So hearing hiss is better than not hearing harmonics that can't be heard? I must be missing something? Correct- you are missing something. The hiss which is the noise floor of a zero feedback circuit is at a low level, just as the noise floor of an amplifier with feedback is at a low level. 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. Regarding your other comments re class D and tubes... you could get a tube amp to drive your speakers- you might want to use a set of ZEROs. Worth a try if you ever consider it. IMO Class D is a technology that may well prove to be superior. The answer is told by price/performance curves and the question is where is class D on its curve? If somewhere in the middle it may yet surpass existing technologies. Since Transistors and Tubes are both mature technologies and Transistors being arrived at a lower performance level than Tubes, the fact is that our grandchildren will be arguing over the differences. But what this also means is that class D will overtake Transistors before it can overtake tubes. In some cases we have already seen this, so the theory is being proven in practice. Put another way, will class D then overtake tubes?? That remains unknown at this time. What we *do* know is that it has not done so yet. I maintain that you don't have to know anything about technology to understand that tubes are in fact superior. The simple fact is that at this time, tubes have been obsolete for longer than they were the only game in town! Think about that. Normally when a succeeding art appears, it supplants the prior art easily and there is not much looking back- the prior art becomes a cottage industry at best; cars and horse-drawn buggies are a good example. But tubes are still vibrant- the market somehow continues to demand them half a century on after their declared 'obsolescence' (there are more manufacturers of tube gear in the US now than there was in 1958...). That's really all you need to know- if the succeeding art were really better, tubes would be long gone. You don't see them in TVs anymore and they've not been there for a long time. That says that tubes don't work as well as transistors in TVs- or computers! But they seem to do just fine in audio, and new types (KT150 being one of the latest) are being introduced. That's not a description of a technology that is obsolete. |
|
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..... |
I'll respectfully disagree with Mapman 's assertion that modern implementation of NFB has been improved. When I hear amplifiers that utilize generous levels of NFB it's very apparent in that there's an artificial character quality of the sound. I just don't hear the same naturalness or realism of instruments and human voice. Simple tube circuits that omit or use minimal NFB are much better sounding and more convincing of reality.
I recognize that this is just my observation based on listening to many different amplifiers over the years. Mapman I certainly appreciate your satisfaction with your current class D amplifier and congratulations on your happiness with them. I acknowledge that we just hear things differently and may in addition have very dissimilar listening priorities.
I haven't come across a SS or class D amp that can approach what the well implemented no NFB tube power amps are capable of. For sure I'm in a minority as there are far more owners of SS amps compared to tube.
Charles, |
Neil Diamond? Now I'm REALLY upset...last word from me on the dearly departed (from the forum anyway), ALOHA!
I thought I'd get more hiss than I do from my Jolida, but it's actually less than what I had from my previous SS amps...including some well regarded designs. Again, maybe I'm lucky. You have to stick your ear next to the tweeter to hear any noise at all and except for LP surface noise, all is quiet on the Eastern front, except in my guitar room where it's noisy as hell and I just ignore it. |
Atmasphere, Thanks for your explanation. I'm not much of a technician, but I'm curious about the effect of rise and decay times in amps and how they might affect sonics. I recall a time when the ability to reproduce a square wave was the holy grail of (SS) amps, but later some designers were finding that proper attention to the decay time was important and too fast of a decay could cause a sense of loss of low level detail. Accurate? Or just sales BS to justify a design which couldn't replicate a square wave? Or is this apples v oranges?
Can you comment. Thanks...... |
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. |
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. |
Al and Learsfool wanted to know more about the low level detail thing. Here it is.
This has to do with the rules of human hearing/perception. Apparently we have the ability to hear into a noise floor and perceive detail which is interesting as normally the human ear has a masking rule wherein louder sounds mask quieter sounds. Apparently hiss is some sort of exception.
I personally suspect that this is because wind sounds very much like hiss, and it was important to us as a species (for survival reasons) to be able to hear sounds that are not as loud as the wind.
