Tubes - better or just a different sonic flavor than solid state?

Niteshade · « **Reply #240 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 01:28 pm »

Transparency: It is important to have a starting point. Dual trace scopes can provide electronic measurements of a system's trueness to a degree by comparing input and output signals. Scopes don't have ears, but it's a step in the right direction. I firmly believe we all know how certain things are supposed to sound. There will be variations and that's unavoidable.

Only those who do the recording for shows, music, etc.. have any control over the recordings' quality. We do not. Therefore, the quality of a recording is irrelevant in reference to your sound system. Transparency is for transparency's sake- for better or for worse. If it's bad, then a transparent system will keep it that way.

I 100% agree that what you like is all that counts. I'm stating that it's important to have some reference, a starting point. If this were not true, it would be very difficult to judge performance.

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #241 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 01:35 pm »

Great last page, gents

It really does boil down to the following for me....an all solid state system fails to give me goosebumps. It's often pleasant, or spectacularly powerful, or has resounding bass, or some other facet of sound...but all solid state fails (generally) fails to leave an impression on me.

Maybe I'm just in love with euphonic coloration, glossing over the 'real' music or maybe it's something else. I'd let the techies have at it at this point, except there is little commonality of thought around tubes even with the electrical engineers & wonks on it.

Paired with digital technologies, I am generally less impressed with and all solid state system.

Put tubes in there somewhere and the door seems to swing open and as often as not, I get goosebumps (seriously, chills and excitement when listening to music). It seems relatively less important to have tubes listening to vinyl (dual mono pre and amplification seems enough to mostly do justice to it...with tight voltage regulation) than it does with digital technologies. Tho, of the last 5 years, even the need for tubes with today's digital technologies seems to be fading as it has improved sonically at incredibly cheap prices

For me, (powerful, twin mono) tube amps leave that accent on the music that leaves me goosebumps. If I wanted to do without tube amps (to save on the hassle, heat, cost, etc) I'd likely opt for tube outputs on my CDP/DVD/DAC for that special elan that I crave.

As a few have said already....whatever you are listening to, if it gives you pleasure, continue at it

But, 3 years ago I poo-poo'ed tube gear as soft, silly, pricey, hassle-prone...but then I met Mr. & Mr.'s Dukane (amps) and sold my well regarded mono amps 20 minutes after hearing them. Maybe it just coincided with hearing losses at age 43

but I've been happier with my music since that switch.

Regards, John

Niteshade · « **Reply #242 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 01:36 pm »

I could be wrong on this- but I have a feeling this tube vs. transistor subject actually goes into what variety of components makes a good reference system. From the reference system sprouts variations.

Being different doesn't mean better or worse. It's simply different.

Ya know...who wants vanilla or chocolate all the time?

What about a twist, strawberry, a banana split?

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #243 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 02:02 pm »

Quote from: Ericus Rex on 14 Apr 2009, 11:57 am

I put salt and pepper on my eggs, thus changing their natural flavor, why can't I change the 'natural' sound of the recording to my own liking?

Very well said. Thank you.

The following is a bunch of useless personal opinion:

Every piece of equipment in every one of our system has an effect on what reaches our ears. The room treatments (or lack thereof), the ICs we choose, the quality of electricity all has an effect on the sound. The driver choices, the speaker alignments and configurations (OB, IB, boxed, ported, horn etc..) all have an effect. The type and style of crossover network, or lack thereof places a roll in the sound. We are all searching for what pleases us, in our rooms, for the type of music we prefer to listen to. How MUCH salt do YOU put on YOUR eggs?
The holy grail of music reproduction that's indistinguishable from the real thing is a futile attempt and will never happen.

To take this one step further, I have digital tone controls upstream of my tubes, and I'm not afraid to use them.

