Are tubes more musical?

[prerich]

Tubes are usually like makeup on women ... attractive, but not real.

To explain:
Let's say I go to a jazz club. There's a trio playing that knocks my socks off. I fall in love with them instantly! I happen to notice that in the back there is a recording engineer. Looking around, I see a stereo mic. There is a live recording in progress.
When the recording of that night is put on the market, I'll eagerly buy it. What do you think I want to hear on that recording? Do I want to hear the sound that is the closest approach to the exciting sound that I heard that night, or do I want to hear a version that is like makeup ... possibly attractive, but not accurate?

You choose yours. I'll choose mine.

Jim

Since there's a recording engineer in the back - you're really going to get his or her interpretation of what was played that night.

 

[Blumlein 88]

FWIW, a comment we often see about solid state amps is they 'lack emotion; are dry and lifeless'. I've been hearing that feedback for over 35 years so I've come to think there's something to it. My theory is it has something to do with distortion- how H2 and H3 interact with the ear/brain system to create the illusion of more detail, richer sound, that sort of thing.

A claim easily and conveniently tested with Distort software. I think most will find as I did that it takes more than most tube amps have to be heard and it isn't the warm sound so often talked about. Further this idea it is mostly H2 and H3 is somewhat misleading. Most tube amps looking at measurements done by Stereophile for THD and IMD show a whole string of harmonics. H2 or H3 is usually the largest contributor, but there are usually levels of distortion above the noise floor in descending order out to H9 or more.

 

[Blumlein 88]

It's well known that some classic guitar amp circuits compress with a dynamic characteristic that comes from a push-pull power stage with a power supply that sags as you play loud. In some situations the effect is so well known and desirable that digital amp modelers have had to simulate the effect to complete with the classic circuits.

I don't know if this has ever been part of the narrative about why some people like tube amps better in hifi or not.

It has been my opinion that is true for a long time. Tube amps can slightly compress. I think it is why some people for so long said tube watts are louder than transistor watts so you can get by with less tube power. The effects of slight compression are to make the sound seem more dynamic to human listeners.

 

[wadude]

My favorite tube amps are the ones that were designed to maximize accuracy and achieve the best possible measurements of their day. In modern days with modern sources, there seems to be no need for an active tube preamp. The “Tube Sound” is in the power amp.

 

[earlevel]

Two points:

If the producer of the music wanted it to sound that way, they could have employed tube processing to make it sound that way (and they do, of course). But if you like changing the music to the way you want to hear it, there is nothing wrong with that.

Tube amps and devices have been around for more than a century. During that time, people invented new and novel architectures. The crappy-sounding ones were forgotten in time. Solid state came in and is far more convenient. This further enhanced the chances that tube amps that had a good sound that differentiated them from solid state, alone, would survive. No one keeps a tube amp just because it sounds as good as a solid state one (unless they also need heating).

So, any popular tube amp today almost certainly has an inaccurate but good sounding quality.

PS—That last statement is not an indictment of tube amps, I'm just making a point boldly. With a little more finesse, I might say that if someone prioritizing accuracy likes their tube amp, it might be that they like the tiny imperfections of their tube amp better than the tiny imperfections of the solid state amps they are used to.

 

[atmasphere]

Depends on tube circuit and parts. Poor bandwidth transformers won't have the linearity needed to get the dynamics for example. In general though, Ultra linear wiring and push pull circuits (yes this needs negative feedback by default) tend to have more dynamic headroom than no-feedback SET amps so in this case @solderdude 's statement is generally true

AFAIK actual 'dynamic headroom' is a function of class of operation, at least that is how it was defined in the 1970s. By that definition, class A amplifiers have 0dB tube or solid state. Cheesy output transformers will pass dynamic range, what they won't do is bandwidth and exhibit distortion at the extremes, particularly in the bass where there tends to be a lot of musical energy. That might be conflated with limited dynamic range when its just a cheap part, tube or solid state.

See also my post explaining why I don't bother adding non-linear effects to my playback systems.

Heck, if I need a bit of that I just put an actual tube mic preamp in the system, although none of them have an FR error across the audio band. I'm thinking the RCA MI -11241 preamps need an input volume control though- they are too easily overloaded.

 

[Multicore]

A claim easily and conveniently tested with Distort software. I think most will find as I did that it takes more than most tube amps have to be heard and it isn't the warm sound so often talked about. Further this idea it is mostly H2 and H3 is somewhat misleading. Most tube amps looking at measurements done by Stereophile for THD and IMD show a whole string of harmonics. H2 or H3 is usually the largest contributor, but there are usually levels of distortion above the noise floor in descending order out to H9 or more.

Same thing with the red SSL 4K button. It gives the whole spray of harmonics. Afaiu it is a simulation of SSL's old analog 4000 channel strip.

 

[Multicore]

Heck, if I need a bit of that I just put an actual tube mic preamp in the system, although none of them have an FR error across the audio band. I'm thinking the RCA MI -11241 preamps need an input volume control though- they are too easily overloaded.

