[K Shep]

I've built a system over the last year that sounds wonderful to my ear.  I started out with an integrated amp and then switched to seperates after two months.  I came down with the bug (upgraditis) and made a few changes along the way.  I have auditioned amps and preamps in different configurations and I tend to favor the SS amp tube preamp sound I heard at one of the listening sessions.  Now as I settle down and enjoy my equipment and accumulate music, I would like to hear others taste in gear.  Do you own a tube amp and use a SS preamp, are you an all SS guy, do you love the "tube sound" and what does that mean?  Let us know what type of gear you have in your set up.

Kirk

[mcullinan]

Tube pre, SS  (Class D amp) Listed in my signature. I love the sound. Very realistic. And very shaped by the tube pre... Thats my main system My others are SS all around and sound great too. In the end I prefer the tube pre/SS setup.
Mike

[K Shep]

Thanks Mike,

One of the characteristics I noticed as I changed gear in my system was brightness.  While playing a couple of CD's the vocal was harsh.  I Noticed this on 2 tracks that I enjoy listening to.  But as soon as the vocal kicked in I would turn the volume down, alow the passage to pass then turn the volume back up.  Moving to the current tube preamp I have in my system added syrup around the edges.  Softened the vocal, the 2 tracks I enjoy stand out because of this experience.  This is the best example I have of how tubes "work" in a system.  Or should I say how tubes work in my system?

Kirk

[Packfill]

Hi Kirk,
I have a high end SS system right now but I am also looking to address some of the hardness that I hear occasionally especially in the vocals.  Frankly I suspect that in many cases the "source" of the problem may be in the recording itself --need to experiment on friends' tubed systems.  Even if that's the case I'm willing to give up some accuracy for a more pleasing sound.  I also plan to attack this via the pre-amp.  Question:  Why did you settle on the CJ CT5?  Did you try other tubed pre-amps?
-Robert

Mike:  I see that you went with the Supratek--not quite as well known. How did you come to chose this pre-amp?

[K Shep]

Robert,

Before puchasing a preamp I auditioned Rogue, VTL and CJ.  I ended up going with a VTL TL-2.5 tube pre.  The VTL lived in my system for about one month.  I loved the 2.5, but I felt like I could capture a bit more if I upgraded.  So I looked around, listened to a Cary pre and I came across the CJ CT5 at one of my local shops (used).  I took it home and listened to it in my system and I was and still am blown away.  I settle on the CT5, because of the $ and once I listened to the CJ it was not moving out of my system for a while.

Kirk

[Pez]

Long story short, No preamp (well I do have a tube pre that I use for SACD), solid state amp for lows, and tubes for the highs.

In my experience the draw to solid state is its "Accuracy" and "Neutrality" and of course the power and dynamics that pretty much only a solid state amp is capable of producing on most loudspeakers (more on that later). I have yet to hear any solid state amp that is anywhere close to accurate in the way it conveys music or the essence of what the artist is trying to convey. They can sound pretty darn good, but ultimately miss something very very important to sound reproduction.

In my opinion tubes are far more accurate and while they do add warmth to the sound I wouldn't say they are coloring the sound in the sense that something is being added that shouldn't be there. A well designed tube amp is capable of excellent transients and extended high frequency sound. And depending on the setup they are capable of amazing dynamics (and a lot better microdynamics than solid state)

Obviously no amp design is perfect and tubes have their weaknesses. First they kinda suck in the low bass/ mid bass domain. Others may disagree, but even megabuck tube amps have softish bass. And Solid State has it's various weaknesses. Such as recessed midband, hyper exaggerated treble and nasal qualities.

So what do I do? Active biamping using a TomS modified DCX fed with a digital feed from my CDP. I use a solid state amp (don't laugh it sounds amazing) a QSC professional "nightclub" style amp. for my RM40s for everything lower than 300 hz and The Bella Extreme 3205 (highly upgraded) tube amp for everything above that. This allows the tube amp to be freed up to do what it does best, liquid mids and top end. It also allows for amazing dynamics since it's power isn't being zapped to produce 30hz bass drum thumps. As for the bottom end? Gut pounding, tight, musical bass.

[BobM]

I tried biamping, with tubes on the top and SS on the bottom. I've since come to the conclusion that
(a) it is very difficult to balance out 2 different styles of amps without an active crossover
(b) the passive crossover point in my speakers, at about 3K, is too high. Most of the midrange and treble fundamentals are still being driven by the SS amp. A lower crossover point at about 150Hz would be about right IMO.

So I've gone back to a SS amp and my tube pre. The homogenous nature of one amp definitely sounds better to me, and the tube pre helps with the bloom and naturalness.
Of course, when I play vinyl the signal also runs through tubes and it sounds glorious.
 

[woodsyi]

Good SS is good, bad SS is bad, good tube is good and bad tube is bad.  Moral of the story is that you can get good with any combination and you can get bad with any combination.  I use them both goodly.   

[Pez]

I tried biamping, with tubes on the top and SS on the bottom. I've since come to the conclusion that
(a) it is very difficult to balance out 2 different styles of amps without an active crossover
(b) the passive crossover point in my speakers, at about 3K, is too high. Most of the midrange and treble fundamentals are still being driven by the SS amp.

The biggest issue in your setup seems to be the passive crossover. biamping with a passive is sort of like not biamping at all.  You will hear a difference, but if you're going to do it, just go active, that way you can play a bit with the crossover point a bit (just make sure you don't blow a tweeter doing it!)

A lower crossover point at about 150Hz would be about right IMO.

I have gone as high as 500-600 hz with a solid state and the tonality still sounds very tube like without any negatvie effects. That said I prefer a crossover point around 300-400 hz in my system.

[chadh]

I tried biamping, with tubes on the top and SS on the bottom. I've since come to the conclusion that
(a) it is very difficult to balance out 2 different styles of amps without an active crossover
(b) the passive crossover point in my speakers, at about 3K, is too high. Most of the midrange and treble fundamentals are still being driven by the SS amp.

The biggest issue in your setup seems to be the passive crossover. biamping with a passive is sort of like not biamping at all.  You will hear a difference, but if you're going to do it, just go active, that way you can play a bit with the crossover point a bit (just make sure you don't blow a tweeter doing it!)

I don't understand this.  Why is biamping with a passive like not biamping at all?  There may be some attenuation prior to the amplifier due to a passive crossover, but with a well designed passive crossover this can be small.  Any insertion loss is likely to be largely irrelevant if you have enough gain in your system anyway.  Importantly, the passive crossover still ensures there's nothing between each driver and its channel of amplification, and this should be where most of the advantage lies.

As for varying the crossover point a bit: you can build either passive or active crossovers with variable crossover points.  Regardless of whether it's active or passive, the extra circuitry required to give you that flexibility will degrade the signal.  It's not clear that it's worth the tradeoff to be able to play with your crossover point.  Certainly, after you've done all of your experimentation to determine your optimal crossover point, you're only likely to improve performance by tearing out the part of the circuit that adjusts the crossover point.

Chad

[TheChairGuy]

I have auditioned amps and preamps in different configurations and I tend to favor the SS amp tube preamp sound I heard at one of the listening sessions.  Now as I settle down and enjoy my equipment and accumulate music, I would like to hear others taste in gear.  Do you own a tube amp and use a SS preamp, are you an all SS guy, do you love the "tube sound" and what does that mean?  Let us know what type of gear you have in your set up.

Kirk

Kirk,

Despite the flaws in reasoning...what has sounded best to me is a SS preamp and tube amp(s). 

I listen mostly to vinyl and boosting very feeble signals seems best with solid state I've found. I've also found the best signal is the shortest.....particularly for feeble cartridge voltages.  So, my preamp is a full featured with phono stage.

But, for amps I use (tube voltage-regulated) tube mono's.  They are 'taut' sounding unlike many tube amps....so it gives me that bass control/sound like solid state with lushness and presence that only tubes seem to give off.

The 'flaw in reasoning' is that most engineers and alike will tell you that if tubes are to be used in a system....they best be at the preamp level so that the solid state amp is left to drive demanding loads like speakers best.  But, I have found exactly the opposite (at least with my minimal load and minimal crossover speakers in a 14 x 16' room at barely medium decibels)

So, keep an open mind to the opposite of what you are now thinking.  Many others have reached the same conclusion as I have and are in nirvana now 

John

[BobM]

If I could design a speaker to be used specifically for biamping it would probably work out better than me trying to use my current speakers with an active crossover. I'm not trying to change the crossover point on these, and as a result I didn't get the full benefit of the tube amp in the mids and top end. A lower crossover point would have been needed and my speakers would not be able to support that. Plus the relative balance and power of each amp were drastically different and it is not easy to get that balance right at normal listening levels, nevertheless at all listening levels.

Unfortunately the tube amp I used, although very good, was not able to control the woofers on my speaker very well. It just wasn't a synergistic match in my case. I think you have to have speakers and amps that work well together for this to be valuable and I wasn't into changing my speakers to make this work (I like them just fine as is with my SS amp and tube pre).

[Pez]

I don't understand this.  Why is biamping with a passive like not biamping at all?  There may be some attenuation prior to the amplifier due to a passive crossover, but with a well designed passive crossover this can be small.  Any insertion loss is likely to be largely irrelevant if you have enough gain in your system anyway.  Importantly, the passive crossover still ensures there's nothing between each driver and its channel of amplification, and this should be where most of the advantage lies.

It's different for a very important reason, it doesn't eliminate the passive crossover. Regardless of how well it's designed it is zapping the power from your amp. changing the impedence curve of your speakers, and adding a lot of coloration and phase shift (so will an active but to a far lesser degree).  Passive biamping will improve the sound, don't get me wrong, but to say it's simply a difference involving attenuation nothing can be further from the truth.

