Do objectivists like tubes?

[mslim]

Just wondering about the above ? Or get annoyed by the distortions?

 

[pma]

As long as their distortion is inaudible, which is true for competent design, I have no problems with tube preamplifiers. They have some advantages, like very high input impedance, high output voltage level and no EMI rectification issues.

 

[Frgirard]

I am objectivist and I do not like the tube because I do not need heating.
I am objectivist and I do not like the tube because the performances are altered by the time.
For the sound...when in studio they use tubes i do not a collapse

 

[Grumpish]

Of course objectivists like tubes - overdriven tubes and massive amounts of distortion (and in the case of the early Fender guitar amplifiers, very cheap output transformers) have been the heart of rock music for decades now.

 

[mslim]

Of course objectivists like tubes - overdriven tubes and massive amounts of distortion (and in the case of the early Fender guitar amplifiers, very cheap output transformers) have been the heart of rock music for decades now.

Not at source but at playback. I hope that is clear.

 

[tr1ple6]

Sure an objectivist can like or even preferring tubes. The difference between most objectivists and subjectivists is an objectivist will stop at the claim, 'I like tubes'. Whereas many subjectivists will take it several steps further and state that tubes are better and 'removes a veil', 'is more natural sounding' etc than solid state.

Also, @mslim just like any group, objectivists don't all think the same and opinions can vary significantly depending on the exact topic. Some objectivists like vinyl and many don't. There is more to what informs our preferences other than sound quality. Things like aesthetics also come into play when we decide what we like

 

[Katji]

There are two types that like valve amplifiers. [Sorry, I just can't call them "tubes."] Those who had them back in the day - i.e. <1960s and those of younger generations, following the fad, which was probably begun by "hipsters."

Those who had them back in the day, including those that built them, hobbyists...there is a long thread on the topic, with much input from honourable members who built them, or have restored them, "objectivists", including engineers.

If decent/good design, you do not hear the "distortions" and what there is, is [/was] masked by the much higher distortion of turntable cartridges and loudspeakers.

And now I've just remembered that that thread is a review, of a restored Dynaco kit amp, iirc. So I'll find it. [...]

[edit:] "I strongly suggest" you read it:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...review-and-measurements-of-dynaco-st-70.7224/

 

[tomtoo]

For their performance to expensive. But nice to look at.

 

[dfuller]

I do, for certain things. Triodes most of the time actually quite a bit more linear without feedback than transistors are, but they correspondingly have much less gain to work with so they end up being less linear than properly designed solid state. You can add some local negative feedback but nowhere near as much as transistors. The other problem of course is that you usually can't DC couple them because of the huge difference in rail voltage and bias voltage.

But yeah I enjoy tubes, they're fun to work with. Also when they fail it's usually way less catastrophic than when a transistor does... If you've ever seen what happens when a power transistor fails, it's not pretty. Often takes a good deal of stuff connected to it down with it.

 

[SIY]

Ayn Rand's writing is, for me, sludgy and badly in need of editing. So I guess I'm not an objectivist.

 

[Robin L]

I'm a recovering subjectivist. 30 years ago I was recording classical music to DAT, reading Stereophile and Absolute Sound and believing every word they wrote. Nearly 50 years ago I got my first bit of tube gear, a Fisher 500c receiver. Later, the Dynaco Pas 3/Dyna 70 pair, Marantz 8b power amp, an Ampex MX-10 microphone preamp, Schoeps tube-powered condenser microphones, Stax energizer/amp [hybrid, JFETs driving triodes without transformers] other stuff. The more I recorded concerts and sessions, the clearer the gap between what I was hearing with the headphones off compared to what I heard with the headphones on. As this progressed I found that the best solid state gear of the mid-nineties was closer to what I heard in the room as it was happening. I would suspect that would be more true now than then.

My subjective impressions is that tubes tend to make textures overly smooth, take away the grit that naturally occurs with many live sounds, like the rosin on the bow or the crash of a cymbal. I'd also hear a thickening of texture, esp. in the upper bass/lower midrange Not-so good solid state would emphasize edgy sounds, but the best solid state gear could be smooth when the sounds called for smooth and usually was lower in self-noise as well. It seems to me that a lot of "tube sound" is output transformers, but some tube preamps that passed through my hands also had that excessively smooth character.

