A Good Stereo?

I think dynamics is more applicable to speaker then amp.dynamic range of a media or piece of equipment is defined as the difference between the loudest sound and the noise floor. The noise floor occurs when the signal has the same volume as the noise the equipment outputs.It is not the difference of loudest and softest.

IMHO even world best designed tubes can't perform as good as soild state.This is proved my many.Still we are in bronze age or the vintage obsession.Give me a break!.Tubes are good for RF transmitters and microoven!(I know people have preference and I am not questioning it here.

manz_blr schrieb:

IMHO even world best designed tubes can't perform as good as soild state.This is proved my many.Still we are in bronze age or the vintage obsession.Give me a break!.Tubes are good for RF transmitters and microoven!(I know people have preference and I am not questioning it here.

Run Run...Fast... ...

Hey abhi..long tome no see. how is the integeration of the Audiophile phase to fatherhood turning out ?

Manz_blr... run and hide.

Oh Oh so my guess is not wrong lot of tube fanz eh!

manz_blr schrieb:

Oh Oh so my guess is not wrong lot of tube fanz eh!

How did you guess

manz_blr schrieb:

IMHO even world best designed tubes can't perform as good as soild state.This is proved my many.

i think you got it right! its 'soild' state chuck em out! get in the tubes!

no offence just pulling your leg. couldn't resist seriously though solid state has advantages over tubes and vice versa. dont think one can state one is better. similarly with single driver and multiple driver systems.
incidentally since you're in bangalore if you want to hear an SET with an open mind drop in!

abhi you've got a new loudspeaker in the house to add to the sound?? is congratulations in order?

viren schrieb:

Hi Steve, Valve amps excell here, especially the SET amp, in portraying the gentlest of sounds so clearly. Viren

hi viren,

very true. because of that characteristic one can hear more of the subtle sounds/ambient cues/incidents that give a performance its unique character. i've always found in any field/product, not only music, getting upto 90-95% or so is easy. it's the finer incremental % points after that which make it sublime and give it that indefinable something special.

regards

Yeah, I know tube has it own charisma.

As some body told Nothing is wrong with tubes.Neither there is nothing wrong with gold teeth even for upper incisors,it is just we have modern offering at attractive price and less maintenance.
Having said this much I know I am almost killed.
And I can see my death by silence all the gurus!.
Having shed lot of money what else we can do!.

I am tube fan

I agree for 8 watt SET amp there is no soild amp counter part

1) It is the "Pair" that matters...not "amp" alone.

Good Dymanics and Transient response....require not just a good amp...but also a good speaker. It is the pair that makes the difference.



2) Commerial limitation vs. technical facts !!

I do not think Solid State is poorer than tube ... in terms of "Ability" to reproduce good amount of "dynamics".

However ... if u compare most of commercially available solid state amplifiers...they are just built to a cost..and severely compromised..and so are the speakers. (too many and ...quality compromised)

Tube amp .. seem to have very limited following. Even some of the smallest manufacturers of tube amp...really make excellent products. (less and focused...good quality ..as target audience are dicering about thier choice)

Conclusion :

I assume it a question of bad quality "mass market products" vs niche products...rather than tube vs. solid state.

manz_blr schrieb:

IMHO even world best designed tubes can't perform as good as soild state.This is proved my many.

well that acronym in bold is what perhaps saved you..

manz,

an article for you.

regards

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.




It doesn't matter if your listening to ten or a hundred watts, the most dynamic range occurs in the first watt of playback. It calculates out to around 30dB of dynamic range in the first watt. The second watt adds another 3 dB. The power must be doubled for each 3dB of increase. In audio, power comes with diminishing returns.

A typical noise floor in a small apartment is around 45dB during the day. The softest tone the human ear hears at 1000 Hz is about 5 dB. (a tone that is just audible at 30 Hz must be a at least 60 dB.)

In a 600,000 cubic feet concert hall a full symphony orchestra can reach an spl of 120 dB at the listeners ear. The original power required to reach this level by the orchestra is staggering. However to transpose this down to a say 4800 cubic foot listening room the power required to reach the same spl would be much less. Assuming the listener sits about 8 feet away from the speakers, if his goal was to reach an spl of 120 dB he would need approximately 40 acoustical watts. There are speakers today with efficiencies as low as 0.1 percent. The most efficient speakers available are close to 40 percent. The 0.1 percent would require 400 times more power than the 40 percent efficient speaker. In fact to reach 120 dB at 8 feet from the 0.1 percent would require 40,000 watts, where the 40 percent speaker would need only 100 watts.

You might think there is a huge difference between a 2 watt Zen triode amp and say a 120 watt solid state amplifier but in reality its only 20dB difference. On a 100 dB efficient speaker, 2 watts is 103dB and the bigger amps 128 watts is 121 dB. If you set the volume dial for a peak level of 100 dB (way louder than the average listening level in the home) there is no difference between the 2 watt amps and the 120 watt, 250 watt, or 40,000 watt amps. Gotta have that extra 20 dB of dynamic range, turn down the noise floor - listen at night. This will sound far superior to the same dynamic window during the day with a larger amp since there is 20 dB less ambient noise polluting the sound you hear.

For what it's worth.

Hmmm..if you google you can find lot of articles against tube by widely accepted audiophile's also.I am not against tube,but think it is heavy,maintaince pain and lot of pain and if the job can be done by cheaper soild i would lean towards that.
The "warm" tone which tube has(ie relaxed top end and soft bass, but an excellent midrange) was due to limiations of that era.But modern design have improve it.

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_sound is a good read

But people who love that just love that.
I think this was mainly carried by audiophile who put there shadows across both era.And they compared the best valve with newbie soild.

I am not sure if i have heard a good tube you are talking about.May be my ignorance.
But in the end it is all about you enjoying your box.

:)enjoy maadi

hi manz,

you completely missed the point. that was info on dynamic range since you have a perception that dynamic range = loudness. it was not intended to convert you to tubes. it really does not make a difference to me whether you like solid state or tubes. would rather spend the time listening than trying to convert people and if you read carefully he also states the kind of speakers that are needed to get the effect so its not only tubes or solid state. its a pairing like siva mentioned earlier.

regards

manz_blr schrieb:

Hmmm..if you google you can find lot of articles against tube by widely accepted audiophile's also.I am not against tube,but think it is heavy,maintaince pain and lot of pain and if the job can be done by cheaper soild i would lean towards that. The "warm" tone which tube has(ie relaxed top end and soft bass, but an excellent midrange) was due to limiations of that era.But modern design have improve it. I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_sound is a good read But people who love that just love that. I think this was mainly carried by audiophile who put there shadows across both era.And they compared the best valve with newbie soild. I am not sure if i have heard a good tube you are talking about.May be my ignorance. But in the end it is all about you enjoying your box. :)enjoy maadi

Articles supporting tubes and SS are there all over the place. As Siva said, the issue is not with the technology, it is the implementation that matters. There are good and bad examples of both.
Having said that, I do not agree to your assumptions about the limitations of Tubes and advantages of SS. Both have its adv / dis adv. It all matters what is important to you.

Forget what you have read on the net , wiki etc… Can you give us examples of your first hand experiences with comparing the best SS with the best Tube implementation in the same room with the same or matching assisting equipment / music and let us know your observations ?
Btw: I have not heard any “soft bass” or “relaxed top end” in a well implemented tube design.

I never told dynamic range =loudness
I said "I think dynamics is more applicable to speaker then amp.dynamic range of a media or piece of equipment is defined as the difference between the loudest sound and the noise floor. The noise floor occurs when the signal has the same volume as the noise the equipment outputs.It is not the difference of loudest and softest.".

I agree with Shiva's point.Both have it own advantage and dis, we have choosen what we think is best.Tubes also have gone a long from 60th and 70th.And tubes of that age was "warm".Not tubes also have improved.

ciao

manz_blr schrieb:

Tubes also have gone a long from 60th and 70th.And tubes of that age was "warm".Not tubes also have improved.

Sorry, didn't quite get that!!