"My questions is: is there anything to be gained by switching to these higher power tube amps over ss amps?"
Maybe or not. It would all depend on what you specifically are shooting for and how well what you have meets your needs or not.
I do not consider Dynaudio speakers and tube amps to be a natural match by design in general, and would not do that without hearing first but that's not to say you might not find something to like there if you heard it. |
Good tube amp setups I have heard are excellent at both "attack" or sudden transients and "decay", especially with acoustic music.
Same true of SS.
The lesser setups, both SS and tubes, are of course less successful, though the tube amps probably have a better chance of retaining interest musically still when things are not going so right. |
"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." -- Albert Einstein |
"An excellent example is how some amps can sound bright, but measure the frequency response and they are perfectly flat. "
The ear sensitivity chart in the diagram I shared alone would seem to explain that. We don;t hear bass as well as other frequencies, so when response measures flat, bass may be less heard. But that is how our ears work, so it is what it is. ITs a clear alternate example of how we hear what otherwise measures differently. |
Regardless of design paradigm, isn't it the frequency response and distortion measured in the end that matter? These are components designed with certain criteria in mind that are obviously not interchangeable and must be matched together somehow. Its important to be aware of the technical details that matter, like impedance characteristics, to have the best chance of getting best results, but in the end, I do not think either paradigm can be measured as definitively better, although I suspect that the way these things are usually determined, via certain accepted distortion measurements, etc., that the common voltage paradigm measures better when done correctly. Of course doing it correctly is a big if given the multitude of choices, in lieu of a reliable consultant or knowledge needed to make the right decisions. Power paradigm has the advantage in that the smaller minority group of vendors that follow it these days offer good consulting on how to make it work. They have to, otherwise confusion and dissatisfaction might reign, as it often does in the more "open" volatege paradigm world. Knowledge is a key ingredient for good sound, so you need it regardless and when you find a good source of knowledge that you trust, I'd say go for it in that it is likely the ticket needed for good results, if you can afford it. |
THis interactive chart is a fantastic reference resource. Not only does it help you understand how music works, but also relates that to ear sensitivity, ie frequencies that our ears are most sensitive to, at least normally. So when looking at frequency response curves for a particular setup for example, compare what is measured to ear sensitivity as indicated. Also consider the harmonic elements that comprise various instruments in the recording as indicated in the chart. That should help one really assess what is going on when they listen better. I have a framed copy of a poster of this chart hanging in my main listening room for easy reference when needed. The paper is not interactive though unfortunately... :^). |
One additional factor to consider is how individuals hear. I doubt any two people hear exactly the same plus all our hearing changes as we age. Those 50 or over may be challenged to hear test tones much above 10-12Khz or so. That can be a mixed blessing when it comes to how gear sounds in that younger ears may have greater sensitivity in that range. Age might be one of the most telling factors regarding what "sounds good" if such a study were done I believe. Also note that the chart indicates that even though we may not "hear" higher frequencies, we may still be affected by them via other senses. |
"This is because trace elements of odd ordered harmonics are interpreted by the ear as brightness even though it does not show on the instruments."
I have trouble understanding how the ear hears something as "bright" that does not evidence itself somehow when measured.
I've always taken that as some resulting frequency anomoly in one of those frequency ranges where the ear is most sensitive, but how serious can it be if not even measurable? Where is the evidence that the effect exists, much less the cause? |
The huge unflatness of the ear sensitivity chart would also seem to debunk any claims one might make about being able to hear flat frequency response. If you hear it as being flat, it in fact cannot be. Significant equalization would have to be applied to the source to have any chance. At that point, what you hear as flat would no longer be natural, rather "enhanced" to make it sound that way to compensate for lack of flat response with our hearing. |
"If we can't measure it can it exist? Sure!"
Sure. But some actual evidence always helps, especially in the often twilight zone of high end audio.
If you can't measure it, it does not prove it is not there, just that there is no evidence to substantiate it other than words and theories.
Plus once it is determined to exist the next question is how important is it really?
ANy issue can seem quite grand on its own. But put it into the big picture along with all the rest, and maybe it is not really the biggest nut to crack? All designers have their pet peeves that determine their approach. Designs are different as a result as are the results themselves. Which is best? Each woth their salt thinks their own most likely. How to determine who is right and who is wrong? Evidence certainly helps. Substantial evidence often takes a long time to accumulate to the point where determinations can be. But time usually tells in the end. We'll see.... |
Atmasphere, I've found that chart to be a useful tool to help me understand audio better. What I have heard over the years is consistent with what the chart tells me.
IS there some way you can reconcile the theory you support with the chart? For example, do the harmonic loudness artifacts you describe commonly fall into the frequency ranges depicted that ears are most sensitive to? That sound plausible to me. If what you say is at least consistent with the chart, that adds something to the case IMHO.
My understanding as documented on the source site is the human ear sensitivity data depicted in the chart is based on data collected "testing large sample groups" and is based on ISO standard 226 (2003) for human equal loudness contours, whatever the blue heck that is. |
Audiogon often seems a magnet for unique or differing perspectives on good sound. SS is old hat and boring. Does not attract much attention these days as a technology. Class D amps are newer and get a lot of attention here. Tubes are cooler and more unique these days, as is vinyl.
I'm working on building more appreciation for Walsh style speakers here on A'gon myself in that I believe Lincoln Walsh used his engineering experience with radar systems in WW2 to get dynamic speakers right while the rest of the world missed the boat. Pretty radical....
|
So, individual technical peeves and preferences aside, in the end here are things I think really matter regarding choice of amp and speakers to match.
1) If limited frequency range down to only 50-60 hz or so is your game, the world is your oyster. Many many good combos of both SS or tube amps and speakers to do that.
2) If full range frequency response flat to down below 40 hz or so is your target, now you have some important choices to make, especially for a larger room in that in the end, however you achieve it large volumes of air must be highly pressurized at low frequencies to achieve the goal. Choices are:
1) modest or low power tube amp + higher efficiency larger speakers. The lower power the amp the larger the speakers will need to be. Soft clipping of transients at high volumes is still clipping so you have to avoid that!
2) Higher power SS or tube amp with smaller speakers. Lower efficiency speakers will also still require more power. Class D amps may be the emerging technical solution that best addresses this. Otherwise those high power amps needed will be large , heavy, expensive to buy, and expensive to run as well. |
Of course, for full range scenario, nothing wrong with using a low power SS amp in place of a tube amp. Or a larger tube amp with smaller speakers, although this is where the size and power required of the tube amp will result in limited good choices. Again, soft clipping is still clipping, so none of that allowed! :^) |
I suppose another scenario would be like Petepapp describes, and you want to preserve your hearing. Soft clipping may be a good thing there, so a smaller tube amp might fit the bill for a full range solution with smaller speakers. |
