-
Feeling lucky? Check out the AK 24th Anniversary Giveaway thread and join in the fun!
tube vs transistor sound - stirirng the pot
- Thread starter waynechou
- Start date
of distortion being added that many like, however, would be many examples of single ended amplifiers.
Brian,
The point I was trying to make, whether you agree or not, is not that I was trying to make the distinction whether distortion affected the source material or that only of distortion of a pure single frequency.
To me, they are one and the same. For a given amplifier, the distortion is the same for source material or simply a pure sine wave. If from the source that has many amlitudes of various harmonics, which constitute timbre, when playing a single note, a spectrum of harmonics will issue from any natural vibratory solid. If there is distortion to the any of the harmonics in connection to the initual fundamental that spread out all the harmonics in the first place, the distortion components will either add or subtact, dependiing on the instaneous phase relationship of real (source) harmonic with the distortion product, resuling in +/- of any particular harmonic. It was my opinion that a few percentages of differences of any spectra that resulted from that process would essentially be undetectable as to indentify whether one could differentiate a Steinway from a Baldwin, for example, because there are so many other factors (such as the room, mic placement, etc) - i.e - you not listening to the actual, but a best example of what it would it been, had it been in your living room. It has been tainted already, if you will.
I contend that, if harmonic distortion is not grossly exceeded, there is something else going on that we mistakenly blame, and try to correct, with harmonic corrective solutions, that actually have no bearing on the real problem.
Wayne
Last edited:
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
This is useful.
You would think after 820 posts that you would realize there are always newbies/intrinsically curious who are going to ask questions that might seem old to some of us but are no more valid.
I would like to ask: do you stop having sex simply because you have done it before? Stop enjoying your favourite adult beverage simply because you have had it in the past?
NO
We are all going to come across questions that seem old, answered and obvious to US but when we as a species and a society stop asking questions that is when we are truly dead and have no hope for a future.
Thank you. To think, as individuals, that we have all the answers, only blocks our own ability to learn anything new.
Wayne
voltcontrol
Fizheuer Zieheuer
Come on, this is about opening a thread on a topic that's been discussed many, many times without resolution/additional info on the topic.
Educate: yes
Endless discussion: no
fmueller
Super Member
Blackfly - since you singled out my critical response to this thread, let me just quickly clarify my position. 820 posts on AK hardly make me a senior member on AK, and indeed I am largely ignorant about the technical details of how amplification works. Unlike the vast majority of senior AK members, I don't really know much about electronics in general. However, amplification is a subject that I have recently become more interested in. Like you, I opened this thread in the hope of finding some useful information. I would love to see some articles explaining the pros and cons of different classes of amplifiers, as well as explanations of the different electronic building blocks used to create those amplifiers. I am sure if we asked nicely, people here would point us in the right direction, but unfortunately this thread contains nothing of the kind. Instead, the original poster makes wide-sweeping, over-generalized statements that are controversial for the sake of being controversial. Multiple issue unrelated to the subject at hand are brought up just to incite unrest. Note the paragraph on cables at the very end of the initial posting:
What does that have to do with amplification, tube sound, or transistor sound
Also, sentences are long winded and overuse buzz words to give an impression of scientific writing, while in fact they are ungrammatical ramblings. One example:
That is not a sentence, which makes the question what on earth it means a moot point! Before somebody accuses me of bashing non-native English speakers, my native language is German, and I had to learn forming complete sentences in English before people could understand what I was saying - especially in a technical context. I am very understanding of people who are struggling with English, but not if they are condescending and patronizing themselves by using statements like: "which I am sure most of you don't know what that is".
In short, this thread has been very successful in its stated purpose of "stirirng the pot" [sic!] . It has done nothing to teach anybody about how amplification works. If we could move to that subject, I'd be all ears. Until that time, we keep on
Last edited:
TerryO
Super Member
Perhaps, but what's much worse is; having listened to three (10 year old) Telarc cd's (and practically no vinyl) then starting a thread entitled:
LP's and CD's- Telarc Digital Settles The Debate
Actually, I agree with Mr. Mueller.
Much of what's been mentioned as factual by the OP is still hotly debated by real experts, and is by no means settled to the point that he can claim that there is any general agreement. If he had been humble enough to mention, that while it may be controversial, he would try to convey his thoughts, or the reasoning, that has led to his conclusions, that would have been fine.
