Describe ube sound vs solid state

I own a fairly good set of cans, they sound good, but I still prefer the two channel magic of a good sound system more.

In many ways headphones are the most natural way to listen to music. I'll tell you why. There are no room anomalies to worry about. There are no speaker cables to worry about. There are no big honking magnets in speakers to hurt the sound. There is no crossover. You usually run Class A all the way. There are no (phase) issues with multiple speaker drivers. No issues with trying to locate the ideal speaker locations. No need for a preamp in many cases. Thus, the sound of headphones can often be more natural than speaker systems in terms of transparency, dynamics, inner dynamics, air and tonality.

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.

For me, the difference is arrived at by induction rather than deduction. I was never inclined towards tubes or particularly wanted them. But after listening to many different systems over many years I realized the ones that I loved listening to all had tubes--Jadis tubes, Manley tubes, Atmasphere tubes, VAC tubes, and McIntosh tubes. In the mix was Levinson, Goldman, Pass, Classe, and McCormack solid state, which often impressed me with power and authority, but never sent me into a state of "thoughtless joy" with a yearning for it not to end.

If I try to analyze it, the feeling is similar to hearing a chord sequence such as I-IV-V resolve back to the root. There is something so pleasing in that completion that is similar to the feeling from tubes, whereas solid state was more of a matter-of-fact I-IV-V that stopped short of that final completeness. Solid state had more of a Joe Friday "just the facts" while tubes were more of film noir fascination.

So I guess I'm saying that tubes have provided a musical completeness that my brain seems to crave, and this sense of completeness is the difference.

Unsound, the music that your ears "collect" is actually the room- produced information like reflections and so forth, you know, the very things we try to tame or eliminate since they distort the pure sound from the speakers and which headphones don't suffer. Even more polarizing in the Speaker/Headphone debate, as it were, are Tiny Portable systems, even portable FM/AM radios, that have even less problems than ordinary Headphone set ups. I.e., no transformers, no fuses, no house AC, no interconnects and no internal wiring which, as fate would have it, like fuses is connected backwards 50% of the time. The speaker magnets and transformers are BAD in my world because they generate magnetic fields that distort the sound.

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.

Headphones actually provide the pure clear unadulterated signal including the soundstage information that is captured during the recording. Why screw with that pure signal with extraneous room reflections, standing waves, comb filter effects, echoes, etc.? That's what I'd like to know about? It sounds like you believe the soundstage is created by room anomalies.

Tube amps at the low end of price are more emotionally engaging for opera, tears in the eye at dramatic vocal passages. Solid state requires more money to achieve tear jerker status, more likely to get a mental hand clap than tears.

^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?

Ralph, can a ss amp have such low distortion as to make that comparison not tenable? I suppose a better question would be, have you ever listened to a ss amp without the typical characteristics you ascribe to them?

I have heard one solid state amp that was quite musical- it also cost $100K and made 100 watts total. It was also zero feedback. It was better than most tube amps I have heard.

But it is the exception by far. I've yet to see a solid state amp with such low distortion as to not be bright- in fact it seems that the lower distortion units are more irritating to the human ear. That this occurs is nothing new- audiophiles have been commenting on this for decades.

Norman Crowhurst wrote about this issue many years ago- back in the 1950s- we are not going over new ground here...

I am not an advocate of 'distortion of tubes' either; I prefer as little distortion as possible, but I am pragmatic in the understanding that distortion is part of the tonality of any amplifier because that is how the human ear behaves and all amplifiers have distortion.

Electroslacker,
I relate to your SS to tube transition, they just sound more natural and closer to live performers. This point was made vividly clear for me as I listen to live music in my home in my case a piano and the many live Venues I attend regularly. It just seems to be that solid-state is handicapped by its production of higher odd order distortion, it just makes instruments and human voices sound less real. There is a pervasive flatter leaner sound that just sounds incomplete to me, I know others have different experiences but these are mine. To use a food analogy, solid-state seems to present a more lite presentation where as tubes if designed properly deliver the entire sonic harmonic scope and picture in other words just more natural with the key ingredients intact. SS comes off as artificially processed by comparison. This debate will go on foreverer I recognize.

Charles, your definition is very accurate. I recognize every aspect you describe in a 'lousy' amp. However, I also observe the attributes you mention in ss. Not sure how that would compare to a great in my estimation tube amp.

