solid state vs tubes
I was going to tell an inside story about the Manley TNT when this thread started as a another tube/SS debate but that was not the OP's intent. Not supposed to know that anyhow. Don't know if the tube amps I've known have been rolled off on upper frequencies or the better SS amps have been too "hot" but I tend toward the former. Consider that the higher frequency harshness that you're sensing may not be frequency related as much as time related, as if that helps. Different animal, different habitat. As far as the Plinius, it does have the switch to run in A/B when not used or for casual listening. The "laid-back" soundstage might be a big adjustment from vintage tubes or, for that matter, vintage SS. Guaranteed it's a better match for the 1.6's than the old VTL 120. |
MrTennis, As a long time Magnepan guy, part of your issue with the 1.6s may be more setup than the speaker itself. At one point I was tweaking the toe every couple days. Bad image here or too bright or whatever. Finally, in reading around, I found out that Magnepan SWAPPED SIDES on me in the mid-90s. Yep, you are probably listening to the mylar side, with the connection plate and fuse in BACK where you can't see it. You may even have the tweeters out. I think that's what the 'book' calls for. My MG-1s were mylar back and it never occurred to me that Magnepan changed that......My 1.6s now remind me of my old speakers, but MORE in every way....if that makes sense? Well, ForGet It. Just rotate your panels IN PLACE. Put the pole piece facing you, the listener and the tweeters 'in'. My brightness disappeared due to my now crossing the speakers axis behind my sitting position. I couldn't do this before without some funny (not funny, really) image artifacts or even a 'hole' in the center. Now, I have a much better image, no comb effects, smoother HF response, the resistors which I had on the table threatening to install are now put away and the sweet spot is MUCH wider. Try it and get back to me.....pm if ya' gotta. |
MrT, What SS amp specifically produces the treble issues? I'm seeing that tube amps and maggies are not a bad combo these days, especially with a sub thrown in the mix if desired. My favorite dealer runs this combo these days in his top system room. Maggies are not inherently "muscle" speakers in regards to the low end, not requiring high damping or high current to be driven well from my experience (though they do need SS power to go loud), so I think more moderate powered tube amps can do them well. I wish I still had my old Mg1Cs. I'd like to hear how they sound off my current Bel Canto Icepower amps. I ran them off a Carver m4.0t (a 360w/ch Ss amp voiced to sound like carver's Silver Seven tube amps) very nicely for years. No top-end fatigue there. The more you listened, the more you wanted to listen, as it should be with Maggies (no fatigue). Maybe that answers the question about SS amps sounding like tube amps, at least in regards to the top end and no fatigue, at least with older Maggies? I did prefer the maggies running with a separate powered sub however in order to get a more muscular low end. My current OHM 5s replaced the Maggies (no sub needed with these). |
as i have said, a decent ss amp--200 watts or more elicits bass frequenecies that are remarkable. i haven't tried many ss amps, but i have treid a 300 watt class a--phenomenal bass, called the Jaton, i have tried roger sanders ss amp (i don't remember what version), and i have tried two "classs D" amps, the raptors, and another whose name escapes me. years ago, i visited woodbridge stereo and hear the 3.5s with a pass pre and amp. i did not like what i heard. again, i don't remember the model number of the pass gear, nor the digital source. i have not heard a panel speaker with sold state that does not have unplesantness in the treble. a friend has an old plinius and someone suggested the levenson 23 or 23.5. i am also interested in hearing an edge amp. tube amps are more gentle when they clip. perhaps the non-tube amps i have heard exhibited some odd order harmonic distortion which was unpleasant at spls exceeeding 80 + db. i am open to other suggestions. i woyuld prefer a slight decrement in treble frequencies starting at 10k. yes, its coloration, and i think most designers would not deliberately incorporate such a frequency response in their designs. i am open to ideas , provided the treble reponse is rather well behaved. i don't remember being impreseed with ss amps and panel speakers at shows or at friensds' stereo systems, but i am getting a bit annoyed at the efforts required to maintain optimal performance of tube amps so i would love to find a ss amp as a replacement. many have said that there is no ss amp that is audibly undetectable from the sound of a tube amp. then again, some of the current tube amps are not the most pleasant in the treble . |
The difference between 'old' Maggies and 'new' is the difference between pole piece forward and mylar forward. The old way, IMO was better. My original MG-1s had a character and feel about them not equaled by my 1.6s, until I did a rotate-in-place. Anyone having 'brightness' or treble problems with Magnepan should try a simple rotate in place test, give 'em a few minutes and adjust to preference. Maybe even give it a day or more. When I did the rotate thing, the change was so startling that I knew they'd stay that way. Had more of the character of the MG-1 without the heat of the 1.6 as well as a fuller center image and simply a wider 'listenable' seating area. Cost? just a few minutes and the electricity you were going to use anyway, to listen to that new album. |
