It is easy to build your own tube amplifier and if you use premium parts, the most you will spend will be a few hundred dollars for the same design that costs five figures. Learning how to design one from a book such as Beginner's Guide to Tube Audio will take less time and effort than raising tens of thousands of dollars to buy a high end tube amplifier.
169 responses Add your response
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
I dont have the great experience some here have with tubes versus S.S. at all levels ... I think helomech post make sense... Anyway my S.S. is the best amplifier i owned , the Sansui alpha, and the power transformer quality and the pre-amplification are critical ... This is why his headphone out can beat one of the best headphone tube amplifier on the market because of synergy too for sure , this headphone amplifier i tried was very good and of the highest quality but synergy is the basis of component pairing ...😊 Then i discard anything nor any choices , nor tubes nor S.S. nor any other class A or D or hybrid etc nor any solutions...It is all up to synergy , costs and needs ... Generalizations claims as rule are generally childish ...One thousand factors cannot be reduced to a rule or two about components choices ... My rule, for the sake of contradicting myself here , 😁 was going for the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold at the best quality/price ratio ...For that we need to be creative, purchasing gear upgrades will not be enough ...Money dont buy meaning, even acoustical meaning ... By the way the minimal acoustical satisfaction threshold is enough for me and for most and it is in no way a mere stop-gap as some think not knowing acoustics fixated on gear price tags 😁... To reach the maximal acoustical satisfaction threshold is not given to all anyway , it ask for a very great amount of money and a more importantly a great deal of acquired knowledge ... It is way more easier and more affordable for all of us since Dr. Choueiri revolution for sure ,... We are lucky as music lovers to be here to profit from all gains in design and acoustics ... Thanks to Dr. Choueiri the distance separating the minimal satisfaction threshold and the maximal one has decreased for the benefit of all , asking less of us in works and money .. |
I think part of the contention here is that many audiophiles delve into tubes before encountering true reference grade SS which tends to be rather expensive. IME the value quotient can actually become inverse at a pretty low budget point, where a $2K tube amp can subjectively sound quite a lot better than $3 or $4K SS. Whereas in the very entry-level realm (under $1K or so) SS tends to perform better with most speakers. There’s this $1K to $6K range where tube amps often sound smoother and more euphoric and such, beyond which the value equation CAN (*key word) flip back in favor of SS. For example, I have yet to hear a tube product that actually sounds more refined than the average ≈$6K class-A SS product. That isn’t to say tubes won’t produce more even order (“euphoric”) harmonics that get mistaken for “decay” and what not, but personally, I can often detect those even order distortions in spite of the assertion the brain always conflates them with music notes. This is especially the case when listening to certain genres of music. Tube amps, perhaps ironically, perform very poorly in masking their distortions when rendering heavy electric guitar. But if one only ever listens to pipe-n-slipper chamber or quartet recordings, then yeah, they’re not likely to ever parse between those low order distortions and the actual recording. I suspect another source of confusion can be attributed to the likelihood that tube fanatics 💩 on SS because the best they experienced was bottlenecked somewhere else in the system. I’d wager the most likely bottleneck in most SS systems is the preamp. Most SS preamps are rather mediocre sounding. They tend to sound either grainy or lean or flat. There are great ones but they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. But the exceptions can be surprisingly affordable. Regardless of all that, if a chain of components lacks the right synergy, it won’t matter whether it’s comprised of tubes or SS or a hybrid. So if you go audition a $500K system comprised of “reference” level (cuz reference = expensive right 😂😂) and it doesn’t sound as good as a the $50K tube-powered system in the next room, you must consider the leg work that was devoted or not devoted to getting the best from the SS. Of course the same can be said for tubes when it comes to subjective performance. But when it comes to all objective metrics we know how to (dirty word alert* 😮) measure, it’s simply indisputable that SS has a higher performance limit. We should not apply Flat-Earth thinking to what is considered state-of-the-art. That’s a fool’s endeavor. |
😂 Nice use of a Chat bot here. |
| Post removed |
The aural memory and the attention focus are heavily contextual dependant ... Out of my own acoustic created environment i know for sure that i am more prone to be confused ...Even stress modify the results .. It is why blind test has a meaning statistically but not so much in an artificial setting in an individual case ... And observe that the room acoustic of someone is not the acoustic theater where the test is done doubly blinded ruled by other people .. And our acoustic perception are acoustic dependent by a trained habit somewhere where there is our familiar specific acoustics conditions ... The ears must not be uproot from his familiar life milieu and acoustic context ... Evaluating the emotion behind a new spoken language , a new acoustic is impossible because of that... We do it easily trained in our own speech .. I am sure i could fail to pass some blind test in a new acoustic environtment i had pass in my environment where all is familiar, under my control because i designed it ...I am sure of that ... Anyway i know nothing about this Mike blindtest on Asylum and i am not interested by double blind test anyway ... The only blind test that interested me are those i did in my environment ,simply blind, and in a relaxed mode not as a debunking tool but as a tool to improve my optimization process one step at a time and it worked well ... I am not against blind test, i am against the way some people use them for an ideological goal ...
