[BlackCat]

I hate to throw my two cents in here, I'll never convince a tubophile to convert to SS.  You'll never convince me to switch to tubes because I like massive amounts of power and bass!

Nathan made a good point about SS modeling of tube amps.  I have a Line 6 guitar amp and it models all kinds of vintage tube guitar amps.  I find it interesting that it even models the hiss.

[Jay S]

Anyone want to throw digital into this SS vs tubes discussion?  I have an audiophile friend who's into low watt SET amps and efficient horn speakers who was surprised that a non-tube amp system be enjoyable (to him) to listen to.

[nathanm]

I have a Line 6 guitar amp and it models all kinds of vintage tube guitar amps.  I find it interesting that it even models the hiss.

Yeah, it's really quite amazing technology.  Sure, after all is said and done it IS just an imitation; but the point is that there's some really smart folks out there who know enough about how certain amps sound to be able to recreate that with digital software.  

Imagine having a set of switches on the front of your preamp that mimicked different types of setups.  That kind of flexibility would be so much more fun to play with than the practice of auditioning tons of different equipment.  Listen to some smoky jazz and click on the "1 watt SET" preset or crank up the 1812 Overture with the "1000 watt Class A Solid State" preset.  It could be done.

I've run full program music through my Sans Amp pedal (which is similar to the Line 6 and others) and obviously it has too much coloration to be useful, but the huge across-the-board tonal change is really remarkable.  A  version of this with much more subtle tonal alterations would allow the listener to tune the playback to suit the song.  No more griping about those "edgy, brittle CDs" and all that.

We need multi-trick ponies says I!

[Curt]

The best (most accurate) tube amps and the best SS amps sound very much the same, both can approach the line of zero distortion (what goes in comes out only bigger), each approaching the line from their side (their type of distortion). Tubes or SS can be used to make good accurate gear.

That said, unless your talking low power, tube gear simply costs too much and has too many disadvantages. I choose SS for power amps, but I'm open to tubes for line level devices (perhaps a CDP source or DAC), if they can make the music sound better.

[cjr888]

As for digital and tayloring your sound -- I've wanted to try this for some time....but at the source.  For example the Crane Song HEDD192 will let you mess with triode and pentode simulation and combinations...  Someone just lone me $3k.  I think this would be a rather interesting unit, especially if further modified..  Some links are at the bottom.

At the same time, I can name tons of top rated pro gear with circuitry meant to simulate analog tape curves, tape saturation, etc.  Most appear to be crap, but there's a few that really seem to stand out, such as those made my SPL.

I think it would be rather fun to taylor your sound to certain extents without switching components, or just tubes..  Need a little spice for this type of recording or that kind of music....turn the knob..  

http://www.cranesong.com/hedd192.html
http://www.mercenaryaudio.com/heddigsigpro.html
http://www.digitalprosound.com/2001/09_sep/reviews/cranesong.htm
http://www.proaudioreview.com/par/july01/Crane-Song-web.shtml
http://www.soundperformancelab.com/index_e.html

[John Casler]

Yeah, it's really quite amazing technology. Sure, after all is said and done it IS just an imitation; but the point is that there's some really smart folks out there who know enough about how certain amps sound to be able to recreate that with digital software.

Imagine having a set of switches on the front of your preamp that mimicked different types of setups. That kind of flexibility would be so much more fun to play with than the practice of auditioning tons of different equipment. Listen to some smoky jazz and click on the "1 watt SET" preset or crank up the 1812 Overture with the "1000 watt Class A Solid State" preset. It could be done.

Bob Carver used to do this type of thing for grins and giggles.  He did many a "double blind test" with beleivers in both camps and fooled them everytime.

[DVV]

I do wish you guys could audition a Karan amp (http://www.karanacoustics.com ).
...

I just looked at the specs and it looks VERY nice.  80KGs would be too expensive to ship around as a DEMO unit I would think though

Any idea on how much that amp costs?

Rob, don't let JohnR and his wicked ways put you off. I really DON'T know how much it costs, the only price of his I do know is that he wants 1,800 euros for his KA-i180 integrated amp, such as the one I have.

I also know this - Milan Karan did manage one tremendous thing, and that is to have his products sounding essentially the same throughout the range. Thus, you don't have to plonk down the dough for the kilowatt amp, you will get more or less the same even with his entry level 200W per side power amp. This is a rare trait which I have always admired in any manufacturer.

Anyway, why don't you ask Milan Karan himself, he's at [email protected] . He is about 6'6" tall, weighs in at around 280 lbs, drawls when he talks and is one lovable teddy bear grown oversize. One of the nicest people I have had the pleasure of meeting. I suggest you read my report on visiting him, it's up on TNT at http://www.tnt-audio.com ; I think there's also a picture of Milan. Unfortunately, I don't get to see him more than twice a year, even if he does live just 50 miles from me.

The reason why I brought him up at all is because when coupled to the late and much lamented B&M Acoustics 1041 monitor, using van den Hul's 352 Hybrid cables, the system produces what I have heard several times being described as "SET sound without any of the usual SET limitations", and from people who swear by tubes. Imagine a SET system clobbering you with 180W/8 ohms nominal, rising to 256W/8 ohms just before clipping!

Jerry must be drooling by now.

Cheers,
DVV

[DVV]

No, he has no idea

In fact, John, I really don't. I never bothered to ask, because knowing the way Milan Karan thinks, I can make an educated guess good enough to tell me I can't afford it. So why bother asking?

My guess is the behemoth he makes, which is to the best of my knowledge THE most powerful amplifier on this planet, more muscle than the biggest of Krells, wouldn't cost less than 9,000 euros, and that locally (meaning no taxes, no levies, under the counter). And you know, that's kinda cheap for an amp capable of kicking out over 4 kilowatts - yes, that's 4,000 watts! - into low and mean loads.

I sometimes muse that this model completely turns the tables regarding SET systems; instead of looking for a very efficient speaker, you are now free to choose ANYTHING you want, and in fact, may want to consider very INEFFICIENT speakers.

Now where did I put them there Apogees ...?

Cheers,
DVV

[KeithR]

I agree that high end tube amps, and high end ss amps starting sounding the same.  Just the nature of the beast.

I think heat is a miscontrived conception---i know ss amps that run hotter or as hot than tube amps.  Ask Pass Aleph, Plinius, big Krell owners etc.  Most tube amps run only moderately hot.

[audiojerry]

Most tube amps run only moderately hot.

I guarantee you that my set of 16 6550's will keep your room plenty warm in winter if your furnace goes kaput.

[DVV]

Most tube amps run only moderately hot.

I guarantee you that my set of 16 6550's will keep your room plenty warm in winter if your furnace goes kaput.

Yeah, and if the furnace doesn't go out, it will keep your pockets solid state empty in power bills.

Just kidding Jerry. You know I'm an old SS man who betrys the stereotype mould by having high regard for some tube gear, notably by Audio Research, and I would worship whoever made me a present of some Conrad-Johnson gear.

I'd like to turn this discussion around a bit - why are we discussing something that can never produce anything resembling a result? Why aren't we discussing the merits of designers, the people and the brains behind some truly great designs?

It's no secret I have nothing but the highest regard for James Bongiorno; but that's not because he's pretty, he's anything but pretty, he has a foul temper, but all that pales before his true mastery of audio design.

Thank God, he's not the only one, nor do I claim him to be the best. No list could be complete without mentioning people like John Curl, Prof. Dr Matti Otala (the Finnish amp genius), the late and much lamented Julian Vereker of Naim, Bill Johnson of C-J (who, BTW, is a colleague of mine insofar that he too has graduated economics but lives off electronics), and so forth.

Generalized telltales will never get us anywhere, we need to be more specific.

Cheers,
DVV

[nathanm]

Thanks for the links cjr888, I've seen that thing on the Mercenary site before but never really read about it.  Very cool stuff!

http://www.digitalprosound.com/2001/09_sep/reviews/cranesong4.htm

Most design engineers strive to design the most accurate and transparent circuitry possible. In a way, digitized audio is the result of such pursuits, the reactions to same forced many designers to reinvestigate vintage analog technology. Was it really better? Increasing the sample rate and bit depth alone will not make digital sound more like analog. It's analog's idiosyncrasies that everyone waxes romantically about, the intense study and ultimate emulation of which is essential to the progress of digital audio technology.

Ahhh, now we're talkin'!

A really scaled down version of the CraneSong HEDD without all the adjustments built into an external DAC or preamp would be incredibly cool and I bet it would give audiophiles plenty of fun tweakability.  Just 3 or 4 toggle switches that affected those changes shown in the article.  With that many toys to play with you might not desire to be on the equipment merry-go-round quite so much, being able to make your rig sound different and the flip of a switch.

[Tbadder1]

I've been all over the map on this one as I've owned both solid state amps, digital amps, and tube amps.  All were compelling in some way, all had strengths and weaknesses.  I miss my Cary the least; there were things it just didn't do very well, but we all know there are things that 300Bs do extraordinarily well.  Having said this, I'm looking to get into tubes again for a second system in my computer room because I do miss the "magic." There are times when I miss my Bel Canto, talk about detailed--holy crap!  And I'm talking good sheeeeeeet here.  Everything was so present; it was the proverbial "I never heard that before" all the time.  But alas, all that detail was never but together in a very natural way--an approximation of nature yes, an interesting facsimile yes, but not quite right.  When I'm listening to new music in particular I'd love to still have the Bel Canto to hear everything that's there first--a kind of test run before I turn it into something more musical.  Which leads me to old fashion solid state, my current Levinson.  I really believe it comes closest to combining the strengths of the Cary and the Bel Canto--detailed, musical, great tonal balance, even some of that liquid magic.  Bottom line: I love all these choices; wish I could own them all.  I suppose it's the diversity of approaches that keeps me interested in this goofy hobby.

Dan

[bwkendall]

Being a SS owner and user, I rely a great deal on specs to gain some initial understanding as to how an amp might perform in my system.  This isn't a fool-proof method, though.  To quote some of NAD's marketing, "people don't listen to specs."

When I have entered into conversations about amps with tube owners, the topic of specs invariably comes up and is greeted with "ah, I see you are a SS guy."  I don't fully understand what causes that response, because tube people have to be somewhat concerned about specs themselves at some point in this process.  Specifically, why would you go out and buy an amp that doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of driving your speakers?

Ipso facto, once you tube guys have gotten through the initial specs issue, you then abandon any additional thought about it and focus on tube rolling instead.

[DVV]

Being a SS owner and user, I rely a great deal on specs to gain some initial understanding as to how an amp might perform in my system.  This isn't a fool-proof method, though.  To quote some of NAD's marketing, "people don't listen to specs."

When I have entered into conversations about amps with tube owners, the topic of specs invariably comes up and is greeted with "ah, I see you are a SS guy."  I don't fully understand what causes that response, because tube people have to be somewhat concerned about ...

The problem with specifications is that they don't say much as to how an amp for example will sound. This is easy to verify - put together any two amps of similar specifications but from different sources, and in any half decent system you will hear differences not reflected in the specifications.

On the one hand, this is partly because to this day, after 37 years in audio (I got hooked really young, at just 13), I have never yet seen a fully specified unit. This would include, for example, its immunity to RF breakthrough at one or more given frequencies. Before anyone says I'm on hard drugs talking about RF in audio, please remember that strong RF influence, even if its well into tens of megahertz, can work its way down into the audio range through plain, old fashioned intermodulation NOT reflected by classic specs.

On the other hand, there's always the question how such specs were obtained. For example, an amp said to have 0.1% THD could sound better than an amp said to have 0.001% THD if the first amp has a very low feedback factor of say 10 dB (3:1), while the second amp has been raped with a feedback factor of say 60 dB (1,000:1). BTW, the above example actually exists.

