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

[mhardy6647]

DSC_0121 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

 

[dfuller]

[massive pic]

Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...

 

[cistercian]

Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...

DSC_0121 (2) by Mark Hardy, on Flickr

Epic. Great in wintertime!!!

 

[mhardy6647]

Nice! I see you've got a potato masher 5R4 in there...

That's a big 10-4.

In full disclosure, the active preamp/power supply is on loan from my friend and hifi colleague Alan in Massachusetts.
https://hifihaven.org/index.php?threads/to-paraphrase-paul-hogan-as-crocodile-dundee-thats-not-a-power-supply.6255/

 

[MattHooper]

Well, I had the opportunity to re-visit Solid State Amp world again for my main 2 channel music system. Apropos, somewhat, of this thread
it's a bit more "why I stick with my tube amps."

For anyone allergic to purely subjective reports, you may as well avert your eyes. I've already pointed out all the obvious caveats earlier in this and other threads on this subject.

One of my Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube mono block amps seemed to have a problem with the power switch (it's 22 years old), so off it went to the shop. An audio buddy was kind enough to lend me his Bryston 4B3 amp:

https://bryston.com/amplifiers/4b3/

I used to own a Bryston 4BST amp, many years ago, which I had on hand when reviewing various speakers, so I had a neutral reference vs the tube amps I also owned. It had been quite a while and this afforded me the opportunity to fulfill my curiosity about how a beefy solid state amp would driver my current speaker line up - my Joseph Audio Perspectives in particular. But as I'd recently been listening to my little Spendor S3/5s just before my CJ amp had to go, I started with those hooked up to the Bryston.

The experience was exactly as I remembered whenever I threw my old Bryston in to the system:

There was "that" sound of solid state driving a system vs a classic tube amp like my CJs. The words "tight" "taught" "punchy" first came to mind. Transient-oriented, exciting. It sounded "squeezed" almost like my speakers had put on girdles to control and remove any signs of flab.
Another subjective effect: the Spendor 3/5s sounded smaller. They are a tiny speaker that can sound surprisingly large, and they still did that with the Bryston, but to a lesser degree. The sense of the bass being so tightened up gave me a more specific sense of where the bass frequencies ended. Almost like a visual line appeared just below the speakers "bass frequencies end HERE and go no further down." The top end seemed a bit more "dark" in terms of a bit of upper air or glow to the sound I was used to. That, combined with the fact the sonic images of voices and other instruments seemed to be squeezed into tighter form, made the whole presentation seem to be that of a slightly smaller speaker.

It was fascinating hearing the sonic presentation change like this, but I was having trouble just relaxing when listening. There is a sort of mechanical quality, harder edged, more artificial aspect to the sound - even vocalists that I was used to hearing as particularly "human sounding" on the Spendors sounded more electronically squeezed (which I attribute to the recording/production end, not to any "sound" of the Bryston amp, which I take to be essentially neutral and transparent). Basically as nice as some of the sonic attributes of tight, snappy sound were, everything took more of a step towards sounding more artificial, more like a recording.

Once I put the Bryston on my Joseph Speakers, it was a similar experience. A bit tighter in the bass, electric guitars had a slightly more dense, punchy sound, drum high hats sounded a bit harder/metallic more convincing. But also string section parts in certain tracks I've heard a million times sounded more tonally gray and steely. In fact, parts of certain songs that usually make me swoon, where a vivid string section just emerges behind the band with gorgeous texture and tone, seemed to just have this flattened effect, less vividly different from the rest of the instruments.

After a couple of days I got my CJ amp back. Turned out there actually wasn't a problem with it after all. Re-listened to a bunch of tracks on the Bryston, then threw in the CJ amps and....