A few months ago I heard my Plinius SA-100 mkIII paired with some older Maggie 3A's, and even the SET lovers who were in attendance commented on how liquid and musical this combo was, although the Maggies certainly could have used more power if we wanted to achieve more substantial volume. Also it's important to note that there WERE tubes in the chain to make this listening session much sweeter, which included a Loesch & Weisner preamp and a Lector CDP with NOS Brimar tubes. |
Yes, tube in the pre-amp and/or source along with good SS amp is a practical approach. That is where I have landed. I use the tube pre-amp and IcePower Class D amp with SS dac and phono. I have a similar tube dac also but that is not needed and used in my second system to give it just a dash of tubishness in an otherwise all SS setup as well. I have heard some veryy good tube amp setups, but have achieved a comparable sound with minimal # of tubes and associated pains, so I can recommend my systems as decent models for achieving tube amp-like sound without a tube amp. |
I actually like it better opposite. I did not originally. I was always told tubes in the preamp and solid state amp. Good solid state preamps are much quieter than tubes and render more inner detail, at least in my case. I cannot find good tubes quiet enough for a preamp, especially in the phono section. You still get the benefits of tubes in this setup Tubes in amp/solid state pre. You also get a more natural bass IMO. There are good tube preamp designs, but where do I get the quiet tubes? |
Interesting interview with MBL. If you go down in the interview you can get MBL's take on tubes and still further down on vinyl playback. They do not believe that tubes or vinyl provide the most consistent playback. http://www.monoandstereo.com/2010/09/interview-with-mbl-audio-germany.html |
My intention here is not to start an argument but I feel a need to address the comment that tube sound can be achieved with a solid state amplifier preceded by tube components. I've read that same thing frequently on these threads and I think it's an important enough issue, particularly to those who are considering a change from solid state to tubes, to expand on that idea. The difference between the tube and solid state camps are very similar to the differences between Democrats and Republicans. Just because one adopts a party does not mean he walks lock-step with everyone else in that party, or shares the same values. To my ears, solid state circuitry cannot be made to sound like tubes by inserting tubes higher up the chain. Tubes can have a different appeal to different people. IME, there are those qualities shared by both tubes and solid state that vary by degree e.g., warmth, soundstage, transparency, definition,etc. If you prefer tubes to solid state because you feel that they are superior concerning some of these shared qualities, you can achieve a more tubelike sound, to you, by inserting tubes anywhere along the chain. If however, you are attracted to those tube virtues not shared by solid state, virtues that I have never been able to satisfactorily articulate, but none the less are very real to me, the yearnings of your audio soul will remain unsatisfied by a solid state amplifier regardless of how many tubes you insert upstream. |
| Post removed |
Well, Mr. T, looks like you're doomed then. I suppose it depends on how much distintive tube sound you relish. Probably true SS will never emulate the distinctive sound of some tube amps if that is what you want. The thing you have going though is the premise if you buy into it that some good tube and SS amps tend to sound more similar and less "tubey", which is the basis for my suggestions. |
| Post removed |
the bottom line for me is that the last few hi fi shows I went to I never really liked any room that was powered with solid state amplifiers. I would deliberatly NOT find out what was being used before listening but when I left the room I would ask - so as not to bias my opinion. the solid state stuff sounds too flat and lifeless, the flat 2D images are stuck around the speakers, in comparison tubes have a big image and soundspace that seems full of life. my opinion and ears... |
I have to agree with Phaelon and Tvad that to meet what I find to be tube virtues, it is essential that they be in the amp, upstream tubes with SS amps is simply not the same thing, that took a long time to figure out, especially given what seems to a fairly long run recomendation of combing tubes in the pre with SS amp - a best of both worlds argument - that simply never worked that why for me. Which is not to say which is better, that might very well be a matter that can only be decided by personal preference after listening for yourself, but IF you want what is best from "tubes", I think there is no way around them being in your amps. |
I've heard both very good tube systems and very good SS systems sound great. They're just coming to grips with the solution from two different angles. The better ones do tend to sound the same despite their different starting points. Its only our limited exposure to all the implementations out there that gives rise to this debate. I second that Musicman and blindjim said it best. |
| Post removed |