If I would need a bit of that I would use a VST. But I can't be bothered. Fussing around like this to eek out a maybe possibly perceptible difference is not a good use of my time.

 

[atmasphere]

OK, so I've wasted even more time chasing this. Adcom 555, no, 565, no, ancient SWTP Tiger, no. The only ss amp I've measured which has a low turnover frequency is a John Curl amp from Parasound. Lots of tube amps, though. And both the uncontrolled "reviewer" impressions for a similar model with similar measurements("It equals the earlier amplifier's smooth, clean high frequencies ") and John Atkinson's comments in the measurements section ("As I wrote about the Parasound Halo JC 1+, it is safe to say that the JCA100 Tribute's distortion signature will have no effect on the amplifier's sonic character") deny any brightness. Have you used any of their JC amps and found them bright?

View attachment 397863

At long last, name a ss amp which is bright that we can simulate and post the processed files in public. And this will be your final answer unless YOU are chasing the distortion measurements. The ducking, dodging, and backpedaling are looking all too familiar. If this is indeed a characteristic coloration for ss as you claim, this is really not a hard task.

I've done zero backpedaling, dodging and other similar attacks. I have admitted to a mistake which is quite different, unless you know some perfect people somewhere. So knock it off. I've just been trying to nail these things down and keep finding my words getting twisted around. Lay off so we can avoid that nonsense.

I laid out a spec that I thought I had seen in the Adcom. My best guess is that it was a different amp now. Why is that unacceptable??

It has been my opinion that is true for a long time. Tube amps can slightly compress. I think it is why some people for so long said tube watts are louder than transistor watts so you can get by with less tube power. The effects of slight compression are to make the sound seem more dynamic to human listeners.

I find it ironic that you're talking about your opinion about tubes compressing. I don't think they do, but I have heard many times that they don't sound as 'loud' which is also subjective.

I have a different theory, which is tubes make distortion differently from solid state at higher power levels- the higher ordered harmonics start to show up and the ear uses those to sense sound pressure, so skews the perception that it sounds louder than it really is. I tell people to get a sound level pressure meter, available as an app and then you see how loud it really is. If they actually cause their hand to move and do that, that's when they realize they really do need the extra power.

 

[SIY]

I've done zero backpedaling, dodging and other similar attacks.

That's all you've done.

Now cut the whining and name a solid state amp which you have found to be bright so we can process the files. I've chased three so far (including an antique), Paul has done a bunch of work, and you still can't seem to come up with even one. We've wasted a lot of time trying to accommodate you and you have done NOTHING but backpedal.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Blumlein 88]

In that case I'm putting the Tiger comment up to a communication error. As I recall it was a painful amp.

cut 1: Algunas Bestias
cut 2: Sandino

Its been my theory that above 10KHz a distortion rise with frequency won't be heard for obvious reasons. So this has my interest piqued.

So I thought this was a post indicating you were willing to use those two cuts from the CD, and the distortion of the Tiger amp. Is this correct or do you not want to use the Tiger now?

 

[atmasphere]

That's all you've done.

Now cut the whining and name a solid state amp which you have found to be bright so we can process the files. I've chased three so far (including an antique), Paul has done a bunch of work, and you still can't seem to come up with even one. We've wasted a lot of time trying to accommodate you and you have done NOTHING but backpedal.

Put up or shut up.

I've done nothing of the sort and you're out of line and your comments need not be personal. Knock off the personal attacks.

So I thought this was a post indicating you were willing to use those two cuts from the CD, and the distortion of the Tiger amp. Is this correct or do you not want to use the Tiger now?

I'm OK with that but can we keep this civil? I'm not complaining about you but SIY is not posting to his usual good qualities.

 

[mhardy6647]

A couple of not insignificant hifi component manufacturers (I'm specifically thinking of Luxman & McIntosh) rather conspicuously continue to offer both solid state and vacuum tube-based audio components. I am just sayin'.

Come to think of it, AFAIK Atma-Sphere also does, as well -- although he (Ralph K., @atmasphere)/they have embraced Class D amplification big-time (and which I mention without any particular baggage on my part!) Atma-Sphere, of course, is a bit of a special case, eschewing output transformers. The electromagnetic proclivities of OPTs, I will mention, often get credit (or blame) for some of the perceived sonic characteristics of typical vacuum tube (power) amplifiers.

PS (and with some trepidation) - I have been very favorably impressed by the ongoing dialog between @SIY and @atmasphere and I hope that it will not escalate into a (ahem) urinating contest. So many passionate mavens in this business are incapable of intelligent and focused debate on issues, but - from my perspective as a semi-informed amateur - these two have historically proven to be far, far better in that regard than the mean (or the median, for that matter).

 

[SIY]

I've done nothing of the sort

That is ALL you have done. For the zillionth time, name an engineered solid state amp that you have found to be bright so we can process the files.

This really isn't hard if your assertion that this is a normal characteristic of ss amps , and it's frustrating to spend time chasing this again and again with you backing off every single time.

