Thoughts on tubed preamps?

[greenpsycho]

Hey all, I'm slowly building up my system and my next big purchase will most likely be a preamp (linestage technically). I'm typically pretty firmly in the solid state camp, and would consider myself an objectivist, however, a lot of the features I need in a linestage come via the audio research LS line. True, there is a newer Bryston preamp that offers some comparable features, I guess my question is: would this group consider anything with tubes immediately off the table because they might measure not as well as solid state components?

And probably the main issue - how do I reconcile these opposing positions with myself? I'm sure that audio research gear sounds great, but I honestly (and weirdly) feel like I'm betraying some of my own beliefs.


edit: should mention some associated gear. Linn LP12 fully kitted out, PS Audio Direcstream Jr, Bryston BHA-1. Emotiva Stealth 8, hifiman HE-400S, Senn HD600, Beyerdynamic DT990, hifiman HE-6, etymotic er4xr

 

[Thomas savage]

There's guys here with tube amps there's guys here with vinyl rigs there's probably not anybody here who thinks either is superior technically to solid state and digital stuff but they like the sound of it so who cares.

Don't feel bad just listen to what you enjoy.

 

[SIY]

Buying tube gear is like buying a classic British sports car. Great if you can tinker and keep it running, and in exchange for the "cool kid" factor, it gives no real performance advantage. Good tube gear won't sound any different than good solid state gear. Bad tube gear... well...

I design and build my own, and honestly would not recommend using tubes to anyone who's not a dedicated electronics hobbyist.

 

[sergeauckland]

Buying tube gear is like buying a classic British sports car. Great if you can tinker and keep it running, and in exchange for the "cool kid" factor, it gives no real performance advantage. Good tube gear won't sound any different than good solid state gear. Bad tube gear... well...

I design and build my own, and honestly would not recommend using tubes to anyone who's not a dedicated electronics hobbyist.

Just to add that there's no reason why a valve-based preamp should be sonically any different to a SS pre-amp, so except for the 'cool' factor mentioned, why bother with the added hassle. If the tubed preamp does sound different, then it's an effects box, and then entirely down to what YOU like, not what's any good.

There are lots of reasons why it's hard for a valve-based power amplifier to be transparent, a few are but not many, but there's no reason why a valved preamp should be any different to a SS one.

S.

 

[Dogen]

On one hand, I like the pursuit of engineering perfection and accuracy in gear. On the other, I like preserving a rich legacy technology, a bit of the characteristics of tube gear and the looks and pride of ownership of classic equipment. We can serve both masters, I believe, if we are aware of the trade offs we’re making.

 

[DonH56]

Tube preamps often have the advantage of much higher voltage tolerance, making them a great choice for phono stages since those clicks and pops can easily clip a phono input stage. Past that, I am not sure I have seen or heard any advantage, but aside from noisy (bad) tubes and greater power consumption (and heat) there is little disadvantage. You do have the cost of replacing tubes, natch. Performance IME is comparable (spanning decades of SS and tube preamps from home-brew and cheap up to ARC and CJ though any significant listening was back in the SP-10/SP-11 days).

So listen if you can and pick one. Chances are you'll be happy no matter your decision. Me, I used my heavily-modified SP3a1 for many years but have always had a soft spot for Bryston. These days, with prices so high, I'd probably look at a cheaper alternative, and almost certainly SS as too many years fixing tube gear and less free time leaves me wanting something that "just works". My ARC experience, albeit none recently, does not leave me with a strong endorsement for their long-term reliability.

 

[Jaimo]

Depends on what interests you. Tubes make for more engagement with your electronics. I run two systems- one analog /vinyl and tube based and another (my daily driver) all digital with active speakers.

My Garrard 301 / ARC SP8 / Dynaco Mkiii clone / Magnepan 1.6 is for weekends, much like the classic British sports mentioned above but it takes loads of effort, cash and tinkering to keep in good nick...

 

[levimax]

I have played around with building / rebuilding/ listening to both tube and SS pre-amps and amps. Currently I am SS on both and have sold my tube pre-amps. As has been mentioned previously a good tube and good SS pre-amp are going to perform very similar so I don't bother with the compatibility issues (many tube pre-amps have high output impedance), added maintenance, heat, and expense of a tube pre-amp any more. Tube power amps on the other hand do perform differently (not necessarily better or worse or more or less transparent) than SS mainly due to the quite different way the output transformers interact with complex speaker loads but there are other subtle differences as well. If you are curious about tubes and how they work and sound in your system I would recommend experimenting with tube power amps and sticking with SS pre-amps. Have fun in any case.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Same experience I've had. Tube amps have a sound which is often good. Tube preamps either sound like SS or aren't good preamps.

Now the Audio Research is a good one though expensive. If you don't need phono, I'd skip the pre altogether.

 

[tomelex]

You know, unless you think you will never buy another audio component go ahead and buy the tube gear, and I think you may have a "feeling" for tube gear, then I would say go ahead and get one and experience it. However, look at the spectrum sweeps and other tests done in stereophile and other places and make sure you get one that has as clean a spectrum output as you can, there are a great many tube gear that are designed to add "richness" to the sound, and you might not like the particular "richness" they add over some other "richness".

Tube gear has a "soul", it generates heat and a bit of light, it can warm up the room, it is "alive" and needs a little pampering once in a while, it engages you in the hobby and the tubes have a "life span". If these ideas appeal to your senses, then by all means give one a whirl.

But heed SIY, you will need to give it some attention sometimes, your tubes can go noisy on you, or just fail outright, sometimes with devastating results on poorly engineered gear. Buy American, USA gear is still at the top of the game.

Blumlein 88 makes a good point, if you don't need phono or volume control skip the preamp altogether

Do not think that a "tube" pre-amp will cause your system to sound like a system with a tube power amp, , it will not, as levimax also mentioned.

 

[kaka89]

Here is a sound demo, with and without a tube-pre

Tube pre does sound better to me...

 

[noobie1]

I don’t have all my audio gear at the moment so I have to make do. This means no calibration mic until I move in a few months. In my current setup if I connect my DAC directly to my amp, the low end is way too exaggerated and imaging is less than stellar. Recently, I added a tube preamp and the low end rolls off quite a bit. This seemed to improve the imaging quite a bit and listening is subjectively much more enjoyable. I tried digital EQing the low frequencies but couldn’t get the parametric EQ to where I wanted.

 

[SIY]

Is it safe to assume that all of this was sighted listening, no controls, no level matching, no back-up measurements?

 

[noobie1]

Not sighted. My wife who has zero interest in audio gear mentioned these things to me without knowing what changes I made to the system. Spl is matched using iPhone app. As I mentioned, I don’t have my microphone at the moment so I can’t take measurements. I don’t make strong assertions based on sighted listening because it’s customary here. However, could you point me to legitimate scientific data that non-sighted listening is superior to sighted. As I mentioned in the evidence based speaker thread, the data presented by Sean Olive lacks basic scientific rigor not fit for peer reviewed journals.

 

[kaka89]

Even if a mic, in home environment it is still difficult to get *exact* measurement twice of the same setup.
Just too many variables in a home environment.

Measuring binding post output might be a better idea if it is do-able.

 

[SIY]

However, could you point me to legitimate scientific data that non-sighted listening is superior to sighted.

About 2 minutes of forum searching will turn that up, assuming that by "superior" you mean "not tainted by basic non-auditory cues." Double blind and accurately level-matched are absolute necessities for your claims to be taken seriously.

Your comments about Olive's research were certainly novel, I'll grant you that.

 

[noobie1]

[QUOTE="noobie1, post: 157964, member: 276" However, could you point me to legitimate scientific data that non-sighted listening is superior to sighted.

About 2 minutes of forum searching will turn that up, assuming that by "superior" you mean "not tainted by basic non-auditory cues." Double blind and accurately level-matched are absolute necessities for your claims to be taken seriously.

Your comments about Olive's research were certainly novel, I'll grant you that.[/QUOTE]

If it’s so simple, please direct to raw data instead of merely conclusory statements. The conclusion has been repeated endlessly without reference to the data. The only data I’m aware of is Sean Olive’s blog. If you think that has scientific rigor, I’ll eat my diploma from MIT.

 

[SIY]

The only data I’m aware of is Sean Olive’s blog.

I'm having a Poe's Law struggle here.

 

[noobie1]

[QUOTE="noobie1, post: 157964, member: 276" However, could you point me to legitimate scientific data that non-sighted listening is superior to sighted.

About 2 minutes of forum searching will turn that up, assuming that by "superior" you mean "not tainted by basic non-auditory cues." Double blind and accurately level-matched are absolute necessities for your claims to be taken seriously.

Your comments about Olive's research were certainly novel, I'll grant you that.

You seem to always assert that if any listening is performed sighted that it is not reliable. Show me the hard evidence that blind listening tests are better. I found one reference to DBT in the forums:

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/...ity-and-reliability-of-abx-blind-testing.186/

The reference AES article (which I cannot access) doesn’t seem to make any comparisons between sighted and non-sighted listening tests. I’m here to learn from first principles. Please show me a scientifically rigorous experiment that conclusively demonstrates that non-sighted listening tests are superior or more reliable than sighted listening tests.

 

[amirm]

Please show me a scientifically rigorous experiment that conclusively demonstrates that non-sighted listening tests are superior or more reliable than sighted listening tests.

Here is a convincing example. Even though speakers are thought to sound different enough to not need blind tests, they absolutely do. See: http://seanolive.blogspot.com/2009/04/dishonesty-of-sighted-audio-product.html

I can write an entire book on unreliability of sighted testing including many examples of my own in my job, not hobby. There is no more sold truth in audio than this. Don't doubt it lightly.