Tube vs Solid State Is the War

HI

Will not be the first time I find myself in agreement with HP. The war is over and has been for a long while. We may continue to cling to the notion of SS vs Tubes and frankly we are at a point where the difference between the better electronics is a matter of asthetics, of preferences, imagined or real. The real advances will come from Speakers, room acoustics correction (passive or active) and in DAC and maybe recording techniques.

@Orb

In what way are tubes superior in the time domain to SS? I repeat here my earlier question: what do they do that SS can't or don't?

@Gregadd

So if you are telling me a $40k is as good as tubes that really has no meaning for most audiophiles. If you tell me Sanderssounds Systems Magtech is as good as tubes is as good as tubes that's intriguing.

Click to expand...

I am not sure I understand this .. Care to clarify?

Gregadd said:

Harry Pearson has declared the war between Tubes and Solid State over. It may be over at the topp. But not every one has received the news. Plenty of battles range on.
Assuming you are willing to go beyond the notion that there is more to amplifiers than vlow distoriton and adequate power and you don't have unlimited funds, where are we?

So if you are telling me a $40k is as good as tubes that really has no meaning for most audiophiles. If you tell me Sanderssounds Systems Magtech is as good as tubes is as good as tubes that's intriguing.

Click to expand...

Sadly premature

FrantzM said:

In what way are tubes superior in the time domain to SS? I repeat here my earlier question: what do they do that SS can't or don't?

Click to expand...

Sound like real music? Or that ss sounds like it has more detail but that's because it's losing the harmonic envelope. Come over and hear a tape of a Yarlung recording of Bach's Suites for Solo Cello and tell me that ss or digital can get the feeling of the wood, the bow digging in and the exact tension of the bow on the strings of the cello. And the right amount of warmth to the instrument.

And if that was true, why don't hybrids cut the mustard? Or what about something like the Tenor amps?

In my experience, ss comes in two forms: A: with a mechanical edge that varies, but is always there; B. Purposely designed to be dark to eliminate that edge and add smoothness.

Now if one uses crappy source material, this will obscure all differences so ss = tubes.

Hey I wish this was true; I wouldn't have to worry about changing tubes. Same for digital. Wish it was all it was cracked up to be since would be a lot easier to store and use. Sadly that's not the case--and it seems that the bulkier the storage medium eg tapes, the better the sound

Gregadd said:

Harry Pearson has declared the war between Tubes and Solid State over. It may be over at the topp. But not every one has received the news. Plenty of battles range on.
Assuming you are willing to go beyond the notion that there is more to amplifiers than vlow distoriton and adequate power and you don't have unlimited funds, where are we?

So if you are telling me a $40k is as good as tubes that really has no meaning for most audiophiles. If you tell me Sanderssounds Systems Magtech is as good as tubes is as good as tubes that's intriguing.

Click to expand...

Color me skeptical.

MylesBAstor said:

Sound like real music? Or that ss sounds like it has more detail but that's because it's losing the harmonic envelope. Come over and hear a tape of a Yarlung recording of Bach's Suites for Solo Cello and tell me that ss or digital can get the feeling of the wood, the bow digging in and the exact tension of the bow on the strings of the cello. And the right amount of warmth to the instrument.

And if that was true, why don't hybrids cut the mustard? Or what about something like the Tenor amps?

In my experience, ss comes in two forms: A: with a mechanical edge that varies, but is always there; B. Purposely designed to be dark to eliminate that edge and add smoothness.

Now if one uses crappy source material, this will obscure all differences so ss = tubes.

Hey I wish this was true; I wouldn't have to worry about changing tubes. Same for digital. Wish it was all it was cracked up to be since would be a lot easier to store and use. Sadly that's not the case--and it seems that the bulkier the storage medium eg tapes, the better the sound

Click to expand...

Myles

I would say I hear regularly a fair amount of live music. I have several close relative who are in Western Classical Music. I have heard and think I can hear. i am rather suceptible to the sound of real instrmuents and easily discern the differences betwen gut strings and plastic or synthetic strings in instruments.. No huge deal but the sublteties are there for me to recognize....that's for me...

I do understand your preference and at one point did share some of them. Took me a while to bring CD in my system and for the most part of my audiophile life (NOT ANYMORE) contended that Tubes were superior to SS ,
To however center the discussion we need to make sure we are speaking the same language. Else we will drown in a sea of misunderstanding. SO let me ask some specific question. I would prefer the answers to be as grounded in verifiable facts as much as possible:

1. What is the "Harmonic envelope" you refer to?
2. In What way do tubes preserve "it" (whatever it is) better than SS? accompanying question is that measurable? Audible?
3. What do you mean by "Real Music" I find myself listening to my car radio and being quite enthused by Music.. I would dare say that my car radio is a far cry from my headphone-based system but it does sound like music to me and even my iPod with several mp3 seems to work well...So... What is "real Music" in that context?
4. It is to me a strange stament that Hybrid don't cut the mustard? The Tenor had its limitations but was a very good amp and presented with the right speaker (IOW good sensitivity , easy load) did play great, Real Music IMO. So do the Moscodes and the Lamm Hybrid amplifiers if you ask me...
5. LAst but not least ...

   In my experience, ss comes in two forms: A: with a mechanical edge that varies, but is always there; B. Purposely designed to be dark to eliminate that edge and add smoothness.

   Click to expand...

   I have heard several SS amps that to me were far from dark or "mechanical" The Edge amps, Burmester, Dartz Zeel, Spectral, Plinius , Bryston 28, and recently a Pass-X (monster amp) and none of these exhibited that "mechanical" bite. I actually heard some Cello pieces(Jacqueline Dupre my favorite Celist) on some of them and not once did I find the reproduction lacking in comparison to tubes.. Different? True . Lacking ? A resounding NO ...

As for digital. I find not much to fault them with .. especially the Hi-Rez... Listenable and enjoyable

So that's for me ...

Care to clarify?

Gregadd said:

Harry Pearson has declared the war between Tubes and Solid State over. It may be over at the topp. But not every one has received the news. Plenty of battles range on.
Assuming you are willing to go beyond the notion that there is more to amplifiers than vlow distoriton and adequate power and you don't have unlimited funds, where are we?

So if you are telling me a $40k is as good as tubes that really has no meaning for most audiophiles. If you tell me Sanderssounds Systems Magtech is as good as tubes is as good as tubes that's intriguing.

Click to expand...

HP must need attention. I have both and always will,some like dogs and others cats,so it is with this.

I guess this is the perfect thread for the SS vs. tubes food fight. First of all, neither technology is perfect so let’s not fool ourselves there. One of the things that I never liked about SS was that I felt it was missing some of the harmonics that were captured by tubes which tended to make things sound a little threadbare. I no longer believe that is an absolute truth with all SS gear, and even some gear from yesteryear that is frowned upon now and even back in its day. I’m sure a case could be made that tubes are adding harmonics that didn’t exist in the original event that was recorded.

I have been a lover of all things tube-based for most of my adult life and my reaction to SS was basically the same one that Myles still has today. My moment of change began when my Jadis Defy 7 MKII ate another power tube, cathode fuse, and cathode resistor and I was waiting for the new parts to arrive so I could get the Jadis back in the system. Horror of horrors, I had to insert a Phase Linear 400 Series 2 that I had bought for just this purpose (back up amp for the tube amp that likes to eat output tubes) in my system. I wasn’t expecting much, trust me (that would be a low-expectation bias).

Since I have talked about this numerous times before, I’m not going to rehash everything again. The bottom line is that when I received the parts and 3 new matched output tubes and repaired the Jadis, I couldn’t wait to unplug the Phase Linear and put my *real* amp back in the system. Imagine my surprise of being a little shocked that something was amiss. I wasn’t hearing more information with the Jadis, I was hearing less. Less bass, less highs, less speed, and less detail. In other words, my system sounded worse with a tube amp that cost around $8500 or so when new. I put the lowly PL back in the system and things are restored. A few days go by and I think I must have been imagining things and I pull out the PL and reinstall the Jadis. Same reaction though. This goes on for a few weeks until I finally have to admit that the PL is simply a better sounding amp than the Jadis in my system. How can I explain that to my audiophile brothers without taking a credibility beating? You can’t really, but I fessed up and tried. I sold the Jadis and I don’t miss a damn thing about it.

The same basic thing happened with my Counterpoint SA-5.1 that I had over $5K invested in. I have had a long and semi-distinguished list of tube preamps in my system over the years, and none of them beat out the 5.1 which was why I still owned it. And then comes the Yamaha C2a preamp that I bought to use while my 5.1 was back to Mike for the last round of upgrades. The 5.1 finally makes it home to me after being gone for months and I can’t wait to get it back in my system so I can get back to tube heaven. No dice. I can’t keep the 5.1 off of the bench and into the starting lineup. Again I’m mortified at the reality I’m facing, but I’m honest enough to admit what I don’t want to admit.

So having my hat handed to me by cheap SS gear from yesteryear made me want to try some SS gear that was a bit more ambitious in parts and design (although I will still contend the design of the C2a was a reach for the stars by Yamaha). So now I’m on my Krell adventure. I consider the KPE Reference phono stage to be a real winner. I heard enough from the KBL preamp before it gave up the ghost to know that it’s something special to me. Who knows what I’m going to hear when the KSA-250 comes back from the factory? Lots of people on this forum seem to have a very high opinion of it and we shall see.

