[doug s.]

tubes yust make it sound more like real music to me, it's that simple.  but, re" room treatment, i agree that the room itself is the single largest influence on the sound of any stereo rig.  the best sound i got was when i had a huge room, which basically took the early reflections out of the equation...  it also made it easier to discern differences between different electronics.

doug s.

[doug s.]

tubes yust make it sound more like real music to me, it's that simple.  but, re: room treatment, i agree that the room itself is the single largest influence on the sound of any stereo rig.  the best sound i got was when i had a huge room, which basically took the early reflections out of the equation...  it also made it easier to discern differences between different electronics.

doug s.

[ctviggen]

I also think that room treatment is very beneficial (even if, sadly, I yet don't have any room treatment).  I have my speakers toed in so much that my first reflection point is behind me.  However, I also have a RPTV between the speakers.  When using the 8th Nerve stuff, we didn't even put it at any of the first reflection points.  It went near the front corners, in front of the TV, near the corner of the TV/wall, and behind my head. So, while I might try tubes one day, room treatment is my first goal (and I do have a tube CDP, although the Ack Dack I think is a little better sounding -- more "clear and crisp" and not as "fuzzy" sounding).

[JLM]

Looks like we've drifted here, and perhaps it's time for this thread to die anyway...

Given decent equipment synergy, the biggest factors to good fidelity in audio playback are (in order):

1.  Speakers are the only transducer (a device that changes energy from one form to another) involved.  Cabinet/driver choices vary widely and are to a large degree a matter of taste (and chosing what compromises to prioritize).  The rest of the system has the easier jobs being either passive, simply amplifying signal, or working within a very closely defined set of parameters compared to speakers.  Just look at distortion or frequency response specifications of speakers compared to other components.

2.  The room (shape, size, absorption, diffusion, speaker/furnishings set-up).  Designed from the ground up, the room is typically the cheapest to get right if you have the space to start with.

3.  Source type (vinyl, CD, etc.) and quality.  I find this portion of the playback chain the hardest to invest in as the digital arena continues to change faster than the others.  OTOH all the warts will show up with good amps and speakers downstream, so the sins had better be of ommission, not commission.

4.  Amplication type (tube, solid state, chip, digital) and quality.  Cheap amps are typically dreadful with digital being the exception.  Solid state and chip amps tend to sound like hi-fi (artificial) compared to tubes, but poorly excuted tubes are slow, warm, undynamic, and undetailed.  Digital comes close to good tubes.  The JVC receivers are remarkable for the price (but there's a price/feature trade off compared to most good tube amps).

5.  Cabling and isolation.  Isolation can be largely resolved by adding coupled mass and turning down the volume.  External cabling (as opposed to internal component cabling) is a matter of trial and error.  But I have a hard time spending serious money on it (best speaker cables I've found are $20 cryo'd single strand plenum rated CAT5) or putting their selection ahead of any of the above.

[TheChairGuy]

JLM,

That's a nice encapsulation of things, really, and the direction I have been leaning for a time.

It is interesting that room treatment, usually the least expensive of the 5 categories to apply, is often the least often performed.  I am abundantly guilty of this myself and before investigating further amp or speaker choices, I think I'll attack that.

As for the tube or not to tube question, I also think my ears may not be attuned (yet or ever, perhaps) to the magic that tubes lend to the music. Some are and some ain't, s'pose    

But, that may be the stuff of yet another post down the road....

[audiojerry]

Since we've drifted off topic a little...

I just got the SS AKSA Nivrana + that's on the USA audition tour, and it is the most tubelike sounding SS I've heard. This is the first SS amp that I think I would have guessed wrong if I didn't know it was SS. It would be interesting to get the feedback of diehard SS campers on this AKSA to see if the sound is agreeable to them. Plus it has lots of power.

It's not too late for you West Coasters to get on the audition list.

[doug s.]

jlm, i find your comments interesting, and i agree w/a lot of it, in bits-n-pieces.  for example, i think the room is the most expensive item, not the cheapest.  cuz, to be good, it has to be *big*.  this means a big house w/a big room awreddy there, or building a dedicated room.  your "having the space to start with" is a *HUGH* "if".  and, based upon my experience, a big room will have the biggest impact on the overall sound - it will make any decent rig sound way better.  i would much prefer having a moderately priced rig in a huge room than a more expensive (better) rig in a smaller room.  so, i would still say the room is the #1, & i would move the speakers to #2.

re: speakers being "the only transducer (a device that changes energy from one form to another)", well i also have to disagree here as well, as the source components do this.  a turntable will convert mechanical energy into elec'l energy, & a cdp will convert light into elec'l energy.  perhaps this moves the source components a bit closer to the speakers, only they do the "transduction" in reverse...  

