[Marbles]

Jay,

Peter gave up on passive pre's because his amp has an input impedence of 8 Kohms.

This is a very tough load for any passive to overcome.

The closest I know that can do it well would be the Bent Transformer based passive pre TX102, that is rated down to 10 Kohm if you don't use the +6 db mode.

I use this pre with the 10 Kohm rated Kraft 400's with very good results IMO.

[ABEX]

I use a FT AUDIO LW-1 Passive Pre and I noticed the same thing.It kind of lifts a veil over the music which allows for greater transpancy.The LW-1 also has what is refered to as an X-Coupler that allows for greater Amp matching.They probably will have a Remote Add-On soon so that is not a great drawback if people wish to have that capability.

After that you have Placate Passives which are known to be good.In expensive Creeks are there for the offering also.If you are thinking of trying one they are worth the purchase.I think once you go Passive you never go back,but there are tradeoffs also.Passive's are known to take away Dynamics,but that is system dependent I think because I do not feel they have in my system setup.They can be good for Bass heavy speaker's I think also.

Tubes are a hassle to own of what I understand and unless you know what you are getting into I would venture into SS amps instead.There are great Tube Amps I'd love to have like Jadis and Atma-Sphere's though.

I have a Q about them in the next thread.

[Marbles]

We used the FT LW-1 at Marblefest on the EAR2 and afterward Ehider metioned to me that the reason that Peter felt he didn't get as good as bass as he was used to was that we used a passive pre.

FWIW, the Bent now has a remote option.  This is a mechanical motor that turns the volume spindle via a pulley or belt and should not impact the sound at all.

[Jay S]

Hi Rob,

Thanks for the clarification.  I had missed out that the pre is now an active pre.  The input impedance of the eAR is pretty low... I'd have to be quite careful about system matching there.... I'm quite happy with my Joule tube pre but hearing Guan's passive made me wonder.  It would be fun to do a comparison at some point to really see how transparent my Joule is.  

I wonder how Peter's active pre would compare to the new IRD LLP.  Both claim very low distortion and initial feedback on the LLP seems to be quite positive.  

Abex,

Yes, I'd read great things about the Placette.  It was on my list - I was scouring Audiogon for a few different pres and the first one to come up at the price I was willing to pay was the Joule; I figured it would give me a bit more flexibility given that it is active.  And, the feedback on the Joule is very positive.  A comparison vs a feedback (esp given that my amp has such low input impedance) would be interesting.

[nathanm]

Considering JayS' comment I would suggest that if you want neither tube nor solid state then your only choice is a grammaphone!  I saw one in an antique shop a few weeks back for $175.  The needle on that thing looked like something you could sew leather with!

I totally agree with the comment that our eyes are more sensitive than our ears.  Well I know mine are.  I am about as critical about CRT performance as some audiophiles are about their cables.  I can see minute changes in color and brightness moreso than changes in how a song sounds. For this same reason I prefer tube gear - it is pleasing to the eye! McIntosh amps are some of the few that I can think of that present transistor amps in the style of tube amps.  That open kind of look with stuff sticking out the top of the case.  In SS everyone pretty much has a black box hiding in the back and then they put on this glorious facade of a faceplate.  Or just a honking thick faceplate!  The Odyssey monoblock amps I got to see in person are indeed imposing with their giant swaths of anodized aluminum, which is good, but that font sucks.

I've always assumed that SS was 'accurate', 'neutral' and 'clean' and all it did was amplify the signal whereas tubes were used for effects.  This is especially obvious in guitar amps.  There's many solid state emulation devices that attempt to mimic the sound of a tube amp, and some do rather well; but it's just an imitation of course.  But guitar amp tubes are run differently than tubes in hifi gear and the difference is not quite as noticeable to me when the signal is not overdriven.  Still, in my limited exposure to clean tube amplification I can say I am more in favor of that sound for whatever reason.  I can't quite describe what the difference is, though. Perhaps warmth and smoothness, whatever that means!  

