Tube v/s SS

Hi,

Let's start first on a philosophical level - why is it that we always compare the sound of solid-state amps to that of valve amps; how close is that solid-state sound to valve sound?

Why not how close valve sound is to solid-state sound?

Is there something inherent in valve amplifiers that makes listening to music more pleasurable?

That said, there are many approaches to good sound. A good designer will use an approach that appeals to him or her, and implement it well, be it solid-state or valve. There is no one characteristic that overides; its how well the whole concept is implemented. And how well the compromises in design are handled.

The examples you cite are the result of good design. You can enjoy listening to music through them as well. How close one amp comes to another, in terms of YOUR PREFERENCES, only you can decide, by listening and comparing. Beware of going solely by independent reviews!

Viren.

Hi all,

Viren has written a few words, but its real meaning do run into hundreds of pages.

That is philosophy

I have gone through Solid state and tubes and ultimately settled on the tube sound of thing, to me its just more alive and involving in comparison to Solid State. I know there would be a lot of people there saying that SS is more neutral or for that matter can be made to sound like Tubes but when one listens to a half-decent tube design it would smash the SS setup without fail.

I have owned CJ2500A, SF Anthem PVA7, NAD S200, and heard many others but until one doesn’t chant the $10,000+ territory a $3,000 tube will better it, there are a few exceptions though eg Belles which SMASHED all the above Solid state amps at a fraction of the price $1,000.

The best solid-state amp that I have heard is a Gryphon Signature series but then that retails for $25,000 and the other, which is nice, is a Gamut D200.

I guess the problem with tubes is that one has to carefully choose the right speaker that is relatively easy to drive and then your in business.

Viren: The reason always a SS design is compared to a Valve is because transistors were just too harsh in comparison they never had the refinement of tubes........ Again the same thing holds true for Digital V/S Analog, a $3,000 TT will SMASH a 10,000 CD Player (Wadia, AA, Metronome...)


Regards,
Satyam

SS is better any day why buy a dying technology when world is at your finger tips.But it's some senior citizens stuff where young brats like me are warned to stay out.So I'm happy with me.

I find the sound from tube amps ofcourse cheaper ones like Cayin TA-30,PrimaLunaetc non real and with bloated vocal sound from Tube amp. A solid state amp like quad 909(neutral and musical)could be a good solution for someone wanting to have both the world.

TROJAN_HORSE schrieb:

SS is better any day why buy a dying technology when world is at your finger tips.But it's some senior citizens stuff where young brats like me are warned to stay out.

Not a very true statement- both the old part and the dyinng part. there are many young audiophiles who are only onto tubes..In fact most DIYers are into that.

I even know a 17 year old Tru Blue Audiophile who only DIYs and is purely onto tubes

anyway it is not worth it to get into a Tubes vs SS debate as depending on the impementation they can sound quite a bit like each other. so the cocept of Tubey sound or Solid state slam are quite interchangeable !

I would really really like you to make that statement in AA and get away with it

What is AA..

abhi.pani schrieb:

What is AA.. :?

www.AudioAsylum.Com

age has got nothing to do with what equipment one likes, its just a preference that one enjoys

satyam

the fact is that the so called "dying technology" of tubes has so much to offer...:-)

As long as analogue amps exist tubes will exist....and then some more as exotica.

But lets face it...tubes have that magic !

manek.

I meant AA as in Audio Analogue Puccini...
Yes Manek you are right,tubes have magic for sure,else would have died long back...

Guy's,

The taste of the pudding is in the eating.

I bought a tube from Viren on 'return-if-not-happy' basis and am trying it out right now.

It replaces the NAD320BEE in my configuration and that's what I would be comparing it to. Viren has priced it close to the NAD and so it's not out of reach vis-a-vis other tubes in the market.

I don't want to make any comments at this point in time, but those in to Jazz, vocals, western classical etc. must give it a shot. The best way to compare and evaluate has to be at leisure, at home. Viren suggests coupling it with a pair floor standers, but I am using it with a sub-sat configuration.

Those who are seriously curious may take Viren up on his offer. If I am not mistaken, his output is 2 per month and he does not expecting too many people to approach him.

Roshan.

I have been having a discussion with a friend on this very topic. I have heard a tube based setup, but not for extended periods.