|
| Post removed |
“I am naive to think that all people can train their ears in acoustics ...Some are ideologically deaf and need double blind test to say anything ...”
I think you are being a bit rough on Mike here. No amount of training can change the human thresholds of audibility. Mike wasn’t able to tell the difference between his turntable and a digital copy because there were no audible differences “Now mocking someone about an allegedfailed blind test is the last argument it seems ...😁” Reminding someone of their own experience with controlled listening tests is not mocking them. Mike made the unwise choice to make this about status and ego . There is nothing “alleged” about this particular test. It is well documented on Audio Asylum. Including Mike’s concession that he could not distinguish between his turntable and a digital copy. Again no shame in not hearing what is not audible. “I hate ad hominem attacks on credibility ... With or without blind test ...”
so do I. Mike should know better than to just label people and dismiss them based on the label he gave them. |
“ahha, Amir did load your lips.” hardly. I am one of the most hated people on ASR. I call them on their BS as well as your kind of BS. Speaking of Amir, I call him out all the time on his B.S. In fact I did so on your behalf! Remember when he reported on ASR that your system was mediocre? I think he gave it a 4 on a scale of 1-10? Remember that? I called him out on that. He was being a dick to you and a total hypocrite. He complained that the levels were too low. I pointed out to him that all he had to do was speak the **** up and have you turn up the volume. Instead he based his evaluation on an easily solvable issue, ignored Fletcher Munson curves and ignored the basic scientific principle of his own bias effects. I shredded him for that..
You are welcome.
”20 year old hifi history.” so 20 years ago you couldn’t tell the difference between your turntable and a digital copy but now now you can? What has changed in 20 years that would negate that test?
”not quite what happened many many years ago.”
it is a exactly what happened. It was documented on Audio Asylum. The archives don’t lie.
“is that the best you can do? you need to be a better troll. anything original from you yourself?” do I need to do better? We can always do some more DBTs using your gear at your home with your choice of source material. I look forward to reading your excuses for not doing so. You already know how it will work out for you having been through it once. It’s funny, by the looks of it Amir really got under your skin. Ironically I really get under his skin when I call him on his BS |
I am naive to think that all people can train their ears in acoustics ...Some are ideologically deaf and need double blind test to say anything ... Now mocking someone about an alleged failed blind test is the last argument it seems ...😁 I hate ad hominem attacks on credibility ... With or without blind test ...
