"Stereophile
Sounds Like? An Audio Glossary
J. Gordon Holt, July 1993"
..."solid state sound That combination of attributes common to most solid-state amplifying devices: deep, tight bass, a slightly withdrawn brightness range, and crisply detailed highs."
..."tube sound, tubey That combination of audible qualities which typifies components that use tubes for amplification: Richness and warmth, an excess of midbass, a deficiency of deep bass, outstanding rendition of depth, forward and bright, with a softly sweet high end."
! Moderators, How about making this a sticky?:
http://www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/bbs/stereophile_audio-glossary.html |
Dollar for dollar through most typical loud speakers; high quality tube amplifying devices will more likely distort frequency response more than high quality solid state amplifying devices will. |
Rsrex, I have already recognized lumpy frequency response in loudspeakers before.
Geoffkait, some of you may have found that, more recently others found the opposite to be true.
Atmasphere, I find tube amps to typically sound brighter than ss amps.
Mapman, flat frequency response as being discussed here is in regard to the relationship of measured input to output. |
Atamsphere, It's not just with my speakers and it's not just me, others have noticed the same thing for some time now; please see the my earlier post on this thread dated 03-10-15. |
Mapman, Gpgr4blou, Please realize that chart reflects how humans hear/percieve undistorted musical instruments/sound frequencies. One would not hear/perceive those instruments/sound frequencies as the chart portrays if the sound was distorted (for example; deviating from flat frequency response) before one heard it. For the purposes at hand it's merely an academic curiosity, and flat frequency response from our systems is still highly desirable. |
^I'm sorry, but I don't understand the first sentence.
Headphones are typically an unnatural way of hearing things. Some headphones use signal processing to try and compensate for this unnaturalness.
Old fashioned loudness controls allow for some compensation of the way the human ear perceives sound at unnatural lower volume levels. Which interestingly enough, is further argument as to how the above mentioned graph only reflects human hearing/perception vis-a-vis an accurate stimuli. |
Geoffkait, In many ways you are correct. Especially with regard to room anomalies, though with room treatment and room correction, speakers can overcome some of this issue. Most high quality headphones still have cables. Magnets? Some headphones have cross-overs, some speakers don't. Some speakers can be run class A all the way, though I'm not sure just how important that is. Some headphones have multiple drivers, some speakers don't. Some speakers don't have phase issues, (and with regard to this thread, interestingly enough, most of those present a load that tend work better with ss amplification).
Headphones are heard from an unnatural extreme left/right directions, which almost never happens in live music performances. The sound is sent more directly into the inner ear without the outer ear collecting sound in the more natural manner. One of the unnatural outcomes of this is that one often hears the sound as though it's coming from within ones head, missing the natural soundstage qualities of a live performance.
Headphones can offer more precise indication of specific elements of recordings and play back, but ultimately, at least for me, the whole sounds unnatural. |
The sound we "collect" effect the sound perception in a predictable (and natural) way outside of rooms that is different than the more direct sound that comes from headphones. |
^Human hearing can quite readably differentiate direct sound from indirect sound, especially if there is enough time between the direct sound and the reflected sound. This is how we are hardwired. For home audio with loudspeakers this can quite successfully be accomplished with proper loudspeaker and listener seating positioning. Room treatment and room correction can be most beneficial in this regard as well.
If headphone listening was so superior, why isn't the use of headphones at live performances ubiquitous? Why is it that we have no trouble having conversations in domestic rooms? If headphone listening was so much better than loudspeaker listening, why wouldn't audiophiles more often forego expensive loudspeaker based systems for the for less expense, more mobile, more convenient, less obtrusive headphone alternative?
Having music put directly into our ear canals from extreme angles is unnatural. Sure, it eliminates the influence of room sound upon the recorded soundstage, (something that can be quite beneficial to focus on specific elements of equipment and recordings) but introduces other problems that affect the gestalt of the way we naturally hear.
