Tubes vs Solid State - Imaging, Soundstaging, 3D

So hearing hiss is better than not hearing harmonics that can't be heard? I must be missing something?

I will say that I find hiss to be more tolerable than other forms of noise that I might hear, but if I don't hear anything, its a stretch to think that noise I do not hear matters more than noise I do.

I think I prefer to not hear any noise, hiss or otherwise. If I have to hear low level noise, I suppose I would choose random hiss over anything not randomized.

Just play some music, admire some tubes, fuss about the recording if not good enough, maybe imbibe a bit if needed, shake hands maybe even cyber-hug, and move on. Life's too short....

Musical Interlude courtesy of the living legend, Neil Diamond.

I suspect our ears "dynamic level response" characteristics are not linear and are not able to detect subtle loudness differences at very low volumes as well as at louder volumes in general, so higher volume levels on average in general associated with "higher noise floor" enables hearing more subtle details in teh lower volume portions of the music/signal.

"Loudness" controls that used to be quite common on audio gear were designed with this in mind, especially in regards to how our ears are less able to detect similar volume level differences in bass frequencies in particular at low levels compared to higher.

That would be an "enhancement" of sort that tweaks the music loudness level to map better to how the ear responds to similar loudness variations at different levels. Not necessarily a "natural" or "accurate" thing, but something that can have a lot of appeal to those seeking to hear subtle low level volumes differences, but probably also at the expense of hearing simialr differences at higher levels in that the overall dynamic range of our ears is fixed, only how it is used can change.

It would be similar to how various contrast stretch type algorithms, linear or otherwise, may be applied to imagery in order to better bring out different details in different brightness ranges in different ways.

I would expect that tube gear with higher noise floors in general would tend to "play better" with our ears based on this model as described. A "sonic enhancement" of sorts to better utilize the real non-linear dynamic range of our ears.

Whether or not this is more "accurate" or even whether that matters or not, is another story. Beauty is in the "ears" of the listener.

Dynamic range compression devices like the old DBXs used to be popular to produce similar effects in particular at lower volumes with higher noise floor off of typical SS.

i would think a SS amp could go for a higher noise floor and similar dynamics if designed for that. It seems to be more inherent with tube amps though.

" In my experience solid-state amplifiers have the tendency to grab and hold my attention for longer than tubes do. I think this is because I visually listen to the music and am constantly trying to figure out where a guitarist is standing, how close the singer is to the microphone, how many microphones were used for the drums, etc."

"Isn't that exactly the problem w ss amps?"

No, not always. Its not unique to tube amps. I've heard both types, including the ones I own, enable this kind of critical listening for me quite well.

The best tube and SS gear tends to converge towards a more similar sound quality. Its not unique to either technology I find, though each has its unique flavors of sound that each does well, perhaps better than the other as well for sure. Which flavor, the common more "vanilla" sound quality or the more uniquely flavored ones, one prefers is a completely up to the individual.

SO the best tube and SS sound tends to be similar I would say, but there are many unique flavors of each to choose from as well.

Empathy is a good thing. The world needs more, not less. Donations are often free as well, an extra bonus!

Also, I think negative feedback implementations have come a long way over the last 40-50 years, and though the theory may be sound, the significance with good modern implementations is not what it was.

My Class D amp is dead silent, and has as good low level detail retrieval as anything I have heard. Of course, the room has to be quiet to hear it, which is a different issue that might often come into play.

My tube pre-amp is also mostly quite, though some low level hiss is usually audible in the phono section. AMount varies with tube quality. Not enough to matter for me with the right tube in good working order in play there.

Hmmm, it seems a lot more practical to just do whatever you can to minimize noise. Even if you can' hear it explicitly, it typically affects sound quality in a negative way.

Again if I had to choose my noise, I would probably choose the more randomized, white noise, hissy type than any other type that might have more specific interactions with the actual signal. Maybe that's what Ralph is saying? Problem is I am just not hearing it. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. After all I may be just another poor misguided fool. :^(

Hi Charles,

No need to agree, but I suspect its a stretch to think that while technology has progressed in most every way greatly over the last 40-50 years, amplifier design has remained stagnant.

Whether or not a good modern CLass D amp with NF sounds as good as a tube amp or not is a different story.

I'd agree that they are not likely to sound the same, and each is likely to perform best in a completely unique and different system.

I've used many a good sounding "high end" system for reference in putting my own together, including many very good tube amp based systems.

I could likely not afford the tube amp I would need to drive my preferred speakers the OHM F5s to their max, nor the power bills that woudl come with it.

So my case is somewhat unique in that the OHMs are a somewhat unique design and case to optimize. The Class D amps do it though and in manner that brings the best of both worlds to the table in a way that works for me.

