If "Tube Sound" Is a Myth, Why Tubes?

[solderdude]

My take on this....

If tube based amps can be made to avoid "tubey sound", why bother with tubes instead of solid state?

Because they look really pretty and are fun to design amps with. It is really easy to use them and few parts are needed.

If a tube based amp is designed to avoid "tubey sound", what impact does that have on tube rolling?

In some cases it is just as pointless as opamp rolling. This depends on the design. You van have lower or higher gain (non overall feedback designs) or noise levels or distortion levels.
The main reason why tubes are user replaceable is not for rolling tubes but to be able to user replace them as they have a tendency to become defective after a while.

If a tube based amp is designed to avoid "tubey sound", does it have any impact on the output impedance, current, or other factors that differentiate tubes from solid state?

In this particular case it depends on the feedback used. Another aspect is a tube delivers output power and solid state an output voltage. So there are different clipping/overload characteristics which helps with lower power amps.

Does it matter at all if there are tube rectifiers in the circuit?

Not in an audible way.

Between driver, power, and rectifier tubes, which are have the most impact on the sound, assuming a "non tubey" design goal?

When the goal is to design a good amplifier then driver stages should be low noise and have enough gain (is lower distortion). Output tubes are responsible for the output power so have a direct relation to that.

If tubes don't have a sound, what's the point of hybrid tube amps?

These different designs have different goals. The whole point of hybrid is to have lots more output power
Much easier to do this with SS output devices

 

[solderdude]

I should add.

Tube sound is not a myth when it comes to guitar amps and stuff like SET power amps but their goal is not to be indistinguishable from SS but rather to change the sound deliberately.

The fact that SS can emulate tube sound should be enough.

I too have fooled people by using a tube amp which secretly was all SS on the inside and only heaters connected. It works. Placebo is a powerful thing in the world of audio.

 

[Wombat]

Irony: Tube sound is good, interconnects and cables make a difference, vinyl gear makes a difference, BUT TONE CONTROLS or FEEDBACK sound bad.

Guess which ones the user can change in/out. Tinker with.

 

[Wombat]

Maybe! I can see a time when "perfection" in the electronics of audio is a commodity that we don't value it any more, so manufacturers design for "taste"... It will be a sad day for me, as I do value being able to accurately reproduce what was recorded, but I'm probably an unusual case, and an endangered species.

Those eavesdropping/talk to speakers that are permeating the marketplace show that that shift is the new normal.

 

[invaderzim]

Maybe! I can see a time when "perfection" in the electronics of audio is a commodity that we don't value it any more, so manufacturers design for "taste"... It will be a sad day for me, as I do value being able to accurately reproduce what was recorded, but I'm probably an unusual case, and an endangered species.

Why can't there be both? Why do people all have to enjoy the same thing? I really enjoy my SE tube amp but I have never said to a solid state fan that they are missing out on anything by not listening to a well made tube amp or that they are ridiculous for not trying it but the opposite is a commonly said thing from others. If someone doesn't try to push their preference in audio on you then why feel threatened by its existence?
I have said that when people and reviewers rave about some magic in any sort of audio component it is bad because too many people take it as fact and spend a lot of money based on it. That is why I like Nelson Pass so much, he tends to just say thing like "some people like that sound better"

If we all liked the exact same thing in our music there would be only one line of amps and one line of speakers sold. With the only variable being price and size. Heck, people don't even like the same music. There is plenty that people listen to and rave about that is really annoying to me so obviously I'm not hearing what they are hearing in it.

For every amp that is built with a coloration or 2nd harmonics it does not mean that a perfectly accurate amp had to be not built.

Also, the recording engineer likely made the recording to a taste rather than the exact way the performer sounded. What do musicians want their recordings to sound like? Sure I get it that maybe I'm not better at picking a sound than the musician and the engineer but in either case I may not be hearing what happened in the recording booth like I was there.

1. Fun. It's enjoyable for some (like me) to use old technologies and see what performance can be scraped out of them. Think of someone restoring a 1959 Avanti. I also take advantage of the high available voltage swings for things like mike and phono preamps as well as electrostatic direct drive.
....

For me they are so much more fun to build and work on. Point to point wiring is a joy and makes planning the layout enjoyable too.
Circuit boards often drive me up the wall. And tubes are resilient; wire something off with them and you will likely get second chance; transistors and chips aren't forgiving like that.

Does building a tube amp that has the cleanest sound possible make any less sense than building a solid state amp that has .00001% distortion when you can't hear the difference between .01% and .001%?

 

[Purité Audio]

I would buy a nice solid state amp and then stick a light bulb on top, best of both worlds.
Keith

 

[Soniclife]

I agree and my vision goes one step further. People will not have to choose different amps based on taste, they will be able to configure the modeling inside the amp using an included app to make it sound “right” for them.

I'd like to play with an amp like that, assuming it had an accurate setting as well as, I'd be interested to know if I would end up consciously favouring some form of seasoning, or if I would progressively drift back to accurate, and then leave it there. I expect the latter, with occasional use of very coloured settings, like I do now by mainly playing digital, but occasionally choosing to play vinyl.

 

[FrantzM]

Bluntly put

No place for Tubes or Analog in High Fidelity Music Reproduction. Those are affectations that come from brainwashing. If one needs a given sound it can be obtained with the help of (often) inexpensive Digital Signal Processors.

Deep inside many of us , yours truly included, there is the decorative aspect of an Audio system. A shrine, with a shiny Preamp, a matching shiny DAC, fancy looking Interconnect Cables, two fine and heat-inducing mono-blocks with sharp and dangerous heatsink protruding menacingly, some garden-hose-sized speaker cables, a pair of two good looking, tall speakers, with shiny or special-looking drivers, is closer to out heart and minds, in term of looks and even desirability, than a prosaic thing like a pair of Dutch & Dutch 8C, perched on a stand, connected via Wifi to a PC ...

 

[garbulky]

In that case why not just put VUs and non-functioning tubes (just a heater element, no audio circuit) as a facade on a class D amp?

They actually do just that. Amir has reviewed a bunch of these. Most of them are called "hybrid" tube headphone amps, but what they really are are class D amps with a tube preamp stage. On one monoprice product, I'm not entirely sure if the tube was even connected in the circuit.

 

[Xulonn]

I would buy a nice solid state amp and then stick a light bulb on top, best of both worlds.

You've inspired me to have a silly dream, Keith! (Actually, my idea would be fun to do at a "high-end" audio show.)

I could buy a nice chassis, some hole punches, potted transformer cans, tube sockets, a filament transformer, used tubes with working filaments, and build a phony amp with tubes that glow - and a nice Hypex amp module and SMPS hidden in the chassis. Apparently some of the cheap ChiFi integrated amps already include that design bu using small audio tubes that are not even in the signal path.

However, I would want some "coke-bottle" or globe 6SN7's, nice looking KT-88s, and a tube rectifier all a-glow. But instead of building from scratch, maybe I could just buy a Himing-Rivals "Prince" amplifier (below) from China for $425, strip out the unnecessary components, and replace them with a Hypex amp module & SMPS. The power, slam and details in the music would wow the unknowing!

 

[Thomas savage]

I got my mum to knit a giant tea cosy for my TAD CDP , umm, sounds analogue as fuuuuck.

Might start selling them.

 

[audimus]

I'd like to play with an amp like that, assuming it had an accurate setting as well as, I'd be interested to know if I would end up consciously favouring some form of seasoning, or if I would progressively drift back to accurate, and then leave it there. I expect the latter, with occasional use of very coloured settings, like I do now by mainly playing digital, but occasionally choosing to play vinyl.

For the standards placed by the “perfect reproduction” crowd on the “golden ears” crowd, you will have to do that double blind without knowing whether one setting is purer or not. Otherwise, the same cognitive biases that the “golden ears” crowd is accused of will influence your preference towards more or less accurate. Our ears aren’t designed for detecting accuracy in reproduction because it is a relative concept.

But, we already have some anecdotal evidence from the increasing use of room equalization technology that we don’t actually prefer perfect (as in flat across the spectrum) frequency response of the chain as a whole. Smoothing the response at any segment of the spectrum with room correction is fine and is aimed at more accuracy but the slopes in the target curve itself that almost everybody prefers over a flat line has already broken the perfect reproduction criterion as the ideal. This is justified/rationalized by citing the average response of our ears across the spectrum which is also related to volume.

Now, consider the implication of the above. If modeling the output away from flat response (perfect transparency) to compensate for gross average characteristics of human ear is OK, why is it any less noble to do so to adjust it for individual differences in human ears by amp modeling. In other words, what is the basis for any assumption that one will necessarily gravitate towards perfect transparency in a blind test?

This is why I find the “perfect reproduction” criterion and threads like this amusing and is for people who enjoy meeting that criterion as a hobby more than listening. It is often a basis for group identity that allows one to feel good about themselves by jeering at the other group much like fans of rival baseball/football teams. Nothing to do with objectivity or for that matter science.

 

[Soniclife]

For the standards placed by the “perfect reproduction” crowd on the “golden ears” crowd, you will have to do that double blind without knowing whether one setting is purer or not. Otherwise, the same cognitive biases that the “golden ears” crowd is accused of will influence your preference towards more or less accurate. Our ears aren’t designed for detecting accuracy in reproduction because it is a relative concept.

Any amp that offered such adjustment could easily add in a DBT test option.

 

[SIY]

Bluntly put

No place for Tubes or Analog in High Fidelity Music Reproduction. Those are affectations that come from brainwashing.

I don't think I'm brainwashed- my brain remains dirty.

 

[Soniclife]

But, we already have some anecdotal evidence from the increasing use of room equalization technology that we don’t actually prefer perfect (as in flat across the spectrum) frequency response of the chain as a whole. Smoothing the response at any segment of the spectrum with room correction is fine and is aimed at more accuracy but the slopes in the target curve itself that almost everybody prefers over a flat line has already broken the perfect reproduction criterion as the ideal.

This is a misunderstanding of what you are adjusting, the idea is you EQ back to what would be flat in an anechoic chamber, which produces a slope in room.

 

[Thomas savage]

I don't think I'm brainwashed- my brain remains dirty.

Best change your detergent.

 

[scott wurcer]

Best change your detergent.

He just needs to eat more mayonnaise.

 

[SIY]

He just needs to eat more mayonnaise.

I DO NOT CONSUME PUS.

 

[Xulonn]

I don't think I'm brainwashed- my brain remains dirty.

This might help - on sale now at Amazon prime...

 

[Julf]

If modeling the output away from flat response (perfect transparency) to compensate for gross average characteristics of human ear is OK, why is it any less noble to do so to adjust it for individual differences in human ears by amp modeling.

It is perfectly fine to do to accommodate your personal preference, but as to individual differences in human ears, there is no such compensation when you hear a live concert, a human voice or a dog barking - wouldn't you want the reproduction of the recorded version to sound the same as the original one?