• The move to the new server is done. There are some software and database maintenance updates in process. This has us passing the hat around to help out. We appreciate any donations. Seriously, even a dollar helps. The payment page may be found here - https://www.audiokarma.org/support.html

Tube Amp soundstage - common to all tube amps ?

kappclark

kappclark

AK Subscriber
Subscriber
At the risk of exposing myself as a total noob with tubes, I will confess I am hooked by the deep soundstage, detail and vocal textures... The Fisher 400 is very satisfying , un-fatiguing and fun discovering what it can reveal both with digital and vinyl .. The 400 is my first experience with tube audio, (have no other tube amp) and as one AK'er mentioned, the 400 is a gateway drug to tube audio ...so true !

Was wondering if this wonderful soundstage presence phenomenon is 'baked in the cake' so to speak among all tube amps ... their simple layout seems a real advantage ... Not claiming that all tube amps sound the same (that would be foolish !) ... just whether if swapping out for another tube unit (say a restored ST-70) I would hear the same magic depth, female vocal lushness etc ..
 
Register to hide this ad
kappclark said:
the 400 is a gateway drug to tube audio ...so true !
Click to expand...
So True, My gateway drug was a Dyna 70. so you just get a different flavor of a gateway tube amp.
The fisher 400 IMHO is better in that you get a nice Tube pre-amp, , Phono section, and a cool tuner as well.
I'm not sure moving up the Tube Food Chain, will ever give you that Tube High as good as your Fisher 400.
It's just part of the Journey .
One thing for sure as you move up the Ladder, either vintage or New, the prices go up geometrically.
Yes the sound stage can get much better, but sometimes, it doesn't. Like some poorly designed
Chi-Com amp, that sounds just like a SS amp
 
Last edited:
I realize you're starting with a receiver, but I always figured it was the preamp more than the amp that determined the soundstage. I've used separates for 50 years, first of all because I'm not a big radio listener. Second, it was about 59 years ago I decided against using tone controls - my first preamp was the Dynaco PAT-5, which has defeatable tone controls. You may find over time that you want more choice as to the design rather than the one-size-fits-all of a reciever.
 
The soundstage is not inherent to tube amps specifically but more so to the circuit. If you built a transistor amp like a tube amp—with output transformers and (relatively) little feedback, the transistor amp would have similar sonic characteristics to a tube amp

I’m not a big solid state guy but I listened to a Pass Aleph one time and was very surprised by it. It had stage and presence and delicacy and all that stuff. Probably the biggest difference I noticed was it just didn’t quite have the warmth as my then reference Conrad Johnson tubed unit.
 
Last edited:
It is a rare or expensive ss amp which can provide a good resemblance of a 3D soundstage. In the 1970s and 1980s, we were all searching for the "biggest" sound. Some of us liked a sound with depth. Some wanted a "wall of sound." Others chose "presence," that forward sound. Whether we employed tubes or transistors, everyone had their own preferences in what we hoped to hear.

Since each of us has a unique perspective and a unique psycho-acoustic memory of reproduced sound, it stands to reason we choose our equipment subjectively.

Tube equipment usually provides a large sound, with some depth or forward sound presented, even the lower grade tube gear, while most solid state amps and preamps yield a "wall of sound" perspective. 3D from ss gear is usually achieved via expensive ss amps and pricey speakers.

The OP has the usual "first time with tube amps" descriptive response. Choosing synergistic equipment, you can greet a genuine, 3D sound system.

When choosing gear, I use well known music and bands, objectively listening to known acoustic instruments, sometimes including drums and vocals. My 3D perspective is rather novel, as I worked sound studios within a performing arts complex for a decade. Mixing sound while watching the band on a real auditorium stage, thru the studio window above the balcony, the mix-down monitor speakers were chosen to provide a sound with depth. The speakers were thought of as "the front of the stage, the proscenium arch." The music should "appear" to be coming from behind the speakers, thus further back on the (sound)stage.

This was my opinion and my reality, thru the years. Of course, recording musicians onstage was a genuine, ear opening and mind expanding experience. Employing the correct mics for certain instruments was imperative, requiring trials with which mic and which mic placements, in order to assure proper musical playback response. Having the luxury of hearing real musicians live, often, molded my sonic perspectives.

Remember when choosing gear to change only one component or arrangement (like speaker placement and toe-in), at a time while listening, in order to reduce confusion.

YMMV, of course...
 
