Tube gear opinions

[Gorgonzola]

@MattHooper , sorry didn't mean to quote you. Not sure what happened.



That is true, but I'd still bet that even in cases where there is a true difference that would hold up in ABX, the majority of the perceived difference is still due to imagination. I think we all underestimate just how much our brain alters the sound we "hear".

I have no doubt that certain amps do sound slightly different, but I'm very skeptical of the "night and day" or even "not subtle" claims I hear. Looking at the 1-2dB audible band deviations of speakers of the same model, I'm quite sure the differences between good/bad amps are smaller than the difference between one's right and left speaker. You don't see people spending thousands of dollars repeatedly buying the same speaker over in over in an attempt to get a better sample, despite it making a bigger difference. Why is that? I think it's because those people know that while sample variation does make a difference, they don't expect it to make a "non subtle" difference. They do expect that with a new amp, though, and so it becomes true. I really think imagination is most of it.

No doubt claims for differences are often grossly overblown.

The standard subjectivist audiophile maxim is, "Trust your ears". But I for one don't trust my ears. So for example years ago a compared interconnect cables. I thought I heard differences but I conceded even than the those differences were very slight and might well have been entirely imaginary.

So on the other hand when I obtained my current Purifi amp, I was surprised -- and surprised myself -- by how much more resolved and dynamic the Purifi was versus anything I'd heard before, (even including a Hypex model). I'm reasonably convince the differences aren't just imaginary.

 

[rdenney]

...
I don't doubt what you say for a fleeting instant, however not every designer designs circuits with the maximum technical perfection, (say lowest THD+noise), as the goal. Many, probably most tube designers design for a "flawed" goal in mind -- that's also true of S/S designers, such as Nelson Pass. ...

The problem is with disclosure. Most of those designers claim transparency (Nelson Pass is the exception.) They all claim to have finally solved the crossover distortion problem, or the clipping problem, or the current supply problem, or the this problem or that problem, and finally their amp is the one that truly provides transparency other amps are lacking. They claim other amps are "harsh" and "fatiguing", without explaining what those amps do that makes them so. They claim that their amps provide "pace and timing" consistent with the original music, which other amps do not transparently provide, without demonstrating what pace and timing actually mean in terms of waveforms.

If they said, "our amp sounds great because we left in a healthy dose of even-order harmonic distortion, so forget the high distortion measurements and just listen to figure out what you think of it," nobody would complain. But they don't. They say only they have made a product that captures the true essence of the music, while others have not.

Rick "measured against their own claims" Denney

 

[Wes]

The problem is with disclosure. Most of those designers claim transparency (Nelson Pass is the exception.) They all claim to have finally solved the crossover distortion problem, or the clipping problem, or the current supply problem, or the this problem or that problem, and finally their amp is the one that truly provides transparency other amps are lacking. They claim other amps are "harsh" and "fatiguing", without explaining what those amps do that makes them so. They claim that their amps provide "pace and timing" consistent with the original music... without demonstrating what pace and timing actually mean in terms of waveforms.

* * *

Rick "measured against their own claims" Denney

I will argue that while a mechanistic explanation is better, it is not necessary to show that a phenomenon exists.

The analogy is to epidemiological studies, originally and most famously the London sewer/water pump study done in London during Victorian times. Without a germ theory of disease, the MD involved was able to show clear correlations and clusters of cholera at certain water pump outlets.

Today, this is common in showing cancer clusters. One (i.e. EPA) then attempts to discover which chemical is causing the cluster.

 

[rdenney]

That's the difference between empirical and analytical studies.

But if a designer is claiming an effect on the basis of their design, then they have to have some analysis to back it up. How else could they claim credit for the outcome?

I can hear it now: "We designed the Fryburger Megamp to be big and impressive and for some reason it demonstrates this holographic effect. We don't know what we did to achieve that or why it works, though we can show it through blind testing. But you should trust that we can do it again and again, because we're lucky that way."

When Toole and Olive performed empirical preference tests, they were trying to model what it was about speakers that led to broad preferences--flat and smooth on-axis anechoic response, off-axis response curves that follow the same general shapes as on-axis response, and smooth and consistent directivity. Once they did that, Harman designed to those attributes very much on purpose, using analytical design strategies. And they can explain in analytical terms what they did to provide those attributes (different waveguide shapes, crossover designs, etc.), the value of which were demonstrated empirically.

Again, it's about disclosure. It's reasonable for devices to be measured against what their designers and sellers claim about them, instead of what they actually provide.

Rick "not discounting happy accidents, but not giving their designers credit for them, either" Denney

 

[ahofer]

Yes, you are quite correct about guitar effects and amplification actually relying on distortion to be part of the sound of the instrument. It is a very interesting fact when you think about it.

Incidentally, I was listening to this and thought of this thread. This video is a master class in incorporating amp overdrive via string touch and a little pickup volume.

 

[Jimbob54]

The problem is with disclosure. Most of those designers claim transparency (Nelson Pass is the exception.) They all claim to have finally solved the crossover distortion problem, or the clipping problem, or the current supply problem, or the this problem or that problem, and finally their amp is the one that truly provides transparency other amps are lacking. They claim other amps are "harsh" and "fatiguing", without explaining what those amps do that makes them so. They claim that their amps provide "pace and timing" consistent with the original music, which other amps do not transparently provide, without demonstrating what pace and timing actually mean in terms of waveforms.

If they said, "our amp sounds great because we left in a healthy dose of even-order harmonic distortion, so forget the high distortion measurements and just listen to figure out what you think of it," nobody would complain. But they don't. They say only they have made a product that captures the true essence of the music, while others have not.

Rick "measured against their own claims" Denney

Sticky please !

 

[Ear-Wax]

De gustibus non est disputandum.
I mean, I'm sure there's, e.g., a Borgward Owners' Club.
OK, I'm pretty sure.
I mean... it's not impossible, you know?



View attachment 128386

I lived in Bremen for just over a decade. Love me a nice Borgward and Beck's of course!

 

[DimitryZ]

I know this may be a bit of an ambitious second post LOL. But I would like to know different perspectives about tube gear. I do not own any tube amplifiers, but I own a tube phono preamp, that I also use as a buffer between my DAC and preamp through its auxiliary input. I also own a custom made tube preamp that was built by a company some may have heard of online. It is packed full of a lot of good parts, a lot of modern parts mixed with NOS tubes.

I have heard our host talk about this, I just can’t recall where, maybe it was in one of his online interviews.

I’d like to know what your opinion of the warm sound that we here?

What makes it sound so different than our SS gear, or better yet what is that warm sound that we hear?

I have owned excellent tube gear for many years.

My last setup was Canary Audio big 300B monoblocks and two-chassis dual mono preamp (339s or four tubes per channel).

It didn't really sound warm and measured well. And as I changed speakers (Quads needed service...again), 50W of 300B power just wasn't enough.

I switched to an all Emotiva amplification chain, with dual monoblocks per channel.

I was worried that the sound will be too solid state - clinical, cold, etched. But it wasn't - it was powerful, smooth, detailed and engaging. Very audiophile, in fact.

And as cool looking as my Canarys were, at $700 per octet plus input and rectifiers, I don't miss the retubing costs.

If you want a little tube sound signature, you can use a tube buffer.

I will be happy to send you one or two at no cost (Marantz 7 clones).

 

[MattHooper]

I have owned excellent tube gear for many years.

My last setup was Canary Audio big 300B monoblocks and two-chassis dual mono preamp.

It didn't really sound warm. And as I changed speakers, 50W of 300B power just wasn't enough.

I switched to an all Emotiva amplification chain, with dual monoblocks per channel.

I was worried that the sound will be too solid state - clinical, cold, etched. But it wasn't - it was powerful, smooth, detailed and engaging.

And as cool looking as my Canarys were, at $700 per octet plus input and rectifiers, I don't miss the retubing costs.

If you want a little tube sound signature, you can use a tube buffer.

I will be happy to send you one or two at no cost.

I use CJ premier 12 tube amps, pretty old school stuff.

I've never "tube rolled" before, that is experimented trying different tubes "for the different sound." Whenever the output tubes needed replacement I just used whatever CJ recommended. The amp sounded consistent to me over the years - lush but snappy.

