Wish I had a jadis JA30 pair of monos with a quad vs my
Defy 's 12 tubes
Don't need 12 tubes.
For WBer speakers all you need is a SET or a PP with a quad.
Jadis went big power due to the popularity of gigantic dinasaur speakers with disgustingly low efficiency.
A=Z speakers brands past 40 years.
I learned early on in the 1970's that big never was better.
True then, true today, Oct 2021, and true in a 100 yrs from now.
Folks saying how great speaker xyz is, when i take just one glance, its nothing more than the 1970's speakers rebranded, repackaged and ,,last but not least,,,re priced..
hehe
|
“Why not having 1 or 2 cylinder high performance cars?”
😊😊👍😊😊
|
clearthinker,
Why not having 1 or 2 cylinder high performance cars? |
Reminds me of a midnight trip with a buddy to visit the transmitter building at KCMO AM in Kansas City. That's a 50KW clear channel hair dryer. Those guys were using some tubes big enough to be landed aliens. Anyone here ever worked a site like that?
|
One would think after 117 years of evolution (1904, invention of the
vacuum tube) and with only 4 other components involved (R, C, L,
transformer) engineers would have reached the optimal configuration for a
tube amplifier by now.
But there’s another ’science’ involved. It’s called Marketing ... the art of tempting people to spend top dollar. Ya- you'd think. They've been making automatic transmissions for a while too, and yet they still fail in the middle of nowhere. There are actually innovations still occurring with vacuum tube amplifier tech (I can call out a couple of patent numbers if you like). Electrolytic caps keep getting better- and the better they get, the more effectively you can bypass a power supply. Plus we have computer modelling now so you can simulate and optimize circuits (including tube circuits) better than you could back in the days of slide rules. |
One would think after 117 years of evolution (1904, invention of the vacuum tube) and with only 4 other components involved (R, C, L, transformer) engineers would have reached the optimal configuration for a tube amplifier by now. when did they invent the cow? would think they'd have figured out the optimal configuration for cooking a steak by now... |
Well the connection between the number of tubes and marketing is ridiculous. The number of tubes has a direct relationship with the output power of amplifiers and then the particular design philosophy of the engineer with preamps and similar. I always view an increased number of tubes as a negative and yet I own Atma-sphere OTLs because the efficacy of this design has been demonstrated through listening. It is a superior design and one of the factors that makes it better requires more tubes than the more traditional. |
Why they have so many tubes and why their prices are (excessively) high?
One would think after 117 years of evolution (1904, invention of the vacuum tube) and with only 4 other components involved (R, C, L, transformer) engineers would have reached the optimal configuration for a tube amplifier by now.
But there’s another ’science’ involved. It’s called Marketing ... the art of tempting people to spend top dollar. ^All good there^ There use to be horns and large woofers like 18” (or maybe more) at 16 ohms, and 10-15W tube amps. Then we got direct radiators, and the work of Theil-n-Small… and later a bunch of low impedance drivers. Like Texton says, “4 Ohm drivers are better”. But also listening levels have probably also jumped 5-10 dB. I do not recall hearing other peoples music in my youth, unless it was a Ghetto Blaster. Now you hop on most any tram, and every ear bid sounds clear enough to make out the song. |
Why they have so many tubes and why their prices are (excessively) high?
One would think after 117 years of evolution (1904, invention of the vacuum tube) and with only 4 other components involved (R, C, L, transformer) engineers would have reached the optimal configuration for a tube amplifier by now.
