22dB is the LOWEST 5W SINAD of any amplifier measured [on ASR]?I think that's what "record breaker" in the headline refers to.
Here is a recent amplifier tested on ASR: 120dB
-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Record breaker: Raphaelite CS30-MKII tube amplifier review and measurements
- Thread starter GXAlan
- Start date
Here is a recent amplifier tested on ASR: 120dB
- Thread Starter
- #42
I think that's what "record breaker" in the headline refers to.
Exactly. It’s breaks the record for being the new WORST ever. (And it isn’t clipping). It isn’t setting the record for the BEST.
But the cool part is that it sounds surprisingly better than you would expect and in the blind testing, at times preferred! And we can understand way through measurements of the inverted loudness.
Smiley-face EQ works but it is fatiguing. Imagine having a robot that in real time could give you a smiley face during the most dynamic parts of the song to give that extra bit of sizzle but stay neutral for the bulk of the song. That’s what the 300B SET, or rather *this* 300B SET is doing.
Last edited:
22dB is the LOWEST 5W SINAD of any amplifier measured [on ASR]?
Here is a recent amplifier tested on ASR: 120dB
I can never tell when you are going to use "forum language" or exponential pedantry, but as that metric is a positive number, 22 is lower than 120. I reckon. In either mode. Or are you making some other point that's escaping me?
Times were different......
I am really at a loss here. How can SINAD of 22dB is better than SINAD of 120dB? What is pedantic about asking this? Higher the value the better the SINAD isn't it?
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 20,784
- Likes
- 37,681
By lowest he means numerically lowest. 22 is lower than 120. Which means in this case poorest result. I wouldn't have stated it that way, but he clearly doesn't mean 22 is better than 120.
SINAD is the inverse of THD+N. For the former, a higher number is better, and for the latter a lower number is better.
* when we can hear it, and technically, even when we don't hear it
So 98 dB or 630,957,344,480% worse SINAD performance compared to the latest and greatest amp and it is barely audible and possibly even preferred. This is what makes understanding measurements and what to chase in this hobby intetesting. Thanks for taking the time to put this together.
dtaylo1066
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2019
- Messages
- 660
- Likes
- 827
Interesting read. Thanks.
"Lower" was in fact the (correct) language used by the OP.
It looks like @sarumbear was flummoxed by that (and the headline) and your explanation obviously worked. But "lower signal over noise and distortion" vs "higher total harmonic distortion and noise" isn't rocket science, it's very basic English.
Some thoughts that I would add:
Not all tube amps have to be as low-fi as this one, you can easily get to 0.02% THD at 5W with push pull KT88 and good input tubes, same with full pentode operation push pulls. Even if you want to stick to directly heated triodes EML 20B has 0.08% THD and that's before any "tricks" like CCS.
If you are wondering how clean and wide bandwidth tubes can get Trafomatic makes a preamp on EML 30A with 6N30P driver tubes with 5Hz-200KHz bandwidth and 98dB S/N. Basically anyone who thinks vinyl can sound great, and with care it absolutely can should be satisfied since tube amplification can surpass this medium performance greatly.
If you are looking for lowest noise and thd current production tubes Linlai Gloabl and EML are your best bet most likely.
Not all tube amps have to be as low-fi as this one, you can easily get to 0.02% THD at 5W with push pull KT88 and good input tubes, same with full pentode operation push pulls. Even if you want to stick to directly heated triodes EML 20B has 0.08% THD and that's before any "tricks" like CCS.
If you are wondering how clean and wide bandwidth tubes can get Trafomatic makes a preamp on EML 30A with 6N30P driver tubes with 5Hz-200KHz bandwidth and 98dB S/N. Basically anyone who thinks vinyl can sound great, and with care it absolutely can should be satisfied since tube amplification can surpass this medium performance greatly.
If you are looking for lowest noise and thd current production tubes Linlai Gloabl and EML are your best bet most likely.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,334
- Likes
- 12,296
Wow! I have to join others in giving a big thank you for putting such effort in to this super interesting post! !!!
I'm not competent to vet all the technical info, but you made this very accessible.
Yes, you are getting at something I have been trying to describe for a long time (as have other audiophiles who like tube amps).
On the subject of the upper midrange/higher frequency character: You are getting at the subjective impression - clear and brilliant, but NOT "bright."