If I had the time, money and patience to deal with the tube amp I would need for similar performance with these speakers in particular, I would be tempted, but that is an alternate reality for me.

No one amp, speaker or anything holds all the cards. Each has different strengths or weaknesses. You can compare any particular aspect of design or sound you want, but its just a small part or the total story.

Just saying. ITs fun to gab about such things I think.....

Sometimes, I feel like A Poor Misguided Fool.

Another musical interlude....

My guess is Class D still has upside, but is pretty darn good already. I'm finding it better already than most Class A/B transistor amps. Class A/B/D all use transistors, right?

Tubes are not obsolete. They have unique charms. Definitely a small niche in the big picture though. Bigger in high end audio no doubt. That may not change.

High end audio will always have a special place for the other wise unconventional where it can exert some control in unique ways over the market.

The bigger question is does high end audio as it is comprised today grow or shrink over time as new innovations come about? Being stuck in the past is often not a good formula for growth.

Class D is a game changer IMHO. Tubes beware!

Charles,

I was looking at your system in conjunction with formulating my response.

No doubt, you have a well thought out setup with some very unique qualities as well and a lot of care has gone into it.

I have only gotten to the point in recent years where I am able to listen for hours on end given the opportunity and be continuously sucked further into the music.

I have a wife and kids, a house and jog and other hobbies as well, so you know how that goes. ALways something to do. All else aside, I can be quite happy just sitting and listening.

But there are so many ways to skin the cat. I hear great sounding stereos all the time now at shows, dealers, plus more good sound at live events when I get a chance. Tubes are often part of the equation, possibly a necessary ingredient still somewhere, just not in the power amp in my particular case.

The thing is there is so many ways to skin the cat and get good results. The common ingredient seems to be a love of music and a desire to get things just right in order to maximize the experience while it lasts. And maybe a tube or two or more can't hurt.

"The point is that the noise floor of a circuit with natural hiss will seem to have more detail, as our ears can hear information below then noise floor; in a circuit with feedback they can't"

Assuming the noise floor is low and can't be heard anyhow, what is there to hear below it?

I suppose I may have to turn in my audiophile credentials perhaps with the mindset that that which I do not hear can't hurt me. Fear of what we might be missing would seem to go with the turf.

"In my experience, SS always seems to image more sharply and offer the deepest, clearest field. "

Apparently, not the case. Unless no negative feedback is used. At least not in some ways.

"Techno babbalo obfuscaturo a mundo. El tubo harmonico supremo."

Eat Oreos. It'll all sound muy bien.

Well, all that matters usually comes out in the end. You just have to trust your ears. There is no equation or theory that can account for that 100%.

My view is there are many aspects of design that matter. I've yet to determine that any single one is always the determining factor. Most things are a matter of degree,not black and white. Only ones ears can determine how it all adds up.

If this were not the case, then all the smart engineers in the world would more or less be designing things pretty much all the same way. But obviously they do not. I suppose that's part of what makes this stuff interesting.

Cutting tech hairs perhaps, but I'm wondering what is the distinction between noise and distortion?

Wouldn't the harmonic artifacts introduced by NF be considered a form of distortion rather than noise?

I think of "hiss" as a form of noise. I think of harmonic anomalies as a form of distortion.

Both are obviously unwanted, but maybe worth clarifying to avoid confusion in the interest of talking apples and apples.

I did find this dewscription of the difference between noise and distortion.

It would seem to infer that noise is a "random" artifact.

Artifacts resulting from NF would not seem to be random, so I am wondering if that qualifies as noise and can be considered as a factor in a discussion regarding noise floor?

Back on the "life is too short" topic, see This

Paul and Yoko now buddy buddys. "Life is very short...." indeed!

But having said that most afiles care more about the sound than the specs, if I hear something that sounds good but does not measure well ( to some reasonable reference standard that it probably should) a little question mark will likely go off in my head asking "why".

In general, technical standards are a good thing. Not sure why audio should be any different? That's one of the things that leaves high end audio open for criticism, lack of standards. In lieu of standards, its harder in general to decide what things will play well together. You have to rely more on specific more proprietary solutions designed to work well together. Proprietary usually means fewer choices. That can be a good or bad thing. How Apple does things is an example many can relate to. People who love their products rely on Apple exclusively to a huge degree. Its a closed product space where Apple alone makes the decisions and provides the options. Many like that! Many do not. I am NOT an Apple fan in general.

"For the time being designers have yet to universally recognize the importance of human hearing rules in audio design, so we are likely to see considerable differences in opinion for quite some time :) "

Few things are ever "universally" realized.

Does not make sense to me that such things would be ignored by the experts whose products can benefit.

More likely that different engineers make different judgements regarding what works best to meet specific product goals.

