? Also which ones are better in terms of musicality ?
Berny Silver Member Username: Project6 Post Number: 895 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 12:23 GMT Have you heard them both? "Which ones are better in terms of musicality?"---Wow, if that question is not a spark for a revolution of debate... I am surprised no one has jumped on this one, yet! Manish, on the issue of which ones are better is really up to the person listening and what their preferences are. You will not get an answer here that will lead to the correct answer, because the correct answers are true to whomever believes it. The tube believer will prefer the sound of tubes and defend vehemently and the solid state believer will do the same. And there is no way you can tell that one person is right over the other. Listen, chose and decide!
Berny Silver Member Username: Project6 Post Number: 896 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 12:24 GMT Have you heard them both? "Which ones are better in terms of musicality?"---Wow, if that question is not a spark for a revolution of debate... I am surprised no one has jumped on this one, yet! Manish, on the issue of which ones are better is really up to the person listening and what their preferences are. You will not get an answer here that will lead to the correct answer, because the correct answers are true to whomever believes it. The tube believer will prefer the sound of tubes and defend vehemently and the solid state believer will do the same. And there is no way you can tell that one person is right over the other. Listen, choose and decide!
Timn8ter Silver Member Username: Timn8ter Seattle, WA USA Post Number: 101 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 13:44 GMT Agreed. You have to decide for yourself. This question always leads to very heated debates. I can only offer my opinion. When I've used low priced power amps (sub $300) the tube amps I've used are without question superior in terms of musicality. They are however very low power (8 watts or less) and require efficient speakers. In the upper price ranges ($500 to $20,000) it gets increasingly difficult to tell the difference as the price goes up. I can say that every time I listen to a quality tube amp setup I have a Wow! experience. I can't say that for every SS system I've heard. Generally, I find that solid state systems, especially those with digital sources, sound a bit lifeless, lacking the 3D effect of good analog systems and I've heard some very, very good systems. From what I've found out, good SET tube amps use little or no feedback to reduce the THD rating whereas in SS amps it's practically a necessity. Feedback helps the THD rating but increases upper harmonics. Here's a great article on the subject that may help explain why. http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/FindingCG.html Other than that you'll have to go out and listen for yourself.
Timn8ter Silver Member Username: Timn8ter Seattle, WA USA Post Number: 102 Registered: Dec-03	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 15:54 GMT Here's some more. Most people have assumed that a 2 to 8 watt per channel SET amp wouldn't have the balls to get out of it's own way. It couldn't possibly have any real bass, but we hear the midrange is to die for. Most people would also assume the only way to hear any dynamics from a flea powered amplifier is to use big nasty horn speakers so really what is the point? All of these assumptions are probably a side effect of the general direction that high-end audio has taken since the 1960's. Solid state has made high power affordable for everyone so the loudspeaker industry responded by making speakers less efficient to both reduce their size and flatten their response. Despite popular belief, you do not need horn speakers to use or enjoy a SET amplifier. You can also find many horn speaker designs that sound wonderful, better than wonderful in fact, so the question then becomes this: What are the advantages are to using SET amps with high efficiency speakers? To answer this, lets start with the advantages of a SET amplifier over any other type. A Single Ended Triode is the simplest circuit design there is, using the least number of parts. Typically this is a driver stage coupled to a single output device. Triodes do not require negative feedback, something found in most all push-pull circuits, solid state or tube. Negative feedback is used to lower distortion specs and in the case of solid state devices it is often the only thing keeping the transistors from exploding all over the inside of your amplifier. Feedback a problem? If you don't mind the time smear it creates and the resulting 2 dimensional sound stage, then no I guess it's probably not. Aside from the amplifier's superiority by simplicity, there is a more profound reason for using SET amplifiers. The magic predominately lies in the first watt. By magic I mean inner detail and most of the dynamics. For example, a pair of 96dB speakers playing with one watt of power against the average noise floor in your listening room (55dB) is 40 dB of dynamic range. (96 -- 55 = 41 dB) Adding a second watt increases the dynamic range by only 3 dB. For every additional 3 dB you need to double your power. This should clearly illustrate that there is over 10 times the dynamic range in the first watt as there is in the second. This brings us directly to loudspeakers. A typical loudspeaker today is 86 dB efficient with 1 watt. It also usually has a complex crossover that attempts to keep the frequency response and impedance flat. The crossover alone will usually dissipate a significant portion of the first watt as heat before it even reaches the drivers. To reach the same loudness level as the 96 dB speaker will with 1 watt requires over 8 watts on the 86dB speaker. If we used 2 watts on the 96 dB speaker the other would require 16 watts to keep up. If we used 4 watts on the 96 dB speaker the other would require 32 watts to keep up. The problem here is resolution. If you can't hit a listening level with the 1st watt, you're not likely to hear what's happening in that 1st watt. For a driver to achieve a high efficiency it's moving parts must be low in mass. That makes it dramatically faster or more accurate than a speaker with heavier moving parts. If you like inner detail and want to hear all of the textures and layers of a good recording you need fast, efficient and coherent speakers. A good SET amp combined with a single full range driver with no crossover or a simple 2-way using minimal crossover parts on the tweeter only, has a purity and depth that you simply don't find in more conventional systems. It is a benchmark for coherency, and noted for its ability to create hauntingly real holographic sound