I have very sensitive ears (including bouts with hyperacusis). I have long found reproduced music *tends* to have a character of sounding somewhat thinner, harder, more aggressive than natural sounds. This is generally due to the concatenation of artifacts and colorations that build up through the recording/mixing process, from microphone colorations to processing, use of EQ etc, and then no doubt the general sense of artifice created my most loudspeakers and stereo itself.
So, on an accurate system (including solid state amplification) I find a sax sounds more peaky and aggressive in the upper frequencies, same with the dreaded muted trumpet which can be a total ear-bleeder (in real life a muted trumpet sounds much more rich to me and less aggressive), guitar picking transients can sound exaggerated, a chime will sound more piercing and thin, vocalists may have exaggerated, steely-sounding sibilance, etc.
This can be mitigated when listening to a speaker that is obviously rolled off...but then they tend to sound obviously rolled off. The reason I have been loathe to give up my Conrad Johnson tube amplification is that, at least as I perceive it (and how a great many other tube fans perceive it): the upper frequencies become simultaneously a bit more open, airy and brilliant and forward, while at the same time sounding richer and more relaxing. A chime that may sound super thin and piercing with an SS amp in the system (e.g. a Bryston) will sound on the CJ amps vivid and alive, not darkened or rolled off, but also slightly thickened with more body and easier on my ears. That's true across all sorts of music. It's that combo of increased airiness/texture/vividness without the penalty of "brightness" per se, that I find so intoxicating.
I had a Z-Systems RDP1 digital parametric EQ in my system for many years, and had tried solid state amps in my system, attempting to use EQ to achieve a similar effect and I just couldn't mimic what the CJ amps seem to be doing with that "step forward in body and vividness, not sounding dark, but also more rich and relaxed." (So I eventually sold the EQ). Just recently I was at a friend's listening to albums I own on an Estelon speaker/Hegel amp system. I kept feeling the need to turn some tracks down because of a hardness to the sound in the upper frequencies. At home spinning the same albums, the general sound seemed even more "lit up" and airy than on that Estelon system, yet it wasn't at all aggressive. I could just keep turning the sound up and up without it bothering my ears. Not an apples to apples comparison, but consistent with my own comparisons with the tubes vs solid state in my system over the years.
Finally, I take your point about how the phenomena you describe are best seen with tubes driving actual speakers. I'm not convinced that some attempt to capture the sonic differences through a recording or something will work as well as hearing the actual sound in person. To that end: the Conrad Johnson reputation among tube-fan audiophiles (at least their classic amps) were consistently described as having a sort of "golden/bronze glow" in the upper mids. That is precisely what I have perceived over the years when I've compared to other SS or some other tube amps. But it still seemed a bit dubious to me that this would be a consistent sound, whatever speakers were used. I couldn't blind test my CJ tube amps, but I did write about my blind test between my Benchmark LA4 preamp and my CJ tube Preamp:
www.audiosciencereview.com
And in the blinded test I heard exactly what I heard during my sighted impressions over the years. There was that bit of 'golden glow and thickness" to the upper mids/treble, that helped distinguish the CJ from the Benchmark preamp.
Anyway, thanks again for a fantastic post!
I'm not competent to vet all the technical info, but you made this very accessible.
Yes, you are getting at something I have been trying to describe for a long time (as have other audiophiles who like tube amps).
On the subject of the upper midrange/higher frequency character: You are getting at the subjective impression - clear and brilliant, but NOT "bright."
I have very sensitive ears (including bouts with hyperacusis). I have long found reproduced music *tends* to have a character of sounding somewhat thinner, harder, more aggressive than natural sounds. This is generally due to the concatenation of artifacts and colorations that build up through the recording/mixing process, from microphone colorations to processing, use of EQ etc, and then no doubt the general sense of artifice created my most loudspeakers and stereo itself.
So, on an accurate system (including solid state amplification) I find a sax sounds more peaky and aggressive in the upper frequencies, same with the dreaded muted trumpet which can be a total ear-bleeder (in real life a muted trumpet sounds much more rich to me and less aggressive), guitar picking transients can sound exaggerated, a chime will sound more piercing and thin, vocalists may have exaggerated, steely-sounding sibilance, etc.
