[KnowTalent]

Bloom to me is a way to describe the projection attributes of an amplifier: Does the sound seem to be in front of the speakers instead of in them or in back of them? Typically a sterile sounding amp won't have any bloom.  Bloom would indicate a forward, engaging tone quality.

Any thoughts on this?

I define bloom as when an instrument or vocal passage subtley shifts position directly related to emphasis placed by performer...also could use the phrase "Breathing"

[turkey]

I use Naim gear - a CD5X, NAC 122X, Flatcap 2X and NAP 150X.  While they're completely solid state, I think they do a great job of communicating the emotional aspects of a performance, which is what I believe this is all about. 

Even a US$10 clock radio communicates the emotional aspect of a performance quite well. You don't need much fidelity at all to enjoy music emotionally.

Where increased fidelity matters is in making the reproduced performance sound more like live acoustic instruments, and also tends to increase the ease of hearing nuances. (Multi-mono studio recordings of electronic instruments are a different matter, and there really isn't any standard to compare them to.)

[macrojack]

Hats off to turkey. Sanity prevails. The bloom is off the rose.

Solid state today is like black coffee. Tubes are a latte. Both are good. I like one better. No sugar, please.

[turkey]

To amplify music tubes have the best sound, have sweet harmonics, large soundstage and better musicality than Transzistorrs...
There is a old adagio about this:  Transistor makes sense, tubes makes music.

Since I have heard some truly superb speakers (GedLee and Linkwitz), I have decided that electronics are much less important than I used to think they were.

Some very expensive gear (tube and SS) did not give a major improvement when used to drive the GedLee speakers. Even a cheap Sherwood receiver provided audio nirvana.

A rather expensive Manley amp sounded kind of rubbery. A similarly expensive Krell amp sounded good, but not too different from
the receiver at reasonable volume levels. A couple of AVA amps, new and old, also didn't make huge differences.

I'm sure that some would conclude that the GedLee speakers are somehow masking or removing detail from the music so everything sounds the same. I don't think this is the case, because they sound better than any other speakers I've ever heard, and there is plenty of detail.

I don't know what to think really, other than to observe that electronics that most would consider to be rather mundane sound superb when driving the best speakers.

I can not view why a sane person will prefer use a SS music amp, unless he is a Pro-Audio worker and by this have hard ears and a opinion lead to favor the SS studio amp brands of his beloved work.

I won't call you insane for preferring tube gear. After all, it's your choice as to what to buy, and you buy what you like.

As Iam not radical, in last case I can accept a SS amp, since it is Class A output, because without alot of heat there is no sound quality.

An engineer I respect greatly has said that Class A is a way of getting acceptable performance out of almost any amp design. It covers up a lot of sins.

On the other hand, a well-designed Class AB amp will outperform a Class A amp, be vastly more efficient, and be more reliable.

[Niteshade]

You are listening to the circuit, not the tubes. I have heard the same things myself.

Be careful of stereotyping.


"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."

[dado5]

Tubes are great under 30 watts or so. Here triode circuits with one or two voltage gain stages can be used without feedback. Single ended triodes are fantastic if your listening volume preference and speaker choice line up (IMO, they are the ONLY choice for driving headphones - one transformer coupled triode stage is all you need).

Over this power though, it becomes nearly impossible to create a tube circuit with fewer stages than a solid state one. I think this factor, more so than feed back or class of operation, accounts for the reason why solid state is better for higher power applications. More stages bring more distortion, more feedback (which can itself require more stages to overcome the loss of gain), more power supply complexity (and the associated low frequency inter-stage feedback when a single power supply in shared by the gain stages). KISS really is the best working principle in audio and SS wins out in this regard when high power output is desired.

Now I will say the vast majority of home listeners only need 20 watts or less, so tubes could be used advantageously by most folks. The trouble is most commercial tube amps are 30 or more watt designs using 4 + RC coupled stages. And the more affordable ones are nearly always uncritical copies of less than optimal 1950's commercial designs. The end result is most people will never hear tubes working at their best.

[turkey]

systems.  Earl Geddes uses a $200 digital receiver (chip amps) to power his $6K speakers and many have claimed he has the best home theater they've ever heard.  He chose that particular unit because of its low noise, but it goes to show how little you can spend to achieve great sound from your electronics...if you have a properly treated room and well designed speakers.

I haven't heard Earl's system, but I've spent some time with a pair of Nathans. I drove them with a variety of electronics, including a cheap 10 year old BPC Sherwood receiver with chip amps.

I'm planning to buy a pair of kits from Earl and sell my old speakers. I am also quite tempted to buy a Pioneer VSX-518 for ~$150 and sell most of my electronics too.