|
“so you are just a common run of the mill ASR troll. have a nice day.” aren’t you the same Mike Lavigne who was challenged to a blind test between your Rockport Sirius III turntable and a digital copy of it made on a Tascam digital recorder and failed to hear any differences? Are you really someone who should be labeling other audiophiles and dismissing them? Didn’t you learn your lesson? |
so you are just a common run of the mill ASR troll. have a nice day. |
You are right ... But we cannot hear without an aural memory biases set, trained or untrained, engrammed in the body metabolism and not only in the brain ...Our focussed attention is like a children on the back shoulders of our giant aural memories history so to speak which walk always with us ... Even babies had one in the womb ... the focus of attention is not born from a virgin without father so to speak ...😊 It is because of these trained set of biases that musicians can beat more than 10 times the Fourier limits or Gabor limits about signals localization between frequency and time ... Then supposing an ideal pure "sound" out of any biases is preposterous and an ideological proposition by objectivist crowd ... By the way placebo does not means deceptive and illusory as in the vocabulary of the objectivist, in the opposite placebo work on the same neurological locus than a drug on the nervous system to help the self healing process ...It is a fact in medecine ... Then using placebo concept as an illusion or aside effect compared to a real drug is a simplistic ideology or an interessed bias to favor and /or prove statistically that a drug can be effective or not ...Placebo is a very complex concept used by mothers , wise doctors, publicist, but also statisticians in the drug industry or any other industry etc because it work really as a drug work and must be eliminated to asess the power and effectiveness of other contributing factors as a drug etc ... In the same way the sound qualities are perceived in the context of an aural history ... We can artificially disconnect this aural memory from the direct momentaneous sound experience but it is artificial and did not disprove the existence of a perceived quality always and in all case ... It just put them aside for the ideological standpoint that allege that sound quality are ONLY subjective biases that must be eliminated ...It is not even wrong ... And it is not right either because sound qualities may also convey objective information as qualia ... Then blindtest dont tell all the story there is to tell about sound experience...
|
“You are right , you never accused any subjectivist audiophiles of placebo effect in the posts i read from you” When audiophiles perceive audible differences where non exist in casual non level matched non time synchronized comparisons it isn’t due to a placebo effect. It is due to how we hear, process and remember sound. We can not effectively compare an aural memory to real time sound. So while it may seem the same as a placebo it is not. The aural memory is incomplete and was filtered by steered focus. |
| Post removed |
You are right , you never accused any subjectivist audiophiles of placebo effect in the posts i read from you ...As do most objectivist audio tech ...But double blindtest is precisely a means to eliminate placebo effect or any other biases ...😁 But for the rest my description correspond to your opinion it seems ... Transparency for me is not only a notion associated with gear design ( distortions or not) but also a notion associated with the room translation of the acoustic perceived information coming from the recording ...The gear design is a factor at play for sure , with or without pleasant or disruptive distortions, but for me acoustics as with the BACCH filters or the room /speakers/ears relation as in room acoustic play a great part in the information retrieval and the more transparent possible acoustic translation ... Simply said we can imagine that the best amplifier will or must or may disapear and will only convey transparently the acoustic recorded information, but in stereo system we need more, we need the room acoustic positive addition and contribution and we even need the BACCH filters as you already know yourself owning them ... In one sentence : we cannot exclude acoustics experience and concepts from the definition of "transparency" and limited the experience of transparency to mere gear design ... Than using blindtest and only gear supposed to be distortionless as wished by some, is not enough to understand "transparency" as an acoustic experience ... Because the recorded information must be retrieved and convey for some specific ears and specific head in specific room ... I am not an expert for sure ... This is only my opinion ...
|
The interpretation is not an accurate account of my beliefs. So I guess I should make myself more clear at this point. Transparency in audio is an utter lack of any *audible* distortions between a component’s input and output. ABX DBTs are an effective way of determining real audible differences. I have never made any reference to a placebo effect. |
You did not read correctly my post... I said that your definition of transparency is made in a negative way methodologically by using double blind test as an absolute standard which make possible to eliminate any distortion audible level as something added by an alleged "defective" design or by a subjective deceptive placebo illusion ...... Defining by the negative is not being negative in a psychological way ... My own definition of transparency using acoustic, nevermind the presence of illusory or real distortion, is a positive way methodologically related to the way recorded information is translated acoustically in some other acoustic t context plus or less transparently relatively to the initial recorded acoustics conditions ...It is why as an example of transparent translation of acoustic information i refer to the BACCH filters which you own yourself...This is an example which explain my positive definition of transparency... This definition is positive because it appeal only to the presence of positive acoustics factors ( as timbre and spatial information etc ) not to an eliminative selection test as double blind test ... I dont try to speak for you ... I added the posts where you vouch only for double blind test against subjectivist audiophiles and the posts where you vouch for "transparency" in gear design ... If i add these two posts of you together, my last post is my interpretation of your position ...
