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

[SIY]

There's no specific tube sound but manufacturers are designing their products to give them a specific sound.

(emphasis mine) OK, that's very different than claiming that there's a "tube sound." There isn't. As I said very early on in this thread, "Bad tube designs can be bright, dull, fuzzy, overly sharp, whatever. A bad amp is a bad amp, a good amp is a good amp, whatever active devices are being used."

 

[Sal1950]

Speaking of liking distortion/deviations from neutral: I have been listening to some Klipsche La Scalas at a friend's place. I love 'em at least as a fun place to "visit." Ultimately I couldn't live with the La Scalas due to lack of bass and some of the colorations. On the other hand, boy with the right music do they ever boogie and give a "live" feel to the musicianship.

True they are very lacking in low bass, I ran a pair of 7 foot tall HSU subwoofers with some 350 watt monoblock amps to be able to "almost" keep up with the LaScala dynamics.. Horns rolloff on the bottom is dependent on the size of the horns mouth. Bottom octive coverage would require a HUGE speaker. LOL
Taming the rooms brightness with heavy draperies, carpet, overstuffed furniture, etc; and tube power amps lent their way towards making the speakers measure and sound fairly smooth. In 32 years of ownership I was never tempted to change them out for anything I could actually afford.

 

[Travis]

Horns rolloff on the bottom is dependent on the size of the horns mouth. Bottom octive coverage would require a HUGE speaker.

One small correction. The mouth size would be the only factor on a non-folded horn. The La Scala has a folded bass horn with an acoustic length of about 36" so, to your point, it would require an even bigger horn mouth to be equivalent.

Horn-loaded bass sure does sound good.

 

[egellings]

Valve sound need not be colored. Competent push pull or circlotron style designs can sound nearly indistinguishable from S.S. ones. Of course, one may say why bother with valves at all then? All I can say is personal preference. If they tickle your fancy and you nun-handles, then go with them. If you deem them silly, then pass them by & opt for the latest in continuous class AB or switchmode technology. The big thing is to know what you are getting into when deciding which way to go. Tube gear has limitations & ongoing expenses that make it unattractive to people who don't care about the technology that delivers music to them. Others like the compactness, light weight and high power inherent in switchmode gear. To each his own.

 

[Wes]

"tube sound" need not be sound specifically limited to tubes, the term could also be used to refer to the sound qualities that are typically, but not exclusively, found in tube designs

 

[SIY]

"tube sound" need not be sound specifically limited to tubes, the term could also be used to refer to the sound qualities that are typically, but not exclusively, found in tube designs

You mean “bright, forward, and alive,” per Gordon Holt?

Or do you mean, “different on every speaker because of source impedance?”

 

[MaxBuck]

Yeah well . . .

That's metaphysically absurd! How can I know what you hear?

. . . as the Firesign Theater pointed out so very long ago . . .

Don't crush that dwarf. Hand me the pliers.

EDIT: Oops. That'll teach me to read the rest of the thread before responding ...

 

[Wes]

You mean “bright, forward, and alive,” per Gordon Holt?

Or do you mean, “different on every speaker because of source impedance?”

my comment is independent of those particular ideas

 

[SIY]

my comment is independent of those particular ideas

No, you specifically said sound qualities found in tube designs. So… which ones are those?

 

[Wes]

I am not interested in the bee you have in your bonnet

 

[egellings]

Tube amps have a high-ish output impedance and interact with speakers in various ways due to impedance voltage divider effects that may or may not be euphonic. This gets carried to extremes in single ended feedback-less designs. If it tickles your nun-handles, then enjoy, but don't try to argue that the design approach is superior, because it ain't. It's all over the road like horse apples.

 

[egellings]

Be it tubes or transistors, just enjoy the music through whichever technology that tickles your fancy. Just don't pontificate on the chosen technology.

 

[MattHooper]

Start with a bad premise, and what follows is not valid.

Perhaps the absolute lack of evidence from 40+ years of people claiming that there's a "tube sound" might "enhance my confidence" toward concluding that maybe this is a garden fairy.

I was careful to say "enhanced" which was there to indicate that, yes, I know, you hold that there is no evidence. But I mention your own experience building and blind testing your tube amps because you are something of an anomaly from what I've seen. Even most engineer-oriented and "objectivists" have acknowledged tube amps can often enough alter the sound of a system. That's often why they wonder why anyone would choose a tube amp "why color the sound? Why not desire accuracy?"

You are in the much more rare status (from what I've seen) as apparently denying tube amps (can) even produce sonic differences.

And I think it's reasonable, given how much we humans are personal-experience-driven, that your personal experience of blind testing your own (and other?) tube amps "enhanced" your confidence in your view. Just as my experience in blind testing AC cables and other things enhanced or fortified my own skepticism. That's what I was getting at. I know you also combine your experience with the "lack of good evidence" for so many claims of tube amp sonic differences.

That is not evidence for a "tube sound."

I had a hunch you would reject it.

So you want to say nobody produces evidence for tube amps sounding different. But even hypothetically, if someone produced a positive blind test for telling a difference between a properly functioning solid state amp and a tube amp, and did so by identifying the Tube amp as having just those characteristics he and many audiophiles ascribe to tube amps...that still wouldn't amount to any evidence.

Hookay.

By the same token, your appeal to your own blind tests can be dismisses as not providing any evidence tube amps sound indistinguishable from solid state amps, right?

