• Welcome to ASR. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Chinese Tube buffer or Pre-amp

cjm2077 said:
And so what does this have to do with needing tube amps to play back albums with guitar on them? Or any of the other "facts" you've spouted. What is your take away from this article?
Click to expand...
Take t out and then it's for you. I don't give a dime what you will use or why. I will use Marshall (tube) amp to play one & will certainly listen to it with similar tube (have stock of Ei ECC83 one's).
 
ZolaIII said:
What ever signal lost in the process it neads the same thing that gave it to it in the first place to re gain it. You can't completely undone what's altered in various stages but it does help. Those are the facts. "Science" and engineering only try to do it better but it will never be "the original signal".
Click to expand...

This has been an entertaining read, but is now bordering on unseemly. I'm going to give Zolalll the benefit of the doubt and assume English is not his native language.

Zolalll, best I can translate is that you are asserting that modern recording and reproduction techniques cause something to be lost and altered, and the use of tubes somewhere in the chain somehow "restores" this, and this is a recognized "fact"? What science backs up this fact?
The extensive and precise measurements of this site refute this point repeatedly. If your proof is that you think it sounds better, that's fine, and you are not alone - but it's not science, and not a universal fact.

Again, many prefer the sound of tube equipment, and that's all good. But just because it's a preference by some (you think it sounds better) doesn't make it objectively better (more closely resembles the source recording). If you would acknowledge this point, I think you would restore some credibility.
 
I will opine that a properly designed and implemented vacuum tube buffer won't sound like anything... except...
if there is an impedance mismatch 'twixt source and load, in which case the buffer might improve things both on paper and audibly.

My belief is that the cheap 1 and 2 tube boxes sold a 'buffers, 'headphone amps' and/or 'preamps' are purpose built to add some of the bad old-fashioned boozy, bluesy, woozy 'tube hifi console sound' to... well... whatever folks hook 'em to... or between... or whatever :(

Now, I don't know the protocol (express or implied) here about posting links to other forums, but if you'd like to have some fun -- and if you have a lot of spare time on your hands -- google something along the lines of "FX audio $31 tube preamp" and see what might turn up. :)

1581453514874.png

Note that these are not sold as buffers per se -- they do sport some gain. Also note that, for whatever reason, they use pentodes as their (presumably) active amplifier elements, rather than triodes. Well -- on the bright side, they are cheap.

Come to think of it: Was this gadget ever tested here? I'm going to look... :)
 
A pretty good tube pre or buffer is a low distortion and low enough noise device so it doesn't really change the sound or does so very little.

I find tube sound something you get with tube amps powering speakers via transformers. I think a fair amount of that sound is the transfomers interacting with the load.

I've had hands on a couple headphone amp/preamp combos that were really SET tube amps of a watt or so which can do okay with phones or as a preamp. Those have something of the tube amp sound which will get added to your system.

Some of the inexpensive pentode units look to be adding distortion on purpose and likely have a sound, but likely not your typical triode tube amp sound.

For anyone thinking tubes provide some magic SS or class D gear is incapable of providing in the sense they get a fidelity beyond SS you are mistaken. Tubey gear is a coloration. Done extremely well it can make you think it is a step up in fidelity. If one has that preference that is all well and good. But you can prove this by feeding some tubey sounding gear into a SS amp and you'll hear the tubey-ness.
 
dkinric said:
This has been an entertaining read, but is now bordering on unseemly. I'm going to give Zolalll the benefit of the doubt and assume English is not his native language.

Zolalll, best I can translate is that you are asserting that modern recording and reproduction techniques cause something to be lost and altered, and the use of tubes somewhere in the chain somehow "restores" this, and this is a recognized "fact"? What science backs up this fact?
The extensive and precise measurements of this site refute this point repeatedly. If your proof is that you think it sounds better, that's fine, and you are not alone - but it's not science, and not a universal fact.

Again, many prefer the sound of tube equipment, and that's all good. But just because it's a preference by some (you think it sounds better) doesn't make it objectively better (more closely resembles the source recording). If you would acknowledge this point, I think you would restore some credibility.
Click to expand...
Nope I never mentioned anything about facts related to tube amp's & if something whose created with tubes it will sound best listened with tubes. Sure & not only modern recording equipment but all recording equipment. It simply isn't the same as being there & listening & it probably never will be. The part concerning the physical impact of sound whose about DSD where I did recall on the scientific experiment which confirmed it but it would be to match to call even that as a fact. For me DSD is a step up towards natural sounding but thees more work to be done (as always).

You all have right to disagree to have your own opinion & entitle to it but what ever that is it's not scientific nor a fact & neither is mine.

Edit the mentioned passive tube emulator & EQ software (Pteq-x) is actually the great tool to hear what you gain & loss with tube & how it actually applies to different source.
 
Last edited:
ZolaIII said:
Nope I never mentioned anything about facts related to tube amp's & if something whose created with tubes it will sound best listened with tubes. Sure & not only modern recording equipment but all recording equipment. It simply isn't the same as being there & listening & it probably never will be. The part concerning the physical impact of sound whose about DSD where I did recall on the scientific experiment which confirmed it but it would be to match to call even that as a fact. For me DSD is a step up towards natural sounding but thees more work to be done (as always).

You all have right to disagree to have your own opinion & entitle to it but what ever that is it's not scientific nor a fact & neither is mine.

Edit the mentioned passive tube emulator & EQ software (Pteq-x) is actually the great tool to hear what you gain & loss with tube & how it actually applies to different source.
Click to expand...
No, you gain nothing to listen with the same gear used in the recording except if you used the same speakers. A transparent amp will pass the recorded signal along without significant alteration so you can hear what the recording is supposed to be. Tubes are not more transparent than SS, so nothing is to be gained in terms of fidelity to the recording.
 
ZolaIII said:
Nope I never mentioned anything about facts related to tube amp's & if something whose created with tubes it will sound best listened with tubes. Sure & not only modern recording equipment but all recording equipment. It simply isn't the same as being there & listening & it probably never will be. The part concerning the physical impact of sound whose about DSD where I did recall on the scientific experiment which confirmed it but it would be to match to call even that as a fact. For me DSD is a step up towards natural sounding but thees more work to be done (as always).

You all have right to disagree to have your own opinion & entitle to it but what ever that is it's not scientific nor a fact & neither is mine.

Edit the mentioned passive tube emulator & EQ software (Pteq-x) is actually the great tool to hear what you gain & loss with tube & how it actually applies to different source.
Click to expand...

Ah, thanks for the response, previous posts were difficult to follow.

I like your point about the software emulating the tube sound - I'm surprised this is not more prevalent.

So, if I understand, your opinion is that there is still undiscovered data in a music signal path that is not measured with our state of the art $28,000 analyzer. And (you mentioned earlier), that ultrasonics somehow find their way down the spectrum and affect sound within our hearing range - that we are also not measuring.
And, if a sound was recorded with tubes, such as a guitar playing through a tube amp, it takes another tube amp on the reproduction side to uncover this missing data. Do I have it right?
Wouldn't you in this case be double-tubing? Adding tube sound on the front end to tube sound already recorded. Wouldn't you want that recorded tube sound to be reproduced as accurately as possible? Or are you saying it's like Dolby NR, where it has to be encoded/decoded?
This really doesn't make any logical sense, other than you like tubes.

We will indeed disagree on these points. My opinion is that the proven science has already refuted these points. I will admit though, that we don't know everything (you don't know what you don't know, right?), and there is much about our universe that we have yet to discover.
Maybe tubes and ultrasonics are kind of like dark matter...
 
dkinric said:
Ah, thanks for the response, previous posts were difficult to follow.

I like your point about the software emulating the tube sound - I'm surprised this is not more prevalent.

So, if I understand, your opinion is that there is still undiscovered data in a music signal path that is not measured with our state of the art $28,000 analyzer. And (you mentioned earlier), that ultrasonics somehow find their way down the spectrum and affect sound within our hearing range - that we are also not measuring.
And, if a sound was recorded with tubes, such as a guitar playing through a tube amp, it takes another tube amp on the reproduction side to uncover this missing data. Do I have it right?
Wouldn't you in this case be double-tubing? Adding tube sound on the front end to tube sound already recorded. Wouldn't you want that recorded tube sound to be reproduced as accurately as possible? Or are you saying it's like Dolby NR, where it has to be encoded/decoded?
This really doesn't make any logical sense, other than you like tubes.

We will indeed disagree on these points. My opinion is that the proven science has already refuted these points. I will admit though, that we don't know everything (you don't know what you don't know, right?), and there is much about our universe that we have yet to discover.
Maybe tubes and ultrasonics are kind of like dark matter...
Click to expand...
It's not more preveilent because there is so little of emulations done right.
I do think every pice of equipment has it's limitations more so that it's written in it's spec sheet. I don't claim it won't record it nor do I claim that tube will measure better than SS. However on the most od SS amps and neutral DAC's distorted music simply won't sound right, it will sound dry and generally horrible. On the other hand that improves with the tube. For example Jimmy Hendrix, then again its not however the exact rule that all recorded with tubes will sound better reproduced on them, for example Miles - Kind Of Blue. It actually all depends from recording to recording. Their's one thing fur sure that analiser can't measure & that's the physical impact of the sound (refractions to be more precise). If you don't believe that sound waves impact each other and how that's not related to our limitations but it does however riple back to the range we can hear & alters it that's your choice. Water for instance does (which is easy to understand) & it's the same simple physics.
 
Last edited:
ZolaIII said:
It's not more preveilent because there is so little of emulations done right.
I do think every pice of equipment has it's limitations more so that it's written in it's spec sheet. I don't claim it won't record it nor do I claim that tube will measure better than SS. However on the most od SS amps and neutral DAC's distorted music simply won't sound right, it will sound dry and generally horrible. On the other hand that improves with the tu. For example Jimmy Hendrix, then again its not however the exact rule that all recorded with tubes will sound better reproduced on them, for example Miles - Kind Of f Blue. It actually all depends from recording to recording. Their's one thing fur sure that analiser can't measure & that's the physical impact of the sound (refractions to be more precise). If you don't believe that sound waves impact each other and how that's not related to our limitations but it does however riple back to the range we can hear & alters it that's your choice. Water for instance does (which is easy to understand) & it's the same simple physics.
Click to expand...

If you mean ultrasonic frequencies above 20 khz will intermodulate and create tones below 20 khz then yes, ultrasonics might matter. However, if those were at the original recording event, the below 20 khz intermodulation would be recorded. And it can be reproduced without needing more than 20 khz bandwidth in the recording or playback. We aren't talking choice, some effect either physically happens or it doesn't.
 
FX Audio TUBE-01 Scythe Kama Bay Mini Pro Bluetooth HDMI Linear Power Supply
https://cheaptubeaudio.blogspot.com/2020/05/fx-audio-tube-01-scythe-kama-bay-mini.html

DSC02046.JPG


[ Round 4: FX + Akitika The FX pleased me so much that I resolved to further test it out as a preamp. I was writing at the dining table but the sound stopped me dead in my track. What the hell! The sound is GREAT! The soundstage doubled and there was bags of air. For the last few days I just stayed with this combo, which did everything well. For this article, I performed a reality check. FX vs Artemis Labs LA-1 I have been using the Artemis before the dynamic duo's arrival. The change in sound after I swapped in the Artemis was quite subtle, definitely not night and day. Perhaps the Artemis was just a little more solid in its foundations and had even sweeter treble. The diminutive FX emphatically did not at all shame itself, particularly with BT material. Most astonishing! ]

-> https://cheaptubeaudio.blogspot.com/search?q=akitika

[ Comments
  • FX Audio TUBE-01 This thing is unbelievably good! Good enough to use in your main system. Highly Recommended. 6J1 Variants This tube is derived from 6AK5, a tube with an excellent lineage (here). Developed by Western Electric (403A/B), the 6AK5 is excellent sounding. I just bought a few used ones from Ebay and they are cheap and sound great. There is good reason why a lot of Chinese gear use 6J1 and 6N3: both of these tubes have good sounding US precursors (5670 and WE396A/2C51 in the case of 6N3). On the other hand, avoid those that use 6N1, as there is no exact equivalent.
  • Scythe Kama Bay Mini Pro It is a good little amp but will be difficult to get. Of course, it is still not as good sounding as the Akitika!
  • Linear Power Supply Traditionally a Linear PS is regarded as better than Switch Mode. But my experience with Switch Mode power supplies have been largely positive. My LTA and Micromega sound great with their SM power supplies, as do this round's dynamic duo and the Dayton BT. No reason to lose sleep over it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: wje
maty said:
FX Audio TUBE-01 Scythe Kama Bay Mini Pro Bluetooth HDMI Linear Power Supply
https://cheaptubeaudio.blogspot.com/2020/05/fx-audio-tube-01-scythe-kama-bay-mini.html

DSC02046.JPG


[ Round 4: FX + Akitika The FX pleased me so much that I resolved to further test it out as a preamp. I was writing at the dining table but the sound stopped me dead in my track. What the hell! The sound is GREAT! The soundstage doubled and there was bags of air. For the last few days I just stayed with this combo, which did everything well. For this article, I performed a reality check. FX vs Artemis Labs LA-1 I have been using the Artemis before the dynamic duo's arrival. The change in sound after I swapped in the Artemis was quite subtle, definitely not night and day. Perhaps the Artemis was just a little more solid in its foundations and had even sweeter treble. The diminutive FX emphatically did not at all shame itself, particularly with BT material. Most astonishing! ]

-> https://cheaptubeaudio.blogspot.com/search?q=akitika

[ Comments
  • FX Audio TUBE-01 This thing is unbelievably good! Good enough to use in your main system. Highly Recommended. 6J1 Variants This tube is derived from 6AK5, a tube with an excellent lineage (here). Developed by Western Electric (403A/B), the 6AK5 is excellent sounding. I just bought a few used ones from Ebay and they are cheap and sound great. There is good reason why a lot of Chinese gear use 6J1 and 6N3: both of these tubes have good sounding US precursors (5670 and WE396A/2C51 in the case of 6N3). On the other hand, avoid those that use 6N1, as there is no exact equivalent.
  • Scythe Kama Bay Mini Pro It is a good little amp but will be difficult to get. Of course, it is still not as good sounding as the Akitika!
  • Linear Power Supply Traditionally a Linear PS is regarded as better than Switch Mode. But my experience with Switch Mode power supplies have been largely positive. My LTA and Micromega sound great with their SM power supplies, as do this round's dynamic duo and the Dayton BT. No reason to lose sleep over it.
Click to expand...
Oh no maty what are you doing :facepalm: don't propagate this bullshit for the love of God and all that is holy :(
 
These pots are used to spice up the terrible current recordings and make them more bearable, I say. If they are also in compressed format ...

It is best to first try VST plugins that emulate valve sound. The better the sound one has the less they like.
 
BTW, there was a point made above about using software to emulate tube distortion and why it isn't done more. Its actually done all the time in modern digital music recording. There are hundreds of plugins that emulate tube, tape and other analogue distortions. And these are used to artistic intent all over - vocals, guitars, bass, sometimes even the whole mix. So that digitally recorded music you are playing back has likely already applied real or simulated analog distortion as preferred by the artist.

If you then take that and apply your own additional analogue distortion in your playback system, that is altering the artistic intent. This is of course fine, but it is the antithesis of hi-fi.

However, the circle of confusion problem sets in here if the recording studio used non-transparent gear for mixing and mastering. So is it possible that for older recordings where tube gear was more prevalent in studios, that home tube playback systems actually get closer to artistic intent? Just a thought.
 
Goutom said:
I want use tube buffer with my Audiolab 6000a. It has no balanced input. LOXJIE P20 not having any rca input output for buffer/preamp use.
Click to expand...

OK, coming from a headphone world but I have exactly the buffer you mention. I run the DAC RCA through it into my very clean THX789. I run the DAC XLRs directly into the 789.

Some observations:

1. The volume dial on the buffer means I can get higher output via tubes than from the XLR direct from DAC
2. When I (only by ear) lower the buffer volume dial to the point where it matches max XLR levels, I can tell no difference. Thats at around 10 or 11 o clock on my kit. Not properly volume matched, not scientific but a real world experience
3. If I take the buffer volume to 3 o clock or higher, the balance of the overall sound seems to shift more towards the lower end of the spectrum. Some might say I get "wooly" bass.
4. Even when I do 3) Im not preferring the sound.
5. I certainly wouldnt go to the faff of putting the buffer in the chain if I was going to keep having to swap it out if you only have one output from DAC.
6. Its cheap, it "works", cant hurt to experiment.
 
Jimbob54 said:
OK, coming from a headphone world but I have exactly the buffer you mention. I run the DAC RCA through it into my very clean THX789. I run the DAC XLRs directly into the 789.

Some observations:

1. The volume dial on the buffer means I can get higher output via tubes than from the XLR direct from DAC
2. When I (only by ear) lower the buffer volume dial to the point where it matches max XLR levels, I can tell no difference. Thats at around 10 or 11 o clock on my kit. Not properly volume matched, not scientific but a real world experience
3. If I take the buffer volume to 3 o clock or higher, the balance of the overall sound seems to shift more towards the lower end of the spectrum. Some might say I get "wooly" bass.
4. Even when I do 3) Im not preferring the sound.
5. I certainly wouldnt go to the faff of putting the buffer in the chain if I was going to keep having to swap it out if you only have one output from DAC.
6. Its cheap, it "works", cant hurt to experiment.
Click to expand...
Now play some good old Jimmy and you will like The Experience. Seriously there ware & some really balanced tubes & there are volume pasive VTS pluggins based on real designs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JediMa
Tube Amp
Replies
15
Views
2K
mhardy6647
mhardy6647
N
Deciding on Permanent Amp + Utilizing Attenuators Between Tube Pre-Amp and Amplifier
Replies
0
Views
630
Ngen52
N
L
  • Locked
FIIO Warmer R2R DAC (with tube buffer)
24 25 26
Replies
517
Views
92K
RickS
RickS
M
EQ/Room Correction With Integrated Amp
Replies
12
Views
755
Ultrasonic
Ultrasonic
M
Think I have a room correction solution, need advice
Replies
5
Views
720
a_ron
A
Back
Top Bottom