Anyway, hiss seems to be the exception to the masking rule. However not all amplifiers have a noise floor composed of hiss, although this is something that does not show up well on our test instruments. This has to do with the fact that if you apply negative feedback in large quantities to an amplifier, the noise floor becomes that of harmonic and inharmonic low level distortions. The inharmonic distortions (InterModulations) are caused by non-linearlities at the feedback node. The harmonics generated by this practice can go up to the 81st harmonic! (see Norm Crowhurst, who wrote about this phenomena a good 50 years ago).
You might look at it another way- that by adding feedback to an amplifier, you don't rid yourself of the energy of the distortion- instead it gets spread out across the spectrum. Of course with many amplifiers those upper harmonics will fall outside the amplifier's passband, but the point here is that the noise floor is not that of hiss. It is that of distortion.
The ear can penetrate a noise floor of hiss but if the noise floor is composed of distortion in this manner, the ear will find that to be the lowest level of output from the amp, IOW the ear cannot penetrate that noise floor to retrieve information below it. Hence, amps that apply large amounts of feedback will seem to be less detailed.
A further complication comes in when we try to amplify a signal that is in a state of constant change- that is to say does not repeat itself, as in real music. The noise floor of the amplifier is not nearly so low under these circumstances, nor is the over distortion as low as it is with a steady-state signal.
Chaos Theory shows that an amplifier with negative feedback is a Chaotic system ('Chaos' being a defined term, not the same as the street meaning of the word). To that effect it may appear to be predictable under certain conditions (steady state signal) but may have other results in other conditions (music). The formula for negative feedback (Crowhurst) is identical to that that we see in classic Chaotic systems (N+1 et.al. if you care to read up on it).
What this teaches us BTW is that no application of feedback will solve the problem (Nelson Pass points this out in his excellent article about feedback and distortion on his website). IBM engineers learned this long ago, which led to the invention of the parity bit in digital communications. A different field and application, but the underlying principle is the same.
Do I need to elaborate more? |
|
|
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.... |
Wolf, c'mon man. For a guy who likes tube amps your are acting very solid state. Let it go. |
Melbguy1 you have been a member since 2008, I think you should stay. This is just a fun hobby and should not be a source of pain or disappointment. |
We all lose ones close to us and it is never easy for anyone!
I've certainly been there and will be again. I can understand everyone's take on this, and wouldn't life be boring if we were all the same.
Heck, I even feel bad when a tube dies! |
Melbguy1,
It's evident that you're experiencing some obvious stress and tough times in your life presently. I really hope your circumstances are properly addressed and things improve and you can resolve your personal crisis.
Sincerely,
Charles, |
10-23-13: Tubegroover
Sorry for the loss of your grandfather Melbguy1. Thank you for your kindness. Also this will be my last post on this forum as I have decided to cancel my membership effective immediately. |
Only three scenarios here: 1. He actually DID lose a family member and chose an amazingly inappropriate use of this event to engender sympathy, 2. Nobody died and he's grasping at straws which is slightly weirder, and 3. He's joking, although seeing the post from Charles1dad I somehow doubt that and can only conclude this guy is 12 (that could be the 4th scenario).
Sorry, but I simply don't think this forum should be used as a condolence generator...that's just inelegant, cringe inducing, and an utter buzzkill. |
That's quite a compliment, Al. Thanks, much. I'm sorry to hear about loss. My sincerest condolences. Your muddy cyberfriend and fellow Nutmegger.
Michael |
David/Melbguy1, sincere condolences on your loss. 10-23-13: Swampwalker
... It will get better over time and remember it wouldn't hurt so much if there hadn't been so much love. IMO this is one of the best single sentences I can recall ever reading on the Internet. Thanks, Michael. It's helpful to me as well, as my mother passed away a few months ago. Best regards, -- Al |
Giggity, giggity, giggity, goo.... |
Melbguy1, you gotta realize you are on a free internet website with STRANGERS so should NOT take anything personal. You are probably not going to meet 95% of Agon members and probably DON'T want to meet 99.9% of them. LOL!!!
