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

[Multicore]

Is it just that the tube & turntable technologies are old, tried & true that's causing the attraction to them?

Nostalgia is fun and certainly part of the answer but I don't think it's always the whole story. I think being contrarian is fun too. Remember some years ago it was in the news that a movement of flat earth believers was sweeping the nation? It's kinda like wearing a bow tie. You do it because you know it really annoys people and, if it comes to it, you can easily make anyone who tries to confront you over it look even more foolish than you do in your bow tie. James Randi is dead and exotic cables live on!

 

[MattHooper]

Is it just that the tube & turntable technologies are old, tried & true that's causing the attraction to them?

Well it would be easy to caricature but I think a realistic appraisal of the tube phenomenon will be wide ranging.

I think, though, much of it is captured by the whole audiophile "tubes sound more natural" shibboleth. I think that encompasses the many audiophiles who accept, or believe, that tube amps tend to be less neutral, and they are fine with the coloration because it "sounds better" in their estimation. I have some empathy with that view based on my own taste/experience with some tube amps. Just as I have some empathy with the folks who acknowledge vinyl is less accurate but they like the sound better.

It's more the side of audiophiledom, which still seems to be an undercurrent, that tubes are actually "superior" amplification devices, somehow "getting you closer to the music" in a way "solid state has yet to catch up to." (Similar to the idea digital has "come a long way towards sounding as good as vinyl...but not quite there yet.")
That's the implication that irks me.

But back to your question, I think the reasons tube amps continue to have cache in the audiophile world is varied - they look cool, the concept of Tube amplification is appealing to many, there's the tweak factor for some, some think they sound better, some think they don't but like fiddling with tube amps anyway. It's all over the map.

 

[Frank Dernie]

Is it just that the tube & turntable technologies are old, tried & true that's causing the attraction to them?

No.
It is fashion.

They are old, tried, not always all that true but reassuringly expensive and exclusive to that particular tribe.

IMO of course.

 

[Frank Dernie]

It's more the side of audiophiledom, which still seems to be an undercurrent, that tubes are actually "superior" amplification devices, somehow "getting you closer to the music" in a way "solid state has yet to catch up to." (Similar to the idea digital has "come a long way towards sounding as good as vinyl...but not quite there yet.")
That's the implication that irks me.

Wise words.

I like the looks of my valve amp, but not the wait while it warms up, so it is on a shelf rather than in the system...

 

[SSS]

Tube sounds is no myth. That's why I use a very sophisticated digital (software) modeler to simulate it when playing my electric guitar.

Hi-fi tube sound, on the other hand, is either a myth, because hi-fi means transparent (in my book), or it's a contradiction in terms, because hi-fi means transparent.

You are right. Tube amps can have a specific sound. Then it may be not what to expect from hi-fi. Of course tube guitar amps are made for creating a specific sound as well the distorion foot boxes after the guitar prior to the amp. For vinyl records reproduction there can pop-noise happen which is much higher than the audio signal. And there tube amps have a much higher headroom than transistor and IC amps which then avoid overload and distortion. With digital audio signals less headroom is sufficient because the signal amplitude is per se limited to FS (full-scale) which is in the region of 2 Volt after DA conversion.

 

[Multicore]

For vinyl records reproduction there can pop-noise happen which is much higher than the audio signal.

There are sophisticated digital (software) modelers for that too.

Yes, you can make transparent tube audio circuits. But these days why bother? From an engineering perspective, there are many drawbacks, even if the product spec is asking for unreasonably high headroom. But I don't think contemporary high-end audiophile gear has much to do with audio engineering practicalities or excellence. High-end audiophillia divorced itself from practical engineering years ago and went off to be esoteric. (See my comment about the joy of contrarianism above.) Or that's my take-away from Amir's recent 2023 Pacific Audio Fest. Freaky stuff indeed.

 

[Galliardist]

Tube sounds is no myth. That's why I use a very sophisticated digital (software) modeler to simulate it when playing my electric guitar.

Hi-fi tube sound, on the other hand, is either a myth, because hi-fi means transparent (in my book), or it's a contradiction in terms, because hi-fi means transparent.

As I keep trying (and failing) to remind myself, this is still Audio Science Review and not High Fidelity Science Review. As long as the approach is right, we can accommodate threads on different sound (what sounds different anyway?) and, for example, if someone wrote an article on the science, engineering or sound profile of a 1940s valve radio, wouldn't it belong here?

Ah, I think I've quoted the wrong post, but I'll leave it that way if you don't mind.

