Tubes? Transistors? Which are better?

Hi Will; First, I really enjoyed my time with the SF Power 2, and I now know that I could be happy with a good tube amp long term. The mid-range was great, and for a tube amp the bass was good, but after 3 wks. when I changed back to the DNA2, the differences just really jumped out at me. As I have some HF hearing loss (where tubes also excel), I think that makes bass more important to me. I also was surprised that the DNA2 did low volume listening better-- I do think this is an exceptional SS amp, just too bad it wasn't reviewed by STPH to get it more exposure. I use a SF Line 2 pre-amp, and really believe strongly in tube pre-amps. But for amps, I seem to have come down squarely and happily in the solid state camp-- so much so that I'm going to have my DNA-2DXs converted to monos-- Steve McCormack told me the monos would do low level detail even better. Cheers. Craig.

This thread was resurrected at an interesting time for me. While I've used a McCormack DNA-2DX (300 wpc, 8 Ohm) for the last two years, 3 weeks ago I bought a slightly used Sonic Frontiers Power 2 amp (135 wpc 8 Ohm). Both amps are $5000. MSRP and each is a very good representative of its "type". At first I was sort of disappointed with the Power 2. It was subjectively slower and softer, but with a very relaxing and slightly warm mid-range and treble; but still with very good detail. (but I've been using SS amps for 8-9 years). At first I mistook its warmth for veiling. But after listening for a few weeks, this amp is growing on me. It has an overall character that is very pleasing, even on high NRG R&R. It's true-- while slower, the whole frequency range is slower and so pace, rhythm, and timing do not suffer, and in fact growling slide guitars (slide guitar is distortion by definition) are maybe even more convincing with the Power 2. The DNA2 amp is typical of a very good SS amp with fast, tight, well controlled bass, and excellent detail. This amp has the first 25 watts biased into Class A operation, and it has a sweet, detailed, yet very immediate presentation that is not at all fatiguing. It is a distinctly "livlier" sound, and at first I said also "more involving". But now, I know that I could be happy using either one of these excellent amps indefinitely. The strength of the Power 2 being a relaxed, slightly warm and beautiful mid-range, with good detail. The DNA-2DX strengths being fast, controlled bass and a more lively, but still non-fatiguing presentation. I've come to the conclusion that both are excellent, but I wouldn't want to listen to them both on the same day, or maybe even the same month. In the STPH review, RJR called the Power 2 boring-- not true in my system. He also said part of the mid-range was too forward-- well, not in my system, and he said it had a mid-bass "hump"-- this is only true if it's on the CD, IMO. BTW, my tube pre-amp is a SF Line 2, and I think there is good synergy between it and the Power 2. I could become a total tubehead, but I'm planning on keeping both these amps:>) I suppose the results of this comparison were pretty predictable, but it is my first serious flirtation with tube amps, so, new to me, and I've enjoyed it. Cheers. Craig.

After 3 weeks of listening to a SF Power 2 (tubes), I switched back to McCormack DNA-2DX (SS), and the improvement in rhythmic drive and bass was dramatic, and also the 2DX does low volume and low level detail much better. I sold the Power 2 and bought another DNA-2DX to make a pair of mono-blocs with them:>). Cheers. Craig.

Hi Trelja; I appreciate and understand your advice and really would like to try different tube amps, but as I live out in the boondocks, trying different equipment in my system can be an expensive hassle. And then too, I really do like S. McCormacks amps-- they have terrific bass, not deep and boomy, but quick, tight, rhythmic, and natural. I did see S. McCormacks comments about tubes and was a bit surprised. Cheers. Craig.

On this one, I keep coming back to moderate price tube pre-amps and also moderate price SS amps. I think Doug states the case for this position very well regarding the cost of excellent components-- that's an interesting observation, ie that excellent tube pre-amps can be made inexpensively (but not solid state), and vice versa with amps. I listen to a lot of rhythmic music that is driven by mid-bass, and my big McCormack amp is excellent at this-- yet it also does low volume and low level detail very well, eg better than the Power 2. It's been my experience that tube amps just don't do this part of music as well as SS. But, I've wanted to listen to VTLs 450 also. OTOH, I'm not willing to give up my tube pre-amp either-- it adds richness, body, and an improved sense of naturalness and holographics. Personal taste? that's right on too, and I think I've found were I fit in equipment wise. Cheers. Craig.

Trelja; a lot of the music I listen to depends on good rhythmic drive, ie blues, rock, some pop, some new agey stuff etc, and the DNA2 does this very well. I think the two music parameters that are most important to me (assuming good tonal balance of course) are timbral richness of vocals, and PRT. Yes, I've read both the M. Fremer STPH reviews you refer to, and interestingly had exactly the same reaction as you. At one time I had the Muse 160 on my short list-- Fremer was really arrogant and conceited on that one, and re: the ARC amp review, he was actually going to use some old cables that had been growing hair in his closet for ten years-- could'nt believe it. Yeah, I know Steve McCormack likes tubes, and he's pleased when someone tells him his SS amps sound tubey--- and I do think his DNA amps have some tubelike qualities in the mids and low treble (smooth, sweet, and non-fatiguing), but they also have great control in the bass and mid-bass region. They're quick, tight, deep, and very rhythmic. I think I've just explained why I like the DNA amps :>). Cheers. Craig.