The bottom line here is that I’m way past thinking that only tubes can sound *right* and they are the one true religion. I would rather be open to all things and not lashed to some dogma that can potentially hold you back from what can be accomplished.

Gregadd said:

My point is that for a price you can design around the the problems of tubes(SET excluded) for a lot less than you can for solid state., How much does it cost to build the perfect SS amp. If it costs $40k to make the perfect SS amp then how relevant is that?

Click to expand...

You can’t “design around the problems of tubes” anymore than you can eat your way out of obesity at an ice cream shop. That’s all wishful thinking. Tube amps that have output transformers (and that describes 99% of them) have compromises built in due to the conflicting realities of winding output transformers. There is a window that has to be optimized when winding an output transformer. You are trading off bass against high frequencies.

Tube amps don’t have the bass that SS amps have nor do they have the control over the woofers that comes from having a high dampening factor. The high frequencies you hear coming from a tube amp are dependent upon the impedance curve of the speakers you are driving. The output impedance of a tube amp is always higher than SS and this manifests itself with the interaction between the output impedance of the tube amp and the impedance curve of the speaker by causing aberrations in the frequency response. You don’t “design around” these problems; you live with them and accept them.

You can’t make a tube amp cheaper than you can make a SS amp that has the equivalent output power and quality. One of the reasons why tubes basically disappeared from home audio (except for the high-end) was that tube amps cost more money to manufacture than SS. Tube amps required a beefy power transformer and a pair of output transformers. Iron costs cash. Chokes used to be common in tube amp power supplies as well and they added to the cost. SS enabled manufacturers to reduce the cost and weight of their amplifiers.

The sound that you prefer is always your business and you are entitled to make your system sound however you choose to make it sound. Tube amps have some real issues that can’t be swept under the rug while we pretend they don’t matter. They might not matter to you, but they still matter. All tubes have a sound which is why people search out the tube sound they like for their system and chase those particular tubes. EL-34 amps sound different than 6550 amps which sound different than KT-88, KT-90, and now KT-120 amps. Which one is “right?” None of them because it must be the 300B amp or the 2A3 amp or the 845 amp or the 211 amp because those are all the best amps aren’t they?

I hope you get my drift that all tube amps sound different and if they all sound different, somebody is wrong somewhere. One thing for sure, no tube amp either push-pull or SE is the proverbial straight wire with gain. People settle for the tube sound they like and subsequently bring the coloration of their favorite tubes to the dinner table. Tubes are like spices, they have different *flavors* they lend to the music you are cooking. Want a real sweet midrange? Go with real Mullard EL-34s. What some kick-ass tube bass? Go with GE 6550s. Want some kick-ass tube bass and a sweet high-end? Go with real Gold Lion KT-88s.

Gregadd

NO it doesn't cost $40k to make a good SS amp... This is one of these things that people feed themselves to cling to a belief. I would not also say that it cost less to make a tube amp. Quite the contrary IMO.

Gregadd said:

Harry Pearson has declared the war between Tubes and Solid State over. It may be over at the topp.

Click to expand...

Do you have a link to the article?

Gregadd said:

So if you are telling me a $40k is as good as tubes that really has no meaning for most audiophiles. If you tell me Sanderssounds Systems Magtech is as good as tubes is as good as tubes that's intriguing.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you possibly clarify a little, thanks

FrantzM said:

HI

Will not be the first time I find myself in agreement with HP. The war is over and has been for a long while. We may continue to cling to the notion of SS vs Tubes and frankly we are at a point where the difference between the better electronics is a matter of asthetics, of preferences, imagined or real. The real advances will come from Speakers, room acoustics correction (passive or active) and in DAC and maybe recording techniques.
(...)

Click to expand...

Frantz,
We heard similar arguments 30 years ago, 20 years ago, 10 years ago and now. However, preamplifiers and amplifiers have improved a lot during these periods. Why will they stop improving now, just because some tube and SS amplifiers sound similar?

During the last month I listened for long periods to two great vintage speakers - the Quad ESL63 (1982) and the B&W Silver Signature SS25 (1991). Although this opinions are subjective, as the weighting of the differences in the final assessment are just preferences, I consider that the changes in electronics during this period contributed much more to the improvement of my listening pleasure than the changes in speakers.

Whatmore said:

Do you have a link to the article?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Could you possibly clarify a little, thanks

Click to expand...