Last edited:
It’s apples to oranges in the tube amp world. Mild to wild. Topology wise the Fisher 400 is very pleasing. I guess the texturing layers of SQ come from the 7868 tubes and Avery Fisher’s circuit. Great transformers also.
With all the Klipsch high efficient speakers I own, I find myself listening to a small setup in the kitchen/den consists of a 2 watt Yamamoto A-08-S and Klipsch CF4’s. This is the most detailed system in the home. (Mild) Type 45 output tubes. I find with the Emissions Labs 45 have more bass than the vintage. Wishing I had the $$$ for some 1920’s - 30’s Articus globe type.
My wild setup are pair McIntosh MC30’s driving Belle Klipsch, MC75’s into Klipsch CF3’s.
The ST-70’s a couple I own sit idle. Low man on the totem pole.
I’ve yet to get started on the HH Scott 299c. It should sound close to the Fisher.
 
The Fisher 400 is an extremely good sounding amp when properly restored. In an integrated, it doesn't get much better, by any standard. I have a 500C, and while on paper it looks to be an overall better unit, the 400 I think has some level of magic that the 500 lacks.

The circuit in the 400 is not "that" unique though. The secret sauce I think is in the extremely well wound output transformers, just good engineering, and exemplary layout and execution. The Fisher 400 employs I think 20 dB global feedback, that's not a lot by SS standards. For example the SS "Bascom H. King" or BHK amps that PS Audio sells use a whopping 40 dB global feedback.

A McIntosh unity coupled tube amp uses maybe 30 dB feedback in some of their circuits I believe, but that feedback is applied differently, some of it in numerous shorter loops, so that the method of feedback doesn't interfere with the sonics nearly as much as one humongous global loop.

"A Lot" of feedback equates generally to "A wall of sound" but has superior control of the speakers, whereas "modest amounts" of feedback like used in the Fisher 400 let the amp breathe more so that you obtain that soundstage that you are describing.

The subjective parts above are of course my opinion.
 
Solid state amps can also throw a beautiful soundstage. I run a Yamaha RX-Z9 in CD Direct with an Oppo 95 and pushing the Mermans, the soundstage is extremely detailed to the point where you can "walk between the instruments."

The soundstage for my tube amp (Melton with KT-88s in push/pull pentode, tube rectifiers) is perhaps a hair wider, but not as detailed or as clear and the transients are not as crisp. Sort of a "warm and fuzzy" feeling.
 
And here I always felt the "soundstage" in any system was due to your listening environment ;-). If a perfect amplifier (tubes or solid state) are absolutely flat 20-20K, with zero distortion, they will all sound exactly the same with the same speakers in the same room. Change either the speakers or the room and ... not so much. And lest the screaming start early, let's just assume that these ideal, mythical "perfect" amplifiers are being operated well below their maximum output potential.

So it seems to me that when one is trying to describe something as subjective as soundstage, and talking about one amp being better than another, what is really being observed is that one amp is not as flat, or transparent, across the entire audio spectrum as another, isn't that the gist of it ? Any "change" introduced to alter "soundstage" or "bigness" or whatever term you wish to apply, is a move away from the perfect, ideal, and unobtainable amplifier.

eh ? ;-)
 
That's an excellent point. I've heard some top shelf SS amps over the years--Krell, Levinson, Pass, Counterpoint, Parasound--and they do throw nicely detailed wide and deep stages as well. So I agree it is room/system dependent to some degree also.
 
hogwylde09 said:
It’s apples to oranges in the tube amp world. Mild to wild. Topology wise the Fisher 400 is very pleasing. I guess the texturing layers of SQ come from the 7868 tubes and Avery Fisher’s circuit. Great transformers also.
With all the Klipsch high efficient speakers I own, I find myself listening to a small setup in the kitchen/den consists of a 2 watt Yamamoto A-08-S and Klipsch CF4’s. This is the most detailed system in the home. (Mild) Type 45 output tubes. I find with the Emissions Labs 45 have more bass than the vintage. Wishing I had the $$$ for some 1920’s - 30’s Articus globe type.
My wild setup are pair McIntosh MC30’s driving Belle Klipsch, MC75’s into Klipsch CF3’s.
The ST-70’s a couple I own sit idle. Low man on the totem pole.
I’ve yet to get started on the HH Scott 299c. It should sound close to the Fisher.
Click to expand...

Wonderful posts .. Interesting about the Klipsch .. Never owned Klipsch in my SS days... (ha ha) , but currently Using a pair of Klipsch 41-M bookshelves plus Elac 10" sub driven by center channel output ... a very nice synergy, and there is so much more power ... I am very pleased with how the Klipsch bookshelves get along with Mr Fischer's magnum opus, the 400... so nice to know there are so many who appreciate the good design/components of the ages.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom