[PaulFolbrecht]

To me, single-ended-triode tube amplification is the absolute EPITOME of transparency.

This is true for about every SET I've heard, and true in spades with my new Consonance Cyber 845s.  True "reach out and touch it" realism.

[95bcwh]

To me, single-ended-triode tube amplification is the absolute EPITOME of transparency.

This is true for about every SET I've heard, and true in spades with my new Consonance Cyber 845s.  True "reach out and touch it" realism.

Interesting, do you mind telling us what amps you've owned in the past before reaching this point?

[PaulFolbrecht]

Owned:  Marantz monoblocks, Arcam, Onix, PrimaLuna, Manley, Cayin, and AES Six Pacs push-pull tube amps.
Heard: Krell, McIntosh, Chord, Pass, and many other high-end SS amps. 

What was "interesting" about my statement?  Have you ever heard a SET?

[PaulFolbrecht]

Also on the owned list.. CJ tubes and SS, NuForce & Bel Canto switching amps... this is all in the last year BTW.

[95bcwh]

Owned:  Marantz monoblocks, Arcam, Onix, PrimaLuna, Manley, Cayin, and AES Six Pacs push-pull tube amps.
Heard: Krell, McIntosh, Chord, Pass, and many other high-end SS amps. 

What was "interesting" about my statement?  Have you ever heard a SET?

Ha.. to tell you the true, I am so new to this hobby.. I only know there's tube, ss, hybrid... I have no clue what "SET" is..

[PaulFolbrecht]

Ha!  And I thought you were dissing SET.

Do some research; it's easy to find.

A couple of the brand-new transistor amps, like the Red Wine Audio Signature 30, one of which I'll also own by the end of the week (I'm not nuts.. I only have 2 amps now), is said by many SET diehards to come very very close to that ideal as well.  Close, and better in some ways too...

[95bcwh]

A friend of mine today lent me a tube preamp - Audio Research SP16
http://www.audioresearch.com/SP16.html

I used Bolder modded SB2 + Ultimate PS as the source, connecting its analog out into the SP16, and then into Bryston 4B-SST and into Salk HT3 speakers.

Compare to running the SB2 analog out straight into the Bryston 4B-SST, the differences are:

Adding the SP16 gives a more lively high, I could hear more "sssshhhh" around the vocal, it has more lushy mid range, and the overall sound is more forward, there's more air, more "live", smoother high. I guess I'm begining to appreciate what "distortion" means. I like how the SP16 sound from mid to high range, it sacrifice transparency just a little and I could live with it no problem, however, the low frequency suffers, the bass is now not as tight as before, it sounded distorted and more boomy.

I wonder if there's an amp or preamp that can produce the lively high and yet maintaining the tight bass typically found in SS components?

Thanks
barry

[AKSA]

Yes, Barry,

My Swift will do that.

Cheers,

Hugh

[Scott F.]

A friend of mine today lent me a tube preamp - Audio Research SP16
I wonder if there's an amp or preamp that can produce the lively high and yet maintaining the tight bass typically found in SS components?

AR has a 'house sound', mainly due to the compnents they choose (resistors, caps, etc). You'll find that if you start rolling tubes you'll discover that the preamps presentation will change dramatically (better bass, cleaner highs, etc.).

BTW, there are considerably better preamps AR's. Not that there is anything wrong with the AR pre, its just that there are some tubed pre's that are more resolving (the Eastern Electric for one).


Paul is EXACTLY right about SET's. I've played with boatloads of gear over the years and I've finally settled on SET's and Hi-Eff speakers as my own personal Nirvana. Done correctly, they can't be beat sonically IMO.

[mfsoa]

Not to be a stinker about this, but I've been thinking about this for awhile and I'll just throw it out there. My intent is not to diss tubes (never owned 'em) or to say that good SS is more transparent (dunno - guess not) or to say that folks who love SETs don't have wonderful systems (OK, is that politically correct enough to begin?)

- This tube rolling thing has me thinking - You change tubes, and the sound of the equipment changes significantly (on the audiophile scale of things). You now have a before and after. If by transparency we mean that the equipment imparts no sense of itself into the thread and life of the music (yeah, my lame definition), haven't we, by tube rolling and by changing the sound, proven that the gear is not transparent? Since before and after are different, they each have a distinct sound that they are imparting, and by definition are not transparent, no?