 

[fpitas]

Whether tubes or turntables actually sound better really doesn't matter, as long as they are sold as "high end". Think how many other things are sold as high-end, that make even less sense.

 

[Multicore]

As I keep trying (and failing) to remind myself, this is still Audio Science Review and not High Fidelity Science Review. As long as the approach is right, we can accommodate threads on different sound (what sounds different anyway?) and, for example, if someone wrote an article on the science, engineering or sound profile of a 1940s valve radio, wouldn't it belong here?

Of course it would belong here. Science is neutral on (has nothing to say about) political, social, ethical and aesthetic questions. All it does is afford some objective information, i.e. information that we can agree is correct in a scientific sense. Hence documenting the behavior of a 1940s valve radio is certainly audio science and that particular job can be done in a purely mechanistic way.

Now, if sound profile means the perceived audible qualities of the device, that's more complicated. How do we examine and describe subjectivity? Some philosophers of mind insist it cannot be done scientifically. I don't agree. I'm with Dennett on this who talks about heterophenomenology and argues that it can be conducted entirely scientifically. It allows us to conduct experiments in which we ask test subjects questions about their experience. If we carefully design listening experiments and questions the results may build some kind of meaningful picture of what it was like to listen to the 1940s valve radio. (This is often referred to as psycho-acoustics here at ASR but I think that's a much broader field.) I don't have a great deal of interest in this because I don't think we have a good enough language with which to meaningfully talk about what different audio devices "sound like". What sophisticated audio professionals and connoisseurs write about their perception of how audio gear sounds usually reads like wine review tasting notes to me. I just don't understand.

And I hope the difficulty in describing subjective phenomena remains because I think that difficulty is a measure of the freedom that art has to express that which cannot be put into words.

 

[Galliardist]

Of course it would belong here. Science is neutral on (has nothing to say about) political, social, ethical and aesthetic questions. All it does is afford some objective information, i.e. information that we can agree is correct in a scientific sense. Hence documenting the behavior of a 1940s valve radio is certainly audio science and that particular job can be done in a purely mechanistic way.

Now, if sound profile means the perceived audible qualities of the device, that's more complicated. How do we examine and describe subjectivity? Some philosophers of mind insist it cannot be done scientifically. I don't agree. I'm with Dennett on this who talks about heterophenomenology and argues that it can be conducted entirely scientifically. It allows us to conduct experiments in which we ask test subjects questions about their experience. If we carefully design listening experiments and questions the results may build some kind of meaningful picture of what it was like to listen to the 1940s valve radio. (This is often referred to as psycho-acoustics here at ASR but I think that's a much broader field.) I don't have a great deal of interest in this because I don't think we have a good enough language with which to meaningfully talk about what different audio devices "sound like". What sophisticated audio professionals and connoisseurs write about their perception of how audio gear sounds usually reads like wine review tasting notes to me. I just don't understand.

And I hope the difficulty in describing subjective phenomena remains because I think that difficulty is a measure of the freedom that art has to express that which cannot be put into words.

I recognise what you describe as a qualitiative survey or study. I've been involved in a couple of these and my partner's PhD was one. Every so often I wonder if such a study would help in the audio field as we see it here. The problem is that understanding the results of such a study relies on also understanding the phenomenon that subjects are reacting to or describing.

So any study of audiophilia would still fall largely on, um, deaf ears. Though we might learn something useful about the sighted listening effect, if we study the right experience and ask the right detailed questions.

But your suggestion is interesting in that context. Studying the reaction to an audio device foreign to the current argument might yield dividends.

 

[MarnixM]

In the whole topic about reasons why to use tubes I’m missing an important “environmental” point.

Attached a picture of an tube amplifier I build several years ago; an OTL (output transformer less) 2 x25W amp with 4 “famous” 6C33C real triode output valves. Every tube needed 12V 6A (!) filament current.
Very nice sound, but the total idle power consumption off the amp was little above 300W.


Irresponsible these days.

 

[Galliardist]

In the whole topic about reasons why to use tubes I’m missing an important “environmental” point.

Attached a picture of an tube amplifier I build several years ago; an OTL (output transformer less) 2 x25W amp with 4 “famous” 6C33C real triode output valves. Every tube needed 12V 6A (!) filament current.
Very nice sound, but the total idle power consumption off the amp was little above 300W.

View attachment 295191

Irresponsible these days.

The debate around electric vehicles is informative here: but the way the power is generated has to be considered, as long as what resources were used in making the device, and what would be used in, say, your switch to a less power hungry class D amp.

