Tubes and Vinyl: An Often-Misunderstood Audiophile Debate

[Tom Bombadil]

https://audiophilereview.com/analog/tubes-and-vinyl-an-often-misunderstood-audiophile-debate.html

"A) I do not hate vinyl whatsoever and B) I think it's perfectly OK to be a fan of the format. What's not OK is to suggest that the format is an accurate, high performance reproduction of the music as it was recorded by the artist, producer, and engineers."

"This brings me to the glass-half-full argument with vinyl. Yes, vinyl is an analog format, which is refreshing in our often overly digital world. Vinyl forces sequential listening of music as the artists and producers wanted. Vinyl comes with cool, tactile, large-format artwork and liner notes. All of those points go in vinyl's favor. But if you want to hear what really is on the master tape, how can you do that with such limited dynamics?"

"Tubes are like that. They bring a pleasant, warm sound but retain all of the flavor, energy, and passion that goes into the original product. I have always liked tubes and look forward to bringing some back into my system someday in the near future."

I am in agreement with nearly all of this article. I like tubes in both my preamp and amp. Although I also own SS preamps and amps and use those nearly 50% of the time. However while I appreciate a good LP, I find a well mastered digital recording to have better bass definition, more dynamic, and to project a more lifelike soundstage.

 

[DaveVoorhis]

Tubes and vinyl can be wonderful, but they're about achieving a particular sound, a pleasing sound.

They're about achieving euphony, not accuracy.

 

[nj pheonix]

Not claiming superiority,
I have found to my ears tubes to sound more accurate to me.
I understand many (even inexpensive) SS amps and preamps test better. I am at a loss to explain the observation.
I have invested in several SS pieces over the years (some quite well regarded) in hopes of matching (or besting ) the tube equipment I've moved to.
I'm not claiming my opinion is the only answer. I merely imply many others have come to similar conclusions so something isn't quite so obvious.

As far as vinyl, I haven't traveled as far as some down that path
That is, multi thousand dollar, TT, Arm, cart, phono pre or SUT,.... (inferring for each of those) I am very happy with my TT cart combo as I am with my CDP and DAC .
I've heard very fine vinyl playback. I'd assume it's the equal or better of any home digital system available.
To throw another variable in . High end RTR with master tapes supposedly is the holy grail of analog playback.
Another rabbit hole I'm avoiding.

I think it's be tough to discern at the high end of each.

I tend to doubt you'll achieve any kind of consensus.
I also think you can achieve a very spirited debate soley on the opening statement.

I'll hang a bit to see where this goes but I think the sides are pretty well dug in already

 

[TimF]

Certainly a well worn and walked trench, not path. Tubes and solid state, analog and digital, they both exist because they can, and will continue. I like them all, and they all can bring wonderful music to my ears. Enjoy the music, and hopefully the rest will follow.

 

[danomar]

I stopped taking the article completely seriously when the seemingly ubiquitous comparison to single-malt Scotch was used.

There is an inherent flaw with the premise. Some recordings can sound as good or better in digital format while others will sound better in vinyl depending on the pressing and engineering. In my experience, digital music is more consistently good across all genres and productions when compared to vinyl, but there are some recordings for which I have yet to find a digital version which is better. I am thinking of my early pressings of Kind of Blue, Maiden Voyage, and Mingus' Ah Um as exemplars. In my experience, vocals, acoustic stringed instruments, horns and woodwinds sound better in vinyl almost all the time when compared to even the best high-resolution digital versions.

I also find the soundstage on good vinyl pressings to be superior to digital. Even the best digital recordings seem flat (think 2D) when compared to a very good analogue copy which imparts greater sense of depth (think 3D).

Tubes versus solid state? That horse has been flayed to death. I like both and think that tube amps can be (but are not necessarily always) superior to solid state. I like my solid state amps and preamps for a variety of reasons—some practical, some for audible differences. Tube "warmth" best describes the heat generated by operating tubes more than their sound.

I think every audiophile enjoys refining sound to his or her taste, and that is what permits such a wide variety of equipment. We all hear things slightly differently and we each listen for slightly different things in the sound we seek to perfect.

 

[Portkula]

Tubes and Vinyl: An Often-Misunderstood Audiophile Debate

Well, being in a forum, here is my personal opinion.

“Tubes” and “Vinyl” have absolutely nothing to do with each other. “Tubes” and “Vinyl” are independent subjects of the electro-acoustical science and engineering field. So, to me, nothing to debate in this aspect.

