Getting that tube sound for less.

[tcarcio]

I personally believe room acoustics and the speakers make for better sound when done right then an amplifier. It really is just a choice as to what you prefer but to say one is absolutley better is just a matter of opinion. http://stason.org/TULARC/entertainment/audio/general/11-13-Do-tube-amps-sound-better-than-transistor-amps-FETs.html

 

[highfigh]

I would agree that the room's acoustics need to be examined. If the harshness appears mostly at high volume levels, I would bet that the room has mostly hard, flat surfaces and that the speakers are facing a wall that's not particularly far away (20' or less). Drapes, carpet and irregular surfaces help to absorb and scatter the sound and this will remove a lot of harshness. If you want to have someone hold a heavy blanket up at the rear wall while you listen, you can test this. Also, if the side walls are flat and hard, the sound that reflects off of the walls can conflict with the sound directly from the speakers ane cause all kinds of problems with sound quality.

 

[GirgleMirt]

Now I'm not a rich man and a tube amp is very expensive,sooo--I had a thought
What if I put in a ModWright SWL 9.0SE?

Funny thing, I found it intriguing, an affordable solution for tube sound? What could that be? Well, it's a 2000$ preamp. lol Not everyone's definition of affordable!

And btw, if that pre distorts like a tube amp, you'll very likely get to have that 'tube sound'. The SS amp will reproduce that tube distortion accurately, so no reason it shouldn't sound like tubes. Whether it's distorted by the pre or the amp, it's distortion... Now it's a pre, and there might be less distortion than with a tube amp, and normally, that would be a good thing, but I guess it could also be considered as having less tube sound... (I really don't know about that particular pre).

6moon on it:

It's apparently also a very linear tube without excessive THD. That means precision and accuracy but less tonal enhancements than the 6SN7 which appears in all of Wyetech's preamps above the Coral. Think very mild taste of triode here. It's in the layering and holography dimension where the tube virtues come to the fore again, performing the expander action already noted in the dynamic domain especially when compared to most transistor-based units of comparable or higher price. The Bel Canto Design PRe2 is a superior example of a solid-state preamp that possesses just the slightest sheen of texture to avoid blandness. Where it truly excels is with data retrieval. Only a very good tube-based preamp can pass that much detail simply because its higher operational noise floor buries some of it.

So not the same as getting a full blown heavy distortion tube amplifier.

 

[just listening]

By any account, SS amps measure better, but that doesn't mean they provide a better listening experience. All I know is that among the fellow audio hounds dollar for dollar they prefer tubes. I myself have both a tube and ss amp and I switch between the two depending on the mood and source material.

I would highly suggest the OP that he take an inexpensive first step with either the Grant Fidelity B-283 or a Musical Fidelity tube buffer. For a little over $200 I think he'll be able to answer whether tube gear is something he wants to explore.

 

[ski2xblack]

.a picture is worth a thousand words...

Mirt, I don't listen to pictures, I listen to music.

As a proud owner of the C372 you so thoughtfully provided the THD graph for, I thought I would let you know a thing or two. Driving a pair of squeaky clean, ruler-flat Miller&Kriessel monitors, the sound is indeed incredibly good.

But, as the owner of another two channel system consisting of SET monoblocks at a whopping 6 watts each, let me tell you that the SETs just kill the NAD in every meaningful sonic manner. More drive. Better resolution of details. Far surperior ability to let the spatial nuances of the recording through, resulting in fantastic 3-D imaging. Just much more convincingly 'live' sounding, and way more fun to listen to.


To the OP, please disregard the slide-rule IEEE geeks who insists that their charts and graphs are more important than what happens in your brain when you listen to music. Those guys spend more on equipment than concert tickets, and they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and us tube lovers are deluded/crazy/blessed w/ bad taste/ or whatever. What they don't like to admit is that hearing is subjective, and our understanding of consious perception is limited at this point. We are just scratching the surface in terms of phenomenology, yet these measurement geeks think they have ALL the answers. They don't.

 

[GirgleMirt]

ski2xblack: You can put your pitchfork and torch away, the person you're trying to pick a fight with has no interest of having a mud slinging match with you. I don't know why, this tends to happen often with audio...