Aaaaahh. There it was! That gorgeous, relaxed, richer, rounder, bigger sound I was used to. Everything just took a step towards sounding more "organic" by which I mean, singers sounded more full, dimensional, sibilance more natural....just more flesh and blood rather than reproduced.
Bass was still powerful and tight, but just bigger and rounder sounding. There is something about how the tube amp sound thickens things out and very slightly blurs the edges of instrumental images that makes the speakers seem to "disappear" more as apparent sources of the sound, and the "ground floor" of the bass seems less obviously cut off and limited. (My hunch being perhaps the tube amp doing a less precise damping of the lower frequencies?). Wasn't at the expense of sounding dulled or rolled off. The sound was vivid and extended and sparkly. But it was more relaxed and energetic horn parts that could sound a bit "steely, sharp and stabbing the ears" on the Bryston amp didn't cause any such feeling on the CJ amps. The horns were vivid, but not sharp to the ears and allowed me to relax.

I was out and about yesterday and heard a 3 piece band on the corner - stand up bass, drums, sax - and a live band playing at the window of a pub (organ, bass, drums). I always on encountering live music stop, close my eyes and listen and try to take in "what are the general take-aways in terms of how this sounds vs a hi fi system?" And as usual, the things that struck me is that it sounds just as Jeff Joseph puts it in his advertising literature: "Live, unamplified music has unmistakable presence and clarity. Yet, at the same time it also sounds relaxed and warm." (Which, given that insight as a goal, may be why I have loved the Joseph Audio speakers - they do a beautiful job of sounding both incredibly clean and clear, yet rich and relaxed).

That is *exactly* the characteristics I typically notice in live acoustic sources. And there were no "hard edges" less "squeezed-through-a-microphone" sound, just an ease of big, round instrumental tone that bled in to real acoustic space. Voices through the Spendors had that amazing "boy that could be a real human" sensation again. And though my tube amps hardly perform miracles, and though the sonic differences I'm describing are ultimately subtle, with the tube amp the sound takes a step in precisely the directions that remind me more of live sound. I find it doesn't take much to have a fairly profound experiential/subjective dividends. I literally start to get bored fast when I've got a SS amp driving my system, whereas with my tube amps there is an organic, relaxed quality that draws me in, similar to how I am drawn to the sound of live instruments because they sound so damned gorgeous.

I could easily understand why someone else, upon comparing the performance of the Bryston vs the tubes, listening to the same material in m room, would prefer the solid state. It's very easy to see why.

But for me, my tube amps seem to be a pretty vital part of my system in getting me to put my butt down to listen. If I don't hear that certain characteristic I'm like "Well, this sounds neat, but I've got other things to do so I'll crank this for background music."

A personal quirk I have to live with, it seems. Still, I have a while with the Bryston. Maybe I'll warm up to it.

 

[Julf]

But for me, my tube amps seem to be a pretty vital part of my system in getting me to put my butt down to listen. If I don't hear that certain characteristic I'm like "Well, this sounds neat, but I've got other things to do so I'll crank this for background music."

So purely subjective, sighted, and serial listening? Nice to hear, but doesn't actually tell us anything, and has nothing to do with the "science" part of the forum name...

 

[MattHooper]

So purely subjective, sighted, and serial listening? Nice to hear, but doesn't actually tell us anything, and has nothing to do with the "science" part of the forum name...

Absolutely. I mentioned the caveats, and have been explicit about them earlier in the thread. You are right this doesn't at all fulfill the "science" part of the forum. However, as has come up before, if we were limited to only producing scientifically-vetted information, that would be a fairly untenable bar to pass for many posts, and this place may as well merge with Hydrogen Audio and it's draconian views on not allowing subjective descriptions/reports.

Thus, at least some of us, if not most, have allowed that adding subjective experience, e.g. with speakers, is to some extent justifiable, insofar as it's a report of something quite "objectively" plausible. That is: speakers sound different, so someone reporting hearing differences between two different speaker designs is making a plausible claim that, in a practical sense, can be acceptable.

In the same spirit, insofar as it seems a majority here recognize that tube amps CAN sound different from solid state amps and color the sound, it seems my hearing sonic differences are entirely plausible.

Just as in any of us commenting on the sound of a speaker isn't producing a scientific treatise anyone has to take as gospel truth because all the variables weren't controlled, so my description above isn't doing so either. But if you grant tube amps can sound different, and then ask "why do some people prefer tube amps?" then this was my account for why I prefer my tube amps. Not trying to make a scientifically tight case whatsoever, and clearly you are a member who may as well have averted your eyes. Which is perfectly understandable. ;-)

But I am betting that some possible minority here could have a bit of interest in what I wrote, and take it with the obvious caveats. I may be proven wrong.