Best Regards,
TerryO
whoaru99
Epic Member
What does that have to do with amplification, tube sound, or transistor sound
Tube amps = (relatively) high output impedance = low damping factor
Transistor amps = (relatively) low output impedance = high damping factor
The above is not absolute in every case but is typically the case. Transistor amps with output transformers are a noteworty exception and more along the lines of tube amp in this regard.
High output impedance/low damping factor causes the amplifier's frequency response to be more easily affected by the inherent impedance swings of the attached speaker. Since tube amps typically have lower DF than transistor amps they are more inherently susceptible to this effect. This plays into some of the tube amp vs. SS amp differences, although how much is debatable and is system dependent. It also is probably a contributing factor to why some speakers seem to have better synergy with certain amps. Speakers with relatively benign impedance swings will affect the amplifier to a lesser degree than one with greater impedance swings. Again, tube amps usually more affected because of their typically lower DF/higher output impedance.
Read here for a more in-depth technical assessment of DF effect on the system.
Last edited:
rcspkramp
Super Member
Could you please tell us who those real experts are? Inquiring minds want to know.
Blackfly -
In short, this thread has been very successful in its stated purpose of "stirirng the pot" [sic!] . It has done nothing to teach anybody about how amplification works. If we could move to that subject, I'd be all ears. Until that time, we keep on
I'm sorry for the rambling, and I wasn't too careful about my grammar either. Sometimes the mind goes faster than the fingers can type, and when one gets tired, it gets worse.
However,"stirring the pot" was not intended to teach anyone about amplification. I thought that everyone knew what that was, nor was it the intention to teach anyone how to design an amplifier. I'm afraid that will take some years of studying electrical engineering to be successful at it. Its purpose was exactly to provide a forum to share thoughts on why the two different types of amplifiers might sound differently. It was designed to cause the reader to rethink what seems to be still controversial, after a half a century. What is worse, to me, was that the controversy seemed to slide into areas which was non-factual, but somewhat fairy tale like - perhaps even to allow our ears, rather than our thinking minds, to convert what we hear to scientific fact. Not that that's bad, if you're happy with it, but the conclusions strictly arrived at by that method, may not be accurate. BTW, I agree with you that advertising hype doesn't have anything to do with amplification, if you didn't pick that up before.
"Stirring the pot" was not intended to continue to the argument of which type is better than the other, which always will remain in the domain of a listener's preference, but rather to provide reasons why they do sound differently with the speaker systems they are partnered with.
I thought that revisiting some basic principles might bring the controversy back to reality and back on track to the real reasons why they generally sound differently, rather than continue proliferating the unscientific reasons - not why one type is better than the other. I tried to outline some basic reasons why that might be. It had to be sweeping, because the principals, I found important enough to mention, apply to the general characteristics of either type. Of course there are always exceptions. I think that this controversy continues to exist because, in part, not everyone understands why these characteristics came to be, without being an electrical engineer, or having studied electronics. It just can't be explained, nor can it be understood, within just a few sentences, like what might be in a cook book. Neverthess, I am signing off before I get accused again of rambling. But if you encourage my ramblings, I may have more to say.
Wayne
Last edited:
Thanks, just what I needed. Just an addendum to the last post.
Though I really didn't want to get into "better", it seems you can't independently decide which type is better than the other without considerng the speaker system it is driving. Even the most avid fan of one type or another, will have to admit that one type is not universally best (personal preference) for all speakers, providing the amplifier qualifies to be in the class of hi-fidelity - no strange anomalies permitted in the choosing.
TerryO
Super Member
I hate to repeat what I've already written previously in this thread (see #11), but seeing as how it would be inconvient for you to go back and read it, I'll just mention Bruce Rozenblitz, Nelson Pass and Gary Pimm.
Hope this helps.
Best Regards,
TerryO
It might be a copy from an IEEE publication, which organization I personally greatly respect, But I take issue with some of the conclusions in this synopsis that apply to hi-fidelity amplifiers.
