Capacitor quality is the reason why people prefer tubes over solid state ??

[Northwinds]

People defend what they like even if there is very little evidence to back up their assertions. Tubes are old technology, there is only so much you can do with a tube amp because as soon as you turn a tube unit on, matched tubes go out the window, even air temperature can affect how a tube amp sounds. In short, if you like tube equipment, buy all you want and enjoy it, same goes for solid state. SS has come a long way, in fact most any recording studio will be using SS whether it's a mixing console or playback amplification in the studio and other related equipment. It's nice to keep old technology alive but remember, no Model T is going to spank a Porsche on a road course. I went through a tube phase for 15 years, I enjoyed it but the limitations and constant tweaking gets old after awhile. If you are into it from the hobby perspective, then messing with tubes is a lot of fun. If you have a ton of money, sure you can get better performance out of tubes but in the end, any high quality SS high current amp will outperform a tube amp. Soft clipping is not a high point for me unless it's in my guitar amp, hard clipping is also not an option which is why I use SS amps that have way more power on tap then I could ever use

This is just my opinion but that opinion is based on owning both types for many years. I enjoyed my tubes but now I only enjoy them in my guitar amps. However, I will defend anyone's right to own what they want. People enjoy things for different reasons

 

[SoCal Sam]

When you get down to fundamental parameters, the average single transistor is inherently more flawed (less linear) than the average single tube...

Just look at the transconductance curves- the tube curves are, on average, much closer to straight lines than the transistor curves. In essence- a single tube, by itself, without feedback, "bends" the sound LESS than a single transistor.

This is one reason why transistor amps require much more feedback than tube amps, to reach a decent level of linearity. And that feedback comes at a price- the creation of upper harmonics is one (not the only one, but a very significant one) of those.

The one good thing about transistors, is that they are SO cheap, that MANY of them can be used- in essence, to create enough gain that the feedback can be incorporated in high enough level to "force" the response to be linear, down to what, on paper, are very low levels of "total" distortion. However, when one looks at the harmonic structure of the distortion- a tube amp's distortion pretty much is confined to the lower harmonics (closer in frequency to the original signal), while transistor amps have audibly significant (and the levels to be significant can be VERY low from an audibility sense, at the higher harmonics) levels of these higher harmonics- harmonics actually CREATED by the feedback itself- once the action of the feedback loop is factored in. In essence, the farther the overtone is from the original fundamental, the more it is audible at the same level.... which can be problematic with high-feedback designs of any type...

It is possible to build solid-state amps with improved distortion behavior- but that's usually not going to happen with the traditional class-A or class-AB topologies. And it's difficult with the class-D and other alternative-tech solid-state amps as well- but people are figuring out ways to make that work better, as we go on...

Regards,
Gordon.

First off, my use of the term "bend" carries no negative connotation regarding the sound at the speaker. I am a fan of BOTH tubes and soild state. So, tubes bend the signal LESS than solid state??!! I know a little about solid state lab results and how 'scope traces translate to sound differences. For example, perfect square waves translate into crystal clear sound which implies there is no bend to the signal. Amps with poor rise time and DF tend to have sloped attack which translates to laid back sound. And so on. What is interesting to me is that the specs and lab results that apply to solid state do not apply to tubes. Tube amps have terrible specs and the 'scope traces are a mess. And yet, I find certain tube amps to be just as objectively accurate as the fastest most powerful solid state amps in the house playing on the same speakers. And in some ways, the upper registers of tube amps are more open and airy. Still trying to wrap my head around what to me is a paradox, your post is a good start.

 

[SoCal Sam]

People defend what they like even if there is very little evidence to back up their assertions. Tubes are old technology, there is only so much you can do with a tube amp because as soon as you turn a tube unit on, matched tubes go out the window, even air temperature can affect how a tube amp sounds. In short, if you like tube equipment, buy all you want and enjoy it, same goes for solid state. SS has come a long way, in fact most any recording studio will be using SS whether it's a mixing console or playback amplification in the studio and other related equipment. It's nice to keep old technology alive but remember, no Model T is going to spank a Porsche on a road course. I went through a tube phase for 15 years, I enjoyed it but the limitations and constant tweaking gets old after awhile. If you are into it from the hobby perspective, then messing with tubes is a lot of fun. If you have a ton of money, sure you can get better performance out of tubes but in the end, any high quality SS high current amp will outperform a tube amp. Soft clipping is not a high point for me unless it's in my guitar amp, hard clipping is also not an option which is why I use SS amps that have way more power on tap then I could ever use

This is just my opinion but that opinion is based on owning both types for many years. I enjoyed my tubes but now I only enjoy them in my guitar amps. However, I will defend anyone's right to own what they want. People enjoy things for different reasons

Sure, the market has moved on but sweeping generalizations never work considering the many near rabid tube enthusiasts. Their devotion to tubes cannot be discounted. Tube sound does have a place in the recording studio in the form of tube mic heads and "dirty" guitar amps.

 

[audiotemp]

What is interesting to me is that the specs and lab results that apply to solid state do not apply to tubes. Tube amps have terrible specs and the 'scope traces are a mess. And yet, I find certain tube amps to be just as objectively accurate as the fastest most powerful solid state amps in the house playing on the same speakers. And in some ways, the upper registers of tube amps are more open and airy. Still trying to wrap my head around what to me is a paradox, your post is a good start.

You are using the phrase "objectively accurate" in a very strange way.

 

[GordonW]

People defend what they like even if there is very little evidence to back up their assertions. Tubes are old technology, there is only so much you can do with a tube amp because as soon as you turn a tube unit on, matched tubes go out the window, even air temperature can affect how a tube amp sounds.

This, again, sounds like someone who just hasn't experienced a truly modern tube amp.

Specifically- the issue of biasing/matching- the iQ Auto-Bias in a VAC amp, actually matches the tube behavior ON THE FLY, to where the underlying bias current (which is the primary determinant of how well tubes follow their proper alignments, in terms of working in the parts of the plate curves intended) NEVER is less than 99% accurate, regardless of the musical signal or the operating environment.

Once you do this, and incorporate other design refinements gathered through research (then and now), you can (and do) have tube amps with effectively, vanishingly low distortion- a VAC Statement will generally measure in the less-than-a-10th-of-a-percent THD across the audio band, as a result of these and other circuit optimizations. And with unmeasurably small amounts of upper harmonic distortion...

The whole argument about a Model T and a Porsche is not really valid, BTW- they're both examples of the SAME technology- a piston-engine car powered through a transmission, a differential, through wheels, and such. A more fitting comparison is to contrast an internal combustion engine car to an electric car- two completely different technologies, performing, ostensibly, the same purpose- the electric cars, for all their benefits, still have aspects of their performance that are exceeded by internal combustion (range and rapidity of refueling being just two of those). But, the electric cars are improving- and may at some time exceed internal combustion in those respects, too. Same with tubes and transistors- I don't think any one says that transistors will NEVER exceed the performance of tubes- it's just that NOW, there are significant aspects of performance where the tube is still better- and in ways that make a significant difference in the enjoyment of a musical experience.

Oh, and BTW- semiconductors have actually been around almost as long as tubes (similarly to how electric cars have been around about the same length of time as internal combustion vehicles). They've been known to science since the late 1920s, and very primitive examples (such as crystal-whisker rectifiers and such- in fact, selenium rectifiers were semiconductor devices, too) were in use even then. It's just that in the 1950s, methods were found to make them much more versatile and PRACTICAL... and that's when the technology took off...

Regards,
Gordon.

 

[SoCal Sam]

You are using the phrase "objectively accurate" in a very strange way.

You are confusing objective accuracy with subjective accuracy. They are have difference references.

 

[E-Stat]

No.

 

[unfairlane]

The main reason is because most transistor-amps are not able to deliver current fast enough, too tiny layouts/trafos++

This "running out of breath" makes them sound thin, like tiny speakercables also do btw

I have rebuilt quite a few of those who are worth a rebuild, including my Electrocompaniet

 

[Northwinds]

Sure, the market has moved on but sweeping generalizations never work considering the many near rabid tube enthusiasts. Their devotion to tubes cannot be discounted. Tube sound does have a place in the recording studio in the form of tube mic heads and "dirty" guitar amps.

Oh, don't get me wrong Brother, I have MANY fond memories of tube equipment. It's just I tend to listen to really heavy music and it's just not the same as when I was a kid lsitening to my grandmothers gorgeous all birdseye cab Maganovox. I remember this one station WROW used to play the 50s- to early 60s oldies soft music/vocalist hits and there was a warmness that wrapped around you that I could not capture with the Fisher and McIntosh stuff I later had. It was awesome for softer music but Metallica it just was not there. That's when I went to SS (mostly), it was cheaper, more powerful and less hassle to maintain and most importantly could play at live levels cleanly