As I say: it's hard to find a half-way-house that welcomes both objective facts and measurements but also isn't totally allergic to putting our sonic experiences in subjective terms and descriptions. This forum is as close as I've found, so far.

 

[Julf]

In the same spirit, insofar as it seems a majority here recognize that tube amps CAN sound different from solid state amps and color the sound, it seems my hearing sonic differences are entirely plausible.

Absolutely. Unfortunately for the rest of us it boils down to "I like blue more than green".

 

[SIY]

I still don't know why people grossly misuse the word "subjective" to mean "peeking." Or put more nicely, "uncontrolled."

Yes, using the correct terminology doesn't make the ensuing logorrhea any more useful, but at least one small moment of accuracy would be nice.

 

[MattHooper]

I still don't know why people grossly misuse the word "subjective" to mean "peeking." Or put more nicely, "uncontrolled."

Yes, using the correct terminology doesn't make the ensuing logorrhea any more useful, but at least one small moment of accuracy would be nice.

Where was I inaccurately using the term "subjective?" (I was not using it as a synonym for "peeking").
(And btw, thanks for characterising the post as "ensuing logorrhea." Stay classy.)

 

[Robin L]

Absolutely. I mentioned the caveats, and have been explicit about them earlier in the thread. You are right this doesn't at all fulfill the "science" part of the forum. However, as has come up before, if we were limited to only producing scientifically-vetted information, that would be a fairly untenable bar to pass for many posts, and this place may as well merge with Hydrogen Audio and it's draconian views on not allowing subjective descriptions/reports.

Thus, at least some of us, if not most, have allowed that adding subjective experience, e.g. with speakers, is to some extent justifiable, insofar as it's a report of something quite "objectively" plausible. That is: speakers sound different, so someone reporting hearing differences between two different speaker designs is making a plausible claim that, in a practical sense, can be acceptable.

In the same spirit, insofar as it seems a majority here recognize that tube amps CAN sound different from solid state amps and color the sound, it seems my hearing sonic differences are entirely plausible.

Just as in any of us commenting on the sound of a speaker isn't producing a scientific treatise anyone has to take as gospel truth because all the variables weren't controlled, so my description above isn't doing so either. But if you grant tube amps can sound different, and then ask "why do some people prefer tube amps?" then this was my account for why I prefer my tube amps. Not trying to make a scientifically tight case whatsoever, and clearly you are a member who may as well have averted your eyes. Which is perfectly understandable. ;-)

But I am betting that some possible minority here could have a bit of interest in what I wrote, and take it with the obvious caveats. I may be proven wrong.

As I say: it's hard to find a half-way-house that welcomes both objective facts and measurements but also isn't totally allergic to putting our sonic experiences in subjective terms and descriptions. This forum is as close as I've found, so far.

Interesting. Right now I'm listening to music through the Topping 30 pair, and it has a different sound compared to what I'm used to. It sounds hyper-clean but not etched. It's got less of that squeezed and tightened solid state sound you're taking about. I'm gonna guess that the C-J tube amp is transformer coupled? I remember that kind of sound from the vintage tube gear I used to own. Found it great for vocals, but tended to reduce detail elsewhere. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. My sense is the sound of the Topping L30 is more like the Stax SRM T1 amp for the Signature earspeakers. The triode out amp was direct coupled, so no 'transformer sound'. Grainless but detailed. I can understand being fond of tube sound, with or without transformers. But as I am seeking more detail, not less, I don't feel the urge to go back to tubes.

 

[SIY]

Where was I inaccurately using the term "subjective?" (I was not using it as a synonym for "peeking").

"For anyone allergic to purely subjective reports, you may as well avert your eyes. I've already pointed out all the obvious caveats earlier in this and other threads on this subject."

And sadly, it started even more nonsense.

 

[MattHooper]

"For anyone allergic to purely subjective reports, you may as well avert your eyes. I've already pointed out all the obvious caveats earlier in this and other threads on this subject."