Hi Csontos,
I believe you and others who say they hear the desirable attributes I described for tubes in SS, personally I have not. I admit my impressions aren't universally shared. I have heard good SS amps sound better than a number of tube amps. I am comparing the best examples I have heard from each camp. So far the high quality tube amps win the realism/natural title. Totally subjective of course but that is what I consistently hear. I appreciate Your different perspective.

Charles: FWIW, I recall my encounters with ss in analytical terms--"the Class'e seemed more solid, but the McCormack seemed faster," but I recall my encounters with tubes warmly as cherished experiences, and I don't compare one tube experience to another. This makes me think the tube experience was profoundly musical, free of checklists and ratings. This is only realized as I look back over the experiences. Perhaps distance is required to see the pattern, and I have little confidence I could discern this difference in the moment.

Electro slacker,
Well stated, when the musical listening experience is emotionally involving and realistic, the mental checklist is erased and you just sit there and get involved and engaged with the music. You express the gist of this contrasting experience well. There becomes no need or desire to have an analytical approach, just relax and enjoy. A different body response is evoked and it feels right, no mental dissection needed when the sound is more natural.
Charles,

^^ This.

Music is process in the limbic centers of the brain- unless some aspect of the sound is altered enough that the brain detects a problem- and then the music processing is transferred to the cerebral cortex.

This is literally why some systems are emotionally involving while others are not. Obviously the goal would be to keep the processing in the limbic centers.

It is as I mentioned in previous posts. If one offers opinions regarding tube vs solid state or amp vs amp and does not offer reference points, then the comparisons are not based on fact.

the bottom line is that one will see lots of opinions regarding tube vs solid state and how tubes are Gods gift to the world and solid state is the lazy persons offering to the music reproduction world. And that couldn't be further from the truth.

One has to compare apples to apples. To simply say tubes are better, warmer, etc. is not accurate or true. in comparison to what???

Don't take anyone's word as gospel. Pick a price point, find some solid state amps and tube amps within that price point. Taking into account your existing system and speakers and the load it represents to the amp. The room size, the volume level that you are comfortable with and get those amps into your system and listen for yourself.

One would be doing a large disservice by saying that tube amps are better than solid state or visa versa (yeah,,,, no the are not) without a direct scientific and listening comparison.

There are some really great solid state amps out there that I would take in a second. Just as there are some really great tube amps out there that I would also take in a second.

To say one is better than the other is not based on any comparisons that I have seen.

If I was to be thinking of buying amps, I would establish my price point, the power ratings and impedance I need to drive my specific speakers, go demo them in my system (for that kind of money, absolutely it would be in my home system and not in a store), take careful, thoughtful notes, and decide.

As I don't 100% trust anyone else's opinion or ears except my own, that is how I would go.

getting someone's views is one thing, but buying based on that person's view is not smart.

enjoy

For mentioned God and also all who joined Him, they're same.

I would encourage any one to listen to any component they have an interest in obtaining or if just curious. This is an open forum and we're all just sharing our various experiences. I personally don't view listening to music as a scientific exercise.Over the years I've
heard many components and systems and as a result have formed opinions based on that. Other people may have their own way of judging what they hear and reaching conclusions. There's no one correct way (and all else is wrong)to go about this. Listen and note how you react and respond. It will be a bit different for each of us(as would be expected). when the the sound/ music reproduction is right, you'll know it. No one will have to direct your or influence your natural reactions. You don't have to justify what you like(or why you like what you like), just enjoy what you've found. I know what has consistently worked for me and has been the more satisfying emotionally. If it's different for someone else that perfectly fine. In my case, analytical method doesn't work. I must be moved and drawn into the music, I operate on emotion and spontaneous involvement.
Charles,

Tube amps are more fun...that's the important difference.

Funny how a good tube system is said to have many characteristics of ss and a good ss system is said to be liquid and have the bloom of tubes.That should tell us that we like the dimensionality and liquidity of tubes but the impact, speed and precision of ss. I'm a tube guy generally speaking but I have heard ss that I could live with, like D'Agostino amps which I would choose over most tube amps. In short, as always it depends.

Czarivey, sure, and quite often distinguishing a true one from an imposter is similar to an ABX test.

What I find a little self-aggrandizing is the declaration that "Ive finally arrived at the perfect synergy and all there is to do now is enjoy the music". Hogwash! The objective fact is that no playback system even approaches live/real events. Not only that but it's being declared here on an 'audiophile' site where music is what facilitates the hobby. It's laughable. If I could acquire a perfect system, I'd sabotage my interest. It would then cease to exist, the challenge is no more. Fact is I love the hobby. Without the gear to focus on, I'd have to take up stamp collecting while listening to music.

Gpgr4blu wrote,

"Funny how a good tube system is said to have many characteristics of ss and a good ss system is said to be liquid and have the bloom of tubes."

Uh, I'm pretty sure NOONE is saying SS has the liquid characteristic and bloom of tubes.

I don't recall anyone claiming "perfect" synergy or aystem that sound 100% live. I will say that my current system composition brings me closer to the live sound and feel that I crave. People are into audio for various reasons and different objectives. I was involved in music(played the trumpet) and attende live jazz before I discovered High End audio. So my goals may be different from what others want or need. I simply wanted to own components that get me as close to a natural sound as I could managed to do. I'm very happy with what I have now and enjoy my music immensely.

No doubt other folks are into audio for different reasons and are more into the components themselves. That could be the majority on this site, but that has nothing to do with me and those with similar objectives. I'll assume that people are into High End for a multitude of reasons. I am very glad I was able to find components that increase the joy of listening to music. I could be in the minority on this forum, but I'd think others share my same desire. It's a big world.

"03-18-15: Csontos
What I find a little self-aggrandizing is the declaration that "Ive finally arrived at the perfect synergy and all there is to do now is enjoy the music". Hogwash! The objective fact is that no playback system even approaches live/real events. Not only that but it's being declared here on an 'audiophile' site where music is what facilitates the hobby. It's laughable. If I could acquire a perfect system, I'd sabotage my interest. It would then cease to exist, the challenge is no more. Fact is I love the hobby. Without the gear to focus on, I'd have to take up stamp collecting while listening to music."

Wow, I know it sounds right that the recorded sound should approach the live event....I must say my sound surpasses any live event I have been to. Firstly for pop/rock etc. the live event is often pretty ordinary, All depends on the venue and the mixing desk and the PA. You are in fact listening to a giant stereo system!! Secondly for Classical depends on where you sit and the amplifications system and the hall. Sorry but I never get to sit front row dead centre, maybe you do? At home I am always dead centre.
I search out unamplified musical events to use as a reference...they are few and far between usually chamber and jazz ensembles...and you know what they are bright and edgy, the trumpet and violins can be uncomfortably piercing, the kick drum is often a bit overwhelming and loose, the cymbals often dominate the sound uncomfortably...it is not syrupy smooth.
Perhaps accuracy is not what we are looking for..rather a sound that pleases and fidelity to pick the characteristics of the instruments, and finally speed and timing that excites??? That maybe why there are such differing opinions on equipment e.g.. tube vs SS....each to his own:)
I am now going to duck for cover.

Hi Dinster,
My listening experiences at jazz venues are very different from yours. I'd say 75-80% of the time the sound is unamplified(just pure and natural). The consistent chracteristic is how full bodied,warm, rich and colorful/vivid the various instruments sound.The bite and power are present but no sharp edges. Most audio components err towards leaner,thinner and flat(missing the bloom heard live). As you say(and I agree), to each their own.

"I must say my sound surpasses any live event I have been to"

I would only ask this, do you mean the emotional involvement is better through your system than at a live performance or that your system just sounds better to your ears? I mean really, what is more enjoyable, a live performance or sitting between 2 speakers 8 feet back all by your lonesome? The one sure thing about going to a live performance, for me at least, is that the focus is on the performance not on the sound.

Tubegroover,
Agree,, I see his point if listening to loud pop/rock via a PA set up. Live acoustic instruments without PA or speakers in use, no way, at least for me. As you say, you're drawn directly into the performance.