I totally agree, a tube guitar amp is a wonderful thing. Closest I could come SS was believe it or not a Sunn 2x12 Beta Lead. That had the tube "watts" all day and just was creamy or screamy depending on how you dialed her in. My father was a tube guy (just a music listener) but even he gave the nod to my Uncle's Pioneer Spec rack. I remember through Dad's Fisher, Simon and Garfunkle, Beach Boys and Elvis sounded pretty killer... just Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin not so much (at least for me)

 

[SoCal Sam]

Oh, don't get me wrong Brother, I have MANY fond memories of tube equipment. It's just I tend to listen to really heavy music and it's just not the same as when I was a kid lsitening to my grandmothers gorgeous all birdseye cab Maganovox. I remember this one station WROW used to play the 50s- to early 60s oldies soft music/vocalist hits and there was a warmness that wrapped around you that I could not capture with the Fisher and McIntosh stuff I later had. It was awesome for softer music but Metallica it just was not there. That's when I went to SS (mostly), it was cheaper, more powerful and less hassle to maintain and most importantly could play at live levels cleanly

I totally agree, a tube guitar amp is a wonderful thing. Closest I could come SS was believe it or not a Sunn 2x12 Beta Lead. That had the tube "watts" all day and just was creamy or screamy depending on how you dialed her in. My father was a tube guy (just a music listener) but even he gave the nod to my Uncle's Pioneer Spec rack. I remember through Dad's Fisher, Simon and Garfunkle, Beach Boys and Elvis sounded pretty killer... just Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin not so much (at least for me)

Makes sense to me. Personal preference is everything when it comes to sound. I've never been in any single camp when it comes to sound and prefer to focus on the enjoyment aspects of the hobby, which you demonstrate in spades.

 

[slimecity]

I cant believe this discussion is still going.

Some SS gear is great, some tube gear is great.

I thought I was over the hassles of tube gear until I heard a NZ-built tube preamp amplify the phono output from my Denon DL-103 better than anything else I have heard. Now Im in love with tube gear again - with respect to a decent tube phono preamp anyway.

 

[Northwinds]

I cant believe this discussion is still going.

Some SS gear is great, some tube gear is great.

I thought I was over the hassles of tube gear until I heard a NZ-built tube preamp amplify the phono output from my Denon DL-103 better than anything else I have heard. Now Im in love with tube gear again - with respect to a decent tube phono preamp anyway.

Reminds me of the Carver CD player with the preamp tube in it I used to have. That thing sounded awesome but the freaking drawer did not work half the time and I had to do the fingernail flick. That's not a big deal really though, just part of the enjoyment

 

[SoCal Sam]

Reminds me of the Carver CD player with the preamp tube in it I used to have. That thing sounded awesome but the freaking drawer did not work half the time and I had to do the fingernail flick. That's not a big deal really though, just part of the enjoyment

Champagne Carver build quality left a lot to be desired. It's like they shot the budget on cosmetics, which they got right.

 

[sregor]

https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge
About as close to a scientific test as I've come across. Put me in the a "good design is a good design".
I will say that transformer coupled circuits are not as good a direct coupled in the bass department,, and think that the ultimate system will depend on the amps being tailored to the speakers.

 

[Northwinds]

This, again, sounds like someone who just hasn't experienced a truly modern tube amp...

Regards,
Gordon.

Gordon, I have no dog in this fight and I hope your not misconstruing me. I had a pair of MC60s, a MC275 and a Fisher SA1000 so I have a right to say been there done that even though they are not bazillion dollar "truly modern". High quality SS just does everything I personally ask better and for less money in the long run. If I was a megamillionaire, you bet your ass I would have a pair of original Carver Silver 7s just because I could

or a pair of these badmofos, eff the neighbors

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GordonW]

Gordon, I have no dog in this fight and I hope your not misconstruing me. I had a pair of MC60s, a MC275 and a Fisher SA1000 so I have a right to say been there done that even though they are not bazillion dollar "truly modern". High quality SS just does everything I personally ask better and for less money in the long run. If I was a megamillionaire, you bet your ass I would have a pair of original Carver Silver 7s just because I could

or a pair of these badmofos, eff the neighbors

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" gesture="media" allow="encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Those are all, unarguably, great amps- but the technology of design in tube amps has progressed well beyond any of those.

Yes, it's expensive- but it's breathtakingly good too.

That said- it's like any other technology- the workings get passed down to the lower price gear, eventually, too. For example- the $9999 VAC Phi 170iQ amp also has the iQ autobias circuit. 85w/ch, bridgeable to 170 watt monoblocks. No, that's not cheap- but it's not like its totally inaccessible to someone who's determined...

Regards,
Gordon.