Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.


I never thought transistor amps could hold a candle to tube amps. They just never seem to get the "wholeness of the sound of an instrument" quite right. SS doesn't allow an instrument (brass, especially) to "bloom" out in the air, forming a real body of an instrument. Rather, it sounds like a facsimile; a somewhat truncated, stripped version of the real thing. Kind of like taking 3D down to 2-1/2D.

I also hear differences in the actual space the instruments are playing in. With tubes, the space appears continuous, with each instrument occupying a believable part in that space. With SS, the space seems segmented, darker, and less continuous, with instruments somewhat disconnected from each other, almost as if they were panned in with a mixer. I won't claim this to be an accurate description, but I find it hard to describe these phenomena.

There is also the issue of interest -- SS doesn't excite me or maintain my interest. It sounds boring. Something is missing.

Yet, a tube friend of mine recently heard a Pass X-350 amp and thought it sounded great, and better in many ways than his Mac MC-2000 on his Nautilus 800 Signatures. I was shocked to hear this from him. I wasn't present for this comparison, and the Pass is now back at the dealer.

Tubes vs. SS is an endless debate, as has been seen in these forums. I haven't had any of the top solid state choices in my system, so I can't say how they fare compared to tubes. The best SS amp I had was a McCormack DNA-1 Rev. A, but it still didn't sound like my tube amps, VT-100 Mk II & Cary V-12.

Have any of you have tried SS amps that provided these qualities I describe in tubes? Or, did you also find that you couldn't get these qualities from a SS amp?
kevziek

Showing 9 responses by unsound

Muralman1, in my limited experience the Sonic Frontiers Line 3 pre amps have the best bench specs I've ever seen on a tube pre amp. If the Sonic Frontiers pre amp sounds solid state perhaps the statement "TUBES Do It -- Transistors Don't." applies to a departure from fidelity?
Many live events are heard via tubes. Perhaps that's why many feel that tubes sound more "life like".
Asa, with all due respect some individuals "who after a long progression of evolution in stereo" say that solid state is better than tube because it's true to them. Often they say that while they were enamoured with tubes they felt the need to return to fidelity. There sure seems to be a lot of folks here on Audiogon who have gone from tubes to Pass. While I disagree that your evidence is empirical. The fact that so many people agree with your origianl statement is worthy of contemplation. The satisfaction that you recieve from tubes seems to be echoed from many others as well. The fact that solid state ususally measures better than tubes either indicates that tubes offer a euphonic colorization or that we haven't the unbiased equipment to measure solid states shortcomings or that we have different priorities when it comes to sonic short comings. IMHO it's the latter. I look forward to an update of this discussion when there are more digital amps available.
Zaikesman, yes I was referring to instrument amplification and your point is well taken.
Specs like everything else in the world can be used or abused. I'm quite sure that the manufacturer used specs in the development of your tube equipment. Don't you guy's narrow down the field of appropriate equipment by power and impedance tolerance? Aren't the taps on your tube amps labled by Ohms instead of A or B or 1 or 2. While our ears are the ultimate test equipment to toss everything else out is like throwing the baby out with the bath water. While specs may have yet to produce the ideal equipment, they probably have saved us from the worst.
I don't want to get too deep into this...The the point of science is the endeavor to understand nature empericaly. The very nature of science requires one to let go of the whole in order to grasp the particulars. The mystical appraoach requires one to let go of the particulars in order to grasp the whole. I think both approaches lead to the understanding that the more we learn the more we learn how little we have learned. A balanced appraoach using both approaches will probably serve us best. This ever so elusive philosphy is called common sense.
Detlof, this Tarrot card character appears analogus to the foolish child who said "the Emperor has no clothes".
Detlof, of course the child wasn't foolish, that's the point. The child was unecumbered by prejudicial rhetoric and was endowed with clarity of perception. Those around the child too worried about being percieved as fools were fooled into being fools.
As for me I begining to think that Zaikesman's 9/18 post may have been the most perceptive. We have gone from a recommendation of drunken stupor to appreciate mystical
superiorty to Tarrot cards to childrens fairly tales. Earlier I said I didn't want to get to deep into this. How ever I find my self knee deep in it. I'm getting out before I drown.