Atmasphere, the "why" for me is; never mind the isolated tests, why haven't I come to prefer tubes in real systems? Please forgive me for answering my own question, I suspect it might have more to do with the speakers that I seem to prefer. Whatever charms tubes have (oh yeah, I can appreciate some of them) might be outweighed by the compromises that the speakers that they need to be paired with have. In the end we listen to systems, not components, and especially not isolated tests. Of course that is not to suggest that isolated tests don't have merit, in proper context they absolutely do. |
I don't have the scientific background that many here obviously have, and perhaps I'm missing something but, I haven't seen anything here that would appear to qualify as evidence, never mind proof of the claims that tubes are more powerful than ss. In some cases there appears to be contradictions from previous arguments making the same claim, and an absence of perhaps other considerations. It would appear that some references might potentially support the other point of view. There's a big difference between coincidence, correlation and causation. Still a very good read and I encourage further contributions. Very interesting. |
Mapman, Atmasphere, not everyone take offense to the same things. |
Duke, thanks, that all appears to make sense to me. I do have further questions, but I believe they are not germane to this thread. |
Atmasphere, your points are well taken but, I'm doubt that these findings were experienced by 100% of the people tested. Just as in other areas of audio, for what ever reason some people seem to be more or less sensitive to some aspects more or less than others. There are other considerations that need to be considered; budget, heat, space, compatibility with connected gear, etc.. When the entire equation is put forth, new sources of "offense" can be introduced. In certain circumstances the benefits of one technology are over ridden by the exposure or introduction of new flaws. |
Atmasphere, I would really like to read that GE report in complete form. |
I'd be more interested in seeing at what volumes, ratios, and correlations are involved vis a vis the parameters in which the devices would be used in actual practice and what the rates of responses were and what they were compared to and against. Outside of that, the snippets might very well be taken out of context. |
Atmasphere, I don't have that kind of equipment. It's not that I doubt you personally, it just appears as though it might be out of context. |
Atmasphere, that might be true, but then there is the issue of whether or not ss or tubes offers such a distortion in the first place, whether or not it does, does it do it often enough or at enough volume to be noticed, whether or not the effect is masked, enhanced or not effected by what proceeds it, follows it or accompanies it, and what by what ratios? Is it lost in the mass of other distortions?
If ss is more prone to such distortions, wouldn't ss sound louder at lower volumes? Isn't that exactly the opposite of what some here are claiming, that tubes sound louder despite lower power outputs? How could the speaker and amp be of no consequence? With all due respect there are way too many things to consider before taking such an excerpt at face value. |
Atmasphere, thank you. I read the link again, it's a good read and worth re-reading. The link points to feedback as the anathema to good sound. I tend to agree with that, but, as the link suggests the lack of feedback is not exclusive to tubes, and doesn't suggest to the amount of feedback that becomes objectionable and/or might provide an appropriate balance of pros to compensate for the cons.
Perhaps better for another thread, but, I could imagine a digital processing ss amplifier that could use feedback and then correct for the time lag.
While the OP's speakers might seem to be better suited to tube amps, I think the blanket promotion of the notion that lower powered tube amps sound louder than lower powered ss amps is misleading, and furthermore that the premise of choosing a system around amplification is misguided. You of course, may disagree.
|
Atmasphere, it's exactly here where we diverge. IME, speakers both objectively and subjectively vary more than other components, and have a more varied response in different rooms/setups. With that said, all the speakers I seem to prefer, work best with ss. It seems to me that speakers that work best with tubes, do so with that intention, and seem to suffer much greater compromises in order to do so. IMHO, those compromises swamp what ever advantages tubes might(?)offer. With that said, it would seem to me that the easiest path to a system that sounds like real music is to build a system around the constraints we have the least control of; budget/room, and the speakers which adapt to those variables more so than any other components, and to their more varied unique voices to which our own unique specific sensitivities must adapt to more so than with any other components. YMMV :-). |
Mapman, Pubul57, it would seem to me that speakers with a benign phase angle and a higher impedance rating might be better served with tube amplification over ss amplification, that would loose power with an increasing impedance rating. |
Atmasphere, I suspect that some like; Jim Strickand of Acoustat, Roger Sanders of Sanders Sound Systems (formerly Innersound), Roger West of Sound Lab, Gayle Sanders of Martin Logan, Nelson Pass of First Watt, and Dave Wilson of Wilson Audio might disagree with your proclamation re: the suitability of ss with the types of speakers you've mentioned.
Some would argue that it's actually the additional coloration of tubes that make them appealing.
I would argue that there is greater chance of flushing money down the loo by prioritizing speaker choice to accommodate amplification rather than choosing a speaker which fits in ones budget, works in ones room, and which offer the least objectionable coloration's for the individual purchasing them.
|
Atmasphere, I do believe your argument has merit. It's just interesting that a couple of those ESL designers also designed ss amps to be used with them. Nelson Pass used ESL's amongst others when developing the Threshold amps. J. Gordon Holt, founder of Stereophile used both tubes and ss with his ESL's. Many of the others used both tubes and ss when demonstrating their speakers at big shows. I would imagine they would want to demonstrate them at their best, and at the very least, not at their worst. I'm sure many who can afford them, use your fine amps where appropriate.