This can be mitigated when listening to a speaker that is obviously rolled off...but then they tend to sound obviously rolled off. The reason I have been loathe to give up my Conrad Johnson tube amplification is that, at least as I perceive it (and how a great many other tube fans perceive it): the upper frequencies become simultaneously a bit more open, airy and brilliant and forward, while at the same time sounding richer and more relaxing. A chime that may sound super thin and piercing with an SS amp in the system (e.g. a Bryston) will sound on the CJ amps vivid and alive, not darkened or rolled off, but also slightly thickened with more body and easier on my ears. That's true across all sorts of music. It's that combo of increased airiness/texture/vividness without the penalty of "brightness" per se, that I find so intoxicating.
I had a Z-Systems RDP1 digital parametric EQ in my system for many years, and had tried solid state amps in my system, attempting to use EQ to achieve a similar effect and I just couldn't mimic what the CJ amps seem to be doing with that "step forward in body and vividness, not sounding dark, but also more rich and relaxed." (So I eventually sold the EQ). Just recently I was at a friend's listening to albums I own on an Estelon speaker/Hegel amp system. I kept feeling the need to turn some tracks down because of a hardness to the sound in the upper frequencies. At home spinning the same albums, the general sound seemed even more "lit up" and airy than on that Estelon system, yet it wasn't at all aggressive. I could just keep turning the sound up and up without it bothering my ears. Not an apples to apples comparison, but consistent with my own comparisons with the tubes vs solid state in my system over the years.
Finally, I take your point about how the phenomena you describe are best seen with tubes driving actual speakers. I'm not convinced that some attempt to capture the sonic differences through a recording or something will work as well as hearing the actual sound in person. To that end: the Conrad Johnson reputation among tube-fan audiophiles (at least their classic amps) were consistently described as having a sort of "golden/bronze glow" in the upper mids. That is precisely what I have perceived over the years when I've compared to other SS or some other tube amps. But it still seemed a bit dubious to me that this would be a consistent sound, whatever speakers were used. I couldn't blind test my CJ tube amps, but I did write about my blind test between my Benchmark LA4 preamp and my CJ tube Preamp:
Blind Test Results: Benchmark LA4 vs Conrad Johnson Tube Preamp
Hey folks, I thought I'd post about a little blind test I did between my two current preamplifiers: Benchmark LA4 vs. Conrad Johnson Premier 16LS2 tube preamplifier. People are familiar with the Benchmark LA4 I'm sure: https://benchmarkmedia.com/products/benchmark-la4-line-amplifier A...
www.audiosciencereview.com
And in the blinded test I heard exactly what I heard during my sighted impressions over the years. There was that bit of 'golden glow and thickness" to the upper mids/treble, that helped distinguish the CJ from the Benchmark preamp.
Anyway, thanks again for a fantastic post!
- Thread Starter
- #58
Speakers were good in 1930?
They were just big.
Part of the challenge was that the speakers could handle beyond 10 kHz but the recording instruments couldn’t.
1935 RCA Microphone
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2019
- Messages
- 7,334
- Likes
- 12,296
One thing I see as a bit of a conundrum in the tube amp world is this:
It seems to me the main, or usual reason for choosing a tube amp is the belief it sounds different than solid state.
Yet, at the same time, many tube amp fans seek out speakers that are "easy to drive with tube amps" - higher sensitivity, benign impedance etc.
But then, doesn't that sort of mitigate some of the very tube sound one may be looking for? Isn't it more likely for a tube amp to sound "more tubey" on a speaker
which will offer challenging impedance vs a speaker that will allow the sound to be more linear and neutral?
What am I missing here?
(And against that, anecdotally, I still seem to hear the tuby character of my tube amps whether they are driving something more difficult, like my Thiel speakers, or a more benign impedance speaker).
It seems to me the main, or usual reason for choosing a tube amp is the belief it sounds different than solid state.
Yet, at the same time, many tube amp fans seek out speakers that are "easy to drive with tube amps" - higher sensitivity, benign impedance etc.
But then, doesn't that sort of mitigate some of the very tube sound one may be looking for? Isn't it more likely for a tube amp to sound "more tubey" on a speaker
which will offer challenging impedance vs a speaker that will allow the sound to be more linear and neutral?
What am I missing here?
(And against that, anecdotally, I still seem to hear the tuby character of my tube amps whether they are driving something more difficult, like my Thiel speakers, or a more benign impedance speaker).
Fantastic review, TYVM!
I feel like I want to own a tube amp again.
I feel like I want to own a tube amp again.
Similar threads