But there’s another ’science’ involved. It’s called Marketing ... the art of tempting people to spend top dollar. |
In 1979 I put together my first assault putting together a high end system by taking out my first loan for $5,000 (that is $18,871 in today’s dollars) for. Threshold s500 amp, my system was all solid state. Over the years of continuously investing and learning, and trading up… one by one each of my components were swapped out for tube equipment. Now, by far the best system I have ever had… all of my components are tubed. (Click on my user ID to see my systems). |
Are you kidding? Have you not heard? Tubes, sound better! |
More tubes more power....Tubes sell...
|
Paralleling tubes or going push pull can increase power but also can muddy the sound. The word 'can' in the statement above prevents it from being false. Going PP can also **decrease** muddiness by decreasing distortion. The trick is to not combine PP circuits with single-ended. Otherwise you get some emphasis of the 5th harmonic (this is old news; Norman Crowhurst was writing about this 60 years ago...). A fully differential amp (with no dedicated phase splitter) will have dramatically less distortion than a single-ended amp. The harmonics generated will fall off at a faster rate as the order of the harmonic is increased as well. But it still falls off with an exponential decay, which is what you're looking for if you want the amp to sound right. The difference in overall distortion can be dramatic- as much as 3 orders of magnitude lower for a given power output; about 1 magnitude lower for a relative output (IOW if both amps are driven to clipping). That translates directly to increased detail and smoother presentation. |
The number of tubes increased as speaker efficiency decreased. Paralleling tubes or going push pull can increase power but also can muddy the sound. As a builder of SET amps I focus on using as few tubes as possible. Each tube has its own sound due to its harmonic signature. To many harmonic signatures can lead to a softer or muddy sound. A well set up SET can be as detailed solid state amp. With the addition of a level of harmonics that keep it from becoming sterile. But you are back to using efficient tubes.
As to using a giant 50 or more watt transmitting tube. They are hard to power their heaters. |
@invalid “The only problem I have with all this detail is you don't hear it like that in a live environment “
I think it is a question of emphasis. All the details are there in the live environment, but typically they don’t stand out as much as the tend to on some systems. My experience is that tube systems frequently get the emphasis right. Solid state tends to spotlight the details. |
The only problem I have with all this detail is you don't hear it like that in a live environment Uh oh... |
What do you mean you dont hear it like this in a live environment? This makes no sense. I would think you would like the most true to the source system to reproduce, accurately, the way the recording of the live event sounds.
|
The only problem I have with all this detail is you don't hear it like that in a live environment, maybe that's why people like set amps. |
Yeah but Ralph you are Da Man with stuff like this so I have to ask,
what about going the other way? Why not use one great big high power
tube? The reason I ask is some guys I respect are going that way with
SET and real happy with it. Of course everything else still matters too
but might there some inherent advantage to using fewer tubes? Not really (if we're just talking about power tubes). All tubes are imperfect. So you run with one tube you deal with its imperfections. When you parallel a great number of them the differences tend to iron out and act more like the tube is supposed to in the data books. But you have a lot more current capacity so more power- without a distortion downside as long as the driver circuit can handle the grid capacitance of so many tubes. And that's not really a problem- we've been doing that for decades. To give you an idea of how different the distortion figure can be, almost any SET when driven to clipping will make about 10% distortion (for this reason a good number of SET manufacturers spec the power at the 1% or 2% power level. rather than clipping). By comparison as an example, our M-60 makes between 0.5% to 1% THD at full power, but that power is 60 watts, compared to an amp that might be making only 8 watts. You can see that if the M-60 is then operated at the same power levels as the SET that its distortion will be much lower- probably 2 or 3 orders of magnitude lower (since both amps are zero feedback and their distortion decreases to unmeasurable as the power is decreased). Distortion obscures detail, and it adds coloration since the ear interprets all forms of distortion as some sort of tonality. So even if the amp has a good distortion signature (which will cause it to sound smooth and not harsh) it simply will be unable to express detail in the way that an amp with the same but much lower distortion signature can. So while the guys you know might be quite happy, that isn't the same as hearing everything out of their recordings that they could. One power tube is fun, it has a nice gothic steam punk appeal and SETs have a good distortion signature even though its quite high. But you can do better. |
More tubes look cooler in the dark. |
Because it's fun? Variety is never a bad thing imo...nos tubes are awesome. |
|
There's a 50cc class of racing motorbikes. Back in the 50s and 60s it
became all about how many cylinders you could get to displace only 50cc.
Things got real small and because things really didn't weigh all that
much revs were over 20,000! So they put a stop to it and 50cc is now
limited to one cylinder.
In the audio world this would be
akin to using a lot of really small tubes to make an amp but it would be
a really poor analogy. Yeah but Ralph you are Da Man with stuff like this so I have to ask, what about going the other way? Why not use one great big high power tube? The reason I ask is some guys I respect are going that way with SET and real happy with it. Of course everything else still matters too but might there some inherent advantage to using fewer tubes? |
@jpwarren58 And I am open to SS to being more complicated.
You do not need to “be open to it”… just pull the lid off one, and like Rev:6 “come and see”. |
Seems like a complicated way to reproduce music Yes, it is. It’s taking sound vibrations, storing it on a physical media, then retrieving the signal, modifying and amplifying the signal as needed to drive transducers in speakers. It’s an imperfect process, a facsimile of reality, but that’s all we got for now. Then you have high end audio which emphasizes quality sonics which often means: lowering the noise floor, minimizing EMF and RFI interference, cleaning the AC power, minimizing distortion, shortening the signal paths, minimizing internal vibrations, controlling case vibrations, designing better circuits, using higher quality/specification parts, using cutting edge materials and techniques,...etc. |
AWD Porsche Turbo = all weather attack jet. Displacement HP is meaningless IF ya can’t it connected to pavement….Ask those helpless Vette or Viper jockeys… Dry day might be a gunfight…
Systems engineering ! |
Actually thats a great comparison, a v12 Jab vs a big block American v8. I know which one Id rather drive cross country!
A single output tube per channel is the best sound quality, each additional power tube thereafter introduces more and more audible tradeoffs. |
@ghasley
Yeah, you gearheads are too deep in the weeds on this.
The point...the general point...is that you can run a bunch of small tubes softly (small piston v-12 jaguar) vs fewer big tubes (big block American V8) run really hard. " Depends on the designers goals".
Do you get it now? It’s the general idea as an analogy.
It’s just a valid comparison...not the exact same thing. |
There's a 50cc class of racing motorbikes. Back in the 50s and 60s it became all about how many cylinders you could get to displace only 50cc. Things got real small and because things really didn't weigh all that much revs were over 20,000! So they put a stop to it and 50cc is now limited to one cylinder.
In the audio world this would be akin to using a lot of really small tubes to make an amp but it would be a really poor analogy.
|
A V12 top fuel drag car (if they existed) will walk away from the V8 top fuel drag car. There’s no replacement for displacement...remember? False. Cylinder count and displacement are not mutually exclusive. You can have a 4 liter 12 cylinder Ferrari and a 4 liter 6 cylinder. Exact same displacement. Depends on the designers goals and the desired torque and horsepower band and at what RPM. There is a reason you wont find a 12 cylinder top fuel dragster and it isnt because they cant figure it out. |
Seems like a complicated way to reproduce music. And yes a little bit of
laziness involved, but electrical engineers make lousy writers as the
subject is a difficult exposition.
So some of tubes are the same as the power transformers? And I am open to SS to being more complicated. From this I get that tubes are complicated and transistors are moreso. That's correct. The alternative is no music. That makes me crazy and then it gets complicated :) |
@musicfan 2349,
No it’s a totally valid comparison. You can take 12 el34s and run them conservatively or you can take 8 kt150s and run them hard in dual mono set up.
A V12 top fuel drag car (if they existed) will walk away from the V8 top fuel drag car. There’s no replacement for displacement...remember?
You’re being a bit nitpicky with you’re point...but I think you know the general sentiment. |
This might reflect a little common sense approach but shouldn't the designer know how many tubes to use. |
Respectfully, the idea that the number of cylinders in an automobile has a relationship to horsepower is NOT a good analogy... Let's consider a modern V-12 power plant say from a Bentley or Aston Martin. Now, let's compare that to a V-8 funny car or top fuel dragster. Or an F-1 motor.
Ridiculous comparison, yes? Of course, you need to take into account displacement, air/fuel delivery, torque delivered, etc. which are VERY different in the above examples... however the number of cylinders has little to do with ultimate power output but does have to do with HOW that power is delivered...
Happy listening.
|
The speed of your car is not dependent on its cylinder count.
But more importantly there is a general relationship between the number of the cylinders and the output horsepower. It's actually a good analogy. |
Not a troll thread at all. Seems like a complicated way to reproduce music. And yes a little bit of laziness involved, but electrical engineers make lousy writers as the subject is a difficult exposition.
So some of tubes are the same as the power transformers? And I am open to SS to being more complicated.
|
@czarivy
The speed of your car is not dependent on its cylinder count. |
I suspect a troll or lazy OP. All it takes is to Google “audio vacuum tubes: advantages, disadvantages, and uses in audio”. Also, learning how an audio signal is amplified is also readily available online. |
if the op is seriously asking the question, the answer is quite different from preamps and power amps
each has reasons, different reasons, to use few vs multiple tubes |
For non output tubes sometimes a gain tube is followed by a cathode follower which is sort of an electronic transformer to lower the output impedance of a gain tube so it drives the next gain tube better. Goof examples are 1970s and 1980s Audio research amps and preamps.. This effectively can double the small tube count.
Another possiblity(which can be also combined with cathode followers) is push/pull voltage gain stages. This doubles the number of small tubes also. Again look at the Audio Research products from the 70s and 80s. Push/pull needn't be used for voltage gain even with push/pull output amps. And many preamps are single ended too even from manufacturers who made push/pull tube output amps. |
I don't use high power (Lamm ML2 SETs in the main system) but everything from phono stage and power supply to line stage to amps is tube circuitry so I do use a lot of tubes. That in itself is not a problem. (I like to think of them as "field replaceable" parts that solve some, not all, problems). The difficulty is finding good sounding tubes that satisfy--and in that, I don't mean to be a snob-- to the contrary, a modern circuit that can work at optimal level with current production tubes would be preferable to having to hunt for increasingly scarce, and expensive, NOS that is fresh.
With tube gear, I've had pretty good luck since the early '70s with medium powered amps (70 watts or less) and minimal issues with tube preamps. My current amp set up is the above Lamms-- pretty simple and lower powered at 18 watts per amp-- or in current operation, some restored Quad IIs running real GEC KT 66s.
I haven't counted how many tubes are in circuit in either system, but it's probably a lot. I replace/refresh when necessary. It's part of the routine operating cost of tube gear, with the above caveat about sonics and NOS/scarcity and cost. |
There are always different ways to approach a task.
If you want simplicity in the signal path, start with high efficiency speakers, dht single end triode integrate amp and a source.
more watts require more tubes.
|
You need to use a lot of power tubes if you want crank up the output without putting a really heavy burden on each tube. So that's why you see the 100w tube amps often use an octet for example. Not my cup at all as I prefer lower output triode amp paired with high efficiency/easy load to drive speakers. But the technical explanation is simple...to the point this does feel like a trolling thread. |
I thought that it was like 💰 money. The more the better!😄 |
Was this a troll thread?
Who cares the platform as long as it produces high quality reproduction of music? |
Bob Carver's Silver 7s run 20 KT120s per mono block! |
Atmasphere nailed one good reason (duh).
There are quite a few others, from using tubes to rectify, regulate, as differential amplifiers....none of which greatly complicate the signal path. Plus several gain stages, each very linear, are sometimes better than one gain, over stressed stage.
And a million more answers that really benefit from a fairly extensive understanding of electrical engineering....
|
I live in a cold climate and need the heat that the KT150's provide. 4 per amp and my sound room is comfy from October to May. During summer... well, that's another story.
|
Not sure what is meant by 'direct path'... But if you need a lot of power, you might need a lot of tubes to make that power. If so, they'll be in parallel, which means the signal is fed to all of them and they all work in tandem to make that power. In that particular case, the signal path complexity is the same whether one power tube is used or 20.
But… the signal is added up coherently, whereas the noise is adds non coherently. So in theory it is better to have the elements in parallel. |
More expensive preamps may use different tube configurations like cascode, paralleled, constant current sources, regulation etc. |
