The difference between tubes and solid state that I am finding

It always depends on the particulars of a given amp/preamp, the tubes used, and the rest of the system, etc.  Plus it’s subjective, but in general I’ve found tubes to have a more holographic sense of space, textured harmonics, and realism that I haven't found with the SS amps I can afford, while solid state amps definitely tend to have more bass slam due to their greater damping factor.  

After years of owning both, I thought I had settled on full tubes, but added an SS amp in bi-amp setup to power the woofers a while back....best of both worlds.  

Yes, You identified the dominant differences. How prevalent the differences are also dependent on the designer and the rest of your system. 

Your comment on blossom is call midrange bloom... it is the natural fullness of the midrange... where most of the music happens. 

If you compared an all tube system that had its focus on reproducing nature sound like Audio Research, Conrad Johnson VAC. You would hear these qualities in spades. The bass would be nuanced, all the details would be there, but not highlighted... exaggerated and the midrange bloom would be rich. Tubed systems can be extraordinarily musical. 

An all solid state system would tend to turn your head by its details and probably the dominant (but some what undifferentiated thump) slam. Treble is very easy to create with solid state but difficult to do really high quality. Solid state are prone to sounding hard, analytical and can loose the music. 

The designer can attempt to make a solid state amp sound more musical and less like solid state. For example, Audio Research has released the S series amp (S100 and s200)... which are solid state but do not sound solid state at all. 

I owned primarily solid state for forty years... and one by one switched to all tube component for all my systems. They now sound detailed an incredibly natural and musical. You can see my system under my UserID under systems. I'd encourage you to create a virtual system as well. It's easy and really helpful to the folks on the forum. 

Depends on how you like your pasta.  Endless combinations and permutations of gear rendering same number of acoustic palettes.  I've several systems running and like them all.  I've owned several tube pieces, same with SS.  There is no RIGHT.  There's better..... and worse.  But no right.  Like finding the 'right' Monet.

I like tubes, but tired of the endless chase to re-tube, upgrade the tubes, wonder if they were still strong enough.  For me, SS, really really good SS ended that quest.  For me.

And I moved away from the richness, romance if you will of that tube sound and moved to immediate hard hitting live sound.  No listening fatigue, just live.  For me.

Enjoy the journey.

@celtic66  +1  everyone likes something different. I’ve heard some low powered SET set tubes with high efficiency speakers that I thought sounded pretty great. Otherwise, it’s a matter of which set of trade-off you prefer. To my ear, you’re getting some mid range warmth, and giving up a more realistic bass performance, speed, and detail. That’s how it sounds to me, but everyone is different.Depends on what you like-there are excellent products in either flavor. 

In the recent years I have as a result of experiences had been left with information that has been indelible and enforced a rethink a out my lomg term commitment to Valves used in the Audio System.

In a non owned system depending on how it is heard assembled, when with Soulution Amp's is approx $200K. 

Listening to this system as above and subsequently using 211 Valve Power Amp's was of real interest, as either was an exception experience. 

Subsequent to experiencing the above, a SS Neurochrome Power Amp' was put into service. 

An Amp' cost 25 x less than Soulution and 12 x less than the 211 Valve design. 

The SS N'chrome was very very special it was not only parity in good impression made, as a voicing it was as attractive as a Valve Amp', but not a Valve mimic End Sound. 

I have been instrumental in others adopting SS N'chrome Amp's, where to date I have heard all Models and Modified Designs as well. 

These have been heard in a range of systems where other SS Amp's or Valve Amp's are in use. Speakers used with the N'chrome are ranging as £70K Field Coil Horns - Quad ESL' s various models - Cabinet Speakers up to £15K.

Never has the N'chrome not shown how impressive it is at aiding a Speaker produce a impressive End Sound. 

My own System is using 845 PP Mono blocks and a SET 300b. 

A SS N'chrome amp' is now loaned to me and to be used in the owned system. 

This can be used with a Analogue and Digital Source, along with three different Speaker types. 

Using prior experiences, I remain very confident very good impression will be made with either Source and selected speaker. 

In the recent years I have as a result of experiences had been left with information that has been indelible and enforced a rethink a out my lomg term commitment to Valves used in the Audio System.

In a non owned system depending on how it is heard assembled, when with Soulution Amp's is approx $200K. 

Listening to this system as above and subsequently using 211 Valve Power Amp's was of real interest, as either was an exception experience. 

Subsequent to experiencing the above, a SS Neurochrome Power Amp' was put into service. 

An Amp' cost 25 x less than Soulution and 12 x less than the 211 Valve design. 

The SS N'chrome was very very special it was not only parity in good impression made, as a voicing it was as attractive as a Valve Amp', but not a Valve mimic End Sound. 

I have been instrumental in others adopting SS N'chrome Amp's, where to date I have heard all Models and Modified Designs as well. 

These have been heard in a range of systems where other SS Amp's or Valve Amp's are in use. Speakers used with the N'chrome are ranging as £70K Field Coil Horns - Quad ESL' s various models - Cabinet Speakers up to £15K.

Never has the N'chrome not shown how impressive it is at aiding a Speaker produce a impressive End Sound. 

My own System is using 845 PP Mono blocks and a SET 300b. 

A SS N'chrome amp' is now loaned to me and to be used in the owned system. 

This can be used with a Analogue and Digital Source, along with three different Speaker types. 

Using prior experiences, I remain very confident very good impression will be made with either Source and selected speaker. 

I've always used a solid state amp. My current preamp and the two before it were tube.  The previous preamps had great warmth and that tube glow. Some music sounded fabulous and some not so much.  My current Linear Tube Audio MicroZOTL preamp is not as warm sounding, but it does a good job with just about any recording that isn't a crappy recording. 

Given the vast array of choices, from tube or solid state to sources, analog or digital (and within either one, the additional choices of drive system, tonearm, cartridge or transport, format and DAC), speaker-amp interaction, subwoofers and overall set up within a given room, you begin to realize how much affect an overall system’s "voicing" plays a role in the results, leaving apart the quality of the recording, which can vary considerably. 

To me, the hardest question is one which I cannot answer- that is, a grand or unified theory of system design that addresses all of these variables. The experienced listener knows it when they hear it, but beyond that, how predictive can you be without listening to a given combination of components in a specific room to know what sounds more like real instruments (that also raises the subjective aspects of listener preference/bias).  This also takes time and evaluation on a range of material- something that really makes a difference in a positive way can have a negative aspect-- e.g. increased clarity which brings greater stridency on some material. 

I came up during the beginning of TAS and the notion of evaluating how closely audio gear could replicate the sound of real instruments. I don’t listen to that much symphonic music anymore, but still listen to a lot of small combo jazz, recorded using acoustic instruments for the most part, without a lot of post production. I also know what different pianos sound like, having owned and played a variety of larger instruments. Those are my measuring sticks--for heavy rock or other genres, it is often a question of scale (how "big" the reproduction is before it sounds "forced"), dynamics (similar-do you hit a "wall") and congestion (does the system lose its coherence when things get cluttered in the recording). 

One of many "tells" to me is the acoustic "envelope" of attack and harmonic decay which may be most evident on a piano though that instrument may be one of the most difficult to faithfully record. Seat time and exposure are invaluable. 

I agree with many here. It’s subjective and everyone has different tastes, preferences and experiences. I am reminded of this saying, “We see what is behind our eyes, not what is in front of them”.

I agree with celtic66, “Like finding the right Monet”. A brilliant example.

Here ya go!

Could an Old-School Tube Amp Make the Music You Love Sound Better? | Collectors Weekly

Hello again @ghdprentice!  While you are of course correct in your explanations of Tube vs Solid State, your admitted bias shows!  You list the pros of tubes and the often found negatives of SS. :)  And yes, it does take money to get amazing SS, but I would mention you have found the good stuff in tubes as well!  My addition to your post would be more possible negatives of tubes, that being NOISE or hum, which I found in my initial forays into tubes and could not abide, and rolled off highs.  That, and the caretaking and replacement of tubes is daunting to many.  I would love to hear you system and share mine with you!

Normally I avoid generalizations; however, you have accurately listed the major differences between tube and solid state sound quality.  The degree of difference over the years and with the introduction of modern tube design have narrowed, and many current tube designs from ARC, Nagra,  VAC, and CJ have wonderful clarity, detail, and bass response missing in earlier designs while maintaining the magical midrange bloom (blossoming), image density and dimensionality, and staging of the past. In turn, many solid state designs from Burmester, Audio Note, ARC, BAT, etc. have closed the gap on bloom, image density, and staging while maintaining the clarity and transient speed of solid state designs.  I grappled intensely with myself in making a decision between ARC or Nagra vs Audio Note or Burmester when I  upgraded my system for retirement.  I chose Burmester for it got close to the magic of tubes but with a clarity, speed, and dynamic nuance reproduction I could not resist.  To each our own.  Recommendation, if you enjoy the tube sound, you should want to optimize the synergy by going all tube.  
 

@ghdprentice “I owned primarily solid state for forty years... and one by one switched to all tube component for all my systems.”
 

With respect, and noting we are close in age, this is possibly related in part to the effect of aging on hearing.  As we age, we loose high frequency hearing but counterintuitively, this makes high frequencies sound annoying and fatiguing because our brain needs to work harder to hear in that range. This also is related to an inability to focus on direct sound when there is background noise.  See peer reviewed articles on Presbycusis and Hyperacusis. I validated this from my own aging experience. 

I use SS on my bass towers for their immediacy and punch (Threshold SA12e) and tubes on my mid/highs for the nuance and fluidity (Manley Snappers).  All is fed by an Allnic linestage.

Have 2 separate systems which are all SS but the SS/Tube system reigns supreme to my ears.

Pick your poison and enjoy it

This is one of the most interesting videos I've seen yet on amp matching, individual amp sound characteristics, and why the differences can be profound (from EAC).

Enjoy!

@jsalerno277 

My change to tubes as I gotten older has nothing to do with my hearing. While my hearing may have deteriorated, my ability to analyze and perceive nuance of sound has continually improved. Quite honestly my tolerance for bad treble and high frequency hash has gotten much smaller... not gone away. This in part may have to do with the pressure it puts on your ear drums regardless of whether you can differentiate the detail or not. 

My switchover to tubes / their sound  has to do with my deeper understanding of sound quality and what characteristics allow for a more direct subconscious emotional connection. When young I was tantalized by my analytical side, hearing something I had never heard before... as I often say... hearing the second violinist move his foot, or some squeak in the drum kit. In these systems, the details are amplified to stand out more then they do in the real world, highlighting and obscuring the midrange. 

My analytical side kept dragging my away from the satisfying gestalt of well reproduced music. It was years listening to  real acoustic music that finally revealed the characteristics that make music emotionally connecting. I think this kind of maturity often comes with experience and age. Although, very occasionally, I meet someone that went for that from the very beginning and never got side tracked... but that is unusual.

@ghdprentice Acknowledged, and as always, well articulated.   As I mentioned before, our goals for SQ appear very similar, as is our passion for live ancous music, even though we went in opposite directions with equipment choices.   I have been to an audiologist.  The conclusion was that my hearing is above average for someone half my age; however, the normal aging process includes Hyperacusis, which has made me less tolerant to high frequency noise and interferes with my ability to focus on direct sounds in an environment rich in background noise.   For example, I am less tolerant digital HF distortion and focusing on conversation in a noisy restaurant has become more difficult.   This has not affected my ability to hear a wide frequency range, acknowledging higher frequency test signals are harder to hear.  

I am totally a tube dude, however I have acquired a Canor Audio AI 2.10 Hybrid and I am loving it! May be selling all my tube amps in the very near future. 

https://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0321/Canor_AI_210_Hybrid_Stereo_Integrated_Amplifier_Review.htm

In the seventies/eighties the difference between SS and tube was night and day.  Today, not as much. MOSFET and GAN transistors are so much warmer than the PNP or NPN transistors of yesterday: currently I have three amplifiers. One has a SS input section and a tube output.  One that has a tube input and a SS output and the third is all Solid State.  They all sound different, but they all sound good.  

These videos compare an 80WPC P/P KT-88 Melton with no feedback used in the circuitry vs a Yamaha RZ-Z9 Receiver in "Pure Direct" mode.  From my understanding, no feedback leads to a "softer" treble, and that is certainly obvious here.

Every amp is just a bit different, and there would be more variation in tube amps than solid state, so take it for what it’s worth.

All levels are within a couple tenths of a dB using pink noise.  While the difference is instantly obvious, you need a good set of monitors or headphones to appreciate all the nuances.

These are recorded on a Nikon D750 DSLR and no eq or room correction, either electronic or physical is used.

Pull them up in two browsers simultaneously and go back and forth for the best comparison.  This is something you would never be able to do at home or in a shop using the actual equipment and shows just one of the values of YouTube.

https://youtu.be/HTxZJBoOywM

https://youtu.be/FDIu2BFbt-Q

https://youtu.be/W66SQS1wDUA

https://youtu.be/ZxhDJ_eOlYw

Started with SS McIntosh 1.25kwh mono blocs and McIntosh SS pre and really missed the detail and nuances of my music.  I went to all Tubes with Audio Research Ref160S amp, Ref6SE pre, PH9 phono stage, and Nagra Tube Dac.  Had that set up for about 3 years and went back to SS with Burmester Reference amp, pre amp, and phono stage but kept the Nagra Tube Dac.  I feel like each change has resulted in a significant positive change.  Also, I think some of the higher end SS offers better detail and character over any tube set up I have heard. I’m done, at least for now. 

I had what many consider one of the better tube preamps in my 2nd system. I thought it sounded superb. But, it didn’t have a remote - though I could have had the factory add one and I found the resistor ladder on the volume a bit course for my taste. But, there’s no question of the sound quality. Again - superb.

But, I sold it and purchased a higher end solid state preamp. Candidly, while it sounds a bit different, they’re actually pretty close. The preamp I purchased is known for tonal density. It’s a bit quieter (naturally) and offers a bit more resolution.

My takeaway is that both topologies work well and the sonic gap between better units has narrowed considerably. My new preamp lacks for nothing though I do miss the nostalgia of my former unit. But even the most ardent tube lover would likely find nothing more to want in the solid state unit I have.

@woots 

Yes Burmeister is all about detail.