Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.

Wow, Muralman1! am I that lucky? I am the proud owner of those early model ML.No-20s. :-)

Regards

ISTT

Detlof & ISTT, so do I on straight SS and CD, IF the recording is done right, i.e. recording the subtle phase information. Vinyl playback does a good job of introducing random phase information, thereby giving a good impression of live music.

Bob P.

Asa, I've read with interest both of your treatises. You sound like an old friend of mine, a Professor of Philosophy. I haven't heard such an emotional science versus art lecture since my friend bent my ear over Science's inhumanity in dealing with philosopher Velikovsky and his planetary theory.

I, for one, need to see or hear to believe. I will not rest my beliefs on traditional myths. For instance, I have found, to my satisfaction, the science of evolution triumphs over myth; truck loads of circumstantial evidence supports the seventeenth Earl of Oxford over Shaksper of Stratford, and, thanks to science, today's best of audio selection is better than that of fifty years ago. The scientific method is very important in these matters. However, as an artist, I can also tell you this. Scientists don't know everything. Art is just as important. Nelson Pass knows this too. That is why he continues to simplify his products, knowing customers hear the difference.

Like you, I have heard the Pass sound a little dry, nothing like Krell, but definitely supplanted in the ss clade. I expected better. After rolling some cd player tubes, finding Mullard was musical, but veiling, Phillips flat and dull, etc. I settled on a half century old Sylvania set. Gone is any hint of dryness. Now the delivery is sweet, dynamic, sensory airy, and with great body. I had to stop and think about all this for a while, because I just listen to the music these days.

When it comes to reproduced music, I just trust my ear/brain. I wouldn't be carrying on this discussion if I hadn't had a gestalt audiophile experience one day. I had walked into a audio listening room in an old brick store and office building. I had been there before where I listened to the best audio equipment of the day. This day was different. Keith Yates (check out his site) the proprietor of the shop was nowhere to be seen. As I entered, I became aware of someone, distinctly in a room somewhere, playing a piano. What appeared to be great room dividers were sitting in Keith's marvelous room. After some investigating, I came to the conclusion the big dividers were not the source of the piano playing. How could they be? I was hearing and thinking a real performance in a real place. Resuming my search through the building for the person playing, I finally stumbled on the answer. This utterly convincing image was a mirage. A first rate vinyl assemblage played no small part in this aural triumph. The amp, surprise, was an early model Levinson, probably no. 20s. The real magic of the day lay in the Apogee Scintilla full range ribbon speakers.

I have been chasing that experience ever since, with no small matter of success. I think I am lucky to have heard such convincing trickery.

Sorry about the off topic stuff.

Jetter, I wrote that when I was drunk! Sincerest apologies. I regret every word, just ignore it. Oh my God, what will happen to us if we read such things!!

Pass another cold one...

Hello Detlof, thanks, quite a few, but just to name one, the CD is Telarc/Mozart Requiem. That same CD was dull, opague, compress on my old system which I'd sold in 1992. Check my answers in other treads.

Regards

ISTT

Jetter, you can also pilosophise with beer, sometimes even better and deeper. There is no contradiction there. 6chac, congratulations on your system. Which CD's do you refer to, which can really do this? Very curious... Cheers,

Well here you have it, Audiogon meets the philosophy majors. I'm going home to have a can of my favorite beverage, or maybe a bottle, or maybe a can or maybe I'll pour the contents of the can in the bottle.

On Pass. I like it: had a 30 for about a year, and have recommended it to some people in the past. Ono was nice, etc. and were very similar in sound. Like it more than almost all other SS.

Yes, the SE topology, assuming that's the factor, does make Pass more "realistic" in terms of objective criteria and more musical (meaning: catalyzes seeping into the music and receptive state of listening) more than many SS units (I also have recommended to people the Lamm 1.1 hybrids for the same reasons).

With that said, the Pass units suffer from some of the same problems. Source projection contains more air, but leading transient still posseses a discernible "dryness" which increases in obviousness as energy increases and one approaches boundary between source and space (hence, still delineating that dichotomy). Power handling can help (with its own trade-offs) but not to great degree IMHO. The air around sources, in fact, seems more pressurized, but still dissipates as you move away from sources and particlarly in the furthest depth field. Space has tendancy towards sterility rather than "aliveness" in most circumstances (you can tip the tendancy a bit with component matching, so Pass has more flexibility in this regard, but the wall is still there on spatial performance).

Nice stuff, better than the rest, I like it more than mushy euphonic tube gear much of the time, but still not close in these respects. I'd go for a Lamm 1.1 before Pass.

Hello Detlof,
"Perhaps it is the ambient noise of a life event , which I miss in classical CDs. Instead of blackness, I expect to hear those subtle cues, which tell me of the size of the hall, those reverbs from the side-, or backwalls, which simply are not there"

I have "that" what you've missed!...on my system. They are all there!!! And they are in CD's format.:-)

Regards

ISTT

Thank you all for your comments. Even though we disagree, lots of smart people with measured responses. Isn't that nice? You know, not so, er, "unilateral".

twl, thank you for pointing out the inherent flaws in relying completely on empiric evidence to draw conclusions.
Unsound, thank you for pointing out, that even though only a partial view of reality, empiric evidence is still valid and should be considered and not discounted.

I agree with both positions. The problem comes in when people become attached to one assumption or the other, which, by operation, negates the opposing pole completely.

Unsound, I want to address some issues you brought up; if not explicitly, then implicitly.

It always is interesting to me that people adopt assumptions without reflecting on the fact that these assumptions themselves rest upon deeper assumptions. A huge assumption adopted by 96% of post modern western culture regards "science", and the attachment to this assumption effects how you choose your stereo components (ie. what sound you conclude has "fidelity"; Unsound's implied measuring description for being closer to the Truth/Sound Absolute).

First, if we are being truly rigorous, assumably like a scientist, we should ask, What IS "science"? Well, I can't walk out my front door and point to it, so its not a thing. Its an abstraction used to encompass a set of assumptions about "reality" (like any philosophy), and like many assumptions it seems to become monolithic over time and through significant attachment to its ideas - but it is only a set of assumptions.

Then we should ask, what are the assumptions of "science"? Science assumes that all truth is derived from the manipulation and observation of changes in matter over time; we label this with the abstraction "empiric method", and it derives from the philosopher Descartes' ideas (whose worldview we call "Cartesian"). Galileo expanded this by saying that reality is like a machine and we can see the changes in matter easiest by observing certain variables of form: volume, length, etc. In other words, truth comes to us - or rather, we pull truth out of reality - if we limit ourselves to quantitative observation of physical reality (matter, or form). There are other assumptions, but these are the basic ones. The important part of this, however, is to then see that "science" has also, by implicit operation, adopted an even deeper assumption: that all ideas contrary to its assumptions are non-existent, or, if conceded, effectively non-existent because any knowldge outside "science" is inherently unknowable. Through this denial of that which is not itself -ideas not its ideas - it effectively reduces any other possible means of seeing truth (not coincidentally, the philosphy that science supplanted, medieval Judeo-Christian doctrine, applied this same assumption to science, ie. all rigid paradigms of assumptions deny that beyond itself).

Interestingly, the assumptions that "science" rests upon have been thoroughly deconstructed in the past fifty years and this is not disputed, even by most philosophers who love "science". Basically, Popper, Kuhn, Freyerabend etc. have shown that science itself can not stand up to its own assumptions. I'm not going to go into it, way too long, but essentially the reductionism used by science has led to the deconstruction of itself.

So, if scientific materialist assumptions have been shown to be partial, even using the rules of science, then why do people still cling to their attachment to them, as if they are sancrosanct? Isn't that irrational?

We can point to the relationship of capitalism (another abstraction, whose meaning is mutually reinforced self-interest, or another way, mutually-reinforced predation) and science, whereby science's power over matter results in technology. OK, yes, and many other surface symptoms, but there is an assumption still deeper in science - and that effects those who listen to mussic and who, unreflectively, adhere to its worldview.

If you look above, you'll see I said that science "pulls" truth from reality. In other words, an underlying, determitive assumption of science (as it operates in the world) is to assume that the truth it can derive is obtained (like an object) by taking truth FROM reality. This assumption is how you approach reality, namely, in an active way where the matter of reality is seen by the mind as "out there"; reality releases truth only with our minds' objectifying manipulation of it.

Now, in stereo an orientation of this type produces certain choices; you choose components that produce a sound that is congruent with you orientation. Hence, if you adhere to "science" - and all its assumptions, even if you are not aware of all of them - they produce a filtering effect on what you choose. In this case, each of the cascading assumptions described above produces a certain choice (or argument supporting that choice), namely, an adherence to the assumption on objectifying matter produces a bias torwards believing that a soundfield is most "accurate" or has the most "fidelity" to truth where objects are primary (carving out of sources as things and implicit reduction of space, even to the point where space is seen as a void, ie, non-existent, as with the above poster who said space was "formless waste"); an adherence to assumption that such truth is found by examining the soundfield with an active identifying mind that defaults towards greater detail in sources (bounding them into more easily identified objects); an adherence to "science" as the primary diviner of truth coupled with a recoil from all ideas that are not "scientific"; a bias torwards "scientific" means (measurement)with all outside of that derived knowledge significantly relegated, if not denied, etc.

It is NOT coincidental that those who prefer SS that carves out images into source-objects, who want "accuracy" through Galilean quantitainve means, who favor source-object over space, are the same minds who adhere, unreflectively, to the assumptions of science. These peoples' stereos create a soundfield "out there" as if it were a thing because they are orientated towards reality in this way.

And this effects how they listen and what they are willing to concede can be heard by others. When you sit down initially to listen, the active mind carries over from your active day (from a capitalistic culture chasing the quantitative accummulation of objects) and looks at sound as if it were "out there", seeing the detail, gauging with thinking the quantitative volume of what's produced. But, as you sink deeper and thinking fades, the concerns of that thinking mind fade and other truths of the music are revealed; with the fading of objectified thinking that which not an object (space) rises as an integral part of the music, and the other intra-related nuances noted in my first post. But the active mind, the scientific attached mind that believes it must be active to see truth fails to let go of that thinking, fails to open to the music in receptivity. In that recoil from opening to other ways to see truth (or to listen)the actively-attached mind denies any deeper levels as...non-existent.

It is not a coincidence that people who listen to SS as the diviner of truth - a technology that values accuracy of source detail over space - are the same people who trumpet "science" as the primary means to truth and any other means, or the levels of listening depths accomplished by other menas, as non-existant.

They must stay active, they must have objects of detailed sound, they must reduce all that is not a sound-object into "formless waste" of non-existence, they must apply their minds to the soundfield "out there" and rearrange and carve its sound-objects.

Above all, beneath all, they must not become receptive. Because you see, the ability to become receptive is attained not by grasping at the soundfield "out there" but by letting go of your attachment to do so.

It is very simple, actually; but not simplistic.

Thank you for your patience in reading this.

Drubin, that's what I've been saying. What cd player are you using? The Pass X amp acts as a signal magnifying free flowing conduit. According to a professional audio system designer I know, the Pass X and XA stand alone. He says, "No one combines execution and sheer circuit-inspiration as completely as Nelson (Pass)"

A group of audiophiles witnessed my system change it's stripes completely, time after time, as we inserted many of currently available cd players. The Pass just got out of the way completely. Sounds swung from warm and wooly, to steely clinical. Among the auditioners, a Musical Fidelity got the nod as the most listenable. It sounded overly lush to me. I still liked best the clean tube sound of my Jolida 100.

Kevziek, I respectfully disagree with your generalization that all amps have a sound. I don't want my amp to have a "sound." Check out the literature concerning modern amp building. There is a small group of designers, led by Nelson Pass, that firmly believe simple circuits are better. Taking that mantra to the outer limits is how Nelson has been able to create the monster X 1000 (kilowatt) that preserves the sweetness, staging, and detail of very simple circuitry.

It is with his ingeniously invisible amp, the X-150, that I have been able to preserve the very best of the Sylvania tube sound coming from my cd player.

If all tube amps sounded the same and all SS amps sounded the same, then maybe this argument would have a verdict. Actually, it is the design and implentation of these technologies that make the most difference and should be debated.

Even if you concluded that all tube gear generally sounds alike, the other components of a system (especially speakers) can dictate whether SS or tube gear is preferred. In my system, I have found even more exceptions, so unless you have the exact same system, I can't contribute much information that would be helpful.

My one possible contribution is to Kevziek regarding his initial comments. If the McCormack Rev A is the best SS amp you listened to, then your conclusions may be incomplete. I have a Rev A and it is a great amp, but it does not come close to Rev A Gold (which I also have) in delivering the virtues you ascribe to tubes. There are other SS amps (price aside) that may also challenge your assumptions about what transistors can do.

Aaaaahhh, ASA, it also felt good to read your fine analysis. I love my Spectral system, especially when I am after the intricacies of a given composition, letting my mind follow the musical weavings the composer wrought, analysing and marvelling at a structure, which show mastery of the craft. With the Jadis heated up, I fall into the music, let myself be carried away, forget all until there is nothing but the music....and sometimes even beyond that. It is exactly as you say and there to be experienced and difficult to argue it away.

Perhaps nothing is accurate, but isn't fiedelity what we aspire to?

The accuracy thing bugs me. Nothing out there is accurate. Every amp presents a facsimile of the musical event, and none is true to it. Some of the SS people just want to push the "science" thing, but it's all for naught.

Again, measurements basically mean crap. I agree with Twl that this should have been discarded long ago. I remember all the older SS amps I had with 0.0001% distortion. They sounded like garbage.

The ultimate question is: which sounds more like real music being reproduced -- tubes or transistors? My experience tells me tubes, but I started this thread to see other's opinions, and I'm open to them. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking what we are listening to is accurate.....nothing is.

I'd like to toss out my own empirical tale for comment. I have a Placette pre-amp with a headphone jack. I have both a CJ tube amp and a Pass X-150 SS amp. The CJ does some wonderful things and, in some important respects, sounds more lifelike than the Pass (which, by the way, has never sounded particularly tubelike to me).

Now, back to the headphones. Which amp, playing though my speakers, sounds more like the headphones coming off the Placette? It's the Pass, no doubt about it.

Measurements, be damned, what is a rational person to conclude from this? I conclude that the Pass passes the signal with greater fidelity and the CJ with less fidelity. The end result with the CJ may be more effective musically, but this must be the result of adding something that isn't there or otherwise altering the signal, must it not? Is there another conclusion?

/dan

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'm with Twl; never even read the specs written in your amp manual - ooo6% is meaningless. It is the final sound that counts. Then again, just saying tubes rule, says nothing, except that of your personal experience.

Great tubes are expensive. I use to employ 22 tubes to do the job of powering my ribbons. I just spent $100 on a pair of small (5751) tubes for my cd player. At that rate, I would spend $1100 for the whole lot. Anybody who knows valve amps, know that what you tube it with is crucial. Most people I know use Telefunken and spend $80 - over $200 for each small 12AX7 tube. Now we are talking big money.

I enjoy all the benefits of tube sound with out all the expense. It's even better with vinyl....And no tubes.

Okay, I'm out of this thread. Go ahead and hug your measurements. The funny thing is that this argument was over and done with 20 years ago, and many of you haven't even caught on to that yet. I just hate to see people floundering around in the dark. Just in case you need an update, the news in 1980 was that specs don't tell the story. Nothing has changed about that since. I thought this was an audiophile site.

TWL, actually the Total Distortion of your post was 100%. I suppose you use those arguements with the judge for a speeding ticket. "Gee Mr. Judge, it didn't feel that fast, no matter what the instruments indicate".

Lighten up! Its just a discussion about why some people prefer Tubes over SS, not a personal attack.

Salut, Bob P.

TWL, I think you are putting too much emphasis on Unsound's mentioning specs. Asa, as has been pointed out to you, there are a great number of tube users switching to Pass solid states, class A amps, and hybrid amps. The same can be made of ss users crossing paths with the former.

I am wondering what definition of "space" we are discussing. Coming from a science background, I can only envision a "formless waste."

If it is that all that pervasive thickness that clings to you like a muggy summer day I left behind when I switched to Pass from what I admit wasn't the last word in valve technology, than I don't miss it. If it is the sense of performance ambience that is delineated by location acoustics you want, then what you need is a transparent amp. Secondly, also bare in mind, to reach that end, the choice of speaker is even more important.

I'm partial to both ss and tube camps. I have found a way to harness both's positive attributes, leaving behind negatives. It works for me.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. What I am seeing here is simply a re-hashing of the old "measurements" argument that was totally de-bunked, and trashed over 20 years ago. The measurements do not reflect the sound of the equipment when it is used in real world applications. Yet people still cling to this dead horse. And it gives rise to these incorrect statements about tube colorations and distortion, in comparison to SS amps' colorations and distortions which are usually designed from the ground up to have great measured specs, but can't cut it as well in the listening room. Look, a cheap Yamaha reciever will measure out better than a Ongaku amp in the lab. Is there anyone who thinks that the Yamaha will sound better or be more truly accurate at reproducing music than the Ongaku? Puhleeeese. If measurements are your thing, then go out and buy a set of test instruments and hook your SS amp up to them and watch the meters move. If sound is your thing, then buy a good tube amp and hook it up to your speakers and enjoy music. If you think for one minute that those specification measurements are going to tell you anything about the real world capability of that amp, then you are sadly mistaken. Specs are a marketing scam, and that is all they are. I am very surprised that people on this board are still under the same misconceptions that were thrown out the window 20 years ago. The only spec I need to know is if the unit will turn on. The rest is done with the ears. By the way, the THD of this post was <.00000001%. Wanna buy it?

Zaikesman, yes I was referring to instrument amplification and your point is well taken.

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.

Unsound, virtually any PA system anyone in this country would have heard a live event amplified through in the last 30+ years would be solid state (this, BTW, has almost nothing to do with sound per se, and everything to do with lightweight, cool-running, durable, and inexpensive high-power capability). I have owned many tubed guitar and bass amps, but if this is what you're referring to, the analogy is inherently flawed. Such amps are to be considered part of the instrument, and as such participate intimately in the creation of the sound - not the reproduction of it. (I do think, however, that being a player who has used both tubed and SS instrument amplifiers extensively will give one a valuable insight into how these technologies can respond differently to the music's touch.)

Damn Asa, you did it again! Great post.

Convenience, cost, etc. are valid reasons for choosing anything over something else - I do it all the time myself -but have no validity when discusing absolute quality, or rather, the closest to absolute than we can presently percieve and/or replicate.

I am not biased to one arrangement of matter versus another - and that is the bottom-line difference between one technology and another. If SS sound is more "real" - more like sound-sounds-like as I sit and think about it - or causes me to become more involved in the music at a greater, deeper, more progressive rate than tubes, then I would certainly go that way.

However, I see no need to sauve people's ideas by backing away from the obvious: there exists and has existed a discernable progression that occurs as one becomes adept at listening and more knowledgeable about what is available in technology, and that is: people in their progression move from SS at one end to tube at the other.

Every five years, we say that SS is closer to tube, the implicit assumption to that continuing discussion being that SS is not as good as tube. This is still the same case and it continues to be that case because it is true. No one who has gone over a long progression of evolution in stereo ever says that SS is better than tube because its not true. Isn't that an empiric pattern worthy of contemplation?

Now, what are the problems?

Here we go...SS does not produce space that is pressurized, that is congruent to the space that you exist in in a deep existential way; does not replicate the phenomena of sound as it moves through space that the deep, intuitive structures of the perceptive mind discern; does not offer a continuous simulcrum of the intra-relationship of how source and space are both separate and integral at the same time; does not replicate the "event horizon" of sound projection and surrounding space as a delineation to the the identifying part of the listening mind, and, simultaneously, impart a perception of no-boundary between sound and space to the receptive parts of the listening mind; does not impart an intuitive sense that depth progresses back infinitely, rather than in planes defined by the players on them with a rear plane that, by its existence, defines rear space; does not infuse the deep harmonic fabric of the core note with air, so that sound is seen as integral with space (as it is in "reality"); does not infuse the transient attack with air, nor lend a sense of infinite dissipation to the decay of sound, etc.

Yes, SS has worked to surround players with a greater sense of space immediately around them and gathered within the planes that they occupy; and, yes, mechanical artifacts of distortion have been reduced, but this hardly should cause anyone to be tempted to claim that SS is approaching tube sound in quality of the listenting experience as a whole. By and large, SS has merely improved in the areas that it already excelled at, but reducing sterility in source distortion hardly makes up for the still existing - and I would argue, terminally flawed - rendition of space on: 1) space's integral relationship to sound as it moves within space 3) the sound projection's harmonic structure as it relates to space, and 4) the relationship of how differing sound sources intra-act in space simultaneously as they move out from and towards the listener.

This is what is meant by "congruency" and "continuity".

I do not want to say the SS can not be enjoyable and that it is not worthwhile, but that is a relative statement - and should not be altered just to make some more comfortable.

I have recommended systems composed of SS components, but that does not alter the present state of SS vs. tube, nor does setting up a "euphonic" strawman to push over when you are pushed, nor in, at the end, retreating in trailing arguments regarding price, convenience, etc.

Ahhhh, that felt goood.....

Many live events are heard via tubes. Perhaps that's why many feel that tubes sound more "life like".

Zaikesman, you pose a very good question, which I have often pondered for myself, however am quite unable to answer in any satisfactory fashion. I go to live music events quite often. Zurich is musically lively city. Perhaps it is the ambient noise of a life event , which I miss in classical CDs. Instead of blackness, I expect to hear those subtle cues, which tell me of the size of the hall, those reverbs from the side-, or backwalls, which simply are not there. This is, what makes me so uncomfortable with and dislike most of the classical offerings through this medium. Cheers,

Detlof, I agree with Clueless that CDs omit information which analog preserves, but I wonder about your take on interstitial silence - LP playback does contribute a certain minimum noise floor which is much higher than digital (or a master tape). Is it your feeling that you would less enjoy LPs if they sounded the same, except for displaying a similarly "black" lack of background noise as CDs? Do you need this noise to in effect "bias" your ears, or would the more info-rich analog medium be even better if this noise could somehow be removed while maintaining the rest? I have found that the masking effect can be a funny thing: you don't consciously realize when it's going on, but you do as soon as the previously masked noise is removed from the source, system, or listening environment. Shouldn't the ambient background noise captured by the microphones ideally be the only noise floor transmitted or imposed in a hypothetically perfect recording/playback chain?

To me, the tube analogy here is with low-level high-gain tube stages, mainly in the preamp and/or phonostage. I have now configured my own system to the polar opposite of the more conventional tube front-end/SS power amplification scenario mentioned several times above. From having a pure-tube amplification chain (was all C-J), I have gone to an SS phonostage (the op-amp based Camelot Tech Lancelot) and preamplification (the FET based InnerSound), while retaining all-tube power amplification (VTL MB-185 Sig's). Yes, I do find that the lowered noise floor renders my LPs with a little more of the "blackness" of digital, and I consider it a good thing. (BTW, although my digital rig doesn't feature this, I might not be opposed to considering a tube buffered output stage for the CD source, if it isn't a high-gain stage.) This set-up represents a quite recent change in my system along with a new listening room (which is quieter than the old one), and I am still evaluating what, if anything, I will have lost if I choose to remain without tube preamplification. But I'll tell you one thing I do not miss, the constantly encroaching paranioia caused by all the spurious "contributions" courtesy of them cute li'l fire-bottles.

I love the distortion I get with my SS amp. I went through several SS amps before I got just the right distortion. I would buy tubes if I could get the compressed lifeless sound they have before breaking-in and the dulled sound when they are on the way out. Unfortunately there is that inbetween thing when they lack the distortion and lifelessness. Damn that period!!!
To go with the distortion of my SS amp I love the lifeless sound of redbook CDs. It is amazing some idiot in a lab could come up with this retched sounding medium and get someone in management to go along with this. Where would I be without this crap. I'd have to listen to good music.
I'm only being a little sarcastic.

If ANYONE on this board REALLY thinks that I, or other tube aficionados here, are buying tube systems to get a certain type of "even order distortion" or euphonic sound out of this gear, then they are totally deluding themselves. This notion that the purpose of tube gear is to introduce some kind of "likable" distortion, is ludicrous. I cannot even believe that I am hearing that kind of stuff from people who are supposed to be knowledgable about audio. Do you really think so poorly of your fellow audiophiles to believe that they would spend large sums of money to "distortion-ize" their systems? Do you think that they have no idea what good sound is? I can understand that some people in the SS camp like the sound of their SS amps, and that is fine. Good SS amps can do some things very well. And good tube amps do some things very well also. Nothing does everything perfectly. So all of us have preferences. But the idea that some audiophiles think that the "tube guys" are purposely distorting their systems is outrageous. I find this very disturbing.

Now, I am the first to point out that all things have deficiencies and will try hard to promote my ideas of what better sound can be. But, I have never promoted the notion that people who use digital sources or high power SS amps, are doing it because they like to reduce the sound quality of their systems.

Just think what people would say to me, if I stated that they use CD players because they like the "synthetic,lifeless sound". Or they use SS amps because they prefer the grainy, sandy distortion that only SS can provide, with the euphonic odd-order distortion. Or that using some SS preamp with a tube amp can add just the right amount of "sand" that we love so much.

This is unbelievable. Why do you do this? Is it a lack of understanding that tube systems can provide very good lifelike sound? Have you been brainwashed by the audio writers that spew out this garbage? Do you believe that spec sheets tell all about tube amps, but tell nothing about SS amps? Just what is the purpose in all this?

I love tube amps and I promote their use. But you will never find one post by me on this forum that actually denigrated an SS amp in a correct application. And I have never stated that the owners of SS amps are enthralled by some kind of distortion in their systems that is inherent to SS designs.

Now we have people actually posting on these threads that if they just put a couple of tubes in the system, then that is enough to give the "even order distortion" that they want. Incredible! What is this world coming to?

Bob, I spoke of tubes distorting, not necessarily of a vinyl-tube playback event, but then, come to think of it, I DO think and experience almost daily, that with the right TT, arm and cartridge, and with an LP properly treated, you will more often than not have neither tics, pops or limited dynamics and will thus come closer to live music, than anything else including SACD. Of course many LPs do have, what you mention, but with a well set up vinyl frontend, the noise is somehow transported to another plain, beyond the music. It has to be experienced to be believed. Besides, I find the "black silence" of CDs completely unnatural and dislike it immensely. We all have our preferences. Cheers,

Detlof, I don't know why you think that vinyl-tube playback sometimes is closer to live music, anymore than you know why I think that CD-SS playback is closer to live music, if well recorded. I do know that ticks, pops and limited dynamics do not make me think that I am closer to live music, but coughs and whispering might!
I do believe that a poor recording played back on a Vinyl system will sound better than the same poor recording played back on CD system, possibly because the vinyl system adds or replaces the element missing in the recording (creates phase distortion or changes the frequency response).
The explaination lies more in the recording than in the playback system.

Salut, Bob P.

PS. My vinyl playback system consists of Oracle Alexandria MK IV, with RB300 and BPS. I still use my PAS 3x and ST 70 in my second system.

If you coun't blocking/chopping sound out (which is, in part,why cd's are so "quiet")as distortion, cd's create more distortion than any source. It's just the sin of omission and some folks do not miss what they do not hear and consider it "clean"...

C'est la vie

Cheers
I remain,

Bob, if it were distortion, why do we think that it is sometimes so close to live music? It would seem then, would it not, that either live music is, or our ears are distorted and then if indeed it is distorted, as the measurement crowd loves to point out, then it is mostty even order harmonics and that is indeed closer to live music in comparison to ss clipping.

TWL, its consistant with people preferring vinyl to digital. Its the distortion!

Salut, Bob P.

Personally, I think it is rather funny that some people think that "tube heads" are in it for the distortion. That cracks me up!

Unsound and 7p, Sonic Frontiers is a great company. My pre amp was great. With the right tubes, like with any other valve component, the SF Line amps, cd player (defunct), and Pre amps are world class. Using a valve pre amp in conjunction with an ss amp is a tried and proved way of doing things.

I just am taking a different tack that works better for me.

I bought a used SF Line 3 back in the spring of 2000. The only negative comment that I have is that you can clip the front end. The BAT pres may have an edge here. However; this is not a real problem in my experience. I use the Line 3 in combination with a Bryston 4BST to drive a pair of Ohm 300's. It works for me. I find myself listening to the CATV blues channel at 3 AM many a Friday night. Usually, with around 12 beers in me. I am a happy drunk.

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?

It is my opinion that tubes, used sparingly, lend a sense of palpable liquidness to the sound. I like keeping the tube amplification in the primary step up station. After that, I think more tubes are superfluous, at best. After all, how much even harmonic distortion does one need?

I tried a Sonic Frontiers Line pre amp. It is, as you probably know, also generally considered ss sounding. I sold it in favor of the Pass Aleph P, mainly because tube rolling six tubes is pricey, but also because I sensed the extra bottles weren't needed. The Pass X and the P are clear conduits anyway, and are slaves to upstream components, allowing me to hear the full flavor offered by the front end.

The cd player is Jolida's newest, the JD-100. This is an all metal chasis player fit with a Phillips transport. It utilizes a linear 24/96 DAC and two output tubes.

Muralman, strangely, I never seriously considered a tube CD player, thinking this was the ultimate use of tubes as coloration devices. Perhaps my thinking was awry. Which CD player you have?

I do realize the majority of recordings undergo a mixing and panning process, but for my comparisons, I use audiophile recordings, such as Reference Recordings, Chesky, etc.

I will have to try a Pass amp. I hear mostly good things about them; although I do read criticisms as well, mostly about bass quality and midrange asepticness and thinness.

As far as manufactured warmth, I don't perceive this in my Audio Research VT-100 Mk II. Indeed, some tube fans think it too SS-sounding, although I consider that a misnomer. My Cary is unfortunately not broken in yet, and with a recent move and things in an uproar, I don't know when my system will be up and running.

Kevziek, your response is refreshing. I need to restate my "blackness" preference. Most music's final sound is created in the production lab. There, things are separated, remixed, and immersed in new ambience. I prefer live music recordings. For instance, with Eva Cassidy, "Live at Blues Alley" I enjoy all the rawness of reverberations and reflections, crowd noise and incidentals.

What I DO NOT miss is the manufactured warmth of straight tube systems. It captivates the music in a pervasive web. AGREED, tube gear produces more believable stick on cymbals, human voices, string instruments etc. I use to use all tubes for the love of the music. I just wished I could have all the great sounds without the colored background. I found an inexpensive way to get just what I wanted. With the likes of the ingeniously clean Pass X amp I can capture the magic of tubes with my valve powered cd player.

I encourage you to try this real tube alternative instead of investing in a ss amp that merely mimics "tube sound." I taylor my system's sound by just rolling two little tubes.

I'm listening to my Apogees radiating Jim Brickman playing some sweet piano as I write, and it is soooo good.

I am still using the Aloia 1501 and it still does it for me. These SS were more pleasant than the tube amps I've had[Wolcott and Cary 200's] and without the breakdowns I used to have.

BWHITE, you're right. How short-sided of me to ignore the power differences of the MC-2000 & the X-350. My friend w/the MC-2000 complained of how it was unable to deal w/ the complexities of full-scale, loud passages. Of course -- it don't have the juice!! Whether it would detail as well as the X-350 at lower levels -- well, I'll have to ask him if he listened to that.

MURALMAN1, as far as "continuous space" (my phrase) vs. "blackness", I don't agree w/you. When I listen to live music, I don't hear "blackness" around the instruments. I hear the space, and I especially hear it when the instrument is playing. The reverberance & reflections of the instrument rush through that space, defining the space & , to a degree, the instrument . BUT I do admit that there may be some tube "sound" that is part of the sound of the space, and not completely accurate. Again, it's a question of a WHOLENESS & REALNESS of the sound. I'm not saying SS can't do that, but I haven't heard it, though it seems that some here have and believe it can.

DBURDICK, a string pluck or the attack of the stick on a cymbal sound more defined & real on tubes to me. The fact that you find the opposite to be what you hear, makes me want to do more comparative listening.

Doesn't this comparing become wearying, though? I can't tell you how tiring it is to disconnect & reconnect and relisten. Especially when you biwire and use spade lugs! And then listening to the same cuts, back and forth. I'm sure many of you can relate.

The GAMUT sounds worth checking out. I have heard the high praise given to the Atmasphere and the LAMM amps, but they are too pricey for me.

The response to this thread has been great ---- hope it continues.

I have heard a lot of the expensive tube amps and always liked there sound better than SS. But recently I had the opportunity to listen to Edge's entire amp line including their signature model. They are incredible. Great SS is every bit as good as great tube gear. It is in the $3,000 - $7,000 price range that I like tube better.

One of the reasons why the Pass X-350 sounded better than the MC-2000 on the B&W Sig 800's is obviously the power increase. The B&W's are hungry for power and the MC-2000 is a bit of a wussy. See... the comparison between 350 watts vs. 130 watts is not exactly fair on a speaker with an 8 to 3 ohm swing at 91db which is the same rating for the N801, a speaker well known to need lotza power.

I know what you mean about tube vs. solid state. I used to love highend SS but... after having a few tube amps - and a hybrid, I realized there was no comparison and no going back.

I may take Tok20000's advice - since he's an audiophile I trust - and try out a GamuT for myself.

Try the Gamut line of amps.

I have heard many more SS amps in my time than tubes.

An amp I recently heard and subsequently bought is the Gamut D200. This amp sounds different than any SS amp I have ever heard PERIOD. It sounds similiar to tubes, and it has some general tube characteristics. Such as it's bass control is not world class Krell like. However it does not roll off the top like most tubes do. This being stated, the amp does everything world class. It would make a AR VT100 mk2 sound well... not-so-good. I am very familiar with the VT100 mk2 and consider it to be an outstanding amp (I have come close to buying one). HOWEVER, the Gamut D200 does everything better than it. And I do mean EVERYTHING. The Gamut has insane transperency and has been compared by TAS favorably to the $30k LAMM monoblock tube amps. And the LAMMs are some of the best amps on the planet SS or Tubes. I would have loved to compare the D200 to the LAMM M1.1 hybrid amps. The LAMM M1.1's are supposed to be some of the best ss/hybrid amps in the world. I imagine that the LAMMs have a better bottom end than the D200 amps, and they are more powerful 100wpc class A into 8 or 4 ohms is pretty amazing (LAMM power).

The one thing that really stands out about the Gamut D200 amp is the soundstaging. I have never heard an amp that does better. I do not think the TAS has heard an amp that does better. The guy I bought it from has never heard an amp that does better in this department (and he has heard a lot of amps).

My 2C

Peace

KF

While I generally agree with what you say about tubes and I have been a happy tube user for many years I would like to point out the following.
There are no absolutes in audio as personal preferences and equipment interface issues rule.
I have found instances, with some (few?) speakers and some (few?) front ends and the right cables, where solid state can deliver satisfaction. It doesn't always happen this way but...and that is maybe what your friend encountered.