Greg will surely answer more completely, but as far as I guess he is referring to a comment of HP about the new Rowland Research 625/635 series in TAS215:
"The Rowlands are at the crest of a new generation of transistorized gear that is no longer distinguishable from a good tube design. I intend to deal with these in an upcoming essay."

The 625 is a return to Rowland great designs - class AB, special capacitors, ceramic pcb's, non-resonant machined massive case and many other (audiophile ... features. But we have to wait for the full article to comment - the statement is too short and broad to be conclusive.

Sound like real music?

Click to expand...

As a 60-year-old gigging musician who has logged thousands of hours playing real music, in living rooms, parlors, kitchens, garages, rehearsal studios, recording studios, clubs, bars, coffee houses, restaurants, festivals...acoustic, electric and hybrid...you get the picture...I always find this specious argument to be the very essence of pretense.

Tim

Phelonious Ponk said:

... specious argument ...the very essence of pretense.
Tim

Click to expand...

Now we're talking audiophile!

Bill

I will be basically on the same wicket here as Tim, though he generally doesn't believe in such things, which is to make the music sound real. This can be done, has been done by many people many times, but if your ambition is not to try for that, but accept some form of compromise then all one has to do is choose the colour of that lower bar of achievement: make it sound musical, but not have so much detail; or make it highly informative, "accurate", but also allow enough irritating distortion through that it becomes an endurance test; or listen at low volume, at close quarters so unpleasant stuff never gets a chance to intrude; or just do it on headphones. These are all perfectly valid, perfectly reasonable methods for enjoying the playback of of recordings, some which introduce pleasant forms of distortion, some introduce or don't sufficiently disguise subtle levels of particularly unpleasant distortion, others largely eliminate disturbing colouration by keeping the level of replay to a low level.

So in that sense an argument about SS versus tubes is pointless, it's like arguing which colour is best for a car, it's merely a preference issue.

However, there is another approach, if you choose to believe in such "fantasies", which I do as Tim will happily point out, which is to not accept the normal distortion that normal systems output once you ask them to work a bit harder, that can be reduced to being effectively inaudible, and then enjoy the illusion of real music being played. If you do that, then the war is well and truly over, the method of getting there is irrelevant, the fact that the method has been fine tuned to achieve the goal is in fact what's all important ...


Frank

Phelonious Ponk said:

As a 60-year-old gigging musician who has logged thousands of hours playing real music, in living rooms, parlors, kitchens, garages, rehearsal studios, recording studios, clubs, bars, coffee houses, restaurants, festivals...acoustic, electric and hybrid...you get the picture...I always find this specious argument to be the very essence of pretense.

Tim

Click to expand...

And as a musician, yo're telling me that listening to headphones or for that matter near-field headphones, sounds like anything you've ever heard live. I don't know what your friends systems sound like but there certainly sounds like there's something amiss.

FrantzM said:

HI

Will not be the first time I find myself in agreement with HP. The war is over and has been for a long while. We may continue to cling to the notion of SS vs Tubes and frankly we are at a point where the difference between the better electronics is a matter of asthetics, of preferences, imagined or real. The real advances will come from Speakers, room acoustics correction (passive or active) and in DAC and maybe recording techniques.

@Orb

In what way are tubes superior in the time domain to SS? I repeat here my earlier question: what do they do that SS can't or don't?

@Gregadd



I am not sure I understand this .. Care to clarify?

Click to expand...

+1 Except that I think it has been "preference" for a long time. And I have heard some tube/speaker combos (one that comes to mind were the Maggie 20.1 and some ginormous Audio Research amps) that I thought sounded more like real music (for some of the frequency range) than any thing I had heard before (or since). My guess would be that neither the amps nor speakers measured as well as some other speaker/smp combos but it was my "preference".

Which, by the way, for me is all that counts anyway, since at best, compared to live un-amplified music, the best audio systems I have ever heard are a joke. My wife surprised me with a live three-piece jazz combo for my birthday (in our home) and after hearing that for 3 hours and listening to a very nice Spectral/Magico system in a close time period (in a dedicated purpose built room), it was not even close.

So preference (or just musical enjoyment) is a more than reasonable goal for me!

audioguy said:

Which, by the way, for me is all that counts anyway, since at best, compared to live un-amplified music, the best audio systems I have ever heard are a joke. My wife surprised me with a live three-piece jazz combo for my birthday (in our home) and after hearing that for 3 hours and listening to a very nice Spectral/Magico system in a close time period (in a dedicated purpose built room), it was not even close

Click to expand...

Again, this is the problem, that the "best audio systems" don't perform, for most people. There is no reason that they can't, except that people don't believe it's possible or refuse to go to the necessary lengths to make it happen ...

Frank