Now, if you are instead only claming that there is no "tube sound" insofar as some people have described tube amps as sounding different (e.g. some have described tube amps they've heard as bright/forward/thin, vs others the opposite), that's a different conversation. Any audiophile I know acknowledges that tube amps can sound different, different designs, different interactions with speakers etc. But most audiophiles do agree that certain characteristics have been classically associated with tube amplification vs SS, e.g. richer/rounder sound, softer transients, less tight bass among them, and that this has been the impression of many of us who have used tube amps. But, again, that's a different claim from "nobody produces evidence tube amps even have an identifiably different sound from solid state under controlled listening conditions" which I have understood to be part of your claim, the one I was addressing. And it is THAT claim that seems at odds with simply rejecting even a hypothetical instance of someone passing a blind test by identifying sonic characteristics he associates with his tube amp vs solid state.

 

[SIY]

I was careful to say "enhanced" which was there to indicate that, yes, I know, you hold that there is no evidence.




I had a hunch you would reject it.

So you want to say nobody produces evidence for tube amps sounding different. But even hypothetically, if someone produced a positive blind test for telling a difference between a properly functioning solid state amp and a tube amp, and did so by identifying the Tube amp as having just those characteristics he and many audiophiles ascribe to tube amps...that still wouldn't amount to any evidence.

Hookay.

By the same token, your appeal to your own blind tests can be dismisses as not providing any evidence tube amps sound indistinguishable from solid state amps, right?

Now, if you are instead only claming that there is no "tube sound" insofar as some people have described tube amps as sounding different (e.g. some have described tube amps they've heard as bright/forward/thin, vs others the opposite), that's a different conversation. Any audiophile I know acknowledges that tube amps can sound different, different designs, different interactions with speakers etc. But most audiophiles do agree that certain characteristics have been classically associated with tube amplification vs SS, e.g. richer/rounder sound, softer transients, less tight bass among them, and that this has been the impression of many of us who have used tube amps. But, again, that's a different claim from "nobody produces evidence tube amps even have an identifiably different sound from solid state under controlled listening conditions" which I have understood to be part of your claim, the one I was addressing. And it is THAT claim that seems at odds with simply rejecting even a hypothetical instance of someone passing a blind test by identifying sonic characteristics he associates with his tube amp vs solid state.

Your logic eludes me. The test you propose do nothing to establish your claim. And there's still not even a consistent definition of tube sound; note that people get upset when one tries to pin down their definitions. Your definition is exactly the opposite of Gordon Holt's definition. So was he deaf or lying? Or is "tube sound" just a piece of fairy dust?

If I take your proposed Bryston amp and ABX it with the same amp but having a 1 or 2 ohm series resistor at the output, they will very likely be able to be distinguished in a DBT, at least with most speakers, which have a variable impedance vs frequency. So in what possible sense would your proposed test establish "tube sound"? Answer: it doesn't.

 

[_thelaughingman]

What are we prattling on about here is something that is subjective on an objective forum? Lets agree to disagree and enjoy the music in whatever form that suits your fancy.

 

[Robin L]

Your logic eludes me. The test you propose do nothing to establish your claim. And there's still not even a consistent definition of tube sound; note that people get upset when one tries to pin down their definitions. Your definition is exactly the opposite of Gordon Holt's definition. So was he deaf or lying? Or is "tube sound" just a piece of fairy dust?

If I take your proposed Bryston amp and ABX it with the same amp but having a 1 or 2 ohm series resistor at the output, they will very likely be able to be distinguished in a DBT, at least with most speakers, which have a variable impedance vs frequency. So in what possible sense would your proposed test establish "tube sound"? Answer: it doesn't.

It seems like you are practicing a kind of reverse subjectivity, the blind insistence of your righteousness. Maybe it's not so much the tubes themselves but their electrical requirements that make tube designs subjectively different [and sometimes preferable] from typical solid state designs. A difference that makes no difference. Output transformers affect sound in obvious ways. Different impedances produce different interactions with other gear. "Broken" designs might have audible virtues to some. Insisting that there's "nothing there" flies in the face of a lot of obvious sonic differences.

 

[SIY]

It seems like you are practicing a kind of reverse subjectivity, the blind insistence of your righteousness. Maybe it's not so much the tubes themselves but their electrical requirements that make tube designs subjectively different [and sometimes preferable] from typical solid state designs. A difference that makes no difference. Output transformers affect sound in obvious ways. Different impedances produce different interactions with other gear. "Broken" designs might have audible virtues to some. Insisting that there's "nothing there" flies in the face of a lot of obvious sonic differences.

No, I am asserting that there is NO evidence of any sort of "sound" peculiar to using tubes as active devices. And those who insist there is have, over many decades, been unable to provide a shred of evidence that there is. Nor is there any consistency to their claimed sonic signatures. Transformers can have a sound? Sure, but they're not tubes and will have that sound irrespective of the active devices (pedantic note- assuming equal source impedances). High output impedance has a detectable sound? Sure, but it will be different speaker to speaker and is a function of impedance, not the active device used to achieve that impedance. Marketing term? Sure, but that has zero to do with technology or sound.

Calling bullshit to bullshit may strike you as "righteousness," but my love of anachronistic technology does not give bullshit claims a free pass.

 

[Wes]

And I am asserting that some sort of "sound" typically found when using tubes as active devices can still be denominated "tube sound."

 

[SIY]

And I am asserting that some sort of "sound" typically found when using tubes as active devices can still be denominated "tube sound."

'"Typically"? "Some sort"? See, that sort of vagueness is the problem- if you can define it to be anything you like, not worry about any sort of consistency and the wild variety of available topologies, and there's zero evidence of some sort of consistent tube sound signature, this has indeed degenerated into a worthless marketing term.

 

[levimax]

Interesting that on a site that demands "science" when making claims so many accept the existence of "tube sound" without any proof at all. I guess they are so different looking (tubes and SS) that it is hard to accept that they do the exact same job.