the speakers, after all, are what you *hear*.  i think there's such a huge range of speakers, it's really fascinating.  i remember going to a s'phile audio show a few years back, & it astounded me that what i thought were amongst the best sounds of the show were so diametrically opposed from a design standpoint.  the two loudspeakers i liked most were a diminutive 2-way bookshelf - the diapason adamantes, & the mondo jadis eurythmie horns.  i loved both, yet both gave such a different presentation.  which is *right*?  who knows...

as far as electronics, i put much weight on the preamp, cuz this piece will interface with, & therefore flavor *everything*.   it takes the signal from your source & sends it to the amps.  this one piece has to be *right* for the system to have synergy.

but, of course, synergy is what makes a nice rig, & that's the sum total of *all* the equipment.  so, where does it all end?  

regards,

doug s.

[JLM]

Doug,

You're right, all else being equal, a bigger room will sound better than a smaller one.  Nearfield setups help, but soundstage size will be reduced.  I prefer extended range drivers, that typically have limited output compared to most 2 or more way speakers, so a larger room will have limit maximum spls.  SET amp lovers face the same issue, especially since they often lean towards extended range drivers as well.  Ceiling heights is usually the limiting factor to room size (if you hold to proper room width/length/height ratios).  If 8 foot ceilings are a given, the room width will be just shy of 13 feet and the length nearly 21 feet which makes for a decent sized room.

Regarding transducers, I was referring to the digital only systems most seem to have.  Of course a stylus/phono cartridge is another transducer, but even it is in more of a controlled environment than a speaker.

Again you're right, the "rightness" factor relating to speakers is very subjective.  It seems to be based largely on individual tastes and experiences.

The pre-amp question (the best you can't hear versus a good pre-amp enables a better pairing of source to amp) would certainly enter in here as would the passive (and which design type) versus more complex active alternative question.  And some would go without a pre-amp altogether and just use a passive volume control on the source or amp and sort of avoid the issue altogether.

[doug s.]

...Regarding transducers, I was referring to the digital only systems most seem to have. Of course a stylus/phono cartridge is another transducer, but even it is in more of a controlled environment than a speaker. ...

well, as i said before, the cdp *is* a transducer, imo, as it changes light into electricity.  also, my beloved tunas, which i dint think of before - they change radio waves pulled outta the *air*, into electricity!  

...The pre-amp question (the best you can't hear versus a good pre-amp enables a better pairing of source to amp) would certainly enter in here as would the passive (and which design type) versus more complex active alternative question. And some would go without a pre-amp altogether and just use a passive volume control on the source or amp and sort of avoid the issue altogether....

i could never understand not using a preamp.  i don't *care* if it's one less piece of gear in the chain.  my experience has been that using a pre makes it sound better.  a relative uses a pre w/the spendy resolution audio cdp, which was *specifically designed* NOT to use a pre.  why does he use the pre?  cuz it sounds better w/the pre, that's why!    see my recent post on another thread regarding my experience yust last nite w/my melos preamp:

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=14549&start=10&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

regards,

doug s.

[TheChairGuy]

I know we wafted a bit off the original topic...and lament...but I thought the following appropo to my initial statements.

I wanna' know and get some of the pleasure you tube fellers are getting...but I simply don't.  I am fully considerate to having and keeping an open mind to tubes, in general, but I have not experienced that high yet.

My set-up, an AudioSource AMP3 (SS), Dynaco PAS-4 (tube), Alpha Core TQ2 (supposedly cheap nirvana for triode setups), fatty LAT and PS Audio Statement PC's, & Herbie's dampers driving a Maggie MMG......has been thrashed by a JVC RX-F10 on it's 3rd day of life (about 10 days from fully burned in) with a captive 18ga. cord.  In all, a $350 list receiver smokes my humble set-up of nearly $2400.00 (list).

Sure, I might extract a little more out of the separates setup by tweeks, changing out IC's, but why?  For 1/7 the cost I have better, more convincing music...and a tuner, remote, considerably better energy consumption, and considerably more room in my rack and bank account.

I've heard some mondo expensive C-J amp driving Quads and Legacy's 3 years ago in an extended session at my (then) local dealer...and I left unimpressed.  I've heard all-over-the-map-priced tube gear at shows and showrooms driving everything from planars to the most expensive cones & domes...and continue to leave shaking my head wondering what I'm not hearing and enjoying.  At least I could suffer thru the tubes....some of the SS gear made my ears bleed.  On balance however, I've always favored SS over tubes of similar $$.

