[1000a]

Although the post is well underway it might have been fun to throw in amplifiers that use a good chunk of digital technology in them.
The more I poke around and read quite a few people are really big on say the Nu Force amps.  Maybe we are heading into a brave new
world where designers are going to continue to dig deeper and pull the best from all 3 camps.

Anyway my strong preference once getting a good tube integrated (coming from a SS NAD) is tubes. 
Loved the sound, fun rolling and playing with tube dampers and so on is an incredible way to further
tweak the sound to my liking.  Although they can also be a pita and get expensive.

2 people here have mentioned the Karan 180 integrated SS amp as outrageously good. My tube amp needs
repair so with a small budget I am about to audition 2 of these T-amp designs by "an Audience designer" used as monos
(90 watts a side) with a tube DAC and tubed linestage.  The low bass will be SS powered sub.

Here are the comments from a Karan owner on these amps:  http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=64771.0

I want to see if I am missing anything- these have had my curiosity but never enough juice until now. 
Hopefully the front end tubed stuff will keep me grounded in my happy camp and the T-amp chips will bring additional deserts
to the dinner table, we will see. 

[*Scotty*]

If bloom is the ability of a system to project the energy of the instrument into the room in much the same way as if the instrument was present in the room with the listener or image in front of the plane of the loudspeaker at varying distances between the listening position and the plane of the loudspeakers,then both the Tripath amp I had and the the custom Gainclone prototype I now use have this ability. This is in addition to a proper reproduction of depth of sound stage behind and outside the boundaries of the loudspeakers. This is not a byproduct of euphonic harmonic distortion in these amplifiers. In fact this ability is a hallmark of a systems ability to deliver what's on the recording to your ears,the opposite of musical wallpaper if you will.   As an aside, a projection of midrange energy into the room on all recordings does occur when elevated quantities of 2nd order harmonic distortion are present in the circuit whether that circuit is tube or solid state and its presence is undesirable as distortion always results in the loss or masking of information present in the music.
Scotty

[werd]

What is "bloom"?

I've only done SS amps so far with a passive pre-amp, with the inefficient box speakers I've had I think it makes sense though.

I hope to experiment with tube pre-amps sooner than later.

It would be nice to have a tubed second system with some high efficiency speaks in the future, but I won't have funds or space for that in the next decade

Its a good question, "its the ability of the soundstage to appear beyond its natural borders", used wikipedias eg. bloom (shader effect) as it purtains to photography and light, i think it can apply here also. I dont believe its a form of a distortion,and the signal can remain linear and still have bloom. Definetely not a tube only attribute as my gear has more bloom late at nite. A big contributor to keeping your soundstage with more bloom is AC conditioning. Clean ac really engages the sensation of bloom in my gear.

[konut]

Its not a matter of linearity, but of harmonic enhancement. GENERALY speaking, I've found tube aficionados prefer small ensemble, solo instrumental, and stringed instrument generes. These suit the kind of harmonic enhancement that people like about tubes. Generes where there is a lot going on from the frequency extremes lend themselves less to this kind of presentation. I would disagree with those who attribute bloom to SS gear. The ability to make the listener disbelieve the speaker boundaries can also be attributed to maintenance of phase information, within the playback chain, and proper recording techniques. While it may sound like tube bloom, it is an entirely different thing altogether. Hell, its all an illusion anyway.

[JackD201]

There are SS amps and preamps with bloom and Tube amps and preamps that are dry. Generalizations are misleading. The overall design and implementation and not the presence of any particular device within that dictates the character of the component.

Hi Niteshade,

In my understanding bloom is the simulation of the harmonics of the recorded sound source be it an instrument or a voice as the harmonics might be projected in real life or "live". That is a big "might" and is open to wide interpretation. The reason audio is perhaps the most contentious hobby amongst it's own practitioners. This propogation is spherical or omnidirectional even if the primary tone is directional and includes reflections and reverberations. I say simulation because lets face it, that's all audio is really. While there is a baseline of performance that dictates that a violin should be easily identifiable as a violin and not a viola or a particular singer should sound like himself or herself, injecting the term "truth" or "reproduction" of the live event is to my mind a little bit fallacious. I think this way because we the end listeners were never there when the recordings were made, if we were we were never in the same spot in the studio or venue as the next guy and the mic feeds have probably been manipulated in countless ways before it gets into the carrier format. While reproduction is the ultimate goal a simulation is all we can really achieve.

As it relates to the topic in my experience tube components generally possess the attributes that lend to a good simulation of harmonics (sustain and decay) and solid state attributes that lend to a good simulation of leading transients (attack). To get good music though we need the entire envelope and to get REALLY good music we need these multiple envelopes happening at the same time to not smear into each other. This brings us to the issue of controlling the loudspeaker drivers. Those that find tubes boomy might be surprised to find that it isn't the amplifier's fault rather the owners fault for not matching that amplifier with something it can handle Even a three watt 2a3 can punch a hole in your chest or shake your fillings with the right speaker matched with it, although I must admit I've yet to hear a speaker that can do both running on just a pair of 2a3s. Those that find SS in general to be devoid of soul and fluidity probably haven't heard the many zero feedback designs of late or those with much improved biasing methods. Improvements in output devices alone in the last decade have aided SS's increase in harmonic resolution exponentially.

The further one goes in the attempt to get the whole package, the choice between solid state and tube gear becomes a matter of splitting hairs as both are capable of satisfying the baseline performance (mainly timbre), that of being able to identify the source. The hairsplitting is focused on the nuances and on the individual listener's priorities. These are just my thoughts on the matter.

[jon_010101]

Its not a matter of linearity, but of harmonic enhancement. GENERALY speaking, I've found tube aficionados prefer small ensemble, solo instrumental, and stringed instrument generes. These suit the kind of harmonic enhancement that people like about tubes.

That stereotype might apply to the 2A3 single ended crowd, but as a tube aficionado, I listen to a lot of rock, hip-hop, and electronica on various high-feedback push-pull amps (pentode, triode, and UL, as I don't discriminate).  And I don't find them lacking, or guilty of "harmonic enhancement" - even on a test bench a Citation II or McIntosh amp or Music Reference RM200 will measure pretty close to solid state.  Better tube amps can achieve THD~0.01% at average listening power levels, and 10-100kHz bandwidth.  Biggest offense will be higher distortion at <30Hz, which presents a good case for not using one as a subwoofer amp 

[Tyson]

I love tubes and Mahler is a favorite of mine.

To people that say "only give me what is on the recording", I ask "Aren't most recording fairly poor"?  So the better your system gets, the worse the majority of your recordings sound.  Crazy.

[stereocilia]

Here's what I've thought (and sometimes forgotten) : “The blooming effect” happens when more low frequency gain appears to be present when an amplifier is measured using a series of pure tones as the input instead of a composite signal.  I think this happens when compression increases along with the bandwidth.  Somehow, I'm not sure that is the same thing as what audiophile means by “bloom,”  maybe somebody can chime in.

BTW, Blair, excellent use of double spacing in the previous post, and I agree with your point.   

[konut]

Its not a matter of linearity, but of harmonic enhancement. GENERALY speaking, I've found tube aficionados prefer small ensemble, solo instrumental, and stringed instrument generes. These suit the kind of harmonic enhancement that people like about tubes.

That stereotype might apply to the 2A3 single ended crowd, but as a tube aficionado, I listen to a lot of rock, hip-hop, and electronica on various high-feedback push-pull amps (pentode, triode, and UL, as I don't discriminate).  And I don't find them lacking, or guilty of "harmonic enhancement" - even on a test bench a Citation II or McIntosh amp or Music Reference RM200 will measure pretty close to solid state.  Better tube amps can achieve THD~0.01% at average listening power levels, and 10-100kHz bandwidth.  Biggest offense will be higher distortion at <30Hz, which presents a good case for not using one as a subwoofer amp 

That's why I said GENERALY. The amps you give as an example are some of the best tube amps available, and you could add Conrad Johnson and Audio Research to that list. For a fraction of what those amps cost, one could get a SS amp that accurately amplifies a signal, from input to output, at a comparable wattage.

[*Scotty*]

Tyson, While I agree that all recordings aren't perfect as my systems resolution has risen and the amount distortion it adds upon playback has diminished the overall quality of the majority of the recordings I own on CD has turned out better than I initially thought they were. This even applies to CDs that date back to 1982,go figure.
If the subject of recording quality had come up 5 years ago I would have said you were right. I do have to qualify my statement and add that better resolution doesn't help CDs that have be been mastered or remastered with too much compression or Brickwall limiting.
Scotty

[werd]

I love tubes and Mahler is a favorite of mine.

To people that say "only give me what is on the recording", I ask "Aren't most recording fairly poor"?  So the better your system gets, the worse the majority of your recordings sound.  Crazy.

Tyson check this recording out



this  is the most horrible putrid sound recording i know of and yets its one of the best albums of that year 2003.
I have a feeling that the you concentrate too much on fidelity.  Great sounding recordings arent always the best way to go with many genres of music.
Just so long as they arent overly compressed, much of what i am hearing today in the form of mainstream isnt bad at all. Of course with my electric jazz recordings it better sound stellar or i scoff...

[dvenardos]

So how would you compare tripath to tubes? I have the Virtue Two and the tripath sound is pretty darn sweet.

[Watson]

So how would you compare tripath to tubes? I have the Virtue Two and the tripath sound is pretty darn sweet.

I find Tripath and other digital amps to generally be more pleasing and closer to tubes than the bulk of solid state gear using bipolar output transistors.

[woodsyi]

Extra, Extra!
Breaking News.
Hear ye, hear ye!

People have different hearing "taste."

We all know people taste food and wine differently.  I just don't like the taste of cilantro, Zinfandel or Tequila.  I know they are perfectly good for others but I run from them. 