I guess my arguement falls apart in that since NOTHING is transparent, the only measure of transparency can be in relation to something else. So, although tube rolling changes the sound from A to B, they might both be FAR more trasparent than choice C, solid state or not.

Probably if solid-state "cap-rolling" or "transformer-rolling" was as easy as tube rolling (maybe it is for the more advanced DIYer) we'd hear just as much about it too. Maybe the choice of tube plays a more significant part in the overall sound than SS caps or transformers etc.
Sorry, I ramble. Back to work...



 

[WEEZ]

The problem with 'transparency' is, that many have different definitions of what it means, or what it is.

Transparency can refer to a 'lack of coloration' in a component. It can also refer to a soundstage that is 'clear' rather than 'veiled'. (This is from Robert Harley).

To me, those two attributes ain't 'zackly the same thing. 

For example, a system can sound extreemly 'clear' and reproduce a realistic soundstage and still have some coloration present. This can happen with solid state equipment as well as vacuum tube equipment.

The better equipment of either type will sound more alike than different. The goal of most designers is for 'transparency'. Whether it is ever really achieved or not is- and always will be- up for debate.

I will say this, however: the more 'transparency' is achieved by loudspeaker designers... the more 'transparency' will be demanded from up-stream components by us loony audiophiles. 

Now if more recording engineers and mixing engineers could learn a little bit more about producing software that retained some dynamic range and allowed instruments to sound like they're supposed to in the first place...we would all be better off, if you ask me.

WEEZ

[Scott F.]

Probably if solid-state "cap-rolling" or "transformer-rolling" was as easy as tube rolling (maybe it is for the more advanced DIYer) we'd hear just as much about it too. Maybe the choice of tube plays a more significant part in the overall sound than SS caps or transformers etc.

You can do some of the same things to solid state amps. You can change out the resistors and caps in the signal path. You can also play with the amount feedback applied. Changing the power supply caps and installing a new bridge rectifier is also relatively easy in SS gear. Last (but not certainly least) you can install bypass caps on the power supply caps in SS gear.

Each one of these items will 'change' the sound of the amplifier. Some slightly, some dramatically. The amount of change will vary based on the quality of the parts and their particular sonic signature.

Trouble is with solid state gear, schematics are usually well guarded. Traces on the board can be difficult to follow making reverse engineering for the novice, difficult at best.

Tube gear is usually extremely simple. Often times it has point to point wiring making replacement of parts very simple. More often than not tube gear follows established designs that have been around (in some cases) for nearly 100 years. Sure, there are variations on a theme but the vast majority of tube amps harken back to either the simple SET or Push Pull design.

Since the vacuum tube is (obviously) part of the circuit, each one has its own sonic signature. Often times the tubes electronic characteristics (ie 12AX7) vary between manufacturers. SInce the characteristics are slightly different, this too makes each tube sound slightly different when placed into a particular circuit. One of the other factors is the actual design of the tube, the plates, the grid, the filiment and the envelope are all slightly different between manufacturers lending themselves to a 'different' sound.

In the end, you are probably right. A good segment of the SS guys aren't into DIY. They generally have a fear of it. Tubes scare them even more because of their tweaky nature which pushes the SS guy even further away. SS in very general terms is more reliable than tubes. In the same vane, I've got a couple of tube amps from the early and mid 50's that I haven't done anything to other than swap tubes and they still sound great.

When it comes to transparency, I really believe the reason tubes sound better is because of the simplity of the circuit. Although I've seen some really simple SS circuits, I've not listened to one so I could be all wet.

[Dracule1]

I define transparency something akin to looking out of a window.  If the window is sparkling clean, you can see the view outside crystal clearly as if there is know window at all.  If the window is dirty, the view outside gets obscured or "veiled" as audiophiles call it.  I've heard both SS (Mark Levinson ML-2?) and tube designs (well designed SETs and PP) that can amaze with their transparency.  But I think tubes in general sound more transparent than SS in the critical midrange.

[andyr]

I define transparency something akin to looking out of a window.  If the window is sparkling clean, you can see the view outside crystal clearly as if there is know window at all.  If the window is dirty, the view outside gets obscured or "veiled" as audiophiles call it.  I've heard both SS (Mark Levinson ML-2?) and tube designs (well designed SETs and PP) that can amaze with their transparency.  But I think tubes in general sound more transparent than SS in the critical midrange.