So, where you going to actually point out where I used the term "subjective" as a synonym for "peeking?" I was denoting the difference between subjective reports unaccompanied by measurements in support of the subjective impressions. Hence the word "purely" subjective. I'm well aware, believe it or not, that science, like that produced by Floyd Toole, correlates subjective with objective measurements.

 

[MattHooper]

Interesting. Right now I'm listening to music through the Topping 30 pair, and it has a different sound compared to what I'm used to. It sounds hyper-clean but not etched. It's got less of that squeezed and tightened solid state sound you're taking about. I'm gonna guess that the C-J tube amp is transformer coupled? I remember that kind of sound from the vintage tube gear I used to own. Found it great for vocals, but tended to reduce detail elsewhere. Sometimes useful, sometimes not. My sense is the sound of the Topping L30 is more like the Stax SRM T1 amp for the Signature earspeakers. The triode out amp was direct coupled, so no 'transformer sound'. Grainless but detailed. I can understand being fond of tube sound, with or without transformers. But as I am seeking more detail, not less, I don't feel the urge to go back to tubes.

Yes the CJs have big ol' transformers.

I understand wanting to hear more detail. I guess it also depends on what one means particularly about "more detail." So for instance, I didn't hear any "more detail" from the Bryston amp, for instance there weren't subtle reverb cues, or distant instruments, or anything, that weren't just as audible on the CJ amps. Rather, it seemed like the same audible details "presented in a slightly different way." But you of course may have a different take. Cheers.

 

[SIY]

So, where you going to actually point out where I used the term "subjective" as a synonym for "peeking?"

Everything that followed the abuse of that poor innocent adjective.

 

[Robin L]

Yes the CJs have big ol' transformers.

I understand wanting to hear more detail. I guess it also depends on what one means particularly about "more detail." So for instance, I didn't hear any "more detail" from the Bryston amp, for instance there weren't subtle reverb cues, or distant instruments, or anything, that weren't just as audible on the CJ amps. Rather, it seemed like the same audible details "presented in a slightly different way." But you of course may have a different take. Cheers.

From what you have said about working constantly with digital audio, my sense is that you want to back off from too much information, much as Jack Vad knowingly uses gear with less detail and a generally smoother sound when doing production work. Have to say, when I was using the Stax Earspeakers for audio production I frequently suffered from migraines, no doubt related to that overload of audio info. The presentation of the Drop 6XX 'phones and the Topping gear is not as incisive in its detail as the Stax gear. At the same time, I am hearing low level detail---subtle reverb cues, or distant instruments---I haven't heard before. While differences in frequency response can make some details pop that didn't before, this is happening at lower dynamic levels and seems to be emerging in between the notes, so to speak, in what otherwise would be musical rests.

 

[MattHooper]

Everything that followed the abuse of that poor innocent adjective.

Ok, just wondered if you could back up the snark. Guess not.

Everything that followed from that "innocent adjective" aligns with the normal use of the word, and in it's use in audio specifically. That is: it was a report from a subject, of that subject's experience, denoting the preferences of that subject.

Exactly, btw, how the term would be understood in the science of determining subjective preference (e.g. blind speaker testing, where the subjective experience/preferences can be correlated with objective measurements).

But you were never the audience for that post anyway. I do respect how your experience has led you to your views on tube amps.
ETA: Also, I appreciate the delineation I believe you want to make: being interested in measurements and a scientific approach is not to do away with the "subjective" as so many ignorant "subjecitivist-oriented" audiophiles argue. Subjective experience clearly exists and is important and it can also be studied and even quantified. So pointing to the relevance of measurements, or a scientific control of variables, is not to say "subjective experience doesn't exist or doesn't matter." I would have just hoped that given I have been explicit about that division constantly while on this forum, and in this very thread, that my post wouldn't be interpreted uncharitably as making some ignorant mistake of that sort. Cheers.

 

[MattHooper]

From what you have said about working constantly with digital audio, my sense is that you want to back off from too much information, much as Jack Vad knowingly uses gear with less detail and a generally smoother sound when doing production work. Have to say, when I was using the Stax Earspeakers for audio production I frequently suffered from migraines, no doubt related to that overload of audio info.

I can see what you mean. Yes, after a day full of cutting shoot-outs and car chases I'm not looking for a further assault on my ears. Anything that helps me relax....

(Though, again, I'm not just looking for that as I also like attributes that remind me of live sound. I find that solid state, generally speaking, reprouces some aspects more believably - the precision, clarity of transients, impact and dynamics, for instance of a drum set - while the classic tubey sound captures some other aspects. I happen to value the aspects tube amps produce a bit more. Would love to have it all, but reproduced sound, both on the recording and reproduction end, will continue to be a set of compromises).

 

[Inner Space]

@MattHooper - genuinely discussing here, not piling on. Your (no doubt inadvertent) misuse of the word "taught" (you meant "taut") drew attention to the fact that your listening report was basically word-for-word what anyone would have learned by reading the audiophool press for years and years. The likelihood is you personally could not distinguish between the Bryston and the CJs without visual confirmation of which was playing. Is that not true? Or is it true of most, but not you? If so, is that a safe assumption? Should it be tested once in a while? I know you mix film sound for a living - is that enough to make you special? If so, is it merely a coincidence you agree word-for-word with received audiophool opinion? If not, are we undervaluing the audiophool press? Seems like they're dead right, according to you.

 

[MattHooper]

@MattHooper - genuinely discussing here, not piling on. Your (no doubt inadvertent) misuse of the word "taught" (you meant "taut") drew attention to the fact that your listening report was basically word-for-word what anyone would have learned by reading the audiophool press for years and years.

Absolutely! Precisely why anyone here can justify dismissing it if they want and I completely understand. However, note that a similar justification can be used in dismissing anyone writing sighted impressions of speakers too. But we've gone over why those seem acceptable, including Amir's
sighted reports.

The likelihood is you personally could not distinguish between the Bryston and the CJs without visual confirmation of which was playing. Is that not true? Or is it true of most, but not you? If so, is that a safe assumption? Should it be tested once in a while? I know you mix film sound for a living - is that enough to make you special? If so, is it merely a coincidence you agree word-for-word with received audiophool opinion? If not, are we undervaluing the audiophool press? Seems like they're dead right, according to you.

All good questions.

Do I think it's likely I could distinguish the Bryston from the CJ in a blind test? In this case: yes. I base this on the fact many people more knowledgeable than I am about electronics say that tube amps can indeed sound different for various technical reasons. Unlike, say, the cable debate, this is generally uncontroversial (even Arny Kruger agreed with this!). ETA: Mine is an old Conrad Johnson amp which back in the day were generally held to produce a "classic tube amp sound" (rounder, softer and all that). Note: when Bob Carver produced the infamous stereophile blind test result, claiming succesffully that he could re-jig one of his solid state amps to sound indistinguishable from the CJ tube amp, he did so by changing various parameters of the SS amp - someone detailed those technical changes in this thread I believe. Presumably he wouldn't have bothered to change a thing if they actually measured/sounded indistinguishable in the first place without modification.

Secondly, the differences seemed so pronounced that it has left a strong impression that I could tell them apart. (I've had similar situations before, where for instance I heard what seemed to be very identifiable differences between some CDPs/DACs in the 90's, where I was told "they should be indistinguishable," but in blind testing I easily identified them with perfect accuracy. Which isn't to say the same would happen for sure with the amps, but my hunch is it would. Though I WOULD expect that I couldn't identify two decent SS amps in a blind test).

And, yes, those differences are very much some of the classic differences often attributed to tube amps in the high end audio crowd. So, yes, *to some degree* I think even the "subjective audiophools" can be right. But there are lots of caveats (e.g. that not all tube amps are the same, and "well designed" tube amps can sound indistinguishable from SS amps, so while there may be some truth mixed in with subjective reports, there is almost certainly lots of bias "just because the amp has tubes" as well, to untangle).

However....even though that would be the way I would bet, that I could distinguish the CJ from the Bryston....I could be wrong. It's still *possible* that everything I described was sighted bias, and if I couldn't tell them apart in a blind test I would embrace that result as informative.

Unfortunately I don't have a speaker/amp switcher handy for faster switching, nor a voltmeter to ensure exact volume output, so such a blind test is out of my reach for now.