When I hear the latest tube amps I’m more reminded of what a solid state amp sounds like than what I remember a tube amp once sounded like. I say that, with most tube amps I hear today, but not all. Gone seems to be the lush tones, warm glow and natural harmonics I used to hear. What I hear is more of a thoroughbred, faster, sharper sound when I listen to a modern tube design today. Then why use tubes?
My longtime audio buddy Thurston has "given up" on tubes several times. Yet, here he is, using 300B monoblocks after trying three modern Nelson Pass designs. He pushes the envelope (mods) on his gear and things fail, generally tubes. I like the comment that the goal is the same, so understandably, hi-end will ultimately merge. I find they have. Up until the Covid, my favorite combo was Thurston's Pass XA30.8 fed by an Audio Matiere Paraphrase preamplifier into large, modded corner Tannoys...in a big open space, nearfield. He's since upgraded speakers.
I'm about to test the waters with a Roger Modjeski (RIP) Music Reference RM10 MKII tube amp being added here to my reference NAD M2 digital amp (dac/pre). It will be my first tube amplifier in 50 years of audio. In addition, a new pro-gear Focusrite Clarett 4Pre USB Audio Interface now enables me to direct bass duty to my self-powered subs and above 80hZ (or so) to my sealed Salk Veracitys, taking the lower bass duties off the power amps entirely. The Clarett additionally allows DSP work with the bass. The goal is to reduce Doppler Effects on the monitors and tune the bass. So far, with the M2, things are progressing nicely. Once mastered, onto the tube amp!! Will report in some fashion down the road, I'm certain. More Peace, Pin.
Consider building your own SET. The design is very simple and for a few hundred dollars you can have something with all parts as good as an you get in a factory made SET costing five figures. It is not as difficult as you might think.
What is tube sound exactly? I've built hundreds of tube amps from scratch and I couldn't tell you what "Tube sound" is. You can make tube amps that sound great or terrible. You can make them hard and brittle or lush and boring.
If you care to and know how, you can make them sound like music.
Make them sound like tubes though, how do you do that? Why would you want to? The idea long has been to make the bits and pieces between the start and end disappear so that the music can get through.
Let's face it, most attempts at that, tube and transistor, fail miserably. That's why there is so much turnover in equipment on this website.
It's not the bits and pieces. Really, it's not. It's what you do with them.
Remember in the 60's, the great analytic vs romantic debate? Which one was right? This bad sound or that bad sound?
Tubes always played through "transformers" before reaching the speakers. Its the transformer that could give that lush sound. For tubes can be lightning fast when not hindered at the outputs. We were hearing a transformer effect. Transformers have gotten better in quality. The problems with old solid state have been greatly worked out. If we could hear how the old solid state stuff sounded when compare it with solid state now? You would prefer the new solid state over the old SS, like one would have preferred tubes over the old SS. That lush tube sound is unnatural and is like listening to music being played through damping fluid. The kind of fluid used to make tone arms descend slowly. Some prefer the lazy tube sound. But its far from how fast real dynamic music sounds when heard live. IMHO
It’s funny how in this modern age of technology we haven’t been able to match or even surpass the quality of yesterday’s ( NOS ) tubes. I guess that has something to do with the lack of need for high standard tubes for military and other technologies that once depended on them.
Just because technology continues to expand doesn’t necessarily mean it is going to sound better.
Perceptive point, especially given that "technology" includes any number of different elements -- some which have progressed much more than others in the past 10 (or whatever) years. I'm not an amp designer so I don't know which parts have had big advances, nor do I know what design innovations there have been. So, to compare "tubes" and "solid state" seems pretty hard to do without a list of which types are involved and which specific parts, too.
I will say what most are thinking in the back of their minds. We all think and feel that we know what we want in sound quality but we change are minds all of the time. Hence, why this has continued to grow as a hobby. We spend so much time trying to break down the specs of what a solid state or a tube amplifier can or cannot do. We get caught up in specs of the equipment instead of what it truly sounds to us. Everyone is not the same and can’t hear the same way. If this was true, the world would be boring. Now don’t get me wrong. Education before you buy is key but don’t be fooled by specs to decide how it sounds to you. Remember this article back in August 2003 from Stereophile;
One amp measured extremely well on the test bench while the other doesn’t. “The face-off of Subjectivevsobjective. Tubevssolid-state. Retrovsmodern. Monoblockvstwo-channel.”