I fear we have already hijacked this thread enough. I will not comment on headphones vs. loudspeakers again here. Perhaps on another thread? |
^I did say "... through typical speakers.". |
The Ridley audio amp, like most tube amps runs hot and at 100 Watts 8 Ohms / 90 Watts 4 Ohms, is unlikely to provide linear frequency response through typical loudspeakers.
I haven't heard it, and only auditioning it would be conclusive, but an expensive, moderately powerful, hot running, non-linear amp doesn't sound too exciting to me.
It also raises the question as to whether it's actually a better ss amp or merely a more familiar sounding one to tube enthusiast.
FYI, I haven't been able to remove the Ridley Audio download from my Android. |
^update: download removed. |
Atmasphere, In that most (all?) speakers draw power with varying impedances and those impedance changes will correspond with sensitivity changes (again we're talking about typical speakers here) unless the amp(s) can change power output appropriately there will be deviations from linear frequency response.
Csarivey, the ability of an amp to double down does not necessitate the use of "...deep global NFB.". Consider Threshold and Ayre as just a couple of examples. |
^It works the same in both directions, and global feedback is not neccesarily a prerequisite. |
^I'm not familiar with the Mac 30. If that were the case, why would it have multiple impedance taps?
http://www.roger-russell.com/amplif1.htm#mc30 |
^Them it would appear that the Mac 30 is not capable of adapting to the variable impedance swings of typical loudspeakers without deviating from linear frequency response? |
^So for example; with a dynamic loudspeaker speaker with a nominal 8 Ohm load with dips to 4 Ohms and peaks to 16 Ohms; the Mac 30 will double it's power output into 4 Ohms and halve it's power output into 16 Ohms? |
^Well that is interesting.
I'd love to see the graphs of the tests on that amp, as I've never seen a graph of a tube amp that could demonstrate that kind of skill. I'm very curious as to what it's distortion levels were like as it went through various impedances. It still seems as though it wouldn't need the various impedance output taps? Why wouldn't the cross-over points matter? Is that how the amp would behave when connected to the 8 Ohm tap (the given speakers nominal impedance). |
As I read it from their own respective web sites none of the amps from either McIntosh or Wolcott can do that.
http://www.mcintoshlabs.com/us/Products/pages/ProductListingHorizontal.aspx?CatId=amplifiers
http://www.wolcottaudio.com/WA_Pres_specs.htm
I disagree with your assertion that :"...there is no argument for a 4 Ohm speaker in the world of high end,..."
Some of the most accurate loudspeakers ever made journey into and below that impedance. ...But that is probably a more appropriate discussion for another thread. |
Well, I would respond to the Wolcott statement that the specs on their own web site contradicts that. |
Look deeper, or at least to the first Wolcott link showing specs that I provided on 04-03-15:
http://www.wolcottaudio.com/WA_Pres_specs.htm |
Al, thank you for clearing that up.
I will say that there I still have some misgivings about power rating and the ability to adapt to lower impedances of the above mentioned tube amps, as the sensitivity varies in a constant ratio to the impedance of typical loudspeakers.
To put in this context (using Al's reference to MAXIMUM power output), the more robust of the amps under discussion (and perhaps of all tube amps?); the somewhat unique Wolcott's standard 8 Ohm power rating of 180 Watts when outputting into a 2 Ohm load would be the equivalent of a 60 Watts standard 8 Ohm power rating of a high quality solid state power amp. |
That maximum power output is not to be considered lightly. That uniquely(!) robust Wolcott's maximum power rating is for full stereo output. As a typical speakers sensitivity will be reduced at a greater rate than power output is increased by such an amp. At up to over $9K for the equivalent of a well designed 30 Watt per channel ss amp is cause for pause and serious thought, at least for me :-). |
A correction is in orde. After looking at the Wolcott specsheet again it appears as though both stereo and mono amps are available, with different maximum power outputs. |