Hearing is like that for me, too.  There are some tonality I just can't stand and there are some that I dig.  I do more digging with tubes and running with sand.  I very much like tubes for vocals.  Class A SS is alright but still a little thinish.  Switching amps are the pits for me for vocals.  They are my audio cilantro.  Double yuk when you get badly decimated CD with digital amp.    Since I am the one who is listening, eating or drinking I will order what I like.
 
See, it comes down to taste.   

[Lyndon]

A bit off topic, but it has been a couple of years since Tripath went under.  Who bought the rights to the company's
good stuff (IP), and has their been any development of their boards since?  And how does Red Wine, and 41 Hz continue to have access to these boards???
So, Woodsyi, you don't like cilantro, Zinfandel, or tequila?  Quite alright, but please, don't pull a Johnny Depp, and enter restaurants ordering puerco pibil, and if it is too good or too bad, shoot the cook. 

[TheChairGuy]

My 'nervosa' ended about 10 minutes after hearing 50 year old Dukane monoblocks (never updated) ~ 3 years ago.

I literally packed up my otherwise excellent Odyssey Extreme Khartago's that day and sold them at a fair discount from new to a happy someone that week They might've only been 2 months old and had all the updates at that time from Herr Klaus.

btw, they were driving Maggies quite as well as any solid state and likely more enjoyably, too.  So good pairing and enough power is essential to loving a tube amp unless your devotion is to very high efficiency speakers.

Coming back to vinyl about a year earlier was definitely an epiphany for me.....but, the nervosa remained until the whomping Dukane's entered my life ($300 on ebay and other $500 to fully update them from the local MacIntosh techs locally)

I had tried all manners of SS amps and tube preamps and nothing rid me of the unease while listening.  Powerful push-pull, tube monoblocks with voltage regulation done did the trick.

Again, if I listened exclusively to vinyl (and FM in background)....all solid state might be an option.  But CD without tubes is hard to listen to for hours at a time.

I'm quite open to changing my mind (my ego isn't so grand that I need to stake out any firm position), but the above I have found abundantly true thru many dozens or hundreds of trials now 

John

[woodsyi]

So, Woodsyi, you don't like cilantro, Zinfandel, or tequila?  Quite alright, but please, don't pull a Johnny Depp, and enter restaurants ordering puerco pibil, and if it is too good or too bad, shoot the cook. 

I just discovered over the years that I don't like Cilantro and Zin.  On the other hand, I used to like Tequila.  Then I had a cataclysmally bad experience stemming from an encounter with lime, salt and (many) shots of Tequila one night.   I will spare you the gory details, but now I physically get queezy when I smell Tequila.  

[macrojack]

Check this out, folks -- Like it or not - you have to realize that the biggest variable in all listening experiences is the listener. I read pronouncements, testimonials and reviews all the time that seem to emanate from a confidence that the listener is a fixed and finite, scientifically quantified evaluation tool. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What matters most in all of this is the momentary perception. Sometimes your system touches you more than it does at other times. With two people in the same room, one can feel warm while the other is chilly. One will therefore need tubes while the other doesn't understand why.

Don't we all know by now that this is an endless and inconclusive debate? a pissing contest? a waste of listening time or family time or reading, shopping, planting, drinking (actually some of you read like you are drinking), sex, massage, meditation, etc. time?

I will submit that cone speakers introduce 10 times as much distortion as a well-designed horn and that is far more than any difference in sound you will find between the kinds of amplifiers we own.

Move beyond your little toy speakers and you will find that the tube vs. SS debate is not a very significant one at all.

[mcgsxr]

I currently use an old Magnavox console pull EL84 single ended amp with my OB speakers.  I leverage active Xover to let the 100Hz or so on down hit the BASH sub amp.

In the past I have very much enjoyed Tripath, Class A/B, Class A SS designs.

I still twinge when I see a cheap Monarchy SM70, and wonder how 25wpc of SS Class A would sound vs the 3-5wpc of EL84 Class A I am using (for close to 3 years now).

So, for me, it is more about implementation and system synergy than absolutes for tubes vs SS.

It was OB speakers that brought me over to tube amps, but in a past life using boxed drivers, highly modded Tripaths sounded excellent, as did my old Sugden integrated.

[turkey]

I know the question is a loaded one in a tube-o-phile circle, but it dosn't fit really anywhere else.

I get that solid state tends to be more reliable, doesn't have tube replacements to bother with, etc...but, do folks out there actually prefer solid state in all instances over tube gear?

It depends on the solid state gear, but I have found that the best SS gear handily trounces tube stuff.

I have never heard any tube gear that wasn't colored to at least some extent. What I hear from most of it is rubbery lows, romantically colored mids, and softened highs.

The best tube gear I have heard comes close to the best SS gear, but still has a bit of the flaws I mentioned. When you add in the higher price of the tube gear, and the increased hassle and cost of operating it, it's a no-brainer to choose SS gear.

With tube amps, there is also the problem of their high output impedance. They do not and cannot have flat FR into most speaker loads. In addition, the FR varies depending upon the speaker. That makes reading reviews of tube amps worthless unless you have identical speakers to the reviewer. (Given the poor quality control of many speaker drivers, it may not even be possible to use the review if you have the same model of speakers.)