My only point is if tubes have the magic, why are CDs and music mixed and mastered on SS equipment? Even audiophile grade recording companies like chesky records use SS equipment.

If you believe that Audio is the art of "production and reproduction" then the equipment that least distorts the signal is the aim. I am from that camp.

However, I know that many are of the "warm" musical camp. My wife was one of them, until she heard a Bryston/PMC Setup. We had heard many speakers and systems in the quest of purchasing involving musical floorstanders. The PMC to blew me away compared to totem, von schwiekert, dynaudio, thiel, JMLab, Dali, Jospeh Audio and etc....

Bryston and PMC speakers are used as monitors to mix, track and master dvds and CDs. They were the most accurate and revealing and were also the most invovling speakers I had ever heard. I purchased a pair of GB1s.

PMC is a hard company to find in the US. I was looking for stuff that pros use to make the music I listen to. I replaced a pair of B&W 602 s2.

Anyway, Audio is a prefernce in the end, Buy what sounds good to you and involves you.

oarnura,

Well if guys who master the cd's master it in SS equip, then why is it that artists making music i.e. esp guitarist’s make music on tube amps? I’ll answer my own question they do this because the distortion from tubes is sweet not something like SS; SS would either blow your drivers or sound extremely shrill.

Satyam.

The reasons gusitarists choose tubes has a basis in fact. Guitraists like to introduce distortion by overdriving.

Why would this distortion be good for reproduction? The CD you got was mastered by ear of a person or persons with an intention of putting into copy what they thought you should hear. Adding extra distortion to make it sound sweet or warm or any of the audio jargon is akin to saying adding ketchup to all my food makes it extra zingy. But doing so destroys the orginal flavours.

Many a times real instruments are hard, edgy and shrill. Why shouldn't your speakers or system reproduce them any differently. A real instrument being hard and edgy is still musical, right?


Your example of elecric guitars is noted. What about all the acoustic instruments that are recorded using Mics?

“The reasons gusitarists choose tubes has a basis in fact. Guitraists like to introduce distortion by overdriving. “


Totally Agree


“Why would this distortion be good for reproduction? The CD you got was mastered by ear of a person or persons with an intention of putting into copy what they thought you should hear. Adding extra distortion to make it sound sweet or warm or any of the audio jargon is akin to saying adding ketchup to all my food makes it extra zingy. But doing so destroys the orginal flavours. “

Majority of the sound engineers of the world in my opinion, for that matter majority of the audiophile community thinks they were deaf,
Now I guess you would like to counter my statement by saying that most of the audiophile labels make cd’s on SS equipment well there are enough labels who also make cd’s on Tube equipment I will back this by posting names of labels who do so later in the day as I don’t have the list with me at this moment.

If you use the analogy of food then say if the cook cook’s you a bad meal would you just gulp the meal or add salt, spice… to suite your taste? I’m quite certain you would either correct it or walk away from the table.


“Many a times real instruments are hard, edgy and shrill. Why shouldn't your speakers or system reproduce them any differently. A real instrument being hard and edgy is still musical, right?”

Again I agree real instruments are hard and edgy i.e. a Violin or even a piano is very difficult to reproduce but a tube is just a little bit easier not that SS is hard and edgy but its just different, I guess we all would agree that we listen to music to be involved and engaged to the experience not to be driven out of the room, also I would like to add that there are FANTASTIC SS amps out there but the Price goes drastically up to get the complex fidelity of a half priced tube amp most of the times.


“Your example of elecric guitars is noted. What about all the acoustic instruments that are recorded using Mics?”

Yes for sure I cant counter this objectively at this moment but will let you know in the evening after work


Regards,
Satyam.

" also I would like to add that there are FANTASTIC SS amps out there but the Price goes drastically up to get the complex fidelity of a half priced tube amp most of the times."

I can't agree with this statement. In my experience tubes tend to be very expensive for the wattage you recieve. Also there are limitations on what speakers you can drive with a low cost tube amp. And the cost of replacing the tube also needs to taken into consideration.

"If you use the analogy of food then say if the cook cook’s you a bad meal would you just gulp the meal or add salt, spice… to suite your taste? I’m quite certain you would either correct it or walk away from the table."