I run sound for live jazz shows (recently Frank Vignola and Vinny Raniolo...check out THOSE guys) and am often baffled by any discussion regarding "live vs. recorded" sound. I have a piano in my hifi room...have played music professionally for 45 years or something, and have a stupid (!) amount of experience in this area. The following is true: Live sound quality is venue specific, you better be sitting real close if musicians are unamplified, and if it is amplified and you don't like the sound, it could be my fault. Clearly there are things making great sounding live sound events valuable, like YOU'RE THERE at an event, musicians might getting paid something (in the case of the shows I do, paid very well) which is rare these days, and it might be fun. If these things don't appeal to you, stay home. I think a great hifi is exactly that, and clearly recorded, mixed, and produced things are fun although not live, and so what? I just bought a new LP of Beggars Banquet at Barnes and Noble (new thing...vinyl at B&N!)...no explanation of why I have always loved this album, but I do, and the Stones NEVER sounded like this live...an LP on clear vinyl for 23 bucks that sounds great...what's not to like?

Geoff, you may have missed Atmasphere's second from last post. I just wish he would name names. Just to add a bit of insight, I think solid state's main disadvantage is that to realize it's full potential, you have to listen to it at max output. IOW, attenuate via output power.

Wolfgarcia, I have done sound for Frank Vagnola on two occasions, when he has performed at the venue where I am the sound and recording engineer. For His live cd releases with Bucky, I was the recording engineer "live standards". I was flattered that they released it and feel lucky that Bucky actually did the painting for the cover art. It was nice to be tied together with such excellent performers for the remainder of history.

If you haven't given that cd a listen, you should. I think you would enjoy it. I would like to get them to release the high Rez version of it, as well as a vinyl.

Sorry for the high jack, but it is a small world.

Ray

HA...I didn't really know much about these guys before booking the gig, and I really enjoyed 'em...small world indeed.

BTW I'm more of a Tiger Garcia fan! ;?)

Geoff, you may have missed Atmasphere's second from last post. I just wish he would name names.

Ridley Audio. http://www.ridleyaudio.com/Technology.htm

It appears Mr. Ridley has a handle on just what in general gives tube amps their character...'heat'. And it would stand to reason there's a correlation between output tubes and output transistors 'cookin' at full output.

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.

Unsound, just because an amplifier cannot double its power as impedance is cut in half is not the same thing as saying that the amp cannot do flat bandwidth on a given loudspeaker. There is more to it than that!

^I did say "... through typical speakers.".

^ I got that and meant the same thing. "Typical speakers".

Just because an amplifier does not double power into half the impedance does not mean it cannot drive such a speaker perfectly well, without frequency response variation. Doubling power is not a requirement for that.

Ralph when you do see a spec on an amplifier that does double power as resistance gets lower is that a sign of a better design?

Rleff,
It's not sign of better design. It's sign of deep global nfb.

"It's sign of deep global nfb."

Oh no, not that!

Just give it a listen. If it sounds good, its a pretty good design. Bad ones don't sound good. its funny how that works.

Correct designs could be good, bad either with or without global nfb.

Actually global negative feedback cannot to that in an amp. What it can do is force the amp to put out *half* has much power into an impedance twice as high- and therefore satisfy the voltage drive model of 'typical speakers'.

So add enough feedback to any tube amp and it can do that with ease and many do.

when you do see a spec on an amplifier that does double power as resistance gets lower is that a sign of a better design?

No- it is simply a sign that the amp has a very low output impedance and has the current available to double power. That is very different from a 'better design' which has a qualitative aspect; I prefer tubes so I think some good tube amps as often being a 'better design' than many transistor amps.

Another way to put this is our ears hear sounds without regard to how tubes or transistors work. It just happens that tubes do a lot of things that the ear finds more pleasant/less irritating, for example tube amps often have less odd ordered harmonic distortion. That is why they sound smoother, as the ear translates odd ordered harmonics into brightness and harshness.

So if an amplifier is designed to produces less of such distortion, in my book its a 'better design'; doubling power as the load impedance is cut in half has little to do with that.

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.

Thanks Ralph it was something I had believed as it is one of the most noticeable specs you see when looking at a solid state amp spec sheet.

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.

Yes- and enough global negative feedback will allow nearly any amplifier to do that. Its not about being able to double power, its about the amp being able to act as a voltage source. Plenty of tube amps can do that. If we add about 20 db of feedback to our amps they will act like a voltage source too.

Again, the amp does not have to double power as impedance is halved. What it does have to be able to do is cut power in half when impedance is doubled in order to behave as a voltage source.

^It works the same in both directions, and global feedback is not neccesarily a prerequisite.