What is irresponsible has to be decided on a case by case basis, not just today's power usage.

 

[Multicore]

Whether tubes or turntables actually sound better really doesn't matter, as long as they are sold as "high end". Think how many other things are sold as high-end, that make even less sense.

Yes and no. I don't think calling it "high end" really covers it because my Yamaha LJ56 guitar is high end and so are the Genelec monitors I want to put on my desk.

We need a word that captures contemporary audiophillia's defiance of engineering, because that's what I see in its insistence on vinyl, tubes, fancy cables and weird speakers. How about "exotic"?

 

[Keith_W]

We need a word that captures contemporary audiophillia's defiance of engineering, because that's what I see in its insistence on vinyl, tubes, fancy cables and weird speakers. How about "exotic"?

Vinyl, tubes, and weird speakers are all engineering as well. Not fancy cables. AUDIO SCIENCE describes the science and the engineering behind these products. Science says nothing about taste, which is subjective. There are people who like vinyl, tubes, and weird speakers. There is nothing unscientific about that.

 

[NiagaraPete]

that properly designed tube amps should be neutral.

Is there an actual example of that? Most if not all tube amps fall way below what is considered transparent.

 

[fpitas]

Yes and no. I don't think calling it "high end" really covers it because my Yamaha LJ56 guitar is high end and so are the Genelec monitors I want to put on my desk.

We need a word that captures contemporary audiophillia's defiance of engineering, because that's what I see in its insistence on vinyl, tubes, fancy cables and weird speakers. How about "exotic"?

Cable risers, snake oil cables and magic crystals are high end, too. To a non-technical person they must all seem legitimate.

 

[SIY]

Is there an actual example of that? Most if not all tube amps fall way below what is considered transparent.

As a practical matter, most engineered tube amps are transparent.

 

[Multicore]

Vinyl, tubes, and weird speakers are all engineering as well. Not fancy cables. AUDIO SCIENCE describes the science and the engineering behind these products. Science says nothing about taste, which is subjective. There are people who like vinyl, tubes, and weird speakers. There is nothing unscientific about that.

I said nothing about science. I said engineering. And cables are engineered using product specifications that derive from business considerations in exactly the same way as they do for amps and turntables and all the rest. The business is to build stuff that sells to consumers and engineers can do that whether the product specs make practical audio engineering sense or not.

I agree there's a difference between cables and tubes/vinyl, vis: tubes and are obsolete technologies (in practically achieving the component's functional spec within the audio system while fancy (over-spec'ed, over-engineered) cables are unnecessary technologies, i.e. never afforded practical advantages.

But this difference is beside my point about contemporary high-end audiophilia's defiance of contemporary practical engineering. In one case it is defiantly using obsolete tech and in the other it is defiantly using unnecessary tech.

In some ASR thread not too long ago someone reported, iirc, visiting a hi-fi retailer and talking to the folk there and they said something to justify their interest in certain amps and speakers: because they sound good. If they wanted neutral they can just buy studio monitors and be done with it. But that's not what they want, they want to spend time and money fussing over and auditioning gear. I loved this because it is a clear acknowledgement of the intent of their hobby. And it includes the statement of defiance of practical audio engineering. I would gladly install Genelec Ones around the house because I want neutral playback tools so I can listen to music without the gear damaging the music. These guys at the hi-fi retailer explicitly reject that: they want to hear the modifications the gear they choose makes. That's not audio engineering, it's something else, it's some kind of aesthetic connoisseurship of hardware.

 

[Multicore]

Cable risers, snake oil cables and magic crystals are high end, too. To a non-technical person they must all seem legitimate.

Maybe. In some cases I expect your right, consumers get confused my marketing baffle-gab. But I don't think it's the whole story. I think there's also an esoteric attraction. See my reply to Keith above and my comment about bowties here. Among the pleasures of esotericism is feeling special by belonging to a group of initiates that have knowledge that the uninitiated lack.

I was going to propose esoteric along with exotic instead of high-end previously but while I thought it closer to the truth it's probably confusing.

 

[NiagaraPete]

As a practical matter, most engineered tube amps are transparent.

Well here’s a tube amp from a highly reputable firm that was clearly engineered.

Luxman SQ-N150 Review (Tube Amplifier)

This is a review and detailed measurements of the Luxman SQ-N150 hybrid integrated amplifier with phono stage. It is on kind loan from a member and costs US $3,295. Can you say pretty? I knew you could! :) Love the elegant front panel with VU meter. Nice set of balance and tone controls are...

www.audiosciencereview.com