 

[Aerobat]

For old recordings, a record cut from a fresh master is as good as it gets IMO. Compared to a multi-generational digital cut from a worn master and "cleaned up", the vinyl wins. This has nothing to due with the superiority of a format.

 

[rsrguy]

So where do I start if I want to build a tube setup on a budget? What pieces in my early 80's pioneer system do I want to focus on swapping out first?

 

[macgolf]

'Those who throw out the "my (aging yet) golden ears can hear the difference and I don't care what the science says" make about as cogent an argument as those who want to argue in 2018 that ... or that ... is a hoax. Those are weak arguments based in blind faith and opinion over math and science. Math and science should come before subjectivity.'

This is why I've never trained my ears to read. I appreciate the math and science data right up to a point where they,and their proponents, try to cast my preferences for me. I don't appreciate older recordings via digital reproduction. Bing on vinyl, with tubes, this Christmas? Yes, please. Bing on digital through my SS equipment? No thanks. I like what I like.

 

[infullview]

Have to agree with the OP that vinyl had some wonderful qualities related to the size and nature of the format, but, digital audio is far more dynamic and superior. CD's got a bad rap because some geek thought it would be a good idea to compress the dynamics so you wouldn't hear the road noise when you played them in your car. As a result, many of the reissues sucked and were not as good as the original vinyl release. Dynamics also have to be controlled on Vinyl to prevent the groves from being a mile wide Most, if not all, vinyl recordings used some form of limiting to control the cutting head excursion.

 

[Old Guy8]

So where do I start if I want to build a tube setup on a budget? What pieces in my early 80's pioneer system do I want to focus on swapping out first?

Off topic, addressing your question:
IMO, the speakers and amplifier need to be a good match. Maybe more critical than with SS. Especially if low power tube amp, you would likely need high efficiency speakers. If a higher power tube amp, say 100 wpc, opens up speaker options. Volume, room size and music genre will effect power needs. Visit the tube thread. And, everyones budget is different. Would have to be more specific for meaningful recomendations.

Original tubes and vinyl question.
The tubes I have are on high power end. Can be easily swapped with my SS amps. Listen to streaming radio stations, CD and vinyl. Most of my vinyl listening is vintage records, often difficult to find same music in other formats.

 

[Condorsat]

Don't believe CD's got bad rap. IMHO .. loudness wars (arms race) were the spawn of the CD format as it was (an accident waiting to happen). The wars are over by the way .. Loudness won hands down.

I still listen to modern music … quite a bit through online streaming .. but it still does not or ever will sound like mastering/released from pop music back in 60's & 70's .. even the CD's (re-issued) & streamed files from that period (unmolested and not remastered to sound modern) sound good to my ears on a traditional living room 2 channel stereo.

IMHO .. every format brings it's own baggage … loudness wars (pop music - most people listen too) was CD's cross to bear. I never made much of a commitment to the format .. my CD collection is 1/3 the size of my Vinyl collection. That was not my original plan .. it just happened that way over time. I've never regretted how it turned out though.

 

[infullview]

Don't believe CD's got bad rap. IMHO .. loudness wars (arms race) were the spawn of the CD format as it was. The wars are over by the way .. Loudness won hands down.

Love that term "loudness wars" very descriptive; it's not the mediums fault. I also have more vinyl than digital media, but most of what I have has no digital equivalent available. Highly compressed modern "music" just seems to be the norm these days. It's so bad you can actually hear it 'breath' - that's when you alternately hear, then lose the background noise as an artifact of compression. It sucks. Pink's "blow me one last kiss" or "freedom 90" from Pitch Perfect 3 are good examples of this. I've even tried running the digital format through an expander via Audacity to see if I could correct it, but without knowing the exact compression parameters you can never completely fix it.

 

[UncleBingo]

Love that term "loudness wars" very descriptive; it's not the mediums fault. I also have more vinyl than digital media, but most of what I have has no digital equivalent available. Highly compressed modern "music" just seems to be the norm these days. It's so bad you can actually hear it 'breath' - that's when you alternately hear, then lose the background noise as an artifact of compression. It sucks. Pink's "blow me one last kiss" or "freedom 90" from Pitch Perfect 3 are good examples of this. I've even tried running the digital format through an expander via Audacity to see if I could correct it, but without knowing the exact compression parameters you can never completely fix it.

That level of compression is called "Pumping" and is frequently used intentionally as an "effect".

 

[bimasta]

They're about achieving euphony, not accuracy.

I'm waging a lonely battle here. Beautiful music sounds beautiful — aka "euphonic"*. If my system reproduces that beauty, that's my definition of "accurate".

My favorite recent quote from the 'Accuracy Camp' was a speaker review: "Each instrumentalist occupies his own clearly defined spatial envelope, and they never overlap." That makes things easy! String quartets, or rock groups, can stop practising for years to "sound as one". They can just phone their individual part in, even from different continents.

* And why do 'audiophiles' reach back through the millennia for an old Greek word that simply means 'sounds great' — and turn it into a diss?

High end RTR with master tapes supposedly is the holy grail of analog playback.

I've been reading this forever. But how many "master tapes" exist of any given recording? And where, pray tell, does one get a collection of them?

 

[infullview]

That level of compression is called "Pumping" and is frequently used intentionally as an "effect".

A bad one. You lose so much detail it's almost unlistenable.

 

[Hajidub]

I've been reading this forever. But how many "master tapes" exist of any given recording? And where, pray tell, does one get a collection of them?

I'd put a run of the mill Betamax against any R2R and most likely come out ahead.

 

[nj pheonix]

Calling Dave Gillespie!!! I absolutely love your work. I have built 4 of these now. I have used your boards to rebuild a Dynaco sca-35 with fantastic results. I am watching for some Heathkit w-4’s in order to rebuild them for my father. I love your projects. My question is slightly off topic but I am curious if you have involved yourself in anything else Single Ended but higher wattage like you have this Magnavox? This amp you have created sounds so incredible, I want to make something as good but with 6 watts a side instead. I guess I caught the single ended bug! Is there a project out there that you have involved yourself in that fits this bill?

I'm waging a lonely battle here. Beautiful music sounds beautiful — aka "euphonic"*. If my system reproduces that beauty, that's my definition of "accurate".

My favorite recent quote from the 'Accuracy Camp' was a speaker review: "Each instrumentalist occupies his own clearly defined spatial envelope, and they never overlap." That makes things easy! String quartets, or rock groups, can stop practising for years to "sound as one". They can just phone their individual part in, even from different continents.

* And why do 'audiophiles' reach back through the millennia for an old Greek word that simply means 'sounds great' — and turn it into a diss?

I've been reading this forever. But how many "master tapes" exist of any given recording? And where, pray tell, does one get a collection of them?

http://audiophile.elusivedisc.com/search?p=Q&lbc=elusivedisc&uid=138511828&ts=custom&w=Master Tape&isort=score&method=and&view=list&sli_jump=1&af=cat:reeltoreeltape
No affiliation
I believe there are other sources.
I have no idea what's available in this medium

https://www.unitedhomeproducts.com/master_tape_sales.htm

 

[RobRoy]

Tubes and vinyl can be wonderful, but they're about achieving a particular sound, a pleasing sound.

They're about achieving euphony, not accuracy.

This. I used to argue tube vs SS back in the 70's when I sold the stuff for a living. Tube was nice, but I told people that the weak link in any system was the parts that moved.: Speakers and turntable/cartridges.

So, if you can afford Tube and match it to good speakers, I would say back then, "go for it". But if you can only afford one, get the good speakers with good solid state.

But solid state got a LOT better. I then became a bass player in the 90's and was amazed tube was still popular with musicians (guitar players) because I firmly believe that tubes color the sound (I still do). But I found out that the reason tubes are good for guitars is because with your amp you are CREATING the music, not reproducing it. So coloring the sound is what you WANT to do. It's why an acoustic instrument depends on enclosed spaces and wood type, it all amplifies and colors the sound in a pleasing way.

So I realized that, although I thought tube was cool, but I want as flat a sound as possible from the electronics in my hi-fi because it is not creating the sound. Rather, it is REPRODUCING the sound.

But I've matured even from that. I realized one day that I should apply the same thinking to tube hi-fi that I apply to vinyl. That is, I LOVE listening to vinyl, but I also know that it is not as good as digital sources and adds a lot of "warmth" (AKA distortion) to the sound, but that "warmth" is pleasing. I LIKE the vinyl sound. So why can't the same be true of tube amps for hi-fi? Answer: It can.

If I am just listening to music, it is ALWAYS vinyl (unless it's live). I love the sound. But saying it sounds more accurate than digital from the same source is not being honest with myself.

 

[infullview]

I'd put a run of the mill Betamax against any R2R and most likely come out ahead.

Betamax was early PCM and set the standard for 44K sampling rates. So ya, they were very good. Professional R2R was no slouch though, it ran at 30 ips and was capable of full dynamic capture right to 20K without tape over saturation.