While I totally agree with your definition of "transparency" - no glass at all!! - I suggest there is another dimension which, to me, illustrates the difference between the ss amps I've heard and a SET.  This is ... the "thereness" or "forwardness" of the singer!   

IE. the amp can be transparent - so it sounds like there is no "glass" between you and the singer - but a SET amp will bring the singer in the room with you, instead of being just outside the window frame (which has no glass!).

In other words, there's another "dimension" here, aprt from "transparency"!!??   

Regards,

Andy

[gbeard]

Hi all, (you too Faller! Lots of fun going on here, I'll be emailing you soon!)

Tube amps transparent? You bet they can be transparent!

I use Gordon Holt's definition of "Transparency" as my reference. It is the only thing that truly makes sense to me. The easiest way to tell if a system is transparent is to put on many different recordings. Are they homogenized or can you immediately tell they are recorded in different venues with different engineering techniques and equipment. The more readily you can hear the differences, the more transparent your system is.

My .02 cents (current value of my stock portfolio)
gb

[WEEZ]

Andy, that's what I meant by sounding transparent but still colored. Forwardness and/or bringing the singer in the room is a coloration. Nice, maybe, but colored just the same.

We all have our favorite colorations. We just don't always admit it. Mine is a slightly sweet treble. It's not 'accurate', maybe. Or 'transparent', but I like it.

Another is a warmer upper bass/lower midrange. Makes CD's sound better.

I still think that most people who listen to a variety of music styles will be happiest in the long run with the most 'neutral' components you can afford. But I'll take a little color before I'll give up clarity.

(good point, Gary. My system meets G. Holt's definition. It lacks my favorite colorations)

WEEZ

[95bcwh]

While I totally agree with your definition of "transparency" - no glass at all!! - I suggest there is another dimension which, to me, illustrates the difference between the ss amps I've heard and a SET.  This is ... the "thereness" or "forwardness" of the singer!   

I have to agreed with this, I had compared the following setups:

#1: Bolder modded SB2 with Ultimate PS analog out into Bryston 4B-SST into Salk HT3
#2: Bolder modded SB2 with Ultimate PS analog out into Audio Research SP16 into Bryston 4B-SST into Salk HT3
#3: Bolder modded SB2 with ultimate PS digital out into Tact 2.0S into Bryston 4B-SST into Salk HT3

All are transparent! But as far as the "thereness" and "forwardness" of the singer, setup #2 came out on top. I am trying to tweak the target curves in Tact 2.0S to try to achieve the same thing, but the sound just doesn't feel the same, I guess "distortion" is really difficult to immitate
But while I like that little distortion from mid to high, I don't like the distortion on the bass.

I think my first post was a mistake, the "not transparent" sound that I meantioned about the all tube systems in my first thread, didn't come from the tube equipments, rather it's from the speakers. When I use the AR SP16 in my system, the impact on transparency is extremely minimal.

A question for you tube fans. Given the fact that I have currently SS preamp and SS amp, which one should I change out to tube to give the best sound?

Thanks
barry

[woodsyi]

Biamp with tubes on top Barry.  You get to keep your tight ss bass and "color" the mid/top to your flavor! 

[Scott F.]

Hi all, (you too Faller! Lots of fun going on here, I'll be emailing you soon!)

Hiya Gary!

Loads of cool stuff going on here too. 

I'll give you a ring later today or tomorrow if you're around.

[PaulFolbrecht]

I tried biamping my Hyperions with a Gallo 240W/ch bass amp on the bottom and the 845 SETs on top.  I preferred it all SET.  The bass is perhaps not quite as tight, but it is more tuneful to my ear (the tightest bass is NOT always the more realistic!) and the integration top to bottom is better (no matter how I played with the gain controls on the Gallo).

Ande - as to 'thereness' - that's the word, allright, and it does not refer to coloration.  It refers to purity.  SETs can achieve a theritivity index > 97 under some conditions. 

And, btw, I unpacked the RWA amp last night, and it is really something special.  Going back to back, I may prefer the SETs, but it is so close it's amazing.  Considering cost and convenience... it would be a no-brainer.