"Nothing ever gets resolved in these discussions, and the circularity of the discussion continues ad infinitum." You're right Tvad, but what I have difficulty understanding is why you're right. Objective fact: Tubes are not solid state and vice verse. They are different and they sound different. This whole thing brings diet cola to mind. In the beginning, the whole thing with diet was about approximating the taste of the original cola with sugar. Ad campaigns frequently claimed that the results of taste tests concluded that a new version of diet was indistinguishable from the original. But a funny thing happened over time, diet cola began to stand on it's own two feet and many people chose to prefer it to the original. Diet advocates didn't feel that they had to justify their choice by saying that diet tastes like the original cola, they just said they preferred it. Now, if you walk down the pop isle you'll notice each major brand has several varieties of cola - different strokes for different folks. What I never hear in any lunchroom is an argument over which cola tastes better or that a certain diet tastes like the original. It doesn't. Who cares. Solid state isn't tubes and therefore doesn't sound like tubes. Choose the one you like and be happy. What's there to argue about? |
MrT, there may be another way to do this. The Quad has a low impedance at high frequencies and a lot of transistor amps will tend to make more power due to that, part of the reason why they sound bright on the ESLs and with less bass impact than most tube amps. OTOH, your Maggies have a flat impedance curve, but also need some power, but delivered into a 4 ohm load. With any SS amp made, the more current you demand of the amp, the more you get non-linearities caused by capacitive elements in the junctions of the output devices. IOW even though they may drive 4 ohms just fine, most transistor amps will sound better on 8 or 16 all other things being equal. So there is a single solution that might be worth pursuing, the ZERO. If you use a transistor amp, this may take away some of the glare, although you will also loose power. But with a tube amp it may not only have the amp sounding more relaxed, but may give you greater power (although only slightly so) as well. Some of the driving issues with tubes and Maggies are actually the speaker cables. The ZERO will allow the cable and the amp to see 16 ohms, and then a very short set of cables can be used on the 4 ohms side, allowing you to keep your cable losses to a minimum. Something to think about. |
Atmo:: When I have a mosfet device under test, what parameter am I looking for? Under what conditions will I be able to measure this parameter? The 'capacitive' element of a mosfet would be 2 conductors, separated by an insulator. Now, the drain, source and gate will all have resistence associated with them and the gate oxide, usually pretty thin.....on the order of angstroms, is capacitive but how much? in the nano farads, for sure. Their doesn't appear to be much capacitance between source and drain since they are both just differently doped regions of the substrate, except in International Rectifier HexFet devices.....(of which Carver was a big fan) Even the devices I'm used to building, in which the drain is on the bottom of the device have no capacitive elements, again, except the gate oxide. just curious...........Instead of magfan, you can call me FabGuy. |
I'm not a probe guy. i spent about 30 years making both ICs and discrete. I am most familiar with probe parametrics as they apply to my area of specialty. As for probers, I know they weren't HP. The last ones I remember were some kind of european 4 station from one central computer/data gatherer. Individual histograms of each wafer were stored for later analysis...patterns of failure and such. I avoided probe....looked too much like work. I am much more comfortable with diffusion / implant / metalization and was very good at metrology. Nanometrics equipement, surface profile stuff and elipsometer along with various 4pt probe and specialty tools. |
Magfan, here's a nice nutshell explanation that touches on this subject. That there are capacitive elements of semiconductors should not come as a surprise to anyone- most tuners these days do not rely on variable capacitors to tune the station, instead they use variactor diodes, which take advantage of this capacitive element. Literally by changing the voltage (and thus forward current) on the device the capacitance changes and is useful as a tuning cap in the RF front end of the tuner. Here's the link for the MOSFET capacitances (you can find many others on this site): http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/155106-ss-followers-drive-power-tubes-3.html#post2316318 |
as i have stated before, my favorite amp is the conrad johnson mv 125. i am convinced that there does not exists a solid state amp that comes close to the cj. i don't own the cj. i own a pair of vtl deluxe 120s. based upon the comments so far , i am confident that i will not find a solid state amp which sounds like the vtls. that is , i would expect that in a blind test, i think i could identify the difference between my vtls and any ss amp. thus, all i can do is listen to some more ss amps until i throw my hands in the air and give up. i suspect i should look for class a amps for likely candidates. incidentally, i once owned a pass aleph 0 and was using it with a pair of quad 63s. i did not like the treble response and sold the amp. |
The devices made by IR are 100% not symmetrical MOSFETs. The gate and source are on the top of the device, while the drain is the bottom of the wafer, which, while I can't discuss fabrication details, has an ohmic contact with the package. So, gate/source is very low cap while the drain is many microns away, so should have much higher capacitance. No effort at all for a groove-type symmetry. This is strictly a planar device. Rleff (nice, diffusion oriented name).....I'm not knowledgable about probe enough to know who makes what. The last HP stuff I saw in a test area were the frequency meters used to tune quartz crystal oscillators. This was no later than about '80. |
Unsound, Yes, I recall that. It was a CJ amp that the Carver m1.0t was emulating I think? I had a Carver m4.0t with silver seven transfer function to sound like Carver's statement tube amp for years. It did sound more like a tube amp than most SS amps perhaps and put out 360 w/ch to boot. It worked very well with Magnepan mg1cs, conveying a lot of typical tube amp strengths and weaknesses. |
aTMAS, Aren't 4 ohm loads more problematic for tube amps in general? Isn't that part of teh reason why you advocate 8 ohm or higher speakers for use with your tube amps? I will gladly try the zeros if someone wants to loan me a pair. If I ever experiment with a SET amp down the road, the zeros might come in handy. |
In my youth there was a definite difference in sound between tubes and solid state. Audio Research and Conrad Johnson vs. Krell and Mark Levenson. Today, the very best designs have closed the gap so that there isn't a solid state or tube sound. There are excellent examples of each. Today,Audio Research and Ayre sound more similar than different. |
Just ask any (experienced) guitar player. ALL amps sound different, as well they should. I think the bottom line is that tube stereo amps sound better than ever but they're fussy, relatively expensive (relative to SS designs), and tubes start to kill themselves off pretty quick. I love the harmonic richness and appropriate tactile response tubes give to my various guitar amps (when biased correctly and using good tubes), but SS hifi amps (well designed ones) can, of course, sound amazingly musical and they seem to keep sounding that way much longer than tube amps with less upkeep. I prefer MOSFETs (warmer or something), and I am gonna try a class "d" hifi amp soon (modern pro audio is all about class "d"...those "phased array" speakers you heard at that concert with your girlfriend on your shoulders spilling beer on your head...likely class "d" powered). |
Wolf, I'm largely with you in regards to my view of tube and SS amps. Class D is a godsend for getting the most cost effectively out of most recordings in particular modern ones which can tend to be more challenging due to loudness levels applied with modern speakers that tend to be less efficient and are often difficult to drive to the max properly. I've found Class D is like one of the last missing pieces I needed for getting good sound all the time out of my system. I think many who complain about the sound quality of modern digital recordings need to get with the times and give Class D a try perhaps. Or continue to just live in the past and complain about anything that is new or different. I want the best of both worlds. Class D helps more people achieve that. |
Aren't 4 ohm loads more problematic for tube amps in general? Isn't that part of teh [sic] reason why you advocate 8 ohm or higher speakers for use with your tube amps? This is true. The fact of the matter is that **all** amplifier technologies sound better (better= smoother, greater detail, often more authority, and in tubes less lower-ordered distortions that contribute to the 'tube sound') when driving higher impedances. IME 8 ohms is OK (better than 4) but where the 'magic' happens is with 16 ohms. So I usually put it this way: If *sound quality* is your goal, 16 ohms will sound better than 4 or 8 ohms, all other things being equal. If **sound pressure** is your goal, then 4 ohms (or possibly less) is preferred if you have a transistor amp that can handle the load. The point is that in high end audio, we are more concerned about getting it to sound real rather than anything else. Quite often (as in Unsound's case per his last post), things might be sounding *good enough* so that one is satisfied, but that is rarely the same as saying that the sound is as good as it could be. Its whether one is interested in making that step in the interest of better sound. I say this because quite often a speaker design could be a 16 ohm design or 8, rather than 4, without seriously altering the design. It does not have to be more expensive. Its really up to the speaker manufacturers, but I think most of them don't want to raise the impedance because they fear loss of 'voltage sensitivity'. Have you noticed that there is speaker efficiency, 1 watt/1 meter, and there is also sensitivity, 2.83 volts/1 meter? The fact of the matter is 16 ohm speakers might be less sensitive, but they will not be less efficient. If this seems hard to get your brain around, consider the idea that the sensitivity spec was created to cover for the fact that many speakers are not as efficient as they are made out to be. |
Atmas, Assuming providing 16 ohm loads is not more costly, which seems to make sense to me, where can I buy or try the tweak that does it inexpensively without dropping big bucks on something fancy like the zeros up front? An inexpensive solution would seem like a natural thing for a company like yours to offer in order to enable your amps to drive a larger assortment of common speaker designs better? |
Atmasphere, you have still not convinced me that your opinion is a fact. That I have always preferred systems that have amplification driving loads under 8 Ohms to those with amplifiers driving loads over 8 Ohms, leaves me to doubt these assertions. In the end, the final sound is what counts, and at least to my ears, that holds true regardless of whether one uses sensitivity or efficiency as an amplification guide line. |
I think Atmasphere's assertion regarding higher ohm speakers is one of those things that is probably accurate in a technical sense but in practice does not always determine what will sound best to an individual. Still, I do think there is something to it and would love to do the test if there were a way to do it cost effectively and with no risk up front in case it does not pan out for me. |