Seriously, I want to offer my condolences for your loss. Hang in there! |
I only have one question...Wolf, when you show the chicks your tubes, do they get all giggly? |
Empathy is a good thing. The world needs more, not less. Donations are often free as well, an extra bonus! |
"The audio topics are fun but overall not important. "
Amen to that, brother! |
I also received a PM from Mel he didn't mention the recent passing of his grandfather however. The gist of it was he felt me and my "tube mates" on this thread were picking on him. At that point I thought this was becoming too personal and frankly unnecessary. I just want to express my opinions and read those of other participants. The audio topics are fun but overall not important. For the final time, buy what ever type of audio component you enjoy most and then call it a day.
Charles, |
If Mirthless Melbguy1 had continued to harass me with his odd private messages wherin he weirdly plays a sympathy card, I had planned to post 'em just to embarass him out of my mail! He saved me from this...whew...and again, he MUST be joking, or clearly in need of therapy...put my responses in their proper time stamped order and note that, for me anyway, I was relatively gentle with this strange dude. I suggest people who are too emotionally unstable to go out with their "big boy" pants on even to a discussion site, stay home...unless he really is messing with me...in which case it's ALL GOOD. Here's the initial email he left out and I happily include:
From: melbguy1 (David Allen)
Your personally vindictive passing comments to me in that thread were cold, humiliating and deeply hurtful, and likely to cause damage to my reputation on this forum. I have had a family tragedy and am not coping well at the moment. Did you ever stop to think before you atttack someone and accuse them of all those hurtful things??? I just wanted you to know that.
I re-read my comments and thought they were typical of what I always say, tragedy update notwithstanding. Personally vindictive indeed! |
" 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. |
Melbguy1- I'm sorry for your loss. If you review Wolf's other posts, you will see that his comment was entirely in keeping w his usual irreverence. With regard to the actual subject matter here, you say 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? You're thinking about the engineering of the recording and where the guitar player is standing, not experiencing the music and appreciating the artist's gift to us. I would describe your response as "analytical" vs. what many "tube-ophiles" describe as an emotional response. And maybe that's the yin and yang of this discussion. Different strokes for different folks, YMMV, IMHO, LSMFT, SQ3R ;-) BTW, that means that the last sentence was meant in a light-hearted, playful manner, not trying to be rude or sarcastic. OK, that new last sentence was sort of sarcastic. My bad. Relax; it's all good. Any sorry again for your loss. It will get better over time and remember it wouldn't hurt so much if there hadn't been so much love. |
Mel,
I have no idea what's in someone else's mind/heart so I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. You and your family have my sympathy.
Charles, |
Charles, I don't share your view that Wolf thought I was "kidding around". He is an adult. He made a choice and knew exactly what he was saying. Only a sick individual makes fun of someone's grief.
Thanks tube for your condolences. |
Sorry meant grandfather not grandmother. |
Sorry for the loss of your grandfather Melbguy1. |
Discussing topics like this one should be informative and sharing various viewpoints but hopefully stay fun and lighthearted. Things can fall apart rapidly once ccomments turn toward the personal direction. Mel I'd assume that Wolf probably thought you were just kidding around given the sarcasm of earlier exchanges, I sure hope that was the case. I can't believe anyone would find the recent loss of your Grandmother something to kid about.
Charles, |
I just wanted other members to know what Wolf_garcia is really like and to not be fooled by him. I contacted him privately to explain my recent behavior in this thread, and pleaded with him to lay off me as I have been under a lot of stress after the recent passing of my Grandfather. This was his dreadful reply to me...
wolf_garciaOctober 23, 2013 6:51pm
HA...OK...stop! You're hilarious...I can't take it...
melbguy1October 23, 2013 6:19pm
I am saddened by your response. Tells after your Grandfather died, how would you feel?
wolf_garciaOctober 23, 2013 6:15pm
I have to assume you're joking with this weird message...not too shabby!
|
As a musician, I have played in a room with a "black background"...it was empty, and the manager sent us home early (true story...a club on a mysterious empty military base in hills above Honolulu). Does this information help anybody? |
Thanks Atmasphere for the comments - definitely jives with what I hear, and I would also urge you to continue your explanation you spoke of!