Bob

iGrant · « **Reply #244 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 02:22 pm »

Quote from: doug s. on 14 Apr 2009, 12:41 pm

blair, this is a trick question. i have tried to discuss this wery point, before, also when talking about tubes, hmmm...

here's the issue - the recording itself "may not" sound like the music that was being played, when the recording was made. (in fact, it most likely does not sound like the music that was being recorded.) so, for me, the question is not whether you want your system to sound exactly like the recording, but whether you want it to sound exactly like what was being recorded. big difference, imo.

so, if tube gear (or any specific gear, for that matter), can get you closer to what was being recorded, as opposed to getting closer to the recording itself, does that make tube gear coloured? i, too, walue transparency and detail. i wanna hear every last gnat fart. but, i wanna hear it like the gnat really farts in real life, not an exact duplicate of the recording of the gnat's fart!

doug s.

Quote from: Niteshade on 14 Apr 2009, 11:27 am
Nobody answered my question!

At least directly. It wasn't meant to be rhetorical. It has nothing to do with amplification specifically. Do you like coloration or not? How did you achieve your specific type of coloration or get rid of it? Did the coloration from something actually make your system sound neutral (AKA baking soda & vinegar)???

Quote from: Niteshade on 13 Apr 2009, 01:04 pm
I've got a good question for you:

Do you want your sound system to make your music sound better or to sound exactly as it's recorded? I'm not talking about just the amplifier! This is an all-encompassing question that deals with everything from the source (CD/Record, etc...) to the speakers.

My personal taste: I like transparency. If the recording stinks, so be it! I want to hear it for better or for worse. If it's GOOD, I want to hear every little nuance within it. I want my entire setup to be able to extract every minute detail without modifying it. This is important to me.

Doug. you are chasing the holy grail of audio reproduction, we are still many years (if ever) away from accurately reproducing even a single struck 'middle C' piano note. Just too many variables, starting with not having a perfect microphone/mic pre-amp/recording medium, ending with your room acoustics and everything else in between. I've worked on a patent for achieving this that is nearing it's expiry and still not even close, the closest we can realistically expect (for now) is to reproduce what the mastering engineer heard.

I simply turn on my imagination and imagination boosters

to get me the rest of the way, much cheaper and lots of fun, especially when you open your eyes and see the glow of the tubes.

Cheers,
Ian

launche · « **Reply #245 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 04:15 pm »

Bless the souls who walk down these paths, you are more committed than me.
The moment I started over thinking it, it became less about the music, less enjoyable and a much less productive endeavor.

doug s. · « **Reply #246 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:05 pm »

Quote from: Niteshade on 13 Apr 2009, 01:04 pm

I've got a good question for you:

Do you want your sound system to make your music sound better or to sound exactly as it's recorded? I'm not talking about just the amplifier! This is an all-encompassing question that deals with everything from the source (CD/Record, etc...) to the speakers.

My personal taste: I like transparency. If the recording stinks, so be it! I want to hear it for better or for worse. If it's GOOD, I want to hear every little nuance within it. I want my entire setup to be able to extract every minute detail without modifying it. This is important to me.

Quote from: Niteshade on 14 Apr 2009, 11:27 am

Nobody answered my question!

At least directly. It wasn't meant to be rhetorical. It has nothing to do with amplification specifically. Do you like coloration or not? How did you achieve your specific type of coloration or get rid of it? Did the coloration from something actually make your system sound neutral (AKA baking soda & vinegar)???

Quote from: doug s. on 14 Apr 2009, 12:41 pm

blair, this is a trick question. i have tried to discuss this wery point, before, also when talking about tubes, hmmm...

here's the issue - the recording itself "may not" sound like the music that was being played, when the recording was made. (in fact, it most likely does not sound like the music that was being recorded.) so, for me, the question is not whether you want your system to sound exactly like the recording, but whether you want it to sound exactly like what was being recorded. big difference, imo.

so, if tube gear (or any specific gear, for that matter), can get you closer to what was being recorded, as opposed to getting closer to the recording itself, does that make tube gear coloured? i, too, walue transparency and detail. i wanna hear every last gnat fart. but, i wanna hear it like the gnat really farts in real life, not an exact duplicate of the recording of the gnat's fart!

doug s.