 

[MattHooper]

It has been my opinion that is true for a long time. Tube amps can slightly compress. I think it is why some people for so long said tube watts are louder than transistor watts so you can get by with less tube power. The effects of slight compression are to make the sound seem more dynamic to human listeners.

I wonder if that possibly accounts to what I was describing as a compression type effect
HERE

Though as I also speculated, perhaps it wasn’t actual compression per se, but a buildup of distortions that had a compression type effect, perceptually.

 

[MattHooper]

One of the things that strikes me as a little bit paradoxical among tube amp afficionados is this:

Want a tube because they feel it sounds different from a solid state amp: is going to colour the sound in some pleasing way.

But then they go looking for speakers that are “ as tube amp friendly as possible.” Which means among other things higher sensitivity and a benign impedance for a tube amp to drive.

But this would seem to mitigate some of the very ways in which a tube amp could change the sound! For instance if you’ve got a very easy to drive speaker, doesn’t that suggest that you’ve done away with some of the impedance variations that would’ve differentiated the tube from a solid amp in the first place?

I’m sure that a reply may come from some quarters that maybe there’s some other distortion they want to preserve in that amp there would still be preserved somehow.

Or someone may be witted to the idea that tube amps still have some sort of technical advantage over solid state, as was often claimed by tube amp proselytizers. so the idea would be that even when you mitigate colorations in terms of an easy to drive speaker, you will still experience some “ higher level of grace and purity” in the sound.

As for my own approach, I really enjoyed doing crazy combinations like my old EicoHF81 14w tube amp driving my MBL 121 omnis. The MBL‘s were a brutal load, and the Eico, as measured by Stereophile, were quite coloured and sensitive to impedance variation.

But I found the combination glorious. Versus a solid state amp, the Eico clearly seem to have trouble keeping a grip on the lower frequencies of the speakers. But the result was a very “ ripe” there was actually quite appealing to me, and gave me the sensation the bass was going lower and they were performing slightly like larger speakers.

 

[SIY]

In that case I'm putting the Tiger comment up to a communication error. As I recall it was a painful amp.

So you'll go with this choice?

 

[GXAlan]

This is how a 300B SET measured. The difference is in the input level. At lower levels, the amp is more neutral. At higher SPLs, there is an inverted loudness curve to add treble sparkle. Not trivially applied with GEQ or PEQ. Can be done with compressor VSTs.

But this is just one of the non-linearities. The upswing is distortion, and the pattern of how you do it with IMD may make a bigger difference along with microphonics, etc. etc.

 

[oleg87]

It's well known that some classic guitar amp circuits compress with a dynamic characteristic that comes from a push-pull power stage with a power supply that sags as you play loud. In some situations the effect is so well known and desirable that digital amp modelers have had to simulate the effect to complete with the classic circuits.

I don't know if this has ever been part of the narrative about why some people like tube amps better in hifi or not.

I'm not sure tube hi-fi amps would sound particularly nice when forced to operate well outside anything approaching linearity. The kinds of distortion that sound pleasing when applied to an electric guitar signal through very bandlimited speakers are going to sound very messy and nasty with a complex music signal through a full-bandwidth audio system.

 

[Blumlein 88]

One of the things that strikes me as a little bit paradoxical among tube amp afficionados is this:

Want a tube because they feel it sounds different from a solid state amp: is going to colour the sound in some pleasing way.

But then they go looking for speakers that are “ as tube amp friendly as possible.” Which means among other things higher sensitivity and a benign impedance for a tube amp to drive.

But this would seem to mitigate some of the very ways in which a tube amp could change the sound! For instance if you’ve got a very easy to drive speaker, doesn’t that suggest that you’ve done away with some of the impedance variations that would’ve differentiated the tube from a solid amp in the first place?

I’m sure that a reply may come from some quarters that maybe there’s some other distortion they want to preserve in that amp there would still be preserved somehow.

Or someone may be witted to the idea that tube amps still have some sort of technical advantage over solid state, as was often claimed by tube amp proselytizers. so the idea would be that even when you mitigate colorations in terms of an easy to drive speaker, you will still experience some “ higher level of grace and purity” in the sound.

As for my own approach, I really enjoyed doing crazy combinations like my old EicoHF81 14w tube amp driving my MBL 121 omnis. The MBL‘s were a brutal load, and the Eico, as measured by Stereophile, were quite coloured and sensitive to impedance variation.

But I found the combination glorious. Versus a solid state amp, the clearly seem to have trouble keeping a grip on the lower frequencies of the speakers. But the result was a very “ ripe” there was actually quite appealing to me, and gave me the sensation the bass was going lower and they were performing slightly like larger speakers.

Well tubes are often touted as great matches for ESLs. Not efficient, not an even or benign impedance. My theory is they usually slightly bump up the response below 500 hz, and roll off the treble a bit, sometimes more than a bit. You get those effects by putting a .5 ohm or 1 ohm power resistor in series with the speaker using an SS amp. You don't get the distortion that might come with that.