I also agree 100% with Frogman's comments on the "black background" thing. You have put into words something I have never quite been able to explain so succinctly. |
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. |
Look at this at another angle. If there were a solid state amp out there that gave me those sonic attributes that atmasphere or charles said I'm sure most tube users would go the ss route. I have not found it yet and I'm talking about at any cost. |
Ralph, Frogman and Pryso,
Goods points about differences in general with tubes and transistors. I
mentioned in an earlier post the relative artificial sound of some SS amps.
The over emphasized image outlined sharpness and precision along with
the ultra black/silent backgtound just doesn't sound natural to me. With live
music there is more blending and mixture of the different tones and
overtones which gives a more rounded sound that's very dimensional and
full rather than a razor sharp focus and 2 dimensional leaness(hifi). I
understand that some consider this a desirable audio attribute but it comes
off as a contrived, less realistic presentation It deviates from what you'd
actually hear with live musicians. Live acoustic instruments are so rich,
colorful and very vibrant, no way would I want to diminished this vital
musical information. To each their own as long as you're happy. |
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. |
Michaelkingdom, another data point for you. Ive always been curious but leery of tube stuff, so have always had SS. Its been a steady climb over several years to decent gear. Some changes brought immediate grins, some took a little time to internalize, like higher resolution/closer to the source isnt always more fun to me, but usually brings better imaging and space. Regardless, the sound eventually becomes de facto and I can appreciate it for what it is. Still, there was that nagging itch to try tubes.
Yes, this is another tube testimonial. I recently put together a second (cheap) system and decided it was the perfect time to take the plunge no worries if the things failed. Let me just say that the clichés about tubes are true. Im not saying this system is better than my SS gear, but even with older, lower level source components and speakers, way cheap cabling and no power conditioning, I can hear good things I dont with SS, including a quality to the imaging and sense of space. It comes down to instrument tone and the note-to-note flow. Someone said it similarly earlier, the instruments image and the space itself sound more real better tone and more gradual decay, more fun listening. |
In my experience, there are no "black backgrounds" in live music presentation. Instead the soundfield is filled with multiple reflections from different points in the room, be it large or small.
I remember many years ago (decades actually) auditioning a new ML preamp owned by a friend. It offered a black background and each instrument stood out in relief. At first that was very impressive for such a level of detail. But after a brief listen it occurred to me that sounded unlike any live performance I'd ever heard.
Like everything in audio, it is a personal choice. But I'll guess my story tells where my preferences lie. |
Excellent explanation by Ralph; precisely what I hear when comparing the two, and especially in comparison to live. I am always somewhat amused by the comments by some listeners about "black backgrounds" and "black spaces between instruments" in recorded sound. Those things may be appealing to some, but are not heard in live music. This is not a minor point. In much music, especially classical and most acoustic music, much care is taken by the performers to blend ( and, as instrumentalists like to say: "get inside each other's sound") as a means of "ensemble" expression or to honor the composer's intent. Most of that information exists (or existed) in the "black spaces and backgrounds"; IOW the information is lost. |
... generally speaking, solid state amps tend to have less low level detail (the why of this is a topic for a different thread but in a nutshell has to do with how the human ear interacts with the noise floor of the amplifier; if anyone is interested I can go into that in greater detail, if you will pardon the expression). Thanks, Ralph. When you get a chance, I for one would find that explanation to be of interest. Best regards, -- Al |
I'm late to this thread, but: my perception has been that the prevailing viewpoint among experienced audiophiles is that a particular strong point of tube amplification tends to be imaging and dimensionality. And that has certainly been my experience, and the experience of several of the others who have responded.