Quote from: iGrant on 14 Apr 2009, 02:22 pm

Doug. you are chasing the holy grail of audio reproduction, we are still many years (if ever) away from accurately reproducing even a single struck 'middle C' piano note. Just too many variables, starting with not having a perfect microphone/mic pre-amp/recording medium, ending with your room acoustics and everything else in between. I've worked on a patent for achieving this that is nearing it's expiry and still not even close, the closest we can realistically expect (for now) is to reproduce what the mastering engineer heard.

I simply turn on my imagination and imagination boosters to get me the rest of the way, much cheaper and lots of fun, especially when you open your eyes and see the glow of the tubes.

Cheers,
Ian

hi ian,

no, i am not chasing the holy grail of audio reproduction. (well, mebbe yust a little!

) what i am doing is simply trying to explain why someone might prefer tubes to solid-state (or analog to digital). those who think chasing the holy grail by trying to exactly reproduce the recording are, perhaps, more likely to be in the solid state and/or digital camp, and, imo they might be barking up the wrong tree.

i know one cannot exactly reproduce what is being recorded. but you can get closer to this (imo), by trying to reproduce what is being recorded instead of trying to reproduce the recording itself...

this is, i suspect, why so many folks like tubes and winyl: the ewent itself, not the recording, may be better reproduced w/tubes and winyl...

imo, and ymmv,

doug s.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #247 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:09 pm »

What's a "ewent"?

mcgsxr · « **Reply #248 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:13 pm »

yust Doug's spelling intricacies showing again, I think it is event!

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #249 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:21 pm »

Yip, I think you're correct Mark. Thanks for the translation. Based on his post I'm convinced he's doing drugs, for a minute there I was thinking I needed a small dose of similar medication to understand the line of reasoning.
There are a few of us digital fans who are grounded in reality.

Bob

doug s. · « **Reply #250 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:34 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 14 Apr 2009, 07:21 pm

Yip, I think you're correct Mark. Thanks for the translation. Based on his post I'm convinced he's doing drugs, for a minute there I was thinking I needed a small dose of similar medication to understand the line of reasoning.
There are a few of us digital fans who are grounded in reality.

Bob

you don't think there is a difference in trying to exactly reproduce the recording vs trying to exactly reproduce the ewent?

you think one has to be on drugs to think there is a difference? s'ok, different strokes for different folks.

personally, i happen to be able to enjoy digital and solid state. personally, i happen to think that excellent digital and solid state is likely closer to the recording than tube or winyl. personally, i think excellent winyl and tubes is likely closer to the ewent itself. i have no way of knowing, it's yust a hunch. and i happen to enjoy winyl & tubes better than digital or s/s. of course, it could simply be all the drugs...

doug s.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #251 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:43 pm »

No, no, no Doug...
What got my feathers ruffled was your generalized comment:
"those who think chasing the holy grail by trying to exactly reproduce the recording are, perhaps, more likely to be in the solid state and/or digital camp, and, imo they might be barking up the wrong tree."

Like, I don't know.... only those who have been "enlightened" and are using reproduction methods other than SS/digital are of sound enough mind not to be searching for the unreachable grail and SS/digital people are somehow deliriously walking blindly in the woods forever dammed to Hell searching for something that will forever elude them.

Maybe I just took it the wrong way, or simply misunderstood.

Bob

Tyson · « **Reply #252 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 07:51 pm »

For me, it's simple - with tubes a recording sounds more like a person, a real, live person. With SS, it always sounds less convincingly "real", and more like a recording (ie, slightly artificial).

Which begs the question - maybe transparency and neutrality are not the top 2 goals for hifi? Maybe musicality and naturalness should be first, with neutrality and transparency as secondary (but still very important).

