2. amps-preamps
  3. 1342812008

Tube guy gets a B&K: tubes vs solid state

You folks probably already know all this, but maybe these observations will be helpful for some newbie... (tubey newbie?).

I've been looking to understand how to improve the sound of my tube system and decided to try a SS amp as a point of reference, and potentially as a permanent switch. Thanks to many here, the desirable choice seemed to be a McCormack DNA. But being unsure I decided to take a cheaper approach and bought a B&K ST-140 ($202 on ebay + $27 shipping), version 2, toroidal transformer. It is like new. After swapping back and forth with my Marantz 8B I have the following observations. Rest of system is stock CJ PV-5, ProAc One SCs, ordinary car audio speaker cable (next upgrade), all Kimber PBJ interconnects.

The issues I have with my system are a desire for tighter bass, more openness, less of a congested presentation. I got my system in 95 or so, and did some comparisons to SS then, but sometimes you have to relearn old lessons.

1) I am amazed at how pretty and smooth a sound the B&K has. It is a "lighter" sound, more even and polite or reserved, and the various instruments don't seem to be congesting together. For a $200, 20 year old amp, it is quite amazing.

2) The sound of tubes is different from the sound of solid state. It's difficult to overstate the significance of this. The tube sound is palpable and dimensional. I knew this before, and these have to be the most commonly used terms but it's true. But it's a bit stunning to hear it again.

3) I would never be happy with solid state because no matter how pretty, it does not have this tangible substance, palbability, or dimensionality. It is key to enjoyment of the sound. It is sonic sculpture versus sonic painting.

4) I expected the bass to be deeper, larger, and tighter with the B&K. At first blush I thought it was. But after several comparisons, it is none of these. It is stronger and...tighter doesn't seem like the right word but it is as tight with the 8B. More importantly it is more real, because of the palpability, and that makes it sound more accurate or defined. On recordings with fuzzy bass, though, I think the even, clear, laid-back presentation of the B&K renders the bass with more seeming definition whereas the 8B seems to be trying to make it full and tangible but having nothing to work with, it just puts forth a kinda warm and soft bassiness.

5) I now believe the comment I read here, that a SS amp with a tube preamp will not give the dimensionality and palpability of tubes. One needs a tube amp for this.

I no longer feel I need tighter bass; I see it differently and very much like the bass I have with the 8B. I do think I could use more openness, a bit better high end (PV-5s, I'm told here, have rolled-off highs), and a less congested sound when the band gets busy, which somehow seems to be linked to the palpability or substance of the sound. It's like the thick palpability is a bit too thick and things get congested together.

I'm not sure whether changes to the amp or preamp will solve those, but the experience with the B&K suggests the next move is the preamp. I'm trying to decide whether to pick up something less romantic/lush like an ARC or VTL, or to send my PV-5 off for upgrades, or buy a newer CJ. At this point not knowing which will be the more effective it's a coin toss unless a killer deal comes along. I'm getting more reluctant though to alter the nature of my PV-5. Since getting back into hifi I have never seen one for sale.

Any suggestions or thoughts on my next move would be most welcome.

Jim
river251
grannyring's avatar
grannyring
6,441 posts
 
No, the preamp sets the stage for any amp that follows and as others have said is the heart of a system. It is the one piece that ties it all together. A great tube preamp makes all decent amps sound rather good in a well matched system. Class D, A, AB or whatever sound good with a great preamp.

Matching the amp to the speakers is critical, once this is done the preamp sets the sonic stage for the entire system in many ways. It sets the sonic personality and overall tone based on my experience.
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Csontos, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, just as others are entitled to disagree with you.
ssglx
203 posts
 
I too disagree with Csontos. You certainly can overdue detail, emphasizing the edges of notes, exposing too much hf grain, instead of a good balance with tone and warm weight.

I believe its also possible that the tolerable limit of detail may be reached more quickly with lesser electronics.
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Someone's obviously got you guys under some weird spell. IMO
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,236 posts
 
Jmcgrogan2,
I understand the point you`re making but disagree on one point. IMO there`s no such thing as "too much transparency".if you are in a room and someone is playing an instrument (like when I`m playing my trumpet)that is ultimate transparency. There`s nothing between you and the performer i.e. no veil ,wall or blanket. Thus you hear all the tone,harmonics and body the instrument provides.

There is pseudo transparency where a component is voiced for ultra resolution and 'hyper' detail and these often sound clinical,thin,analytical and very unnatural and unconvincing. This is sometimes mistaken for transparency but in fact is a false presentation that strips away the normal body and full tonality of real insruments.There is a emphasis on note attack but the note substain and decay are short changed(crucial error).
The more true transparency the better you`ll hear the instrinsic 'full' beauty of instrumnents and vocals.This is why some components that have impressive low distortion measurements(often by employing generous amounts of NFB) have the potential to sound artificial and less organic and natural.
Regards,
More to discover