Correct me if i interpreted you wrong ...
|
scottwheel defines transparency not in a positive way...He believes in double blind test only, for sound qualia definition , then he defines transparency only in a negative way: Below a distortion limit if someone could not hear a difference this is transparency and all the rest is useless distortions or subjective illusions ...Any tube lovers is out for sure ... I myself defines transparency in a positive acoustical way instead : it is the way the gear/system/room/ears let the recorded acoustic live event be correctly and convincingly translated from playback to your acoustic conditions ( with more or less some kind of distortions nevermind ) ... My definition is relative ... Transparency in a negative definition by double blind test is absolute, because it ask for a threshold of distortion so low no human can hear it ...Said otherwise the best amplifier dont add anything by itself to the signal... It is the way objectivist define a good sound without need to refer to acoustics, psycho-acoustics but only electrical measures of the gear ... it is not even wrong ... It is why objectivism in audio is preposterous ideological position being not even wrong ... But the great acoustic discovery in the last decade is about the way any stereo system is flawed by the crosstalk destructive effect on the spatial qualities of the recorded information of the live event for the ears ... Than transparency will be also related to a way (BACCH filters ) these spatial information could be translated in our room/ears for our brain ... Transparency is then not only and mostly an electrical notion about measured distortion it is mostly also the way the recording is translated in a room without loosing any of the recorded acoustic information even if some distortion is added 😊 ... Scottwheel must know better then , he own the BACCH filters ...😁
«A non paradoxical man does not exist»-- Anonymus thinker🧐
|
so you are an ’all modern solid state amps sound the same’ guy if they are not clipping? and that means they are transparent? so class A, class A/B. Class D. Global feedback? zero negative feedback? 50 pieces in the signal path? 10 pieces in the signal path? heavy protection circuits? not much protection circuits? heavy chassis? lightweight chassis? my 2 channel mono blocks? and my pair of 8 channel Home Theater amps? all solid state. not clipping. all the same? and let’s assume they are all driving a speaker with an appropriate load and impedance for the amplifier power. so we remove the speaker variable from the question. but might different amps sound different on different speakers? or would each amp sound the same assuming the power was sufficient? just wanting to make sure i understand.
|
“no, transparent is not enough.” Then you want added colorations. A perfectly legitimate personal preference. I like them too. But I use DSP for that so the transparency remains an option. Once you color your playback with a colored amp it puts that stamp on everything you play. “ I respect that unless you directly compare various solid state amps in a revealing system you might assume ’transparent’ is enough, and that transparent assumes other musical attributes. unfortunately that is not the case.”
if the amp is transparent, which most modern SS amps are if they aren’t clipping then all of the musical attributes encoded in the audio signal will be passed through to the speakers. By definition that’s what transparent does.