I'm not 100% convinced that a Pioneer receiver is the equal of more expensive "high-end" electronics, but I also no longer think that there are the night and day differences I formerly thought there were.

[revrob]

I have a hybrid, LSA Statement, and I absolutely love the sound. It does come down to preference. I feel like I have the best of both world. Also I was looking for something that had at least 150 watts per channel and tubes did not meet my criteria.

[turkey]

You are listening to the circuit, not the tubes. I have heard the same things myself.

Be careful of stereotyping.


"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."

I'm not stereotyping. I am simply describing what I have heard from the tube gear I have listened to.

As for tubes versus circuits, I didn't know you could listen to tubes all by themselves. (Although they make tinkly noises if you shake them hard enough.)

[1000a]

I agree completely with the people who have mentioned no 2 people even hear/see/taste/smell and so on - the same way / perceptually and otherwise.
Further there is even a condition called "sensory defensiveness"  where some information from an environment can drive some up a wall and others are not bothered by it at all.  This condition can run from mild effecting few things to full blown "person can not function in the world'.

Ad to this the endless choice of wires / spkrs & placements / rooms & treatments / tube choices / Herbie's tube dampers (about 3 choices per tube- phenomenal $ bang) and the effects at least in my tube system- and everything is so loaded with endless variables there is no best in IMHO.

What I found w my basically 100/100 watt El34 stock jolida (w added sub out) is all the above affected presentation substantially and adding into the mix I could take my my amp from rich and lush to thin and airy and with more experience combine the 2 and then further enhance attributes I subjectively thought were better.  I have taken this journey without "one modification of the amp innards".  I was more than pleased w its sound prior to its need of repair.

But with that for $308 I can try a well designed 50/50w T-amp and see what I might be missing for the price of the repair and shipping on a $2000 tube amp (used 1200.) that I have probably spent 500. in various tubes over the yrs.

I am sure with "the right for me" SS, digital or tube amp ( or combination of any of the 2 or 3) I could be quite happy- and not necessarily have to spend insane $$ if I did my home work.  So to all who love their amps regardless of the designs, Enjoy the Music.  For me this is not a contest but a forum to exchange ideas.  

Thanks to the few who have mentioned the Virtue amp, I am a little gun shy but welcome an inexpensive opportunity to open my tube enveloped brain.  aa  

  

[turkey]

He didn't express his point well, but his overall thrust is valid. Solid state gear tends to age quickly. Is anyone really interested in solid state gear from even 10 years ago? (With a few exceptions, obviously.) For instance, most of the pre-SST Bryston gear was very well-reviewed at the time but now is pretty clearly, even obviously, on the bright side of things in comparison to their newer gear. I wouldn't want any of the older stuff.

I can think of a fair bit of old SS stuff I'd still want. It does depend upon how old, because SS gear just hasn't been around as long and the really early stuff wasn't very good. (But much early tube stuff wasn't very good either.)

I can also think of a lot of old tube gear that I wouldn't ever want.

[turkey]

cool, but they do work better.  Hi-Fi is so loaded with goofy products, I don't know why there aren't SS amps disguised with cosmetic-only tubes.  That way you get the nice glowing bling but with no-nonsense, clean, hassle-free sound.  Tubes get the

You just described the Butler amps...

[turkey]

I agree completely with the people who have mentioned no 2 people even hear/see/taste/smell and so on - the same way / perceptually and otherwise.

I'm not sure this is relevant.

Yes, it seems that when listening to music on a stereo system, people have different tastes and seem to hear things in different ways.

However, I once took part in an experiment in listening to natural sounds. A friend who was into taping at live concerts got a DAT recorder.

He recorded a car door closing and then played it back on his stereo. We got the idea of recording various common sounds (the shutter on a camera, doors closing, a cat meowing, wind chimes, etc.) and then listening to them live and reproduced on various systems.

There were about a dozen of us that were into stereo equipment that tried this, plus we got a couple of girlfriends to participate too that were not into stereo equipment.

It wasn't at all scientific or controlled, but I was struck by the uniformity of the comments and perceptions.

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years, and it seems to me that we should review and compare stereo and home theater systems based upon how accurately they reproduce common natural sounds. Then, once we've got something that does that well, it's bound to do well on music too (assuming we're actually looking for accuracy when playing music).

[werd]

I agree completely with the people who have mentioned no 2 people even hear/see/taste/smell and so on - the same way / perceptually and otherwise.

I'm not sure this is relevant.

Yes, it seems that when listening to music on a stereo system, people have different tastes and seem to hear things in different ways.

However, I once took part in an experiment in listening to natural sounds. A friend who was into taping at live concerts got a DAT recorder.

He recorded a car door closing and then played it back on his stereo. We got the idea of recording various common sounds (the shutter on a camera, doors closing, a cat meowing, wind chimes, etc.) and then listening to them live and reproduced on various systems.

There were about a dozen of us that were into stereo equipment that tried this, plus we got a couple of girlfriends to participate too that were not into stereo equipment.

It wasn't at all scientific or controlled, but I was struck by the uniformity of the comments and perceptions.

I've thought about this quite a bit over the years, and it seems to me that we should review and compare stereo and home theater systems based upon how accurately they reproduce common natural sounds. Then, once we've got something that does that well, it's bound to do well on music too (assuming we're actually looking for accuracy when playing music).

Well dont leave us hanging... what were the comments and perceptions? I find that interesting 

[turkey]

Well dont leave us hanging... what were the comments and perceptions? I find that interesting 

I don't remember all of them (it was almost 20 years ago), but it was things like the door closing not sounding solid, or scissors sounding like they weren't made of metal.

There was just a lot of uniformity about the flaws in the reproduced sound. Everyone seemed to be hearing the same things. When everyone got together to compare notes, there was pretty much total agreement.

I think this is often not the case when people listen to reproduced music. With some music, there is no "live" to actually compare it to, so all bets are off. With recorded acoustic music such as classical, perhaps people are tending to get into the music instead of listening completely critically.

A car door slamming is not something you will admire, or start tapping your toes to. It will either sound right or it won't.

I have also participated in listening comparisons of various types since then using music, and there seemed to be a lot more disagreement about whether or not things sounded good or accurate. (That's just my impression though, I haven't kept any records or anything so I can't trot out numbers to prove or disprove it.

I still keep in touch with a couple of people working in the music business, so maybe I can get them interested in exploring this further. (I don't have any access myself to good mics or portable recording equipment at this point.)

[jon_010101]

Hi-Fi is so loaded with goofy products, I don't know why there aren't SS amps disguised with cosmetic-only tubes.

You just described the Butler amps...

  

So very true!

[nathanm]

Further there is even a condition called "sensory defensiveness"  where some information from an environment can drive some up a wall and others are not bothered by it at all.

 
Like Muzak!

Tubes vs. SS becomes nearly meaningless once you get into the much more radical sound-changing properties like microphones; again, something the listener doesn't control. :   Making your own recordings opens up a new set of variables beyond playback circuits.  Listening to commerical CDs might make me want different speakers or whatnot, but if I play back a homemade recording with my SASS mic, then all is right with the world.  If you discover a sound signature in a recording you like then that is what you like, and little things like tubes aren't going to make a dent.  If you don't fundamentally like the way an album sounds, you can't re-mix or re-master it yourself by simply swapping out playback equipment.  I've resigned myself to the idea that I will never really get the recording I dream of unless I make it myself, or suddenly develop a passion for jazz.  Not bloody likely.

[Wayner]

Wow, 7 pages allready!

I'm still in the middle on this one. I love both for different reasons and I accept both for what they are. I really like to run SS for about a week, then switch to Toob for another week, oscillating back and forth. To be honest, it really seems that the weather affects which amp I listen to. Both of my amps (that I switch back and forth) sound so very close, but the differences are real. The SS has better imaging to a slight degree, while the toob has a slicker midrange, almost buttery. I may have to also say that I might like some classical music on the Toob, but not always, depends on the band. And I usually prefer rock on the SS, but that also depends on who it is.

Ya, I know, I'm not much help.

Wayner 

[Ericus Rex]

Hey Turkey, that test you mentioned is very interesting!  I wonder though if you were actually comparing the mike's ability to record that sound to the natural sound.

[Ericus Rex]

As Iam not radical, in last case I can accept a SS amp, since it is Class A output, because without alot of heat there is no sound quality.

An engineer I respect greatly has said that Class A is a way of getting acceptable performance out of almost any amp design. It covers up a lot of sins.

On the other hand, a well-designed Class AB amp will outperform a Class A amp, be vastly more efficient, and be more reliable.
[/quote]

I don't know about that.  It seems to me if there are alot of "sins" in the design it would be unreliable by default.  Nelson Pass is very well respected among most, I would guess, and I own his Aleph 0s which has performed flawlessly for the 5 years I've owned it (knock on wood).  I would assume it's a good design with few, if any, sins.

As for performance of A vs. A/B, the Class A SS amps have been the only SS amps that have stayed in my system for any length of time.  On paper maybe A/B outperforms A but not to my ears, where I'd say it counts.

Can't argue with you about efficiency.  But what audiophile cares about efficiency when you've got great sound?