Of all, and it is only much more recently....on balance, the digital (be they Class D or T or some hybrid version) amplification devices best both the SS and tube gear.  Again, on balance only I've found...examples of the awful and wonderful exist in all camps.  On balance, however,  the digi amps are the right flavor for me.

I'm not trying to make light of, or mock you tube lovin' fellers...I just find it hard to believe that I don't hear what you are hearing on a regular basis.  Even if I suspend my bias for high energy costs, tube replacement, space allocation the scales still tilt clearly in favor of most digital amps/all-in-ones.

When purchase cost is factored in, it's a TKO.

For you tube afficionados, doug s., etc....have you listened much to the curent crop of digital amplifiers?  I know audiojerry has.

[DARTH AUDIO]

Chairguy, I listened to several Class D,T amps. Some for an extended time. They were PS Audio, Bel Canto, Solar HiFi and Spectron. I owned the Spectron Musician III for a while. It was a very nice amp!! But I went back to tubes (Jolida JD3000's) and I got back that old tube magic. If you don't like tubes or understand there magic that's okay..  As long as you get the same amount of enjoyment out of your $350 dollar receiver as I get out of my $6000 dollar monoblocks then we both have acomplished what we set out to do. And that's buy something we enjoy. Let's not forget, it's about the music not the equipment. Good luck on your quest.

Darth

[doug s.]

I know we wafted a bit off the original topic...and lament...but I thought the following appropo to my initial statements.

I wanna' know and get some of the pleasure you tube fellers are getting...but I simply don't.  I am fully considerate to having and keeping an open mind to tubes, in general, but I have not experienced that high yet.

My set-up, an AudioSource AMP3 (SS), Dynaco PAS-4 (tube), Alpha Core TQ2 (supposedly cheap nirvana for triode setups), fatty LAT and PS Audio Statement PC's, & Herbie ...

chairguy, count yer blessings - ya can get all the musical enjoyment ya want, w/o having to fuss w/tubes!     personally, i'd suggest an audition of dodd audio's simple $450 tubed preamp.  i tink ya mite like it...     if not, then as darth sez, don't sweat it, & enjoy the toons!  

re: digital amps, i personally haven't had the pleasure.  when i start reading of hordes of tube owners unloading their gear for digital amps, then i will give a listen.     which may actually happen, as this still-new (relatively) technology develops over the next few years.

doug s.

[TheChairGuy]

Chairguy, I listened to several Class D,T amps. Some for an extended time. They were PS Audio, Bel Canto, Solar HiFi and Spectron. I owned the Spectron Musician III for a while. It was a very nice amp!! But I went back to tubes (Jolida JD3000's) and I got back that old tube magic. If you don't like tubes or understand there magic that's okay..  As long as you get the same amount of enjoyment out of your $350 dollar receiver as I get out of my $6000 dollar monoblocks then we both have acomplished what we set ...

Whew, thanks for understanding my comments in the right spirit, Darth and doug s...it was no intention of inflamming an already, er   , tense subject for audiophiles

Everybody's likes and dislikes are so different - it is just astounding that we all share the same species.  

I won't go so far as to say my quest has ended with the JVC, but I am once again happy (in tuneage and coinage   ) with the F10 amplifying things.  FYI - I have $4800 in (list) Sony transport, MSB Gold Link DAC and Power Base, add-on umbilical and Empirical Audio modded innards.  So, the front end is dang decent...even if my ears and music processing suck.

I know without a shadow of doubt that I sound like, or better than,  Pavarotti in the shower  

[flintstone]

I tend to pick what works best with my speakers in the amp department...I would never buy an amp and then match speakers to the amp. A lot of people do setup their systems that way and while I find it backwards for me...that does not mean it is the wrong way to go about it.

This pretty leaves tube amps out of my systems so far but not because I don't think they sound good...more a matter of the cost of high power tube designs.

My pre-amp is a tubed unit (Audioprism Mantissa) and before the Mantissa was a Bent Audio passive. To tell you the truth, after getting used to the mid-range quality of the Bent unit I had a very hard time finding a pre-amp I could live with in my price range. A solid state pre-amp would have been fine with me...but, none that I could afford even came close.

I started giving some tubed pre-amps a listen and by chance ran across the Mantissa about a year latter.  This pre-amp turned out to be everything that was good about the passive only with the gain I needed to drive my big Krell Ksa-250 amp and Apogee Duetta Signature speakers to the SPL's I wanted.

That said, I would never preach tubes to anyone...but I do find them more to my taste in the pre-amp department in my system.

If you find yourself in the position that you can not hear any difference between SS and tubes then you may be lucky...(I think?).