Most of the time I'm listening to music these days it's via the Drop 6XX headphones powered by the Topping L30, driven by the Topping E30. This is not expensive or esoteric gear. A lot of subjective critics will point to increased details or hearing musical parts they didn't hear before as signs of improvement when critiquing audio gear. My situation is different insofar I'm hearing more musical lines [less obscuring/occluding] but this doesn't also emphasize edge definition of sounds like older solid state gear did.

My guess [only a guess, and I'm not an EE] is that the better a given design, the closer it gets to given targets. I would guess that some tube gear would sound really close to good solid state gear. The Stax headphone amp did. However, I also guess that it's more difficult for tube to reach that target then for solid-state, in large part because so much tube gear these days is designed to distort. This has a lot to do with most tubes finding their way to a guitar amp.

 

[RayDunzl]

We had a tube amp when I was a kid (60's).

It made a fine imitation of music.

Now?

Have SS amps.

They make a fine imitation of music, and can do it much more powerfully.

Do I like tube amps?

I did, I suppose, since that's all there was with which to listen.

I don't remember pining for transistor amplification at the time.

It's sort of like asking "Do I like carburetors?"

I have some. They work. I guess I like them well enough*. I like fuel injection too.

---

* always always use gasoline that is not blended with ethanol in small carbureted engines.

https://www.pure-gas.org/extensions/maps.jsp

 

[Katji]

* always always use gasoline that is not blended with ethanol in small carbureted engines.

1970s fuel crisis, we had to use methanol for 2-stroke MX racing.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

I've gone over the reason I use tubes more times than I wish, but to summarize, they solve a specific technical issue with my specific setup. This has nothing to do with the silly 'distortion' 'warmth' and other first-thing-you-think-of stereotypes people use.

Really people, get over it. Some people use tubes, but if you don't like them, don't use them. I don't like eggs and don't eat them, but I don't waste my time arguing that other people shouldn't eat eggs. The tube argument is stupid. Get over it. Move on. As for power consumption - I use solar so the sun is powering my amps, so it doesn't matter how inefficient the are, and the sun's rays are nice and warm, so that enhances the 'warmth' of the sound.

 

[Katji]

Sure, the misconception of liking valve amps being "subjectivist" as opposed to "objectivist." iow, the question is problematic.

 

[JeffS7444]

Sure I like tubes including 300B SETs, even vinyl but admit that if done really well, they wind up sounding similar to much more cost-effective solid state and digital solutions.

 

[Wes]

Nixie tubes are where it's at

 

[Chrispy]

Heard some tube stuff when I was a kid, but not particularly attracted to them nor want to fuss with them nor does their aesthetic do anything for me.....just see no reason to use them.

 

[Robin L]

I've gone over the reason I use tubes more times than I wish, but to summarize, they solve a specific technical issue with my specific setup. This has nothing to do with the silly 'distortion' 'warmth' and other first-thing-you-think-of stereotypes people use.

Really people, get over it. Some people use tubes, but if you don't like them, don't use them. I don't like eggs and don't eat them, but I don't waste my time arguing that other people shouldn't eat eggs. The tube argument is stupid. Get over it. Move on. As for power consumption - I use solar so the sun is powering my amps, so it doesn't matter how inefficient the are, and the sun's rays are nice and warm, so that enhances the 'warmth' of the sound.

The "us vs. them" thing is kinda pointless. Online discussion usually falls into that trap. I suppose there is such a thing as a puritanical objectivist and a rational subjectivist.

But anyway, while I'm not a champion of tubes*, I have heard implementations of tubes that were vivid and musical. I've heard SET/superefficient speaker combos that were very convincing, particularly regarding dynamics and a sense of presence. My Stax earspeakers [powered by direct coupled triodes driven by JFETs] had the effect of a very clean solid state sound with a thin coat of varnish on top. My favorite was a worn Scott 299b. Cleaner and drier sounding than most amps of its generation, great for mono LPs, successfully dodging surface noise by virtue of an excellent phono stage with a big overload margin. [also lopping off the top octave].

*being as i'm a major-league cheapskate

 

[Tim Link]

Nixie tubes are where it's at

When I was in the navy I came across some nixie tube equipment. I had never seen such a thing before and thought it was incredibly charming. Now you can get a nixie tube wrist watch! I think it should come with a backpack for batteries.