An active crossover opens up a world of possibilities. Some (not all) allow for time alignment, selectable slopes (1st order, 2nd order, 3rd etc etc) as well as room bass EQing or any amount of room mode EQing or driver anomoly EQing. A few of these problems can be solved with a passive crossover, but why bother? You are adding components to the signal path and the more there is the more likelihood of dirtier sound.

As for varying the crossover point a bit: you can build either passive or active crossovers with variable crossover points.  Regardless of whether it's active or passive, the extra circuitry required to give you that flexibility will degrade the signal.  It's not clear that it's worth the tradeoff to be able to play with your crossover point.  Certainly, after you've done all of your experimentation to determine your optimal crossover point, you're only likely to improve performance by tearing out the part of the circuit that adjusts the crossover point.

Chad

Again the difference is what components you are adding to the signal path. A pot for crossover frequency variation is far from ideal. An active digital crossover will cause much less signal degradation than a passive component.  Full active is just plain superior in every respect (other than ease of use and cost of course. )

[Pez]

Sorry for the double post, but I have this great article from TNT I've had for a while that is incredibly relevant to the whole passive/active discussion we are having (albeit somewhat off topic to the original post, it is relevant to the conversation!) 

http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro1_e.html

As an editorial side note by yours truly, while important and unavoidable sometimes, passive crossovers have become a major selling point for a lot of manufacturers. Including some on this site. While I do have an appreciation for the virtues of a well designed passive crossover, I cringe at the idea that manufacturers like Wilson, YG accoustics,  B&W, etc etc, get away with espousing the virtues of there cutting edge passive crossover. One manufacturer goes as far as to incase the entire crossover in epoxy so as to "prevent patent and design infringement" While I'm sure many talented designers with a tremendous knowledge/experience base poured the better part of months into the conception of such designs, IT'S STILL A PASSIVE CROSSOVER!!! Yes, I bet their passive sounds great, but it will not sound as good as a well designed active setup.

[Ericus Rex]

The only way to go if you're going SS at all...IMHO.

[Pez]

The only way to go if you're going SS at all...IMHO.

Just curious, why?

[K Shep]

I have auditioned amps and preamps...
Kirk

Kirk,

Despite the flaws in reasoning...what has sounded best to me is a SS preamp and tube amp(s). 

So, keep an open mind to the opposite of what you are now thinking.  Many others have reached the same conclusion as I have and are in nirvana now 

John

Thanks John,

I have auditioned the Parasound JC2 pre and Ayre's K-5x pre, both SS and both sound great in the system I listened to.  If I were to veer towards a Solid State pre those two options are were I would start, because of there availablity to me and because I've heard them and enjoyed what I heard. 

Kirk

[zybar]

Better yet, go tubes for amplification and ss for your preamp.   aa

I am doing this and it sounds wonderful. 

George

[chadh]

Sorry for the double post, but I have this great article from TNT I've had for a while that is incredibly relevant to the whole passive/active discussion we are having (albeit somewhat off topic to the original post, it is relevant to the conversation!) 

http://www.tnt-audio.com/casse/active_speakers_intro1_e.html

As an editorial side note by yours truly, while important and unavoidable sometimes, passive crossovers have become a major selling point for a lot of manufacturers. Including some on this site. While I do have an appreciation for the virtues of a well designed passive crossover, I cringe at the idea that manufacturers like Wilson, YG accoustics,  B&W, etc etc, get away with espousing the virtues of there cutting edge passive crossover. One manufacturer goes as far as to incase the entire crossover in epoxy so as to "prevent patent and design infringement" While I'm sure many talented designers with a tremendous knowledge/experience base poured the better part of months into the conception of such designs, IT'S STILL A PASSIVE CROSSOVER!!! Yes, I bet their passive sounds great, but it will not sound as good as a well designed active setup.

Pez,

From a cursory glance, that article seems to argue the importance of using line level crossovers.  But that doesn't mean that the crossover has to be active!  You can have a perfectly good passive crossover at line level, and it will have the same sorts of virtues as an active crossover.  The system you have is truly "active", in the sense that each driver is attached directly to an amplifier, without any passive devices in the way to mess around with the impedance.  However, with the passive line level crossover, you don't need all the additional circuitry to generate gain.  Nor do you need an additional (potentially noisy) power supply.  In other words, the passive line level crossover is far simpler and (likely) far more transparent than any active crossover ever will be.

The problems to which the article refers are not related to the fact that the majority of crossovers are passive, but that they are placed between the amplifier and the driver.

Chad

[zybar]

Thanks John,

I have auditioned the Parasound JC2 pre and Ayre's K-5x pre, both SS and both sound great in the system I listened to.  If I were to veer towards a Solid State pre those two options are were I would start, because of there availablity to me and because I've heard them and enjoyed what I heard. 

Kirk

The JC 2 is a very good preamp and I am seriously considering buying one after having an extended audition for the last month or so.  Compared to my Plinius M8 (which is also excellent), the JC 2 has much better bass (especially in the lower registers) and is sound stage champ.  It is close to the M8 in the highs and mid-range and both have all the functionality that I need in a dedicated 2 channel system.

George