Originally Posted by Loren42 View Post
The difference between tube and transistor, as I understand it, has to do with distortion. Transistor amps tend to create distortion components all over the spectrum, whereas a tube amp limits that distortion more to second order harmonics. This give you a more warm tone to the sound.

It surely has to do with distortion, a tube amp has >50 times the distortion of a solid state. SS distortion when not clipped is basically irrelevant, can't really say the same for tubes. Check out the specs of any solid state and you'll see a THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) of about 0.03%. (Ex: $400 NAD 325bee) Tubes will be more like 1% (ex: 1500$ tube amp). Then there's the frequency response, SS will be better and deviate/roll off much less than a tube amp, there's signal to noise ratio again, SS will be better...

There's no question that solid state amps are superior in terms of accurate amplification than tubes... But in audiophile land...

Check out some measurements
http://stereophile.com/integratedamps/207cayin/index3.html
http://stereophile.com/integratedamps/1006nad/index5.html
http://stereophile.com/integratedamps/205prima/index3.html
http://stereophile.com/integratedamps/306outlaw/index3.html

Check out the THD+Ns, NAD 372 $900 vs 1100$ Prima Luna: Hell.. .a picture is worth a thousand words...

I was merely correcting the theory that solid state 'sound' was due to "Transistor amps tending to create distortion components all over the spectrum". It's not the case, the amount of distortion by non clipping SS amps is minuscule... Again, I have absolutely no beef with anyone preferring tubes over SS, and there's no right/wrong in SS vs tube preference. Just like there would be no right/wrong in saying that you think that Rosie O'Donnell is sexier than Megan Fox... That is a perfectly valid and acceptable opinion. And who would be anyone to argue your own personal preference? But when it comes down to real, measurable things, then it's a different matter. SS distortion is tiny. 0.02%... Signal amplification is 99.98% accurate. Saying that this 0.02% distortion behavior is what defines SS sound is false... Just like saying that Rosie is slimmer than Megan. No issue with you finding Rosie sexier, but I'd have an issue with you saying that Rosie is thinner and fitter than Megan. Please, don't attack me because you think I insinuated that Rosie was fat or not sexy. I realize that woman come in all shapes and sizes, and while I do have my own preferences, I'm not saying in the least that Rosie is not as sexy as Megan, what every person finds sexy is definitely a case of subjective taste, and even fat, some might not even consider Rosie fat, because to them, fat is even fatter than Rosie... So... It's all a matter of opinion and preferences... Peace!

 

[ski2xblack]

But when it comes down to real, measurable things, then it's a different matter...

'Measurable' means squat if it doesn't relate to enjoyment.

You're Rosie/Fox thing is just trolling. Cute. Not sure the analogy works in your favor if you're comparing some measurable stats about those women against their visual appearance. Rosie may have a greater net worth, higher IQ, and be measurably funnier than Meagan Fox, which would make her seem better on paper, but viewing them with your eyes would be somewhat different...kinda like judging equip by measured THD instead of using your own ears and brain.

 

[Loren42]

I was merely correcting the theory that solid state 'sound' was due to "Transistor amps tending to create distortion components all over the spectrum". It's not the case, the amount of distortion by non clipping SS amps is minuscule...

Ah! Sorry, you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I was not stating that solid state amps have more distortion than tubes.

What I was saying was that a solid state amp, when clipped, tends to reproduce that distortion in both even and odd harmonics.

I agree with you that it is easier to get lower THD figures in a solid state amp, but I have seen many tube amps approaching less than 1/10% THD, too.

The same goes with frequency response. The original Williamson tube amp could exceed 50 KHz with the right output transformers and that was in the 1950s.

I don't know where exactly the human threshold of detection of distortion is exactly, but I suspect anything less than 1 or 1/2% is probably inaudible. I expect that it is going to be far below what the drivers in your speakers produce.

At some point it is easy to get lost in measurbation don't you think?

 

[TLS Guy]

You raise a very good point about performance with the B&W impedance curve. Tube amps lack the damping factor. Did you mean output transformer instead of power transformer?

I can't see where a power transformer would limit performance of a tube amp any more than it would for a solid state amp. Both amps use them. I can see a poorly designed power supply will impact performance, but that is the case with any amp.