The damping factor issue is a whole new ball of wax, and yes, your probably right, better for a different thread. |
Atamasphere, again I think your argument is sound, but, once again, it's interesting that for example, that J. Gordon Holt found the 160 WPC ss Threshold SA 1's to have better bass than the 225 WPC tube VTL 225's on his Sound Labs. |
Duke, perhaps a bit off topic, but in a previous thread Atmasphere offered a link to a 55 year old paper by a speaker manufacturer's engineer that within the context of that paper, regularly suggests the use of feedback to provide appropriate critical damping factor. Most of the speakers referenced in that article appear to be of higher impedance i.e. 16 Ohms, which I suppose was typical of the times, as was probably the limited availability of high powered amplifiers. While I generally agree with the thinking behind not using feedback and IME the proof is there in the listening. My point being, that it might be hard to have and use absolutes in designing audio gear. There often seems to be a need for appropriate trade off to make the best complete package. |
Koegs, actually I was referring to more recent post by Atmasphere, where he offered this link:
http://paulspeltz.com/tomcik/index.html
I don't believe there is any bias in this report.
It is interesting that in the link Atmasphere offers, the writer suggests using feedback to achieve critical damping factor, when Atmasphere has gone on record regarding his objection to the use of negative feedback. |
Shadorne, well done.
The link Atamasphere provided is really worth a look. |
Shadorne, a long time ago I remember reading(though for the life of me, I can't remember where or when), that one shouldn't use a DC coupled amp with ported speakers. I am under the impression that DC coupled amps are noted for their tight bass response. Not that I doubt you, but, if all that is correct (and it very well might not be), it would seem to disagree with your last post. My, how this thread has taken off on another path! |
Atmasphere and Duke too, I think it's us (well at least I can speak for myself) that should be thanking you. Not many other manufacturers have been nearly as generous with their knowledge and expertise. It's encouraging to see such apparent enthusiasm even though you must be up to your eyeballs in this stuff each and everyday. I especially appreciate how difficult it must be to be financially vested, yet enthusiastic, while maintaining the level of decorum that you consistently do. |
A bit off topic here, but, if a speaker manufacturer needs to veer from the criterion you use to describe a "decent speaker design" and needs use something other than a higher impedance amp to achieve better results, what's the harm? |
Atmasphere, I'm not sure that many speakers actually necessitate that the partnering amplifier use feedback.
You say that the use of negative feedback contributes to the amp sounding "shouty". I find that ironic, in that "shouty" attribute is one of the most prominent ones that I find so objectionable in the speakers that are usually paired with tubes.
It would appear to me that in some case lower impedance would offer benefits that the speaker designer feels outweigh whatever negatives that tag along.
Again, I suppose this where we disagree. I would suggest that if a speaker manufacturer builds a superior speaker that requires an amplifier with a particular set of parameters to be effective, then so be it, make and use that amplifier. You on the other hand seem to suggest; that I can make a superior amplifier so long as the speaker works within it's parameters. As I feel the speaker/room interface presents the most challenges for the prospective system builder, I would propose; that the speaker be the determining factor in determining an amplifier/speaker interface. You, on the other hand would propose; that the amplifier(s) should be the determining factor in an amplifier/speaker interface. I suppose we have a conundrum, as to just who is seeing the forest from the trees?:-) |
Atmasphere, I wasn't talking about those kind of speakers. I was talking about horns and others that are supposed to be tube friendly. |
Kirkus, Thanks! Your explanation of longer duration of headroom makes a lot more sense to my ignorant understanding of things than any of the other explanations offered so far.
I hate to use "my" current amplifier as a point of contention, but, my scope is somewhat limited. The manufacturer of my older cap coupled ss amplifier claims that it can double it's rated output for up to a couple of minutes at a time. Is that realistic? Is it due to it not being DC coupled design? Is it something all together different? What about ss amps like the Ayre that use chokes? I guess what I'm asking is whether tube amplifiers will always have this advantage over ss, or is it a matter of application?
It would appear to me that, while what you posted might very well be true, ss can usually offer more steady out-put power for the same dollar as most tube amplifiers. If so, wouldn't that negate some of the advantages you suggest for tube amplifier headroom duration? |
There are many here much more qualified than I am to answer these questions, but, it would appear to me that it really wouldn't be an issue with preamp. I would think most pre-amps have more than enough steady state power necessary to drive a power amplifier. Head room and it's duration wouldn't be a necessary consideration.
Atmasphere, would you consider a passive pre a ss device? If so, where would the feedback be there? It seems as though some of your arguments are based upon opposing theories rather than laws. |
Of course Acoustat made ss amps to go with their speakers. |
Yes, there were older Acoustats with dedicated OTL's, but the newer ones were recommended to be used with Acoustats own Transnova ss amps. Those old ss amps were pretty darn good for their day, especially for the then asking price. |
