I will let the more technologically astute (Atmasphere) explain the reasons why, but one of the most eye-opening and educational experiences for me happened about twenty years ago. I bought my first pair of Stax F-81 electrostatics (known to be a highly inefficient and brutal load) after hearing them sound glorious in a friend's system. My amp at the time was a NYAL Moscode 600 capable of 300w at 8ohms and 500w at 4 ohms; it is a hybrid design with ss output stage. I thought, surely the Moscode can drive the Stax with no problems. Wrong! The Moscode sounded thin, flat, and DEAD DEAD DEAD, with no dynamic verve. I tried various cables; no better. Then, for the hell of it, I tried a rusty old Dynaco ST70 (35w) that I had bought at a local TV repair shop for $50 and was my first pure tube amp. I figured, what the hell? Result: MUSIC!! The Stax's suddenly sounded the way I remembered them; sweet, refined, detailed, dimensional, and within an admittedly limited dynamic range, very ALIVE and dynamic. I drive my current Stax's with Manley tube mono's with great results. |
I couldn't agree more. I base that strictly on what my ears tell me whenever
I hear electrostatics. What I hear is that the transparency of electrostats
lays bare ss amps' tendency to sound leaner and less dimensional than
tube amps with a resulting sound that can can be sterile and dimensionally
flat; as opposed to the dimensionality and image density that a good tube
amp offers. A couple of examples of this (besides my own) that come to
mind are Martin Logans run by Threshold amps at audio shows,
Quads/Spectral at Lyric, and most recently a friend's InnerSounds with the
InnerSound amplifier. On the very same InnerSounds, my Manley tube
monos sound timbrally closer to real with full and and dimensional images;
but, admittedly, not capable of as much volume or bass extension. In
fairness, original Quads driven by Levinson ML2 sounded very good. |
OK, George, you win; clearly, I don't know what live music sounds like.
****It's not what works for me, it's fact, and electronic maths made up of Ohm's and Kirchoffs Laws, there is no voodoo involved.****
I will go back to sticking pins into my tube sockets now.
Interesting (appropriate?) moniker, BTW ;-) |
I can't dispute your technical assertions, but I can tell you unequivocally that the electrostats driven by good tube amps that I have heard (my own Stax, Quads/Jadis, Quads/Quicksilver, Soundlab/CJ, and others) have ALL sounded more natural in the highs, and certainly not "deficient" in the highs than even the Quads/Levinson. Your definition of "defined and extended" may not necessarily be my definition of natural. |
Georgelofi, thanks for the link and I am glad that you found what works for you. So did I, and it's tubes with electrostats. This is an old story in our hobby and after many years enjoying it I have learned that one of the few things that I can consistently trust to tell me what's "right" is my ears. |
Al, I don't mind; and, thanks. I think your comment "Which of those two kinds of amplifier/speaker interactions results in the most correct acoustic output from the speaker is a separate question, however." is particularly valuable and relates to another issue that you bring up, perspective.
As I said previously I tend to let those more technically astute explain these interactions, but after a lot of years in this hobby I am convinced that part of the reason that some of us "are at loggerheads" (besides ego and stubbornness) is that there are still aspects of sound and music and the perception of those that the technical doesn't fully explain. I would like to offer some thoughts about this from my perspective.
In my experience, and almost without exception, systems assembled with the stated goal of "linearity" don't sound the way that live music sounds. More times than not the result is sound that is tipped up in the highs and lean through the midrange compared to the sound of acoustic instruments. The argument that there is too much variability in the sound of live to establish a benchmark is nonsense; there is much more that is consistent than there is that is different. Most of music takes place in the midrange and most audiophile systems sound too lean in this range without enough fullness and image density particularly in the lower midrange. I can't remember how often I have heard comments about a system lacking bass when there really was no true bass content in the music and what the listener was missing was the appropriate fullness in the lower midrange and, perhaps, upper bass that gives music much of its power. "Linear" highs will often result in upper partial information that is not well integrated with the fundamental frequency and add excessive "presence" to the highs.
"Brightness" is an interesting descriptive term in that it is often confused with "texture". I have heard many systems (or recordings) that are described as "bright" which I would describe as harsh or grainy but definitely not bright. In fact I have heard systems that are dark and harsh (usually ss based) and others that are bright and overly smooth (usually tube based). Incorrect texture is what I hear oftentimes with ss amps driving electrostats and not necessarily excessive brightness (even when the sound is too lean, giving the illusion of brightness), and that is the main reason that tubes driving electrostats usually sound more natural to me: the fullness and image density of the midrange and the proper integration of harmonics with their fundamentals creating a texture and clarity that is much closer to the sound of live acoustic instruments even if, in absolute terms, the sound does not measure as "linear"; whatever that is. |
****Btw, to the point about going with one's ears. I've been switching between my amp's 4 and 8 ohm output taps. For various technical reasons that I am not going to get into, I would have surmised that the 4 ohm taps would have been the preferred taps. But it just isn't always the case. At least that's what my ears tell me. So much for any notion of "faithful sound reproduction." ****
That was PRECISELY my point. However, I consider what my ears tell me to be correct and the more "faithful sound reproduction"; and what I may have surmised due to theory as secondary in importance. As always, trust the ears; unless we smell smoke, of course :^) |
****Whoops, mean't to say macrodynamics there actually. Sorry. ES speakers I have heard tend to have microdynamics in spades.****
Phew!!! Had me worried there for about a second or two. |