Dave

[audiojerry]

This past Saturday, I had the privilege or misfortune   to hear a tubed 25wpc monoblock prototype from SAS Audio in my system. Despite the fact that they lacked power for the real demanding stuff, they were so seductive that I'm wondering if I could live with them on a permanent basis. Along with his prototype 4 box preamp, it was the best audio I've ever heard. It definitely cements my bias towards tubes.  

[DARTH AUDIO]

AudioJerry, do you  know the price of his prototype 25watt amp and his 4 box preamp? What tubes are used in the amp? Preamp?

Thanks,

Gary

[audiojerry]

AudioJerry, do you  know the price of his prototype 25watt amp and his 4 box preamp? What tubes are used in the amp? Preamp? Thanks, Gary

The best person to answer would be Steve. Here is his web address, which has some very useful info: http://www.sasaudiolabs.com

[morricab]

I have found that tubes are simply able to capture a closer picture to what I hear in reality.  I have a professional musician living at home (violin) and any time I try sticking solid state into the music chain she replies, "what happened to the stereo it sounds bad".  See, she uses my system to help with her work and she is typically using only very high quality classical recordings or self made recordings.   Her ears are very attuned to the sound of real instruments in real spaces. I too have become much more attuned as I now attend numerous concerts and hear her training often.  Good tube gear gets closer to the correct harmonics and to the proper dynamics.

My Apogee Caliper Signature loudspeakers are extremely sensitive to the electronics hooked up to them and so far only a pure tubed preamp has been sufficient.  Anytime I hook up a SS preamp or even a hybrid one the result may sound clean and clear but the harmonics are not as well represented and the soundstage flattens out.  Put a (good) tube stage in and the whole soundstage opens back up with no loss in resolution but also a smoother more coherent sound emerges.  I have managed to find a hybrid amp that does a good job of preserving the best qualities of tubes with the grunt of ss.  However, it is special in having no feedback and running Class A up to 30watts (more than is used under normal listening conditions).  Put a solid state amp on these speakers (again a good one, minimum $5K new I would say) and they are very clean clear but the soundstage becomes relatively flat again.  I know for a fact from making recordings that with a stereo pair of mics one can capture the acoustic of a hall and this should sound like space on playback not flat like cardboard as most SS amps make it sound (again relative to what I have heard from good tubes).  

Bad tube amps give you this at the price of being way overly warm or golden to also perhaps being quite dark at the top end.  Good tube amps are transparent and deep with great presence.  There is no sense of musical peaks compressing, which is something that always seems to accompany SS amps regardless of their power output.   In the end, the combination of traits from my experience leads to the conclusion that there must be tubes somewhere in the chain to have a reasonable facsimile of reality from top recordings.  You will never have a true facsimile from bad recordings.  

If you are confused by this, go listen to your local orchestra, not once, but several times in a season and note the color, dynamics and ambience of what you are listening to.  Note the emotional connection with the music (assuming the players are good and you like the music being played of course).  Now listen to your stereo, preferrably with a good recording of what you just heard live, and if it feels lifeless or sterile to you then either your gear or your speakers (or both) is choking dynamics and stripping harmonic color (or worse, injecting high harmonics a symptom of high feedback SS designs) from the music.  

In some ways I think tube amps sound better overall because it is easier to design a low or no feedback amp using tubes than it is with transistors (some do exist, mainly hybrids) due to the triodes inherent superior linearity.  This is because I have heard now a couple of no feedback amps using transistors (both hybrids, one I own and the other a Monarchy Audio SE-160) and they overall sound was quite close to a good SET amp but with better bass control and of course much more power.

[audiojerry]

My wife has experienced my revolving door policy of alternating between tube and solid state amplification over the years. She has no personal agenda against solid state, and likewise no reason to be attracted to tubes, but no matter how good I thought my SS amp was at the time, she never liked listening to her favorite recordings through any of them.  Every time I replaced it with a tube amp, her enjoyment was always restored. Of course, I've stuck with my tube amp for more than two years now, although I'm still intrigued by the potential I've heard from a couple of digital amps. I say 'potential' because I feel they haven't quite bridged my palpability boudary, or I haven't spent enough time auditioning - specifically the EA modified Carver.

[ctviggen]

I don't know -- there are a few people who like SS amps better than tubes (see the VMPS forum about the Ampzilla and the Son of Ampzilla).  I have SS because tubes in AZ would generate too much heat.  In CT, I may go to tubes, but probably only in a preamp.  I personally think my system is very involving, but I've never had tubes in it; perhaps I don't know what "involving" is.  Anyone near CT and want to loan me some tube gear?