As far as the tube sound being nonsense, I would differ with that opinion. Look to my previous post. There is a difference, but I would call it more of a coloration of the sound.

I think the differences are like differences in wine. Everyone has their preferences and that is okay. If absolute purity of sound is your goal, there is nothing wrong with that pursuit. Some people like that coloration they get from tubes. I find that is true for myself, but that is probably because I grew up listening to tube amps and there is a certain comfort in "going back home" again. Which is surely psychological, but every experience is anyway.

Yes a typo, I meant output transformer.

There is an issue with class A/B transistor amps, in that there is odd harmonic distortion, and some non linear crossover distortion. This used to be a bigger factor than it is now. My guess is that it is still a factor in cheaper amps and receivers. However in decent solid state amps, this is reduced to minute levels. There is no doubt that even harmonic distortion is less obnoxious to the ear.

If the small amount of odd harmonic and crossover distortion bothers you, or you think it does, you do not have to embrace the problems of tubes. You can buy a solid state class A amp, or better buy a Quad 909 amp. This unique amp has a small feed forward class A amp to correct the class A/B output stage. The performance of the amp is determined by the class A amp. This gives you class A performance without the high quiescent current and poor thermal efficiency. This circuit is a Quad patent, though Nelson Pass may have infringed Peter Walker's patent.

I admit, I use Quad current dumping amps and have for 35 years.

 

[highfigh]

Mirt, I don't listen to pictures, I listen to music.

As a proud owner of the C372 you so thoughtfully provided the THD graph for, I thought I would let you know a thing or two. Driving a pair of squeaky clean, ruler-flat Miller&Kriessel monitors, the sound is indeed incredibly good.

But, as the owner of another two channel system consisting of SET monoblocks at a whopping 6 watts each, let me tell you that the SETs just kill the NAD in every meaningful sonic manner. More drive. Better resolution of details. Far surperior ability to let the spatial nuances of the recording through, resulting in fantastic 3-D imaging. Just much more convincingly 'live' sounding, and way more fun to listen to.


To the OP, please disregard the slide-rule IEEE geeks who insists that their charts and graphs are more important than what happens in your brain when you listen to music. Those guys spend more on equipment than concert tickets, and they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and us tube lovers are deluded/crazy/blessed w/ bad taste/ or whatever. What they don't like to admit is that hearing is subjective, and our understanding of consious perception is limited at this point. We are just scratching the surface in terms of phenomenology, yet these measurement geeks think they have ALL the answers. They don't.

Were the M&K measured to be ruler flat in your listening room, or in an anechoic chamber, as usual? Not dumping on how much you enjoy them but "ruler flat" only matters in testing as a reference because a room will almost never allow them to repeat that performance unless it has been treated or by a great big happy coincidence.

 

[highfigh]

Just like there would be no right/wrong in saying that you think that Rosie O'Donnell is sexier than Megan Fox... That is a perfectly valid and acceptable opinion. And who would be anyone to argue your own personal preference? But when it comes down to real, measurable things, then it's a different matter. SS distortion is tiny. 0.02%... Signal amplification is 99.98% accurate. Saying that this 0.02% distortion behavior is what defines SS sound is false... Just like saying that Rosie is slimmer than Megan. No issue with you finding Rosie sexier, but I'd have an issue with you saying that Rosie is thinner and fitter than Megan. Please, don't attack me because you think I insinuated that Rosie was fat or not sexy. I realize that woman come in all shapes and sizes, and while I do have my own preferences, I'm not saying in the least that Rosie is not as sexy as Megan, what every person finds sexy is definitely a case of subjective taste, and even fat, some might not even consider Rosie fat, because to them, fat is even fatter than Rosie... So... It's all a matter of opinion and preferences... Peace!

Thanks. Thanks a lot. Now I have to gouge out my mind's eye.

 

[Loren42]

I admit, I use Quad current dumping amps and have for 35 years.

Outstanding amp from what I have read.

I am not sure about the original poster's goals or if he will achieve it.

My goals are to pick up a hobby from high school when I used to build my own tube amps and speaker systems.

Now I have the luxury of more knowledge on the subject and deeper pockets. If my tube amp can work anywhere as well as my Harman-Kardon AVR I will be quite willing to plant a victory flag. I am thinking that I have a good shot at that, but if not, I will still have fun trying.