The most glaring one is with regard to dynamic range and clipping. Many of today's solid state amplifiers can be supplied with the same voltage that tubes use. However, the dynamic range can very well be equivent to each other even with using lower applied voltages in transistor amplifiers. Dynamic range is not only defined as a maximum, but also the other extreme of the "range" where residual noise and hum make it indistiinguishable from the smallest signal. Which is less with either type, is principally determined by careful design of either type to reduce that noise and hum to be as close to the theortical limits as possible.
And if it were true that transistors are more susceptible to radio interference, or not, no one would use transistor equipment or computers, if those signals were allowed to interfere with your laptop, or cause your cell phone to act like a radio all the time. There are techniques to deal with these issues quite reliably - no one that I know regards that as a defect of the device.
Admittedly the clipping on tube amplifiers is softer than hard clipping experienced in transistor amplifiers, but it is not because of the unusual amounts of negative feedback used in transistor amplifiers, but that the characterteric impedance of the output tube saturates less abruptly.
Whatever reason, going into clipping increases distortion to a level that we don't really categorize as high fidelity, Whiile soft clipping might be desirable for rock bands to increase harmonic content, or guitarists for their sound effects, we generally try to keep our amplifiers out of the clipping region if we want to listen to the recorded source resonably accurately. While we will occaisionally encounter clipping due to an unexpected transient. it is not where we would normally have the volume level at the point of continually clipping the peaks. And so too, with comments concerning the delays due to hole storage in the transistor, which only happens when the amplfier comes out of saturation (typically lasting less than a few nanoseconds, anyway), we again, want to avoid using, any more than you'd want to subject a tube amplifier to, except in the particular applications I mentioned previously. If you want louder, buy bigger capacity. You know, if you want Ferrari performance, don't try to win the race with a Miata, burning out its engine trying to keep up.
Wayne
Last edited:
westend
Audiopile
I'm enjoying this thread, lot's of good stuff for those of us that need some gaps of knowledge filled. I wouldn't dwell on the pot-stirring aspect, you're going to get different opinions on tube vs. sand by just comparing the two. What is important, to me, is how the different designs of amplification are built and the electronics behind the designs. There are a lot of different designs and how I use them is tangent to the engineering. Carry on.
TerryO,
Unfortunately, even the experts may disagree on some points. We all have the expertise and the equipment to measure the results of our designs. But every designer, is an artist of sorts. Like a painting, everyone one of us develop a style and phlosophy of what make it right for us, if we design enough circuits.
There is no right or wrong kind of picture. But if you want a photographic image of the highest resolution with the least amount of photo manipulation, which in audio terms, I view as hi-fidelity, then I subscribe to the preservation of that image, whether it is pleasing to us or not.
Much discussion revolves around whether SET, push-pull, tube or transistor amplification has more or less second, or third harmonic distortion. If you want an uncorrupted image, any kind of distortion should be undetectable, unless you want an artistic rendition of the actual thing. And, as such, it takes it out of the realm of hi-fidelity, in my opinion. Presumably, you're looking for an equivalent of a retouched photo. It doesn't mean you are wrong to prefer the alternative. But my goal is to advance the state of the still "art" of hi-fidelity. I view the ultimate amplifier as a kind of looking glass that allows magnification of tmages that will not give the viewer any distortion, nor to enhance or to cloud, and to provide that, in the widest conditions of lighting as possible. As in Photoshop, there are many different ways to manipulate your photos, if that is what you want to do. But I think you should have the option of not having any at all if you want it so. Having it built in, gives you none.
Wayne
Unfortunately, even the experts may disagree on some points. We all have the expertise and the equipment to measure the results of our designs. But every designer, is an artist of sorts. Like a painting, everyone one of us develop a style and phlosophy of what make it right for us, if we design enough circuits.
There is no right or wrong kind of picture. But if you want a photographic image of the highest resolution with the least amount of photo manipulation, which in audio terms, I view as hi-fidelity, then I subscribe to the preservation of that image, whether it is pleasing to us or not.