I'm a software engineer. Not much parallel I can think of where a long proven best practice is ignored these days by any good software engineer worth their salt.

I think the sonic benefits of NF is pretty well documented and understood as are the drawbacks (nothings perfect).

The fact that it is so widely applied would seem to speak for itself in terms of overall merit.

No NFB would seem to be the exception, not the rule. Those who buy into those benefits versus drawbacks have fewer options to choose from.

That's pretty much how these things work. Any product that is successful over time offers unique benefits.

One must also always keep in mind that there is a difference between theory and application. Theory is well, theoretical. Means nothing until realized in something in the real world you can touch , see, listen to, etc. That's what matters.

In my mind, the things that go into good sound are well documented and understood, especially by the "experts". Why re-hash here? Any assessment here is bound to be incomplete and flawed and affected by biases.

I've heard one of Ralph's amps at a show once with the big CAR speakers. It sounded very good. SO did other's at the show. Each had advantages/disadvantages beyond just sound quality. THings like cost, size, aesthetics, and other more subtle differences in features.

All that stuff matters. A lot of sound quality discussions are mostly about cutting hairs compared to the bigger things that the evidence clearly indicates matters to most.

"But if you are only interested in how good the equipment looks on paper you might think global NFB is a good thing. "

Its an old beaten topic, but actually I think most people, especially audiophiles, are more interested in how something sounds, not how it specs out on paper.

I suppose if its true we have all been brainwashed, or earwashed I suppose as it were (I could probably use on of those) we don't really know that most of our stuff does not sound as good as it might if we would just go with the gear that caters to our ears the best.

"I am sure its possible to develop test/measurement techniques that *do* correlate with human hearing rules, but right now the industry has had no will to do so and has not for the last 45 years so don't hold your breath."

I'm not.

I suppose the standards that are applied do correlate to some extent with human hearing rules. It would be hard to see how products could be sold if not.

But I suppose it can also be proposed there are better standards possible. Few standards are perfect, so I could see where this could be the case.

More a matter of degree, or Shades of Gray, like most things, as I see not, not black and white, right and wrong.

"Yes, if one considers that to be a good thing even though it is accomplished at the expense of other things. "

Frog, wondering what other things specifically?

Pinpoint imaging maybe?

I might agree with that but I tend to think of pinpoint imaging ability as a good omen, and maybe a good thing in some cases with recorded sound but not the end game.

Few listening scenarios in the real world are perceived in the absence of any surrounding acoustic context as a "pinpoint image" alone. More realistically there is a central focus and some spread around that.

Granted it is possible to set up lsitening and recording scenarios where each sound emitted is perceived as a "pinpoint" but that is just one scenario and a subset of all those possible.

I suppose this would boil down to the common question of whether reproduced sound does or should attempt to sound like a live performance. That one has been beat to death and I understand both perspectives.

I am in that says most things I hear I do not hear as pinpoint sources, so I do not want all my recordings to sound that way either. In some cases, that may be all there is to it, but that is the exception I think and not the rule.

"You are confusing taste (for which there is no accounting) with actual perceptual rules, which vary over the entire population by about 1%. IOW there is a big difference here."

Hmmm, not sure how far "rules" get you in lieu of "tastes" when it comes to people. I would expect one to reflect the other to some extent in general. Case by case, anything is possible.

I think another and more modern study might be called for. Technology has changed a lot over the years and peoples buying habits are the main driver. Maybe the rules get followed these days in more cases than one might thing otherwise.

I can only speak for my self. My system has NF applied and I am digging it! Then again, I am a bit of a rebel at heart. I might actually like breaking a rule or two now and then. :^)

Atmasphere, I suspect you are somewhat of a rebel at heart as well! I respect that!

It's not always clear on this site who is in "the business" or not, so I have no problems with that being pointed out.

In the case of Atmasphere, it would be silly to question his credentials, and he obviously knows what he is doing.

He is in "the business" though nonetheless and selling products as are many others here so that is always worth knowing along with all the other good information that he and others share for free here. It all just goes with the turf I would say. Comments/opinions should not be censored. Anyone should be free to disagree with anyone at anytime. I would say though that it should also be done in a civilized and respectful manner though. A sense of humor doesn't hurt either. Home audio is not life or death, just fun, business, whatever. Everyone just play nice and we should all be fine.

At least that's how I look at it...

Audio Fan ravaged

Taken out by oddus orderus harmonicas no doubt.

I am an audio rebel in that if I had my way, all high end audio kooks would be listening to funky looking omnidirectional speakers based on the Lincoln Walsh's design principles. ALso, everyone would shun most portable audio devices in that these would more likely still have to use conventional dynamic drivers.

I would probably also want a no NF amp just because it also represents a different and unique way to do things.

I would probably not use the two in the same system though. PRobably not a good match. :)