 

[bandphan]

If were me I would consider purchasing some like the behringer dcx2496 and treatments to tailor the sound to your liking.

 

[ski2xblack]

Were the M&K measured to be ruler flat in your listening room, or in an anechoic chamber, as usual? Not dumping on how much you enjoy them but "ruler flat" only matters in testing as a reference because a room will almost never allow them to repeat that performance unless it has been treated or by a great big happy coincidence.

Must be happy coincidence. My room is pretty well damped, and the M&K's are very revealing speakers, used at near-field distances, which helps room colorations from being too obnoxious. I really wish they were efficient enough to mate with my tube amps, as they are the most accurate regarding timbre as any speakers I own.

And if it's a happy coincidence, isn't that what this whole hedonistic pursuit is all about?

 

[mtrycrafts]

Maybe something like a Jolida JD-1501P which as a tubed input stage mated with a solid state amp?

But, if that tube preamp is well designed, flat fr, low thd, the SS amp section will negate anything as some of the effects are from the high output impedance of tube amps.

 

[mtrycrafts]

... I just want to take a little off the top as a fatiguing harshness from the CD at high volume with long listening times.

Firstly, that harshness is caused by your speakers, room acoustics or the quality of the recordings, not because it is a CD.

Then, if that is all you want to do, why not use the treble tone control if one is installed? That is what it is for.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Thats a deficiency in your speakers and not the amplifier.

Could be the room to a small extent or the poor recording quality, right?

 

[mtrycrafts]

It surely has to do with distortion, a tube amp has >50 times the distortion of a solid state. SS distortion when not clipped is basically irrelevant, can't really say the same for tubes. Check out the specs of any solid state and you'll see a THD (Total Harmonic Distortion) of about 0.03%. (Ex: $400 NAD 325bee) Tubes will be more like 1% (ex: 1500$ tube amp). Then there's the frequency response, SS will be better and deviate/roll off much less than a tube amp, there's signal to noise ratio again, SS will be better...

Yes, the distortion but it is still pretty low.
I would posit that the output impedance has a major factor on the frequency response of the amp. As the impedance increases, the amp will follow the fr of the speaker more and more.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Mirt, I don't listen to pictures, I listen to music.

As a proud owner of the C372 you so thoughtfully provided the THD graph for, I thought I would let you know a thing or two. Driving a pair of squeaky clean, ruler-flat Miller&Kriessel monitors, the sound is indeed incredibly good.

But, as the owner of another two channel system consisting of SET monoblocks at a whopping 6 watts each, let me tell you that the SETs just kill the NAD in every meaningful sonic manner. More drive. Better resolution of details. Far surperior ability to let the spatial nuances of the recording through, resulting in fantastic 3-D imaging. Just much more convincingly 'live' sounding, and way more fun to listen to.


To the OP, please disregard the slide-rule IEEE geeks who insists that their charts and graphs are more important than what happens in your brain when you listen to music. Those guys spend more on equipment than concert tickets, and they are absolutely convinced that they are correct and us tube lovers are deluded/crazy/blessed w/ bad taste/ or whatever. What they don't like to admit is that hearing is subjective, and our understanding of consious perception is limited at this point. We are just scratching the surface in terms of phenomenology, yet these measurement geeks think they have ALL the answers. They don't.

I wonder who designed all them amps out there, a bunch of cooks and dishwashers??? No disrespect to those trades.

I don't think the poster wanted you to listen to pictures. But it does show where some of the differences are in the two different amps. Whether that difference is really audible or not, that too can be tested.

I see you are not interested in testing though, which is fine too.
As to the sound, it is a preference only, nothing more. If one prefers to alter the recorded soundtrack, by all means, have at it and enjoy.

If one want accurate reproduction of the recorded soundtrack, well that is a different story and then we can discuss that aspect as well.
Which amp kills what other can also be debated but more info is needed as to what criteria is used.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Were the M&K measured to be ruler flat in your listening room, or in an anechoic chamber, as usual? Not dumping on how much you enjoy them but "ruler flat" only matters in testing as a reference because a room will almost never allow them to repeat that performance unless it has been treated or by a great big happy coincidence.

Besides, I have yet to see a speaker being 'ruler flat' even in an anechoic chamber.