Just because technology continues to expand doesn’t necessarily mean it is going to sound better. We at some point have to stop drinking our own BS (please step away from the ledge, lol). Example: Class D amplifiers. They have been around for a while and has improved some. Ask yourself this question for those who own subwoofers within the last 10 years. Why do those Class D amplifiers fail within 5 years? Why are they not reliable? Put away the data and enjoy the music, your music.
Hello, I agree with you’re opinion about most of the tube amps made today. This is happening because designers know how to make tube amps sound more accurate than the designs yrs ago. Also, many parts like capacitors made today are cleaner and better sounding. Another factor is the type of power tubes being used today in comparison to the past. There are some companies that still make musical sounding tube amps. Like Canary Audio and Consonance. For me, I still stick with power tubes I’m familiar with and are known to be musical. 300b, EL34, KT66 amps etc.
Maybe it's the switch to solid state rectification in the power supplies. The old amps that used tube rectification, chokes and less capacitance had more sag, which added more warmth to the sound.
@jond. Yeah this is what singled ended amps do for me as well whether tube or ss. If you get the opportunity listen to the Pass stuff. I believe his I25 integrated is s.e. First set of watts run A so it does not get too hot. Also, there’s the French company "Valvet" that also gives this impression to me and that is also an ss unit. Tough to find however.
I was thinking about this more and what I like about my amp is not that it's warm and "tubey". It's that instruments and voices have more tonal color and saturation. They are more dimensional and seem more "there". That about sums it up to me.
I have heard sometime ago that the reason older tube amps sound so tubey
is due to higher levels of distortion when compared to newer designs.
This is partially true. Its the 2nd and 3rd harmonics that are in question- together with a lack of higher ordered harmonics. Older amps tend to have a significant amount of the 5th thrown in; many newer amps do too. But some amps have less 2nd harmonic these days- if the amp is fully balanced and differential from input to output, the primary distortion component will be the 3rd due to a cubic non-linearity, whereas the 2nd results from a quadratic non-linearity. Amps based on the 3rd harmonic tend to have less distortion overall with higher orders falling off at a faster rate as the order of the harmonic increases. These types of amps simply were not in use back in the 50s and 60s.
I have heard sometime ago that the reason older tube amps sound so tubey is due to higher levels of distortion when compared to newer designs. Anyone care to agree or disagree?
@Mozart Fan. Oh, you were talking about the Jadis Orchestra Reference. That’s after my time Paul so I cannot speak with any authority on this unit. Manufacturers change their sonic signature from time to time. You now make me curious of what Jadis is offering these days.
@mozart fan. Well Paul, I have no experience with what you call a "JOR" integrated amp nor have I ever heard of such. I do have some with Jadis Electronics however. (Unless you are using JOR as an abbreviation for a Jadis amp? Jadis uses numbers to describe their integrateds however so I’m thrown)
Jadis, as a company, relied on a good bit of distortion to produce "beautiful music". They mostly run in class A. . One thing about Jadis if I recall correctly, is that its "source resistance" could run quite constant. Of course, much of this has to do with whatever loud speakers one is using. A Jadis, as a for instance or for any tube manufacture doing so, could never run with an ss amp to replicate tonal balance over a more complete spectrum even with similar resistive loads.
So why are most tubed amps cheaper to make? In other words with what I was trying to explain with my above blather, the "midranges" are where the magic occurs for most people and if doing that, the manufacture is saving a lot of money. Concentrate on that as an amp manufacturer, and you could sell a lot of amps.
