Well, I sometimes listen to $100 Audioquest Dragofly Black with Grado 225 headphones. For the size and cost it’s excellent. The Burson I mentioned, $1500 retail, is not 15 times better but it is much better. Out of curiosity I might just try the Topping, though.
Back to the subject. OP already made the decision to give it a try.
On a personal note, I can’t imagine my hi-fi without analog source. |
Ralph, if my Burson sounds better than that Chinese whatever you will pay for both, agreed ? If not, I will pay for both. :) nah. I just mentioned it to point out how digital, after only 40 years, is finally getting to the point where it should have been when it was introduced. If digital is done right, you really shouldn't be hearing differences between DACs and the like. Topping's D90 is one of the better measuring DACs on the market, despite its low price. It sounds quite decent too. For 30 years I gauged how good a digital system was by how long it took to get a headache. In the early 1980s 2 minutes was a pretty good setup. By the end of the 1990s I could listen to some digital setups all day but not all night... and that was a $10,000 setup. Now I can go out and buy a Topping E30 DAC for $125.00 including shipping that I can play continuously without problems- its smooth and detailed. Some of that no doubt is due to my hearing loss in the highs. But the last time I got a headache due to digital playback was only 4 years ago at RMAF and my hearing measures the same as it did then. |
Sorry @millercarbon. I missed your point in my reply.
You are certainly correct in that it seems the majority contend that tubes add something (ideally pleasurable) to the sound, as opposed to doing a better job of not adding/changing/omitting anything.
Now I'm off to shop for a tube amp... |
Digital source+tube preamp+Class D amp= very good combo. |
Ralph, if my Burson sounds better than that Chinese whatever you will pay for both, agreed ? If not, I will pay for both. |
I definitely find that tubes sound different than solid state. But in many ways if the DAC is detailed and natural sounding enough, the solution to big holographic sound presentation can depend a lot on speaker placement and phase correctness (if that is a word).
In my own experience speaker placement and proper phase had a better impact on the nature of the overall sound of my system than changing amps or source. Amp and source changes can have a significant impact don’t get me wrong. But for holographic presentation the location of your speakers in the room should not be discounted.
I am a big fan of digital music and I have heard very very serious systems where digital sounded darn great. I have a feeling a lot of it has to do with the speakers and crossover as well as the quality of the DAC and less to do with whether there were tubes in the amp.
Having said that my tube amp sounds a lot better than my ss. |
obviously tubes in audio gear existed prior to solid state amplification being invented and commercialized
with the advent of solid state amplification as well as the advent of cd’s as a format, the sound produced by high end audio systems went from warm and rolled off using tube gear (and lp’s or fm as the source), to very extended top to bottom but often with an added harshness and a thinned out /flattened midrange and midbass in solid state/cd driven systems
these two sound profiles are fundamentally synergistic - as the one school compensates for the weaknesses of the other, and if gear from both schools are combined intelligently in a system chain then you can get the best of both worlds
the ’tubes in dacs’ discussion is a microcosm of the above historical mega-shift in high end hifi audio over the past several decades
it works, but as always, it depends on skill in implementation, knowledge of what works with what, and of course, the type/flavor of sound one is aiming for in their system |
Sansui in the past take the time to take their best tube amplifier, one of the best in the world at this times, and create a S.S. amplifier that replicate it with his sound so perfectly that they compare the 2 side by side with no distinction between the 2...
This is one of the reason that i bought my Sansui of this era...
I really think that the varieties of tube amplifier and the varieties of S.S. amplifiers to compare with, coupled to the varieties of digital or analog sources, adding to that with the different possible embeddings controls, right or wrong, for all these possibilities of coupling, must preclude ANY definitive conclusion....
If i replace one day my Sansui with a tube amplifier(the Berning ZOTL) it will not at all because the sound is S.S..... Warm, detailed, tri dimensional etc it sound analog not digital at all for my ears, i even bought a second one....
Passion is also my personal quality and my main defect....😁
Then......
I will not condemn those who vouch for tubes, like those who vouch for turntable, never....
But S.S. is different from S.S. like no tubes sound like another tube amplifier....
It seems evident....
The most rewarding upgrade is not buying a new amp. or anything else, it is to install controls over the many dimensions where you system work....
This is my only certainty....After experiments.....
The only thing someone can affirm: "my actual tube amp sound better than all my past S.S. amp in this embeddings dimensions of my house".... Thats all....
Give me a S.S. amplifier of my choice, and another room and some time to work this out and i will beat him..... And vice versa if someone vouch for his S.S. amplifier....
Give me a ZOTL then and a house where i will control the embeddings and i will beat the opponent S.S. ...
The only exception will be very high end tube or S.S. unknown to me in a perfectly controlled opponent house that will beat my imperfect knowledge....😊
But even losing in this competition would never be able to erase my point about the importance of embeddings controls over almost any upgrade.... That is my opinion and limited experience...
Combining Analog and digital is the way.....For sure....
|
Thanks @millercarbon. So do I understand correctly that it is simply a waste of tubes if one only listens to digital sources? No, and no idea how you got that from me. What I said is:
I think it far more likely that at this stage of the game we have not
yet figured out the proper relevant measurements. When we do we will
find it is solid state and digital that are by far the most distorted. In other words tubes are actually less distorted than SS. And:
the goal of the system and every component in it is to do as little harm
as possible. The goal is not to "sound good". It is not to "be
magical". It is to do nothing. Components that do the least sound the
best. So in other words putting them both together what I'm saying is tubes sound better because they distort or alter the original signal the least. So therefore, logically, digital will sound better with tubes. The tubes won't be wasted. Good audio never is wasted. Every tiny little thing we can do to preserve the integrity of the signal pays dividends in sound quality. Tubes do this better than solid state. That is what I'm saying. Remember, also said no one is buying this. Everyone is so brainwashed into SS being "neutral" and tubes being "colored" it seems Jumbo the flying elephant is easier to believe. Oh well. Jenifer Warnes is a great case in point, BTW. She is. More than you know. Check this out: Famous Blue Raincoat is a supposedly all digital recording. It sounds better on vinyl than any digital medium. So there's one data point. Even better, in final mastering they made four different masters. Warnes, Cohen, and two others (I'm forgetting the names) listened to these four different master tapes. Three of them maintained the all-digital signal. The fourth was to analog tape. All four agreed the analog tape sounded better. What this shows, every tiny little step matters. Analog (tubes, records) sounds better, period. FBR sounds better on the analog master, and FBR sounds better on vinyl. Continue on down the line, it will sound better with tubes than solid state. Does not matter what lies upstream. This same logic applies to everything, by the way. Every single tiny little link in the chain is an opportunity to either maintain or degrade signal integrity. Nothing anywhere ever can make the signal better. All it can do is make it worse. Tubes sound good not because they make the signal sound good, but because they make the signal sound less bad than digital. |
I mostly agree with miller on this. I have never been able to get emotionally connected with any digital source I have tried. From the outset, it simply isnt there. However I do enjoy digital more with my tubes than with S.S. but the improvement isnt as significant. |
Yes.
I'm very convinced that part of the rise of SETs in the 1990s has to do with the dryness (back then) of digital. The two complement each other in a certain way. I wouldn't regard it as neutral by any means, but often an SET can calm down the presentation of a digital playback that otherwise has problems.
However in recent times digital has gotten to the point that inexpensive digital is available with excellent sound that would have been considered state of the art only 10-15 years ago. Topping makes a number of inexpensive DACs that work quite nicely with tubes. Because I couldn't find a lower powered tube amp that wasn't also compromised in some way, I wound up designing and building one myself. This amp makes 5 watts, but has wider bandwidth and lower distortion than SETs. Its also low noise. I built this amp for my bedroom system, which uses small, easy-to-drive loudspeakers. Its used exclusively with digital audio and the results are quite pleasing- it is very smooth and detailed. I'm using a Topping E30 DAC, which cost about $125.00 on ebay including shipping. You might laugh but this DAC is cheap enough you might want to pick one up and see how it compares with more expensive DACs (I've done this). Its quite compact and recognizes a wide range of codices.
The tube amp replaced a solid state amp of exactly the same size and power. The improvement in sound was easy to discern; the tube amp has more depth, better bass (measurably so as well) and simply sounds more realistic.
|
Thanks to everyone who provided insights here. I agree the best thing to do is try it. |
I've been back and forth on the SS vs. Tube debate..... had several good SS / Tube combos and keep going back to tube pre and amplifier.
Getting great results with a tube pre and 40 watts of EL34 goodness into higher efficiency speakers with several digital sources. I like my source to be true to the recording , it's the speaker / amp synergy that gives me the sound I'm ultimately looking for. |
Agree with tomcy6, however, I believe that simply introducing a tube amp will improve the sound regardless.. Granted, it has to match the speakers well. And of course everything else matters if you're looking for perfection. |
I'm using a cheap blue sound node with a Mastersound 845 SET. It sounds magical. I just bought an aurender A100 and hope it will improve the sound, though I can't imagine my set up sounding better. |
What I am wondering is, is a high quality tube amp as likely to present as much of that subtle (or not so subtle) holographic magic if the source is digital? The right tube amp or preamp can help your system, with digital source, to sound more holographic than it sounds now. However, holographic sound depends on much more than having a turntable or a tube amp. It’s a whole system/setup/room combination. What DAC are you using? The wrong DAC can sound two dimensional. Having your speakers too close to the front wall can do it too. Those are two of the cheapest and easiest potential fixes I can come up with off the top of my head. I would start a thread, or search for one, on how to obtain holographic sound. It would be very helpful if you post pictures of your system and room in the Virtual Systems section of Audiogon and list all your components, including speakers. Also, tell us what you like and dislike about the sound you have now and what improvements you’d like to hear. There’s no simple answer to getting more holographic sound, although it’s possible to chance into it by inserting a new component into your system. More likely it’s going to take more work than that, though. I know you’d much rather get a simple answer, but I don’t have one, anyway. |
it ALWAYS depends on the specifics - generalities are close to useless |
I think, it is more a question of if it's worth it when the source is quite weak.
Well, SET, it's a different world. |
Millercarbon, are you saying that there is no difference in Tube vs SS if you're listening to digital source? Maybe I misunderstand your reply but
my experience is completely opposite. I routinely use a digital source in both SS and Tube amplification with several different speakers. I think tube amps definitely introduce warmth, holographic image and sweetness that's lacking in SS. I use a SET. It's day and night different. Even when I use a tube preamp with SS it still sounds SS. But a tube amp changes everything. Adding an analog source, of course, will make the sound even better and tubes will really shine. I also agree with you, I think tubes are more accurate in every way in music reproduction. Instruments and voices sound real. |
Digital sources are not created equal, so I would not be so sure. Internet digital is not the best digital. You just have to try if you really want to compare. |
Thanks @millercarbon. So do I understand correctly that it is simply a waste of tubes if one only listens to digital sources?
Jenifer Warnes is a great case in point, BTW. |
Is the "magic" of tube amplification more pronounced when listening to an analog source as opposed to a digital source?
Yes. It is. But probably not the way you think. Almost everyone has bought into the story that SS is somehow more neutral and accurate, while tubes are somehow more distorted, but in a way we like. This story is nuts on its face. Because what this is really saying is we survived and evolved by a preference for distortion over reality. Cannot be. Absolutely cannot be. I think it far more likely that at this stage of the game we have not yet figured out the proper relevant measurements. When we do we will find it is solid state and digital that are by far the most distorted. Whatever. Nobody gonna buy that one, it happens to be true and people these days are not in the market for truth. Just thought I would throw it out there. Anyway, the goal of the system and every component in it is to do as little harm as possible. The goal is not to "sound good". It is not to "be magical". It is to do nothing. Components that do the least sound the best. Well think of it. Jennifer Warnes really is in your room singing. What could be better? How would you even begin to try and make it better? You'd have to be mad even to want to try. (I say this knowing full well there's like a hundred so-called audiophiles racing to the keyboard trying to be the first to say oh you need to fix your room, etc etc. Mad. Stark raving.) So, you follow me? The tube amp does not put more magic into the signal when it comes from a record, and less when it comes from CD. It does the same in either case. It is simply that the signal coming from the record is coming in with a lot more of the original Warnes in the room sound. The CD is horribly stifled, and never can recover, since the job of every downstream component is to preserve and not modify. What I am wondering is, is a high quality tube amp as likely to present as much of that subtle (or not so subtle) holographic magic if the source is digital? Now you know the answer: No. It can't. Because the holographic magic was sacrificed and lost to digital before it ever got to the amp. |