Or, put it another way, can a system reproduce a song so that it sounds better than the original recording? 2 years ago I would have said that is absurd, but now I'm not so sure. I truly believe that a lot of things are stripped out during the modern recording processes, and tubes actually add back in some of the natural sound of real life.

Which means, IMO, that tubes are NOT completely true to the original recording. In fact, they make it better.

toobluvr · « **Reply #253 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:01 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 14 Apr 2009, 07:43 pm

No, no, no Doug...
What got my feathers ruffled was your generalized comment:
"those who think chasing the holy grail by trying to exactly reproduce the recording are, perhaps, more likely to be in the solid state and/or digital camp, and, imo they might be barking up the wrong tree."

Like, I don't know.... only those who have been "enlightened" and are using reproduction methods other than SS/digital are of sound enough mind not to be searching for the unreachable grail and SS/digital people are somehow deliriously walking blindly in the woods forever dammed to Hell searching for something that will forever elude them.

Maybe I just took it the wrong way, or simply misunderstood.

Bob

Like I said in an earlier post.........
Who cares what anyone thinks, and how they say it, and why does it really matter anyway?

No offense but these discussions / arguements are tiring, pedantic, academic and never get anywhere.

Noone is ever gonna be converted. You believe what you believe, he believes what he believes. So what? Plenty of room for everyone.

Don't get insulted....don't get peeved.....don't get misunderstood. Just let it go. Just crack a beer....settle back in front of your system......listen to music...... and most importantly, ENJOY!!!!!

Sorry if I've offended anyone.

Tyson · « **Reply #254 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:07 pm »

Actually, this thread has been enormously helpful to me, it has really helped me to clarify in my own mind why I find the sound of tubes so appealing.

Bob in St. Louis · « **Reply #255 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:09 pm »

Well Mr. Toobluvr, I'm doing the beer thing, no worries there. I just had to raz Doug a bit. I'm not worked up, I just couldn't let that comment go unanswered. Yes, there are several very active threads right now that are beating the HELL out of that dead horse. I think the sucker's looking steamrolled by now.

As far as enjoying is concerned, Eva Cassidy has been entertaining me (via a tube amp) for a few hours now. Between that and the Budweiser, I'm feeling very relaxed and calm. No panties in a bunch here.

It's all good my Brothers.

Bob

toobluvr · « **Reply #256 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:26 pm »

Quote from: Bob in St. Louis on 14 Apr 2009, 08:09 pm

Well Mr. Toobluvr, I'm doing the beer thing, no worries there. I just had to raz Doug a bit. I'm not worked up, I just couldn't let that comment go unanswered. Yes, there are several very active threads right now that are beating the HELL out of that dead horse. I think the sucker's looking steamrolled by now.
As far as enjoying is concerned, Eva Cassidy has been entertaining me (via a tube amp) for a few hours now. Between that and the Budweiser, I'm feeling very relaxed and calm. No panties in a bunch here.

It's all good my Brothers.

Bob

Toobs? Beer? Eva Cassidy? I think we are muy simpatico, Bob!

Cheers!

All you need now is a vinyl setup. So mosie on over here and get embroiled in yet another tired debate on vinyl vs. digital!

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=66985.0

Six pages of beating yet another dead horse!!
UGH!!

hmen · « **Reply #257 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:34 pm »

Maybe we can argue about tubes & beer vs. SS & beer.

toobluvr · « **Reply #258 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 08:58 pm »

Quote from: hmen on 14 Apr 2009, 08:34 pm

Maybe we can argue about tubes & beer vs. SS & beer.

Tubes + beer will give a richer, rounder and more full bodied flavor.
SS + beer will give a flatter, leaner and drier flavor.

rajacat · « **Reply #259 on:** 14 Apr 2009, 09:03 pm »

Cheapest tweak of all. aa