I know of tube amps costing 150K. Price points for gear seem to go beyond materials used but in order to measure "neutral" throughout the audio spectrum, that cost money and might be actually cheaper to do with transistors. ARC comes to mind with much of their stuff in the 5 figure range even with tubes. I am wondering if you have ever heard a single ended ss amp running in class A. As scattered a statement as what I’m about to type, single ended stuff just sounds "more correct" to me. Would be interested in what you hear in this regard.
At the beginning only two words define this hobby :High Fidelity . Amplifiers overall are getting better SS or Tubes the good ones at least are getting closer to that simple goal: high fidelity .A good tube amp and A good tube solid state should not sound different when they are properly matched to adequate loudspeakers . Speakers and amps worked together.The thing is we have been all misled with adjectives with no technical meaning . In fact, when amplifiers get rid of their specifics distorsions they should sound closer to each other. A good friend of mine actually a reviewer got foul many times when I made him enter my music room blindfolded while he was always claiming that he could make the difference right away between SS and Tube. He kept failing the blind test.This was more than 15 years ago. Nothing really new. There are numbers of amplifiers reviewers rave about because the metal work look good or because they can be used as welding machine but not that great in playing music .That why blind tests have been always discredited by the pundits . Even the sweetest Beard monoblocs( 12E L84 per side what a great amp by the way on the Quad) were not enough to make him guess right more than one in three. Comparing new gear side by side in our own system ,changing one gear at a time would clear ours minds from the refrain « BEST AMPLIFIER EVER MADE « until next one comes for 10K more and if it is a tube it is likely an old design of the RCA manual revisited now.at 30k a Piece With better cap , better transformer or resistors very little engineering .
Get a nice 6sn7 or DHT preamp and mate it with a nice pure Class A SS amp and even tube amp lovers will be pretty darn happy. You don’t need tube rectification in your preamp to have it sound wonderful or even tube like. Frankly, I greatly prefer SS bridge rectification in my tube preamp builds. Far better dynamics and bass. If the design is right you still get what tube lovers love about tubes. Examples include the Coincident DHT pre, First Sound, TRL Dude and many, many others. All sound marvelous and are SS rectified.
Use the right toned cabling and front end source and your system will sound very much like a complete tube rig.
@ arro222 Yes I should qualify some of my dogmatic, rigid ideas vented on my above posting, I can agree there are some highly priced *refined*n ss amps, that have gorgeous bass/highs,, and mds,, not bad, not bat at all. But as others have chimed in, tube retification, provided the design is superior and tubes , pre are NOS, power tubes are high quality,,,can over take any ss amp ona $ vs $ comparison.
+ change out the caps in the tube amp to any faborite (mine are Mundorf Silvergold Supreme,,if they fit ,,if not go EVO oil), and now the tube easily over takes the ss priced point matched amp in the mids. The intergrated i am speaking of is the JOR with the screetchy EI90's, which made voice sound live right in your listening room. *Concert was on, live*. all i had to do was add in Tele pre tubes, which i had no idea about then, as i felt too pricey,,I was wrong, and sold it for 1200. The Jadis Defy is perfectly *neutral* as others have described a tube amp sound vs ss sound which is not *pure ognaic, natural, life like staging**, ss is ss and forever will be &&Solid State*, yuckky. Now agree the single ended tubes, i am not a fan of, due to my preferencev for inefficient 4 ohm speakers,
But again, what ss amp can match light jazz /vocals comming froma 300b/805/845 tube amp? Liquid magic. ss amps can never voice ~~ liquid magic~~ aagin to qualify, there are some tube amps that do not live up to the ~~tube magic~~ in the mids.
But tyhen there are no ss amps, that will ever voice ~~tube magic~~. Look fora new vid upload soon, maybe 2 weeks, as the 6550's Svetlana just arrived and randy is installing electrolytics. 2 weeks, should havea upload.
I’m wasn’t talking about overly warm, slow, tubby sound of vintage designs of yesterday, when I asked the question in the original post. What I said I wasn’t hearing when listening to modern tube designs is the life and breath that tubes are known for. It seems with all the gains tube designs have made in areas such as: bass, speed, definition, all the magic tubes are known for has been lost.
If you really enjoy warm and tubey, why shouldn't you be able to go out and buy a nice-sounding warm and tubey amp? It seems these days manufacturers (and to some extent, reviewers and magazines) want to dictate what listeners should be listening to, i.e. what they deem "correct". Witness the move to a lot of very analytical speakers from many manufacturers.
There's a reason why SET amps, despite several significant drawbacks that require work-arounds, are still around and produced by a number of generally smaller companies.
@MOZART Fan: Can you name the integrated tube unit that sounded so natural to you? I have my reasons to ask and familiar (and sold) many an amp unit "back then". Perhaps we can get to the "why" this was evident to you if I'm familiar with the product.
Is this the spectrum between the tubes and solid state: on one side is "neutral" and on the other side is "tubey"? Or is one end of the spectrum "analytical" and then "neutral" in the middle and "tubey" on the the other end?
I’m also curious how people define "neutral." With modern multitracked recording (w/ overdubs, reverb, panning, tonal choices, etc.) what is neutral? Here, I think of prepared dishes; take lasagna as an example. Is there a "neutral" lasagna? It would seem there are many recipes and many possibilities. If you serve me a hamburger, we’ll have a real problem -- but it will be a category mistake, not a problem with non-neutrality. Plus, since so much music is compressed -- mixed to be heard over non-audiophile gear -- how could a piece of audiophile gear seek to "get back" to "real music"? It's all a concoction, and one largely prepared for non-audiophiles.
With acoustic instruments, "neutral" makes more sense; there’s some degree of reality which can be appealed to; if a clarinet sounds like an alto sax, then there’s something not being reproduced faithfully. But beyond that, a clarinet can be played in different ways, in different halls, etc.
I see the word "neutral" being used to celebrate solid state amps; and for those folks, "tubey" is a put-down. (And we see that those terms "solid state" and "tubes" are largely placeholders for certain aesthetic preferences in sonic presentation.) But what’s really at issue here seems non-resolvable from the start; solid state amps (so to speak) present sound in one way, "tube amps" in a different way. Each presents something *as* music, and then each of us decides if we enjoy it. If not, get something else, roll a tube, pour a beer, etc.
I run two pairs of fully rebuilt and cap-updated 60s tube monoblocks. They are anything but tubey or mellow. Fast, liquid, spacious, colorful, and transparent, with excellent detail, black backgrounds, and no electronic haze.
The so called tube sound slowly disappeared as designers figured out how to further reduce certain distortions and noise. Modern tube amplifiers should not have a characteristic sound, although some may, they should sound like music. You could say the same thing about solid state electronics.
When I decided to get tubed components, it was after hearing one of the more "tubey" sounding units currently on the market. The sound was very seductive, but I had a feeling that after a while I might tire of that less than neutral sound.
My main system consists of Rogue Audio M-180 monoblocks, Modwright LS-100 preamp, and Manley Chinook phono stage. They are all pretty neutral, but have just enough of that "tube magic". At some point I may go to solid state amps, but don't see the LS-100 or Chinook leaving my system any time soon.
All of my systems have tubes in them in at least one component. Vincent SV-237 in one system, ARC Vsi55 in another, and my bedroom system has a W4S Class D amp with an ARC LS26 preamp.
"Back in the days of yore Peter Walker (of Quad fame) arranged a comparative listening test of a tube vs. a transistor amp. Speakers were the Quad 57's. The amps were the Quad II mono's and the 303 (SS).. 15wpc and 35wpc, respectively. Signal source was 15 IPS copies of EMI master tapes. Listeners were members of the British audio press and HiFi industry. After extensive listening to both amps the general consensus was that no difference could be heard - both amps sounded the same!"
Yes, fair enough, but SETs sound different, don't they?
I still greatly prefer the sound of tubes vs solid state. I also prefer the current, more neutral tube sound- however you can modify that with small signal preamp and input tubes. The reasons I use them- 1) they give you a much larger, spacious sound stage 2) the ability to alter the tone and quality with different tubes 3) typically greater transparency 4) a more refined sound, especially in the treble. this is a key reason for me. the modern tube sound is still ultra smooth and refined compared to comparable solid state amps.
Agreed. If you are going to go through the effort of buying a tube amp that is going to be more expensive and deliver less power than a similarly priced SS, what is the point if it sounds solid state? I read and article, probably in stereophile, talking about a reviewer paying a tube amp a "compliment" saying that it sounded SS and the other reviewer effectively said that is the stupidest thing he had ever heard since tube amps are more expensive and harder to maintain.
As someone who imports a line of tube amps, I am not about to throw stones at other companies, but I can think of a bunch of tube amps that have lost any semblance of tube sound and sound SS. I import SETs and lower power push pulls. My most powerful amp is a 50w mono-block in triode.
Part of it is component design. Part of it is newer tubes and the obsession with maxing out power leading to the usage of more linear and higher power 6550s, KT88, KT120, KT150s. But even then, I have listened to two 6550 based amps produced 15 years apart from the same company and today's 6550 amp sounded more SS than the one 15 years ago. This is evidently what consumers want.
As has been mentioned, components used by the builders has a profound effect on the sound coming from the speaker.
The SE triode amplifier I’m currently using came in kit form allowing the luxury of not just tube rolling, but component rolling.
Unfortunately, the amplifier does not have a vacuum tube rectifier. The kit came with Schottky rectifiers. I’d done some unrelated work with 3rd generation silicon carbide rectifiers. I know they have been demonized in some circles but perhaps those were earlier versions (1st generation or 2nd generation-"turn off" characteristics and the resultant current wave have improved significantly). I used a version made by ON Semiconductor which I had used in another project. Nice subtle detail emerged making the switch worthwhile. There wasn’t a lot of space to fit 10 rectifiers in TO-220 packages (the Schottky’s were tiny DO-27 packages) plus carefully bending the leads to fit in place of the tiny rectifiers.
The kit came with Takman carbon film resistors. Not a bad choice. I mean what’s the option, Ohmite phenolic body carbon resistors? (if I were looking for a ’50s or ’60s sound)
It was recommended that Mundorf Silver-Gold-Oil capacitors be used to couple stages (not included in the kit). I started off with them. Then curiosity got the best of me and I swapped the Mundorf’s with Jupiter Copper Foil/Paper Wax capacitors. At over $80 each (4 required), it’s little wonder not a lot of amplifier designers/builders specify them. That capacitor change was a watershed moment. After about 25 hours of burn-in, the audio suddenly went from a rather sterile 2D and flat sound (not necessarily bad depending on the rest of the system) to a very nice detailed presentation. I might have considered Miflex KPCU capacitors (similar construction, similar price) except they physically wouldn’t fit in the amplifier (Jupiters just barely fit).
One other recommendation were the cathode bypass capacitors. Finding a capacitor with very low ESR is desirable. Within the past few years, several Japanese capacitor manufacturers began making organic polymer capacitors that have ESR values in the 60-100 milliohm range. That switch added a bit more detail particularly in the mid-range.
The final roll were the output matching transformers. Lundahl makes very well respected transformers for many applications. They had a transformer that matched the 300B plate characteristics. I swapped the output transformers with Lundahls. This was the second watershed moment. The imaging suddenly came alive, the instruments could be placed in the room, the vocals gained a lot of clarity.
I won’t go into the tube rolling exercise but I will say that Telefunken 12AX7s and 12AU7s sound nice. Ultimately the best sound to my ears were RCA 12AX7As (early ’60s manufacture from Cincinnati, OH plant) and RCA 12BH7As (again, mid ’60s from the Cincinnati, OH plant) in place of 12AU7s. If your preamp or amplifier filament supply can stand the extra filament current draw of the 12BH7, the 30% longer plate/grid/cathode adds nicely to the overall sound stage. And I’ll probably get skewered for saying this, but after listening to 5 different manufactures of 300Bs, to my ears, you can’t beat the original Western Electric (1998 date code) version. The runner up was the Takatsuki 300B (worth a visit if you’re in the Kyoto, Japan area-call for an appointment). I’m still waiting on Charlie Whitener to begin releasing the newly manufactured 300B from Rossville (GA) Works (using much of the original tooling/machinery from the WE Kansas City Works).
Now, it must be pointed out that I have invested as much (maybe more) in component upgrade rolling as the amplifier kit originally cost. Not for the faint of heart, definitely. But the rewards, at least for my listening, has made it all worth the effort and, especially, the money.
Nonsense...especially with single ended amps. If clarity and improved design for clarity is to be questioned that's just silly, as well as SS amps that, as Nelson Pass says "sound more like tubes" in a good way. It's the harmonic rules you just can't break easily, although Nelson tries successfully to do just that. Read why he likes the transistors in his SIT stuff. Also many, many modern (Gold Lion KT77s anybody?) tubes sound great, just as old tubes sometimes don't. I do get that great tube amps can be expensive as my Dennis Had SEP was 1200 bucks! (it was 4 months old...so it WAS used) And my Freya...don't even ask...I've got nearly 2 grand in just those two things...wow! Note these are both very well made and seemingly noiseless. Also, many may not realize there's a very large market for "reissued" tube guitar amps (nobody reissues old hifi tube amps, do they?) of all sorts trying to exactly replicate circuits from 50s Fenders and old Vox amps, etc. These amps are generally great sounding things, and I've owned both old and newer single ended and push pull tube guitar amps and either sound amazing.
They called it 'perfection': a dealer some time ago described a newly received Nightingale Gala vacuum tube amplifier as follows: "It's superb... One cannoot say whether it is a SS or vacuum tube amplifier.'
I think it depends on the amp and also tube type. My first tube amp was a c-j Premier 11a I hated that amp it sounded like SS to me, and I swore of the 6550 tube then and there as well. Overall the trend has been to greater transparency and frequency extension but there's still gear out there that sound like tubes.
Tube rectification is a good place to start also I would never buy an amp with SS rectification. My amp which was built by my dealer has a mix of modern and vintage parts and sounds very tubey in a good way. It uses vintage output transformers and output transformers are another key component.
Class is another issue some tube amps are Class A some are Class AB. Class A will sound warmer and more tube-like. Also how the amp is wired triode vs ultralinear. Plenty of variables, also in a very general sense higher powered tube amps will sound worse i.e. less like tubes.
The old SS vs Tube battle arises yet ,,once again,,, I thought that war was finished and over for all time, ,,guess not,,battle lines have been drawn. I am a front line warrior for tubes. For me, ss technology is ,,dinosaurish. Now I will say quality tube gear is expensive, and NOS tubes are essential only fior pre tubes,,,power tubes new is just as good/ better than NOS (which are wayyy over priced) A Tele pre tube is worth every penny. These are not over priced. Seems everytime ~~The Final Nail in the old ss coffin~~ just doesn't seem to hold,,out come the ss gear rising from the grave. Translation/bottom line : ss gear is over priced and over rated. Note: this is not to say there is NOT some crappy tube gear out there. 2nd note: hard to find any ss gear to come close(midrange fq;'s in reference, not bass/nor highs) to a quality tube unit. 3rd note,,I've heard a tube amp intergrated retailed for $2100 back then, now like $3500+,, make music sound live in your room. can you supply the name of a ss lab that can match that experience?
In most circumstances at audio shows, I can tell when I walk into the room, sight unseen, if it is using tubes or solid state. There is still a difference in presentation though not nearly as much as, say, 20 years ago.
Actually, it is more like modern SS amps are sounding more like Tube amps.
I sold my tube amp because the Pass XA30.8 gave me everything my tube amp did plus what it lacked in low end grip, dynamic range, and a silent black background. I think Class A SS done right is very satisfying to tube lovers, especially when combined with a quality tube preamp.
Your resistor type,and coupling capacitors hav3 a large say in its voicing , as well as the tube type and brand. Power cords And cables used also Can have a large effect in the voicing .many people forget even 10 years ago many things have changed.
None of my McIntosh Tube components sound at all like Solid State. I think it entirely depends on the manufacturer of the products in question. I think some Amps have tubes for the look, not the sound
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