But when it came time to replace tubes that had started distorting a bit, I decided what the heck and grabbed some NOS Svetlana Winged C C 6550s. And I finally replaced the small input tubes with a different brand (NOS). Not that I placed too much stock in the tube discussions, but the winged C were generally said to be "linear" performers in the CJ amps, and if I was going to hear any difference at all I was hoping for a bit more linearity. What I seemed to have got instead was completely the opposite. The sound coming out of my speakers went even more classically "tube-like"...lush as heck, mild on the ears, rich....but also more rolled off, thicker and less controlled in the bass, more "flubby"sounding, less imaging precision and density, less dynamic sounding. Essentially what you could think of as how lower sensitivity/challenging impedence speakers may sound hooked up to an underpowered tube amp.

It's been a bit frustrating as I'm craving the bass control, more open high frequencies and more snappy transient sound I've been used to in my system.

I'm ordering the standard tubes I normally use to try out instead.

 

[SIY]

So when Gordon Holt described tube sound as bright and forward, he couldn’t hear?

 

[MattHooper]

So when Gordon Holt described tube sound as bright and forward, he couldn’t hear?

I don't see why one would conclude that.

Some tube amps have the *potential* to sound different depending on the speakers used, and perhaps sounded more bright and forward with whatever Holt heard. Or he imagined it ;-)

I was making a gesture towards a fairly well-subcribed idea among audiophiles of qualities often associated with 'tube amp sound.' Generally speaking, richer, fuller sound, more "relaxed" or softer transients, sometimes associated with a bit of high end roll-off, less control in the bass vs solid state...those type of things.

It's often been stated, even in the subjectivist review trade, that not all tube amps sound like that. But I'm talking about a widely subscribed idea of tube sound, so even in subjective reviews of solid state you'll get "no one would mistake this for a tube amp" or in a review of a tube amp that sounds linear, the reviewer will often point out it doesn't sound "typically tube like" in the way I described.

Again, talking about well subscribed concepts among audiophiles, not the truth of the perceptions per se.

 

[SIY]

I don't see why one would conclude that.

Some tube amps have the *potential* to sound different depending on the speakers used, and perhaps sounded more bright and forward with whatever Holt heard. Or he imagined it ;-)

I was making a gesture towards a fairly well-subcribed idea among audiophiles of qualities often associated with 'tube amp sound.' Generally speaking, richer, fuller sound, more "relaxed" or softer transients, sometimes associated with a bit of high end roll-off, less control in the bass vs solid state...those type of things.

It's often been stated, even in the subjectivist review trade, that not all tube amps sound like that. But I'm talking about a widely subscribed idea of tube sound, so even in subjective reviews of solid state you'll get "no one would mistake this for a tube amp" or in a review of a tube amp that sounds linear, the reviewer will often point out it doesn't sound "typically tube like" in the way I described.

Again, talking about well subscribed concepts among audiophiles, not the truth of the perceptions per se.

Or the entire notion of tube sound is bullshit.

 

[Helicopter]

Or the entire notion of tube sound is bullshit.

... but, but, they are so warm.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

... but, but, they are so warm.

They're certainly more entertaining to look at.

 

[MattHooper]

Or the entire notion of tube sound is bullshit.

I know that's your view. It was accounted for in my reply.

 

[DimitryZ]

Well designed tube and solid state amps do sound very similar.

 

[MattHooper]

Well designed tube and solid state amps do sound very similar.

Except if someone's goal is different sound than solid state, then a tube amp that sounds like solid state would not be "well designed." Depends on the goal

 

[egellings]

Tube amps can be accurate or they can be amplified tone controls, depending on the design.

 

[DimitryZ]

Except if someone's goal is different sound than solid state, then a tube amp that sounds like solid state would not be "well designed." Depends on the goal

Sure.

Canary was designed for low distortion.

 

[Helicopter]

Tube amps can be accurate or they can be amplified tone controls, depending on the design.

And a much higher proportion of them have a tonality and voice. Hence tube amp sound, and the myth of tube sound.