Well your analogy is more like the "recording engineer messed up" so the recording is bad. Do you listen to a badly recorded CD or not is a different question all together, Isn't it? Most indian movie Cds are engineered with over emphasised treble and can be considered bright recordings. I still listen to those very few well recorded hindi and tamil CDs and can tolerate a brightly mastered recording on my SS equipment.

BTW, salt, pepper and spices are seasoning and can be considered part of the ingredients of the food. Ketchup is a condiment and usually very few recipies call for it. Adding spices to a recording is closer to remixing and not modifiying the orginial with distortion.

I am a little loath to use my equipmet as tone controls. A cd is an image of an even it time and an accurate reproduction of the event is what I strive for. YMMV.

This is getting very much a hot topic eventhough the subject is older than most of us here

Satyam and Oarnura have taken very firm pro tube and pro SS stands respectively. I would like to pour some of my observations that can be dissected by all

1. Whenever there is a conversion of mechanical to Electrical or visa versa tubes seems to be able to handle the job better compared to SS. Ex. microphone preamps, phonopreamp and not speakers that offer not that complex loads.

2. Comparable Tube gears are cheaper than SS if you consider the quality of sound. Quantity vise SS is much cheaper.

3. Last but not least it is personal preference that has to give top priority. What is wrong if you can hear the music the way you like it to be heard through tube or SS.

"1. Whenever there is a conversion of mechanical to Electrical or visa versa tubes seems to be able to handle the job better compared to SS. Ex. microphone preamps, phonopreamp and not speakers that offer not that complex loads. "

I don't quite follow.


"2. Comparable Tube gears are cheaper than SS if you consider the quality of sound. Quantity vise SS is much cheaper."

Please provide a few examples of tube amps and SS amps you consider to be good. I am having a tough time with this.

I don't want to make this a hot topic. I am just trying to understand this facination with tubes. My status say "learning" after all.

Please read as

1. Whenever there is a conversion of mechanical to Electrical or visa versa tubes seems to be able to handle the job better compared to SS. Ex. microphone preamps, phonopreamp and poweramps with speakers offering a not that complex electrical load.

I am talking about the first active device used to amplify the electrical signal produced by the transducers, mics, phonocartride, Guitar pickups etc. The reason is that tubes can handle the wider voltage swings better and do have the inherent quality of overloading much more gracefully compared to transistors. Same is the case with poweramps...

2. Example, in the recent past I again switched back to tube after trying out Primaluna Prologue 1. The amp in comparison was Perreaux Radiance R200. Cost of EL34 prologue $1000 The 200w/ch mosfet Radiance $4000.

Difference in sound ..

Radiance is better in resolving each and every instrument from a dense mix of orchestra, it has better bass slam and silky smooth hi freq witha lot of air. Can drive any speaker you can think of. The RF remote and microprocessor control is free

Prologue 1 is a bit warmer sounding with well extended at both the freq ends. It brings out the colour of the music, a solo violinist connects to you better through this amp, the sound front the string and the body is reproduced better and sound more natural. Same is the case with most of stringed and brass instruments. The only limitation I noticed is when you want to hear the skin vibration of a low tuned Tom Tom, but at the same time you can pick out the Tom tom by recognising its typical sound.

Male and Female Vocals... you have to hear to to belive how natural it is.

"I am talking about the first active device used to amplify the electrical signal produced by the transducers, mics, phonocartride, Guitar pickups etc. The reason is that tubes can handle the wider voltage swings better and do have the inherent quality of overloading much more gracefully compared to transistors. Same is the case with poweramps..."

Most power amps are never driven to clipping for normal listening. So the differences chosing vlaves for recording preamps don't aply to power amps.
Are you saying that tube power amps are driven to clipping and they sound better than an SS at clipping?

". Example, in the recent past I again switched back to tube after trying out Primaluna Prologue 1. The amp in comparison was Perreaux Radiance R200. Cost of EL34 prologue $1000 The 200w/ch mosfet Radiance $4000. "

Let's see, a comparison of two amps doesn't support a general statement like "Comparable Tube gears are cheaper than SS if you consider the quality of sound. Quantity vise SS is much cheaper."

What were the speakers used? What was the source?

ani schrieb:

Please read as 1. Whenever there is a conversion of mechanical to Electrical or visa versa tubes seems to be able to handle the job better compared to SS.