stage. Bass and dynamics with this combination sound more realistic in part from the tremendous speed and in part from the coherency. I've consulted many people about their audio systems, and the most common complaints include dry somewhat fatiguing sound with a fairly boring soundstage followed by the realization that it simply doesn't connect you to the music emotionally like it could. Experience has taught me that by far the easiest way to get a liquid sound that becomes holographic with stunning clarity and detail, something that excites the listener, is to set him up with an SET and simple pair of efficient speakers. It also usually ends up being the least expensive solution. The biggest conformation of this is reports from audiophiles who used to have several hundred watts and many thousands of dollars invested in show winning audio gear, but now report that even a good 2 watt SET on efficient speakers has better dynamics and weight which they find simply amazing. If you've ever observed how audiophiles rotate through audio gear during their lifetime you might also find it interesting that the ones who finally land on SET amps and good speakers seldom find anything they like better. The bigger is better mentality that is directly connected to more expensive the better is certainly the handicap that stunts most audiophiles from discovering truly high fidelity sound. Will the guys at the audio salon laugh... yes the will. Will your fellow audiophiles laugh when they hear you sold everything and got a 2-watt amplifier... yes the will. Is this important to you? Only you can decide, but I would suggest it has little to do with high fidelity. In closing, remember this -- It is dangerous to place amplifiers, speakers, cables etc., into neat little categories in an effort to make some sense of it all. Not all tube amps sound good. Not all solid- state amps sound bad. With the Internet audiophiles have been set free to research things in a far more unbiased way then ever before. Before the Internet there were only trade magazines, and manufacture's literature to educate us all and it goes without saying -- fairly biased sources. Of course the Internet is full of misinformation, some intentional, some out of ignorance, but at least you can find all sides and make your own determinations.
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 17:18 GMT The discussion of tube vs. transistors is a debate that has gone on for decades. It is a subject of continuing speculation, postulation and experimentation. The proponents from both camps are committed to the "logic" of their arguments. The periodical, "The Absolute Sound", has recently published a discussion panel that explored the differences that several well seasoned listeners percieve in terms of the technical explanation and simply what they hear as differences. Four panelists gave four different answers to the technical reasons, this month the letters section has responses from five readers who give five different reasons for the differences between the two technologies. The speculation is endless. There have been attempts to create solid state devices called Field Effect Transistors (FET) that operate more like tubes and less like bipolar transistors. These attempts have been more or less a wash as they are devices that simply sound different from either tubes or bipolars. Of all these devices the MOSFET probably comes closest to replicating the sound of a tube. This points up the fact that in tubes, triodes sound different than pentodes, beam power or transmision type tubes. In solid state, bipolar, MOSFETS and J-FETS all have a distinct sound. The circuits to drive these devices also vary in complexity which will affect the sound quality and cost. I have, in this forum, said I find it interesting that in the almost fifty years since the transistor was introduced the general effort in audio has been to make a transistor that sounds more like a tube while the effort in tubes has been to make tubes sound more like music. This seems to be an admission of the inherent strengths and weaknesses of both devices. In twenty five years of selling high end audio I never worked with anyone who listened for the exact same qualities that I thought were important to reproducing music. We mostly all listened for similar qualities but put their importance in different degrees of importance to each listener. We could all agree on what equipment we thought was good but for different reasons. And I never worked with anyone who had the same equipment I owned. So personal preferrences will determine whether you like what tubes will do for a system. It was, however, very rare to have someone as coworker or client who had been listening to solid state who was not impressed when they heard my tube based system. One of the aspects of tubes is a maintanence issue. Tubes are not, as some would tell you, less reliable than transistors. The failure rate by proportion on both devices is very similar in well designed equipment. But tubes wear out and need to be replaced. How often is a function of the design and placement in the circuit. But before I took someone to owning tubes I tried to make them aware of the responsiblilities of ownership that go along with tubes. In a short answer to your question, you will have to listen and decide which suits your tastes. But be aware that like V8's vs. v6's or digital cameras vs. film cameras, there are good and bad designs in both camps and you should not decide the quality of either based upon your experience with one product alone.
Manish Pal Bronze Member Username: Pal PuneIndia Post Number: 37 Registered: Apr-04	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 18:01 GMT wow that was real informative......and has set me to read more n more just a small point which came to my mind...based on what you explained, i guess SET amps should work well with electrostatic speakers...? hope u guys don't mind my stupid questions....i'm just trying to learn more...
J. Vigne Unregistered guest	Posted on Wednesday, June 23, 2004 - 18:54 GMT Unlikely an SET with 8 watts or so will be able to manage well with the electronics involved in the electrostatics. If that is your choice I would say you will be looking at a fairly powerful SET which are hard to come by. As Timn8ter has laid out above most people are unaware of the amount of volume a 15-25 watt amp can produce. But speaker efficiency is important with an SET and most electrostatics are not efficient speakers. If you can live with moderate volumes and your room isn't very large (another problem with electrostatics as they usually need about 8-10 feet listening distance) you could find a great system.

« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Main Forums

Forum Help

Follow Us