Lastly, we should not mix our priorities here. If we cannot measure and quantify something, that does not mean it doesn't exist. Thus, we should not rule our ears according to measurements, but rather it's our ears which should drive towards better and more meaningful measurements.

This from a guy who uses a lab full of measuring and test gear, a solid state guy. How low can you go?

Cheers,
DVV

[Carlman]

When I worked at Circuit City about 10 years ago, I used to get people who wanted to review the spec sheets of various equipment and maybe even get copies so they could go home and mull them over...  At first, I was in awe that these people could discern so much from these spec sheets and understand how the numbers correlated into the actual sonic signature of the product.  Especially CD players.  Eventually, I lost my fascination with these people and simply realized they were 'time-wasters'.  They weren't there to buy anything.  They wanted to impress someone that they could read a spec sheet.  As soon as I stopped stroking the egoes of these guys who wanted spec sheets, the less they came in.  Since then, I haven't been a big fan of spec sheet = sound quality.  I know the CC example is extreme... the spec sheets they were 'reviewing' said nothing.  There were maybe a dozen specs... often less than a page.... and very cheap electronics.

So, as DVV and many others mention, sound quality is heard, regardless of its measurement.  See Hantra's post about the way different amps convey emotion... How do you measure what he's hearing?  It's not a tube/SS factor... so, now what?  He just has to decide what he likes best and go with it.  What if it is a measureable item?  Who's going to standardize the spec to always include it?  No one.

As far as I'm concerned, specs mean about as much as an online review.  Tell me who designed it and now we're getting somewhere.

[bwkendall]

Bandwidth, THD and output expressed in amps are, IMHO, very important specs.  We're not talking low end or mid-fi here, we're talking about quality components.  When I go off looking for an amp, I usually do a spec check first, then I go listen.  I can't remember any time that I have listened to something I had eliminated from my list of potentials based on specs and wound up changing my mind.

One factor contributing to the emotion that an amp can deliver is power reserves (amps).  Yes, there are other factors, some quantifiable, some not.  But my point is that there are certain specs that most certainly carry some weight.

[gonefishin]

What is Wrong with Solid State Owners?

   they're not right, in the head  

[DVV]

Bandwidth, THD and output expressed in amps are, IMHO, very important specs.  We're not talking low end or mid-fi here, we're talking about quality components.  When I go off looking for an amp, I usually do a spec check first, then I go listen.  I can't remember any time that I have listened to something I had eliminated from my list of potentials based on specs and wound up changing my mind.

One factor contributing to the emotion that an amp can deliver is power reserves (amps).  Yes, there are other f ...

I don't see anybody contradicting you. I for one will certainly agree that current reserves do speak volumes of how load tolerant an amplifier is; if it can deliver say 20 amps in short term bursts, you can be reasonably certain it won't choke on you under normal room listening conditions with just about any speaker on the market. It will therefore not surprise you that I pay particular attention to this in my own designs.

But try comparing a say Rotel and say NAD and say Harman/Kardon integrated amp. All three are extremely load tolerant and despite their relatively modest ratings of 50-75W/8 ohms, each can deliver over 500W into 1 ohm and stay stable. Yet you will hear three different renditions of the same source.

Go upmarket with a similar test, and again you will hear amps sounding different. Go to the top and still you will be hearing different renditions of the same source.

All of which means that I agree with you some specs make for a great starting point, but let me add that they still tell you more what an amp will not do (that it shouldn't do), but too little in how it will do what it is supposed to do. For that, you still have to resort to low tech ears.

Though of course, "low tech" is highly questionable. Our ears are a very complex bio-mechanical-electrical system we still know far too little about. Which brings me to that great adage which still never fails to draw a smile - man is a most complex organism any idiot can make.

Cheers,
DVV

[bwkendall]

So at least that makes two of us who think that way.