“to illustrate my point here is a review”
and that’s where you lose me. Subjective reviews from Stereophile or other similar publications laced with vague flowery language are of no real interest to me. |
no, transparent is not enough. i respect that unless you directly compare various solid state amps in a revealing system you might assume ’transparent’ is enough, and that transparent assumes other musical attributes. unfortunately that is not the case. to illustrate my point here is a review of a very respected solid state amp, scroll to the bottom of the page and read the conclusion (final 3 or 4 paragraphs). https://www.stereophile.com/content/boulder-amplifiers-2150-monoblock-power-amplifier-page-2 >>>"By comparison, my reference monoblocks, darTZeel’s NHB-458s, don’t grip quite as tightly as the Boulders, nor do they achieve the 2150s’ levels of transparency and solidity. What they deliver so well, especially for solid-state amps, is music’s liquidity and natural flow—due to their more generous sustain. You can’t have everything."<<< when we look for alternatives to tube amplifiers, it’s not trivial to retain musicality and flow. these attributes come from simple elegant low parts count circuits, zero negative feedback, and amazing build quality. solid state but not strangling the music. these things are not absolutes, but there are solid state amps that are more or less musical while also being transparent. in my experience darTZeel is the most musical solid state.....in the context of this thread it’s the best tube alternative. do you think Boulder 2160 owners think their amps are not musical? no, but have they compared them to a more musical alternative in their system? just my 2 cents. YMMV. |
you missed it. :-) done and done. both my Ampex ATR-102 decks have MR-70 Nuvistor tube preamps. both decks have direct out from the heads into the outboard preamps, one box per channel. the top pair for the 1/4" deck on the left, and the bottom pair for the 1/2" deck on the right. i have a switch behind to go back and forth. the decks and preamps are hot rodded. read the first post of the thread which describes the level of upgrades. the MR 70 is a legendary late 60’s super deck. if you scroll down on this thread page you can read about it’s history. here is the thread about it. here is a current picture with both decks and the -4- MR 70 hot rodded preamps on a rack between them. the MR 70’s surpass any newer custom output electronics. as great as my -3- Studer A-820’s were with the King Cello preamps, this set-up is in another realm. |
“transparent is not enough for a solid state amplifier, musically complete, grain less and flowing are the challenges. these are relative things. not absolutes.” transparent is all of those things if those things are in the recording. Transparent means the output is audibly indistinguishable from the input other than the gain. If one wants some additional seasoning then euphonically colored amps are an option. But so are DSP simulators that do it better at a fraction of the cost with greater flexibility and the option to turn them off. |
micelavigne I agree withemergingsoul that your system is a masterpiece of thought and effort. It it is a good thing you have only 10 years involved and not 20 years otherwise you might need a bigger room. Folks this all subjective and there are no right or wrong answers in regards to the question put forth in this thread. |
This is a very thoughtful response and have to read it very carefully. Hoping I can learn something. Yes I Believe you have an extremely awesome, very extremely awesome, System in a very very beautiful room. You could make a lot of money selling tickets to people for a visit to your room. How lucky for those people to be in your room and how lucky for you too.
|
this will be a source of incoherence in a reference system, unless the signal for the solid state amp on the bottom octaves gets it’s signal from the speaker terminal of the higher octave speakers. the bass amp needs to be very neutral, and then mimic the presentation of the tube amp on top. if you desire a reference system. in lesser systems, not critical. lots of people do this, of course. which does not change the reality of it's limitations. BTW; this is exactly how my speakers work. my darTZeel amps are on my passive speaker towers, and my active bass towers get their signal from the speaker terminal of the passive towers. then if i use a tube amp, which i have done, the bass gets that character to sound ’of a piece’. it all depends on your expectations for a seamless coherent presentation. when you push the system, every amp acts slightly differently. you need things to stay of a piece with appropriate balance and feel at all musical points. the odds of happening to find a tube amp and solid state amp acting exactly the same no matter the SLP’s are very very remote. not saying impossible. improbable. |
The secret is to biamp your system. Use tubes for the upper drivers and solid state mega power for bass drivers. This is a true reference system if done properly. What the hell is a reference system anyway. Does it mean it's better or just something you reference to for comparative purposes. My $2500 system is a reference system as anything I add to it makes it sound different allowing me too appreciate any changes made. If you have a really expensive system sometimes it's difficult to discern differences by swapping in and out components. And then of course the quality of the recording is another factor that makes it more complicated and speaks to the need for reference Music, which no one really talks about. |
Very well said ... Thanks...
|
transparent is not enough for a solid state amplifier, musically complete, grain less and flowing are the challenges. these are relative things. not absolutes. however transparent does seem to satisfy many solid state amplifier owners. it's about expectations. i'm a tube lover who owns solid state. i don't want to settle. |
@yoyoyaya different solid state devices sound different, but can still measure as transparent. There really is no transparent audio equipment. |