Really am not sure of this as from what I understand tubes need a higher biasing current hence from a pure Efficiency of conversion point of view they may be much lower thana Class AB SS device.

other than that no matter what measurements you give out, what matters is personal preference hence it is not worth arguing about -> but this is ia very interesting discussion

For me, tubes at $1000 budget did not seem to have the bass control I prefer, but they are very good for vocals, jazz.

Finally a post worth the attention.
i think its time i heard a tube. cause i can't get in on this interesting debate of sorts without a clear understanding of the two contenders.

"Example, in the recent past I again switched back to tube after trying out Primaluna Prologue 1. The amp in comparison was Perreaux Radiance R200. Cost of EL34 prologue $1000 The 200w/ch mosfet Radiance $4000. "

Are these prices in US $s? From what I can see the prologue 1 is $1095 and the Radiance 200i is $2695.

Granted your preference was towards the prologue1. I haven't heard either of them. But I have tough time accepting generalised statements based on opinion.

Anyway, this was a good discussion. Enjoy your system.

Arun and Arj,

It is not the point of sturating the input and clipping, it is just the abilty of tubes to stand better against the peake voltages that makes the big difference in the way they behave. This has been measured and proved, the worst was performed were the IC Opamps. If you notice many studios use tube preamps for recording along with their vintage Mics ( not blind beliver of vintage gear and never had a chance to seen or hear avintage mic)

Arj, the input stages are always class A when you are into pro quality gears. You have to give this tubes a try it is worth it.

No, we dont want our amps driven to saturation it sounds horrible but Yes the peak levels of music may for a moment cause it to reach the clipping levels even at your listening volume and this is one reason we always go in for higher output SS amps ( any way SS watts is still cheaper than Tube Watts

My source:

Perreaux CD1p + Project RPM9 + Sumiko BPS

Speakers : Monitor Audio GR20

I am not taking a tube or SS stand but sharing my experience.
Another subject that may cause a stir in the forum is

" I belive that now the technology has reached a stage where affordable Turntables and Cartridges is a reality"

Arun,

thank you, I am enjoying it as much as or more than my revealing SS amp.

The price I quoted was Indian one converted to US $. The Radiance price you mentioned was from their Ex dealer of US who is no longer representing them and is clearing his stuff. I will sure go and get a Radiance for $2695., it is gem of an amp try it out with your GB1 you will never go back to Bryston
Please Dont kick me nothing personal against the Good ole Bryston, just trying to tease you into different sound. It is like this the Primaluna has a transistor hidden and the Radiance is having a Tube hidden

http://www.trueaudio.com/at_eetjlm.htm

Here is a good article I found that highlights most of the discussion in this thread. I found it fascinating. There is also one from An engineer who worked for Mcintosh, I can't find it.

ani schrieb:

Arun, your GB1 you will never go back to Bryston

I probably will never go away from the Bryston/PMC. My next audio upgrade is a Bryston Sp1.7 to repalce my denon 3801 as my Pre/Proc. I'll also add another Bryston to complete the 5.1 setup

If you haven't heard the Bryston/PMC setup you should. That will put an end to the SSvs tube debate. Just kidding.

http://www.epinions.com/content_3726614660

Another interesting article on tube vs Solid state guitar amps.

true audio is the site of audio guru John.l Murphy.
i think the person u are referring to (MCintosh) is this guy.
http://www.roger-russell.com/aboutmc.htm.
Cheers,
Ben

Thanks Ben. Roger Russel was whom I was looking for.:)

This discussion is like you want OHV or a OHC......will never end...tube fans will talk in favour of tubes and SS fans will talk in favour of SS....but keep it going some real valid points are coming out......

Very interesting readings, it is more related to overdriving the amp for a signature sound from guitar amps.

I had mentioned

"Primaluna has a transistor hidden and the Radiance is having a Tube hidden"

it looks like no one has taken it seriously. I hope that I have made it clear that I am yet to take sides in Gas v/s SS war.

Oh I am not taking sides either. The fun part of living in this world is the little differences. Hang out on most forums and there is always two sides on one issue. Like OS wars and vi vs emacs wars, tubes vs SS wars exist.

It's all good. Not everyone can like the same things, and not everyone should the world would be very boring if that were the case!

ani schrieb:

Very interesting readings, it is more related to overdriving the amp for a signature sound from guitar amps.

Yeah there was a point in this discussion where guitar amps were brought up. My main point was tubes are used for guitars for a purpose and that purpose is not the same for home audio.

If you read John MUrphy's or Roger Russells pages, both accomplished Amp desginers from respected companies, they state that no one in a blind test has been able to identify the difference in SS vs Tubes.

As I was telling my friend, the only thing that should be warm about tubes is the room and the glow from them.

Well here is the list of sound engineers and labels that use tube equipment and other interesting tube articles;

http://www.netassoc.net/dougspage/DennisDrakeFeb2005.htm
“Well I guess you'd say I'm more of a purist. I like to use tube equipment. I have customized Ampex tape machines for mono, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch playback and I'm using a lot of the old 351 tube electronics which have all of the old curves in them. They give you the reciprocal curves of the original recording curve that a lot of these tapes were recorded with.”

http://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ta/vacuumtube_e.html
“The key advantage of a vacuum tube stereo system compared to a solid state one, is that I can listen to the vacuum tube system for hours and hours at high volume without any fatigue. This is due to the predominance of second order harmonics in the tube system compared to third order harmonics in the solid state system.
Second order harmonics are much softer in nature. In contrast, third order harmonics are harder in nature.

I have not used my solid state receiver in years. I just keep it as back up. The vacuum tube system is played everyday for many hours. I have only had to replace one tube - a 6BS8 in the tuner. That track record is after over 3,000 hours of use!
So despite what may be said, vacuum tube technology is very reliable. Especially when mated with vinyl records, tubes are king!”

http://www.tmhaudio.com/dcc-.htm
“Steve Hoffman, mastering guru behind the critically acclaimed audiophile DCC Gold CD and vinyl reissues, has added the WAVAC Audio Lab HE-833 SET 100w/ch mono amplifiers to his reference mastering system. The HE-833 is in addition to the WAVAC MD-300B SET Mr. Hoffman recently used in mastering the soon to be released Judy Garland double album of "Alone" and "Judy in Love" on S&P Records (SPR-703). Additional information on new releases can be found at www.stevehoffman.tv.”

I can go on with the list if you would want more.

As for the bryston I have heard the 4B-SST many a times in the past with a dynaudio C5 fantastic speakers again and have found them to be dry and the worst part was that the speakers were very inefficient to be driven by tubes so the guy went out with a full gryphon setup (this is my reference system for a solid-state setup).

I don’t know what speakers you own but if it is relatively easy to drive then you will be shocked when you listen to Primaluna for sure, I know you wont belive me but just give it a try for the heck of it ?
If you are from Bombay then you are welcome to audition my tube system to see if tubes are any good ?


Regards,
Satyam.

[quote] Well here is the list of sound engineers and labels that use tube equipment and other interesting tube articles; [/quote]

Here is the point from them first link in full context.:

"Dennis: Well I guess you'd say I'm more of a purist. I like to use tube equipment. [B] I have customized Ampex tape machines for mono, 1/2 inch, 1/4 inch playback and I'm using a lot of the old 351 tube electronics which have all of the old curves in them. They give you the reciprocal curves of the original recording curve that a lot of these tapes were recorded with. If my source is in the analog domain, I like to process it in the analog domain. [/B] If the dynamics need a little bit of tightening up, I might do a pass through the Manley variable M U Limiter. I also have a great sounding Neve-designed Summit analog parametric that I use for fine tuning. [B}My feeling is to get it to sound as good as you can going into the digital work station. And once it’s in there, then you can do all of your editing. And hopefully you're not going to have to do too much digital EQ and signal manipulation in the digital domain.{/B} Just do your editing, your splicing and keep that analog signal as pure as you can. If I have to, I'll do a little digital touch up here and there. I have the Weiss double sampling digital EQ. The EQ does the work at twice the sampling frequency and then bounces it back down again to the output frequency. So it’s really a great sounding EQ-- very smooth and musical. That's basically what I try to accomplish."


This is more of a remastering process than a recording and mixing process. And he uses analog tube equipment to get the tapes into the digital domain.
It doesn't mention what he uses to play back the CDs and correct his remastering. BTW this project you quoted was done 15 years ago in 1990.

[quote]I have not used my solid state receiver in years. I just keep it as back up. The vacuum tube system is played everyday for many hours. I have only had to replace one tube - a 6BS8 in the tuner. That track record is after over 3,000 hours of use!
So despite what may be said, vacuum tube technology is very reliable. Especially when mated with vinyl records, tubes are king!”[/quote}

So let's see he is comparing a reciever reciever to a tube amp. My reciever was blown away by an NAD and the NAD was by the Bryston. So reason would have it that he haven't compared likes.

[quote]As for the bryston I have heard the 4B-SST many a times in the past with a dynaudio C5 fantastic speakers again and have found them to be dry and the worst part was that the speakers were very inefficient to be driven by tubes so the guy went out with a full gryphon setup (this is my reference system for a solid-state setup).[/quote]

I have heard Dynaudios with many amps and electronics and never have found them to be involving. Just dry and analytical. I would blame the speakers and not the Amp. I have heard them through Anthem amps, Levinsion, and an Arcam reciever.

I did audition the dynaudio before my purchase and wrote it off almost immediately, the funny thing is this is the third time I have done that. I always think there is something I like about them but when I listen I just can't get involved. Also the source DAC might have had somthing to do with it. The bryston is absolutely linear and colourless, what you feed it is what you get.

Unfortunately, tube Amp desingers disagree with you and claim there is no discernable difference in sound quality unless the amp is clipping. And the quotes from the studios you mentioned do it because the sound engineers are biased and call them selves "purists". Also most of them are remastering old vinyls and analogue tapes.

http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/user1.html
Here is a list of companies using Bryston/PMC.

http://www.pmcloudspeaker.com/hitlist.php
Here is a list for CDs mastered with Bryston/PMC.

[quote] I don’t know what speakers you own but if it is relatively easy to drive then you will be shocked when you listen to Primaluna for sure, I know you wont belive me but just give it a try for the heck of it ?
If you are from Bombay then you are welcome to audition my tube system to see if tubes are any good ? [/quote]

I seriously doubt I am moving away from my setup anytime soon. But I will certainly try some tube gear out. A dealer of mine just got a Jolida integrated I can check it out.

I don't live in India. But the next time I come down I'll check your setup out. Thanks.

Dynaudio speakers to me are simply awesome esp the C5 with the Esotar tweeter, my previous setup was a Dynaudio 1.3SE I still have them though have put them up for sale and used to use it with a AVM20 and PVA7 (still have these too).

This will never end we both listen to what we enjoy so I'm going to go and play some miles davis for myself.

Satyam

Dear Oarnura,

I thought I read that you were located in the US. If my memory serves me right, which part of the US are you in ?

I am in Bradenton.

Regards,

Junia.

Gentlemen,

If there is one thing you both are right about, it is the fact that this debate will never end. Possibly the only debate longer in existence could be the chicken vs egg one!

But I think I can understand Arun getting riled by the “Tubes is better” generalization. If that were true then surely you wouldn’t have companies like Halcro / Goldmund / ML/ Krell etc continuing to push SS amps down the throats of their customers and building such an awesome reputation in the process. Conversely however, others like Air Tight / Audio Research / CAD / CJ / Manley etc, etc, builders of such delectable tube ware, cannot be accused of wasting their time either. Audio is entirely subjective, it is impossible to say one is right and the other is wrong. Maybe that is why other giants like Lamm, Boulder, BAT, McIntosh, to name a few, build both types and let their customers decide which is best to them.

I would personally continue my quest of finding what sounds best to my ears, all the time adhering to Sub’s excellent method of making the journey an enjoyable one.

big-ears schrieb:

Gentlemen, But I think I can understand Arun getting riled by the “Tubes is better” generalization. If that were true then surely you wouldn’t have companies like Halcro / Goldmund / ML/ Krell etc continuing to push SS amps down the throats of their customers and building such an awesome reputation in the process. Conversely however, others like Air Tight / Audio Research / CAD / CJ / Manley etc, etc, builders of such delectable tube ware, cannot be accused of wasting their time either. Audio is entirely subjective, it is impossible to say one is right and the other is wrong. Maybe that is why other giants like Lamm, Boulder, BAT, McIntosh, to name a few, build both types and let their customers decide which is best to them.

Quiet right the debate will never end.


Also companies tend to make one or the other or both because the debate never ends and a new stream of fresh customers is born out of that debate. Consumerism, gotta love it.

I did come upon a realisation. May be tubes are prefered becuase many tubes amps are infact underpowered and go into soft clipping at higher volumes (most tube purists claim tubes sound better at louder volumes). Clipping in tubes tend to roll off smoothly and thus mellowing the sound. Solid state amps hardly ever clip because people tend to buy beefy ones. And if they do clip they sound terrible. May be the induced clipping in a low powered tube amp acutally makes them sound warmer than SS.

A good experiment would be to get a 20W tube and a 150W tube Amp. Disguise the 150W tube to look like a solidstate, put a bryston logo on it or something. Get a pair of speakers that causes the 20W amp to soft clip at a particular volume level and the 150w won't clip because it is more powerul. Have a couple or 10 tube purist listen and see what they think.

If my theory is correct people will claim that the disguised amp is harsh and not as magical as the tube one.

Anyway the debate will never end and that is the fun of this hobby, No.

Enjoy.

Completely disagree to me a GOOD tube amp has one of the best low level detail (inner detail) that one can listen to music at low volume and still be involved i.e. have a good image and soundstage very diff for SS to do this according to me.

Satyam.

I am utterly confused. After having a heard a lot of amps and SS equipment. I find the sound stage more a function of the speakers, positioning of the speakers, room acoustics and to an extent the source and preamps. Amps do very little in the scheme of things to matter with any great significance.
I have heard tubes but if the difference was so mid blowing I would have altleat considered them. But imaging from tubes never struck me as anything special. My wife who is a part of this whole process , has amazingly discerning ears and hasn't commented on anything special about tubes.

Just this weekend I took my PMCs to a friend's place to see if my room acoustics are a problem (My room needs serious room treatments becuase of deep nulls and peaks in the bass response). The PMCs has an excellent sound stage and imaging even with his NAD 90w bridged amp.

Either we both define sound stage and imaging differently or aren't hearing the same types of equipment properly configured.

sbfx schrieb:

:D Completely disagree to me a GOOD tube amp has one of the best low level detail (inner detail) that one can listen to music at low volume and still be involved i.e. have a good image and soundstage very diff for SS to do this according to me. Satyam.

Last night I was lisening to my SS setup at much lower volumes than usual, it was invovling to the point that I went to bed a 1 am. Sometimes the music from my SS equipment is so relaxing I have dozed off and so have completely audio novices listening to my setup.

Anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.

Haha the best thing that has come out of this thread is that this has been very civil and no one has attacked anyone on a personal level very diff to happen in arguement like this.

Enjoy the music,
Satyam

"Dear Oarnura,

I thought I read that you were located in the US. If my memory serves me right, which part of the US are you in ?

I am in Bradenton.

Regards,

Junia."

Junia,

I am actually in the SF bay area.

Arun

Oh cool Arun.

Hi Arun,

Would agree with you on SS sounding relaxing – I too have dozed off on innumerable occasions while listening to my SS setup. Would also agree with you on Bryston quality, have heard the 7B SSTs and I must say I found them quite involving. Would agree with Satyam on the Dynaudios though, the old C5 and the miniscule Craftt, well, to me they border on the magical…

But then synergy is quite important. I once heard Cayin tubes partnered with Dali Euphonias in Bombay and the sound was so flat and dull, I would have gladly opted for a pmpo combo instead!

Cheers

Hi,

All this talk of tubes, SS and preference of music made me dig into my LP's and play Led Zeppelin II. What can I say about the music that came out through my system !!!

It was so boreing there was no life in it, it was all dead and cold. God only knows how I could play both the sides

When I mentioned about the tubes ability to show the tonal difference between drums in oneof the earlier post I had made up my mind to play this classic LP to hear how well it can play the "Moby Dick". No the amp just couldnt keep up with John Bonhams drumming, it sounded as if his Low Toms and kick drums were put into a blender, homogenized and poured into your ears. Those familiar with this piece of music would understand what I am trying to explain.