We can only speculate as to why your experience has been the opposite. The reason solid state can seem to have sharper images in the sound field is due to the fact that generally speaking, solid state amps tend to have less low level detail (the why of this is a topic for a different thread but in a nutshell has to do with how the human ear interacts with the noise floor of the amplifier; if anyone is interested I can go into that in greater detail, if you will pardon the expression). How this affects imaging is that without as much low level detail, the images in the sound field will seem to be in sharper relief. However upon careful listening you will find that in comparison to most tube amps, the images have a 2D/poster quality, as the air (ambiance) around the individual performers is removed; this makes the images 2D but more distinct. Add the low level detail and the effect is more like what you find live- that there is ambiance created by the sounds of each instrument that tends to take away the stark relief but also adds a 3D quality, which of course is what it is supposed to be... |
I agree; maybe I'm a idiot too. While Almarg's (and others') comments about the importance of the amp/speaker interface as the determinant of how an amp will perform are very true, to my ears, just as with analog vs digital (PLEASE! I don't want to open THAT can of worms) there are certain intrinsic sonic traits about each technology that, yes, become less and less obvious as the quality level rises, but are alway there to varying degrees. |
It's an interesting proposition to compare high cost SS amps to low cost tube amps. I've hear various Boulder, Pass, Krell, and other SS amps and think they work really well...some of those cost more than a nice car. I've also lived with a modest factory modded Jolida tube amp that cost a fraction of some well regarded SS amps, and, to me, sounds better in every way, although this could be system dependant and due to the fact that I'm an idiot...but an idiot who saved thousands over the cost of a Boulder. |
MichaelKingdom - To your quote below. My experience seems to be the same as everyone else's on this thread except for the fact that I have my amplifier technologies reversed. Hopefully time will tell what the missing variable is. I think some of what you've experienced may have to do with the "interactions" and system dependencies that Almarg mentioned. Almarg's quote below. Undoubtedly in many arguments about the sonic performance of audio components and cables those on both sides of the argument are correct, in the sense that they are accurately reporting what they heard. But what is often lacking on both sides is an understanding of the interactions and system dependencies that are involved. Interactions between amplifier output impedance and speaker impedance vs. frequency characteristics, for example, amplifier output impedance of course being very different between most tube amps and most solid state amps. Some of the speakers you listed in quote below, namely Dynaudio C1 sig; B&W 802n, 805n, 805d; and Sonus Faber Cremona Auditor m are much better served by SS amps in general. Many disagree, but Maggies **CAN** work well with the right tube amps, but there are concomitant compromises. I'm not familiar with the other speakers you listed, but they too *may* be better served by SS. I have had quite a few speakers that are popular on this site, many of them being monitors or many monitors which are famous for pinpoint imaging. Dyn c1 sig, focal utopia be, harbeth shl5, maggie mmg, 1.6, 1.7, pas imagine b, bw 802n, bw 805n, bw 805d, usher tiny dancer, metlin tsm mmi, sf cremona auditor m, selah monitors... With my solid-state electronics I truly feel like spoken voices are coming from a definite pinpoint in space. When using tubes on the same speakers I feel the image is more general and not as pinpoint. Also when using solid-state I hear something that is akin to a Hall effect that you might find on an A/V receiver which makes the room sound bigger. While I am not doing this via digital processing, this is one of the things that I would attribute to a three dimensional soundstage. Also using solid-state I feel that I can judge distances between instruments front to back, side to side better. Much of what you describe in your paragraph above matches what I have heard when I've matched tube amps with some of the speakers you listed. Paraphrasing Almarg, the match between speaker and amp is very critical when evaluating amps or speakers, but particularly so when debating between SS and tubes. It may just be that other attributes have drawn you to speakers that don't particularly work well with tubes. That's perfectly valid. This hobby is, afterall, about our *own* pleasure, not those of others. Jordan |
@ Robsker, Hi, Your post above is spot on with me!, LOL!, you hit the nail on the head!, It was like I wrote that post, awsome, cheers to you. |