I know I will be flubbing the technical bits here, so please correct me; but I think the "tube sound" comes from voltage sagging via the rectifier.  I have a SS guitar pedal and it sounds MUCH better when you feed it less voltage than it's supposed to have.  I also have heard that some pedals sound better when the battery is dying.  I guess that since the circuit cannot keep up the waveforms are smoothed out.

From an electronics point of view SS is just all around better.  It runs cooler and more reliably, it doesn't need to warm up - it has every practical and logical attribute going for it, and yet the ear still seems to prefer "coloration" "distortion" or any number of tonal changes to the signal.  Tubes seem to not make any practical sense, and you'd think it would be a dead technology, but we still like them for all their faults.

[audiojerry]

very true, Nathan.
Actually, solid state takes longer to warm up than tubes, if you are referring to when each is ready to play before sounding its best.

[Hantra]

The Odyssey monoblock amps I got to see in person are indeed imposing with their giant swaths of anodized aluminum, which is good, but that font sucks

Hahahaha!  That's got to be one of the funniest things I've read here.  They sound good, but I'll agree on the font.

B

[audioengr]

Passive line-stages can be tricky, particularly when driven from tubes.  It is actually the output impedance combined with the cable capacitance that causes roll-off, not the input impedance.

I recommend to my customers to try passive only if you have a strong SS driver at the driving end and use very low capacitance cables.  If you do this, it can be very very good.

[DVV]

I had an interesting experience lately in the whole tubes vs solid state debate... how about NEITHER!!??     I heard a passive pre at Guan's place last weekend (my first time to hear a passive) and the music seemed very natural and "right."  When we stucka tube pre in the system it just seemed to add an opaque layer over the music.  I don't mean this to be a criticism of tubes (as I myself have a tube preamp).  But, I think that we have an option to not have either tubes or solid state.  The longer the audio chain gets, the more opportunity there is to distort/color the sound and get further away from what is recorded on the CD or record.  

If I weren't so lazy, I'd check out the passive pre (no remote) that Peter has designed to match up with his eAR amps.

Er, um, Jay? Pray tell, where does Guan's passive get all the amperes for the speakers?

OK, so you want to substitute the preamp for a passive volume pot, but that won't move any speaker. Hence, you still need a power amp, and that can still be tube, solid state or a bas ... er, hybrid.

Cheers,
DVV

[Jay S]

Hi Nathan and Dejan,

You guys got me... you need to have some sort of amplification in order for the source to drive the speakers.  What I was referring to, though, was not the overall chain, but for a decision made for a particular component of the chain.  Therefore, provided you want to have a preamp, then you can avoid tubes and SS by getting a passive pre.  

As audioengineer stated, passives can be tricky to match in a system.  Early on in my audio journey I was thinking of getting a Placette passive pre with a remote, but decided that an active pre was a safer choice.  

In terms of my own personal choices, I got the Joule tube pre since it is said to be able to drive amps quite easily and is said to be very transparent and musical.  I got the eAR digital amp since I wanted to try to blend many of the strengths of tube and SS amps.  Bottom line, as many of us, I am quite happy but I am still looking for opportunities to further improve the sound!!!  It never ends!!    

Cheers,

- Jay

[DVV]

...It never ends!!    

Cheers,

- Jay

It's not supposed to.

Cheers,
DVV

[KevinW]

I have to say that I really love the tube sound.  Music sounds so much more like the real thing with tubes, vs solid state.  Imaging is better, which contributes significantly to the illusion of reality.  While all the solid state amps I have heard (including expensive Krell) have a distinctive harshness to the sound that I have never heard on tubes.  Call me sensitive if you will, but that is my experience.

 I have also not noticed any problems with rolled off sound in the highs or bass, provided that the tubes are matched with appropriate speakers.  Some speakers are difficult loads for tubes to drive... because they are designed for solid state amps.  But when matched with the right speaker, tubes are heaven.

FWIW, the concept of even vs. odd harmonic distortion makes very good sense to my personal music processor (e.g. brain+ears).  I also don't think it is possible to make solid state amp sound like a top-notch tube amp.  With a mediocre tube amp, perhaps this is possible.  

The greatest thing about tube amps, is that cheap tube amps can sound really good.  For example the Antique Sound Labs Wave-8 sounds really amazing for $240/pair.  There are a lot of very happy owners of these amps.  I don't think that any solid state amp under $1k can compare in sweetness of sound, given the right pair of tube-friendly speakers.

kevin whilden
solar hifi
http://www.solarhifi.com

[DVV]

I have to say that I really love the tube sound.  Music sounds so much more like the real thing with tubes, vs solid state.  Imaging is better, which contributes significantly to the illusion of reality.  While all the solid state amps I have heard (including expensive Krell) have a distinctive harshness to the sound that I have never heard on tubes.  Call me sensitive if you will, but that is my experience.

 I have also not noticed any problems with rolled off sound in the highs or bass, provided that the tubes are matched with appropriate speakers.  Some speakers are difficult loads for tubes to drive... because they are designed for solid state amps.  But when matched with the right speaker, tubes are heaven.

Matching tubes to speakers? By extension, tube audio is limited in its drive capability and requires special or particular speakers to really work. Wouldn't you call that a limiting factor? At least, compared to competenetly (which does NOT necessarily mean outrageously expensive) solid state gear, which is incomparably more load insensitive.

This is one of my problems with tube audio - it all but forces me to buy a certain type of speaker if I am to have any real dynamics at all, and I have natural tendency towards resisting being forced into anything.

FWIW, the concept of even vs. odd harmonic distortion makes very good sense to my personal music processor (e.g. brain+ears).  I also don't think it is possible to make solid state amp sound like a top-notch tube amp.  With a mediocre tube amp, perhaps this is possible.  

The greatest thing about tube amps, is that cheap tube amps can sound really good.  For example the Antique Sound Labs Wave-8 sounds really amazing for $240/pair.  There are a lot of very happy owners of these amps.  I don't think that any solid state amp under $1k can compare in sweetness of sound, given the right pair of tube-friendly speakers.

kevin whilden
solar hifi

I agree tube audio also does not necessarily need to be outlandishly expensive to perform well, but in the longer run, it does come out more expensive. Remember that after about 100 hours of operation, most tubes start to permanently change their characteristics. This means one has to retube every so often; in my own case, since the audio is turned on 12 hours a day at least, I'd need to retube every month or so, and on a yearly basis, this starts being expensive in addition to being a hassle.

Cheers,
DVV

[Nikko]

There was a time, not long ago, when I was firmly in the transistor camp. Why would anyone put up with all the idiosyncrasies of tube gear, I said to myself. The heat, the expense, the rolled off highs and flabby bass..etc.etc. In fact I never had any interest in even listening to tube gear. But then I did listen and now there's no turning back. IMO, the fact that I can now heat my home by simply powering up my amp is a bonus.  

[Dan Banquer]

One of the reasons I will not have a manufacturers forum is that I have the freedom to speak out as an indiviual on subjects such as this. For the past ten years I have witnessed "high End" audio sink into the depths of absurdity, and most of the posts I have seen on this thread and elsewhere, show exactly that. If I repeat my self from an earlier post on this thread it's because the message bares repeating, and it needs to be repeated because of the massive amount of misinformation most of us have been subjected to.
I am convinced that most people go to tubes for the following reasons, most of which are correctable.
Reason One: After looking at many peoples pictures of their stereo set ups I have noticed a near total lack of acoustic room treatment, especially behind the loudspeakers where it is needed most. Acoustically treating the back wall behind the speakers deadens the reflections of the rear wall and reduces the acoustical "smearing" of the rear wall reflections.  The technique is called live end dead end. It's been in use in recording studios for years and countless speaker designers recommend it, including Brian Cheney of VMPS. The practice of going to tube amplifiers instead of using this classic technique is a result of ignorant consumer critics who aren't smart enough to listen or practice good and well proven advice.
Using tube amplifiers instead of doing this produces the folowing. The distortion of the tube equipment "masks" the rear wall reflections and can make listening in some respects less obnoxious. The rolled of frequency response on the top end that is typical of tube equipment reduces the smearing due to the rolled off response. The net result to you the consumer is money flying out of your wallet for a decrease in performance and high maintenance costs. At the web site www.audioperfectionist.com   Journal number two outlines this problem and on page 29 gives materials you can use that have even take into account the Wife Acceptance Factor.
Reason number two. In all probability most of you listen to pop music for most of your listening. Pop music has had a long history of being some of the most heavily processed music. For a more detailed explanation I recommend my article that is on www.audioholics.com and at  www.zero-distortion.com called Current Trends in the Recording Format
Arena. My suggestion to all of you is put on some classical music and see how your system responds. If it stops shrieking at you, don't blame your eqipment, blame the producers and the people involved in the recording of most of pop music.
Reason number three: The shreiking metal dome tweeter syndrome. To date I have yet to hear one of these things work properly. Most of them ring like crazy. If you have a speaker that uses on of these horrific devices get rid of the speaker or if possible get rid of the tweeter.
All for now folks. I will not shut up on this subject, and I don't care how much crap comes my way on this subject. I will continue to speak out.
The marketing of "high end" wire is next on my list.

[DVV]

One of the reasons I will not have a manufacturers forum is that I have the freedom to speak out as an indiviual on subjects such as this. For the past ten years I have witnessed "high End" audio sink into the depths of absurdity, and most of the posts I have seen on this thread and elsewhere, show exactly that. If I repeat my self from an earlier post on this thread it's because the message bares repeating, and it needs to be repeated because of the massive amount of misinformation most of us have been subjected to.
I am convinced that most people go to tubes for the following reasons, most of which are correctable.

Now we're talking!

Reason One: After looking at many peoples pictures of their stereo set ups I have noticed a near total lack of acoustic room treatment, especially behind the loudspeakers where it is needed most. Acoustically treating the back wall behind the speakers deadens the reflections of the rear wall and reduces the acoustical "smearing" of the rear wall reflections.  The technique is called live end dead end. It's been in use in recording studios for years and countless speaker designers recommend it, including Brian Cheney of VMPS. The practice of going to tube amplifiers instead of using this classic technique is a result of ignorant consumer critics who aren't smart enough to listen or practice good and well proven advice.
Using tube amplifiers instead of doing this produces the folowing. The distortion of the tube equipment "masks" the rear wall reflections and can make listening in some respects less obnoxious. The rolled of frequency response on the top end that is typical of tube equipment reduces the smearing due to the rolled off response. The net result to you the consumer is money flying out of your wallet for a decrease in performance and high maintenance costs. At the web site www.audioperfectionist.com   Journal number two outlines this problem and on page 29 gives materials you can use that have even take into account the Wife Acceptance Factor.

Let me add one more thing here. It's a neat little trick I've been discussing with James Bongiorno. "Common wisdom" has it that for "perfect alignment" your ears should be in a straight perfectly horizontal line to the tweeter. Well, just for the hell of it, try lifting your speakers (if you can) so that the ear is in line with the center of the bass driver, and that the tweeter is above the "ideal" point. This in fact emulates your seating position in a say jazz or folk club far better than otherwise, unless you are one of the performers. You might be surprised, nay, shocked at what happens.

Do this after you have done what Dan has suggested, which is to acoustically treat at least the back planes behind the speakers, and you will hear some drastic improvements. In case you are worried what will happen to your bass if you own a bass reflex systems with a backwards firing tuning port, worry not, bass will not be smeared, if anything, it will be less overblown, more coherent and better integrated than before. Of course, there's always the danger that you might not like your speakers any more ...

Since a good preacher man does what he preaches, else he's a bigot, my speakers are aligned so that my ears are almost perfectly in horizontal line to the bass drivers - and I own a 3 way system, so there's the 5" midrange driver above the 10" bass and below the 1" dome tweeter. This places the tweeter approximately 2 feet above the "ideal" straight line.

Reason number two. In all probability most of you listen to pop music for most of your listening. Pop music has had a long history of being some of the most heavily processed music. For a more detailed explanation I recommend my article that is on www.audioholics.com and at  www.zero-distortion.com called Current Trends in the Recording Format Arena. My suggestion to all of you is put on some classical music and see how your system responds. If it stops shrieking at you, don't blame your eqipment, blame the producers and the people involved in the recording of most of pop music.

Or some folk, as by Pete Seeger, Kingston Trio, and best of all, try some Joan Baez or Loreena McKennitt. Crystal clear female voices are usually a very good and difficult test to pass, all too easy to go astray.

Reason number three: The shreiking metal dome tweeter syndrome. To date I have yet to hear one of these things work properly. Most of them ring like crazy. If you have a speaker that uses on of these horrific devices get rid of the speaker or if possible get rid of the tweeter.

Here I strongly disagree in part. I partly agree insofar that metal tweeters as usually found are cheap and nasty affairs; it's quite common to find a $25 tweeter in a speaker costing $4,000. I disagree simply because metal tweeters can be shown to be far superior to any other type of dome tweeter, and in particular cloth (covered with this or that) tweeters both in measurements (waterfall graph) and in listening.

However, for this to be so, one does need a quality unit - an example (though by no means the only one around) would be Son Audax Profile IV metal dome tweeter (titanium, one step pressing, no gluing together, surround made also of titanium), a 1" job. This one can be made to really come on song, assuming two things: 1) that it is allowed to work no lower than 3.5 kHz so as to avoid internal overload and some breakup, and 2) that the capacitors used in the crossover be of the composite type. This is to say that the required value be achieved by parallelling capacitors made of different materials, in my case polypropylene, polyethylene and polycarbonate. Sounds complex, but it's really quite simple, just three 400 VAC caps placed in parallel, total cost per set of three about $12 in my case (though this will vary with required size).

Item 1) is the usual culprit, Dan. I have seen far too many loudspeakers which, in the name of simplicity, go directly against the manufacturer's specifications and recommendations. For example, Audax specifies that this unit be used from 2.5 kHz upeards only with a 12 dB/oct crossover with no more than 50W, yet I saw quite a few occasions when it was dropped down to about 2.2 kHz and with a first order crossover, because "it sounds better". It sure does - at 10 mW, but go higher than a whisper and you are overloading the tweeter even in frequency terms. To compensate, designers give it more than its ideal share of power, and since it cannot reproduce 2.2 kHz properly, you end up with a midrange suckout, which subjectively makes the high range seem overblown and shrieking.

Also, I find this particular tweeter really needs pure silver wiring to show off all its talent; then again, most tweeters sound better with it.

All for now folks. I will not shut up on this subject, and I don't care how much crap comes my way on this subject. I will continue to speak out.
The marketing of "high end" wire is next on my list.

Ah, we'll have a field day on that topic, Dan. I can hardly wait.

Cheers,
DVV

[Jay S]

Reason One: After looking at many peoples pictures of their stereo set ups I have noticed a near total lack of acoustic room treatment, especially behind the loudspeakers where it is needed most. Acoustically treating the back wall behind the speakers deadens the reflections of the rear wall and reduces the acoustical "smearing" of the rear wall reflections.  The technique is called live end dead end. It's been in use in recording studios for years and countless speaker designers recommend it, including Brian Cheney of VMPS.

I recently put up an Echobuster panel behind each of my main speakers, as well as Cornerbusters in the upper corners of my room.  We also put up a decorative fabric wall hanging in the space between the speakers.  HF is more relaxed now; some nasty slap echo has also been eliminated.  As a result, I enjoy music much more.  Recordings or cables that previously sounded too hot are now much more pleasant to listen to.  My total outlay was under $300; I could have spent less had I gone the DIY route (and if I didn't have to have the Echobusters shipped all the way to Hong Kong).

[Dan Banquer]

To Jay S. try putting acoustic damping panels behind the rug. thickness helps here to reduce the smear in the lower treble and midrange. As you try more of the things I have suggested I think you will begin to realize that DVV and myself are not lying to you.
Thanks DVV. I didn't know it was possible to tame one of these things. Sounds like better designs from the driver manufacturers are needed. Also speaker designers need to pay more attention here too.
One addtional suggestion for Jay S. Extend the damping material on the side walls to just past the loudspeaker. This will further damp side wall reflections, and clean things up even more. The first arrival time to your ears in a loudspeaker is the most important, The damping of acoustical smearing from rear and sidewall reflections is really crucial. Keep us posted on your progress. I predict you will be confirming what DVV and I have been saying.

[DVV]

...
Thanks DVV. I didn't know it was possible to tame one of these things. Sounds like better designs from the driver manufacturers are needed. Also speaker designers need to pay more attention here too. ...

Definitely - as in reading the data sheets, for example. They were written by knowledgeable people to help us all do usuful things, not to be thrown away as immaterial.

Dan, I think you'll find that titanium tweeters (Audax in my case, as I have some experience with them) can be made to work really well with just a bit of care and attention - in return, you will receive neutrality and precision second only to the best of planar drivers (however, at a far more comfortable price).

The composite capacitor concept has been proposed for years by Japanese audio enthusiasts, must be like 25 years at the very least. I just adopted it, and of course, played around with it. I believe it to be by far the best ever, exceeding immeasurably more expensive far out designs like oil capacitors and whatnot in measured and audible aspects. The only problem associated with them is that there is no ready made formula for them, you have to try them out and see, and compile your own experiences.

Cheers,
DVV

[KevinW]

Matching tubes to speakers? By extension, tube audio is limited in its drive capability and requires special or particular speakers to really work. Wouldn't you call that a limiting factor?

Not in slightest, if you recognize that there are many MANY pathways to achieve the goal of a pleasurable listening experience.  Why do you think people preach so much about system synergy?  Who would want to put monster truck tires  on a ferrari, or racing slicks on a Land Rover?  I can think of plenty of speakers that would sound magical with tubes and like $hit using solid state.  A 16ohm impedance lowther will certainly restrict a SS amp.  Also, just because tube amps are in the minority, and therefore the majority of speakers are designed with solid-state in mind, doesn't mean that tubes are inherently limited.

This is one of my problems with tube audio - it all but forces me to buy a certain type of speaker if I am to have any real dynamics at all, and I have natural tendency towards resisting being forced into anything.

  If an audiophile uses his brain to buy components that work within his taste, and isn't convinced by an overly opinionated, closed-minded, "dealer" to buy something that doesn't work within his whole system, then everything should end up sounding good in the end.  You are free to buy what you please, and you seem to know what works for you.   However, you are preaching just a little bit too much on the merits of SS and the evils of tubes in the absence of any other factors.  

I agree tube audio also does not necessarily need to be outlandishly expensive to perform well, but in the longer run, it does come out more expensive. Remember that after about 100 hours of operation, most tubes start to permanently change their characteristics. This means one has to retube every so often; in my own case, since the audio is turned on 12 hours a day at least, I'd need to retube every month or so, and on a yearly basis, this starts being expensive in addition to being a hassle.

After 100 hours, a tube has finally broken in.  A smartly designed tube component can have tubes that last 5000 hours or more.  I have never felt like changing tubes on less than a yearly basis, or even longer in some cases.  I would even argue that the ability to change tubes is a benefit, because it allows you to experiment with different sounds in your system.  This is a very cheap way to tweak the sound of a system to your liking.... provided your mind is open to the concept of having the sound change by changing a component in the audio chain.  It seems like you are just very biased against tubes (pun intended) .  That's fine, as everyone can have their own opinion.  

Enjoy!
Kevin Whilden