Much discussion revolves around whether SET, push-pull, tube or transistor amplification has more or less second, or third harmonic distortion. If you want an uncorrupted image, any kind of distortion should be undetectable, unless you want an artistic rendition of the actual thing. And, as such, it takes it out of the realm of hi-fidelity, in my opinion. Presumably, you're looking for an equivalent of a retouched photo. It doesn't mean you are wrong to prefer the alternative. But my goal is to advance the state of the still "art" of hi-fidelity. I view the ultimate amplifier as a kind of looking glass that allows magnification of tmages that will not give the viewer any distortion, nor to enhance or to cloud, and to provide that, in the widest conditions of lighting as possible. As in Photoshop, there are many different ways to manipulate your photos, if that is what you want to do. But I think you should have the option of not having any at all if you want it so. Having it built in, gives you none.
Wayne
Last edited:
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
A closed mind never learns anything new.
blackfly
Fidelius Claritus
Just curious.
Lets assume that proof is in the facts. Just this once.
If tube amps were to sound better, and in fact did, would you not think that ALL amplifiers would be tube power? And why NOT is this the fact? Tubes can be cheaply made, especially in volume, and the design of tube amps, on a GENERAL level, without getting into SET, pentodes, triodes etc... are pretty much set.
But ONLY high end amps are focused with anything tube. OR DIY. Mass consensus is: transistors are better. They are cheaper, easier to use/work with, and SHOCKINGLY, sound good when the design is good.
I am VERY aware that the nostalgic/emotional effect of better sound from tube gear is huge; I am believer that if you THINK the unit makes good sound then it does... psychology plays a part. But this also explains vinyl. I think the emotional reinforcement is as much important as the sound quality itself, and if one thinks it sounds good, then it does. Whether it ACTUALLY does is open to debate.
And remember audio is a irreversable march forward. Carrying with it ideas from the past and building on them. Fact is: once transistor technology got to a point tubes became clumsy, hot, inefficient and only harkening to a long lost past. Related another way, fly fishing has always had a certain "gentlemanly alure" of the man on the riverbank with a Tonkin Cane rod leisurely casting. But modern graphite/composite rods cast further, with greater accuracy and fail WAY less than Tonkin Cane. Translation: old may be noble, but newer, in most cases, is better. The graphite rods I have are NOT cheap, but given care, should last me a lifetime. Tonkin Cane rods are often handed down, but MOST have spare tips as they can and do break. Old is not necessarily better. But the experience it renders may not be CAPTURED with the new. But then we create a NEW experience, and go from there.
And yes, I believe had EVERY CD mastered and sent out for pressing sounded as good as the Telarc Digital Discs there would be no vinyl.
In fact, I would go so far to say that the real reason we do not have widespread high res downloads is the fact it is too easy to get for free, steal or borrow, hence, make no money. You cannot "burn" a vinyl disc. So as I see it the record industry is all to happy to oblige the vinyl demand. Unless you have a copy, there is no way you will hear it. But with high res digital, I forsee musicians doing it for next to nothing, or none at all. Once on the net or in cyberspace, how does one make SCMS (Serial Copy Management System, law by the way) work? How long would it take to get around with smart hackers? There is no "copying" vinyl unless you actually go out an buy it.
Don't think equipment manufacturers are dumb. They are like computer companies, using software (formats) they know will be out of date asking you to upgrade, rebuy....
And tube amps allow the companies to command a premium based on nostalgia, and they are happy with that. I remember the Carver "Silver Seven" project where Bob Carver (a man I do not peticularily like but respect) found he could make a "awesome" tube amp and found he could do the same WITH THE SAME SOUND out of one of his magnetic field amps at much lower cost. Here's a guy who takes the time to ACTUALLY investigate it and finds why bother? If tubes sounded better, I am sure he would of used them and charged accordingly. But audiophiles, mostly, are a discriminating bunch who would of eventually seen through it.
But that cannot be all to it. My Luxman M 05 Class A amp has a certain magic to it. It is a transistor amp, but like all things, including humans, we are much more than a sum of our parts. But nevertheless, it is the end result that we see, hear or experience. And in the end, that all that really matters.
fmueller
Super Member
Finally somebody hit the nail on the head! :thmbsp:
Now go and write that hundred times so you have it completely internalized. Then think about this statement:
Can you see now how this statement makes no sense, not even as an assumption? There simply is no objective 'better'. All we can measure objectively is the signal up to the point where it reaches your ear. Then the signal travels from your ear to your brain, and there is nothing objective about that part. What sounds good to one person can sound terrible to another. Let's say it all together now:
"Psychology plays a part!"
Last edited: