What Year Did Solid-State Start Sounding Good?

[Pio1980]

I've restored a few germanium transistor units back to original specs......they sound wonderful as well, at least when they don't have a noisy transistor in the chain anyway. I think it has more to do with the amp's design than it does with what type of transistor it has. The KLH Model Sixteen is a wonderful sounding germanium amp, albeit a little on the fragile side when pushed hard. But, why would you want to push a 25watt amp hard in the first place? Just enjoy the music

I've an early Scott transistor integrated I literally rescued off a scrap pile I've debated doing something with, but it's somewhat a time capsule.

 

[quiet]

I have a Grundig SV 50, which was the world's first mass-produced solid state integrated amp, introduced in August 1963. It's 20 WPC, which is actually quite a lot considering its age, it handles 4 ohm speakers without any problems and it sounds really good, so I'd say solid state sounded good from the start - when done right.

That goes straight to the OP question.
We would have to accept rlisin's opinion of course but he does have it right there in front of him.
And I will bet it is working good too.

 

[smurfer77]

As transistors moved away from Ge and into Si there were also improvements in circuit design. I think around the mid to late 1960s is where the arguments for tube superiority became dubious (don't get me wrong, I'm a tube guy but appreciate semiconductor too).

What was especially interesting to me was to compare Sansui's first solid-state amp, the AU-777, to the tube AU-70, which it was clearly designed to sound like. I have rebuilt both and AU777 and AU-70 and the solid state model does just fine thank you very much. The two units are (almost) indistinguishable.

Lots of semiconductor models around the same time sound similarly awesome... my Yamaha CA-1000 and Sony STR-6120 are also superb. There are many others from the late 60s and early 70s that sound fantastic.

The later 70s and early 80s brough drastic improvements in noise figures and power, but with efficient speakers the actual listening experience didn't improve much beyond the late 60s designs... at least in my living room. In fact, typically, voicing of the early designs is preferable to me

 

[quiet]

As transistors moved away from Ge and into Si there were also improvements in circuit design. I think around the mid to late 1970s is were the arguments for tube became dubious (don't get me wrong, I'm a tube guy but appreciate semiconductor too).

What was especially interesting to me was to compare Sansui's first solid-state amp, the AU-777, to the tube AU-70, which it was clearly designed to sound like. I have rebuilt both and AU777 and AU-70 and the solid state model does just fine thank you very much. The two units are (almost) indistinguishable.

Lots of semiconductor models around the same time sound similarly awesome... my Yamaha CA-1000 and Sony STR-6120 are also superb. There are many others from the late 60s and early 70s that sound fantastic.

The later 70s and early 80s brough drastic improvements in noise figures and power, but with efficient speakers the actual listening experience didn't improve much beyond the late 60s designs... at least in my living room. In fact, typically, voicing of the early designs is preferable to me

A very descriptive post from another with DIRECT comparison units.
Things are sounding "good" for the home team!

 

[smurfer77]

A very descriptive post from another with DIRECT comparison units.
Things are sounding "good" for the home team!

I wrote "I think around the mid to late 1970s is where the arguments for tube superiority became dubious..." but I meanted 1960s. Edited my post now.

Yes, it was very interesting comparing the solid state and tube amps of the same era that were actually on sale together, side-by-side in stores at the era when tube phased out and gave way to solid state. Sansui was one of the last to move to semiconductor, only doing so when high quality NPN si transistors were available (except they did use Ge in a couple of their phono sections of late tube amps). The AU-70 is one of Sansui's last tube amps and the AU-777 is the very first semiconductor. The AU-111 came after the AU-70 and is also comparable to the AU-777.

Perhaps one of the reasons the early semiconductor amps from the late 60s sound so tube-like is they employed all NPN outputs as complementary PNP power transistors were not readily available until a little later and they are all output capacitor coupled, which somehow is something that should be bad, but I tend to like amps employing it in terms of tone. Note that this is rather similar in setup to tubes where as they essentially also use only NPN (electron tube) as positron tubes are still not 'readily available'

 

[McGowdog]

Sometimes, simply because its there. I have a pair of monos that do an honest 95 watts. I use well under 10 watts. I got them cheap and making them useful was a project that I enjoyed doing.

I hear ya.

My bro has the Bob Latino Mark iii 120s.

I like my vintage bare minimally upgraded Mark iiis with the lowly 60wpc just fine.

Running ei ecc83 driver which iirc is a Yugoslavia version of the Telefunkens, Mullard gz37s, two of my driver tubes are 6550 tung sol solid gray plates and I have two black plates on the other side.

I use a pas2 preamp and darned if I never have to go beyond 5 on the dial and use my oppo 105 volume control to control from there.

What does 100 wpc get me?

Turn the pas2 dial down to 2 or 3?

I couldn't have less distortion. It couldn't be any louder, save for risking ear damage or driver damage.

That's what my point was.

Ymmv.

 

[rcs16]

I think you can track SS audio design like tracking opamp design progression to what it is today, You have the early years uA471/LM301, then the TL071, then the infamous NE5534, now you have the AD797/LM4562 types, we are talking magnitudes of performance differences. Also passive components have also come a long way from the 60-70's.
In the 70's they went out of there way to get ecaps out of the signal path. Now it is not such a big deal it seems.
I really do wonder, how many people have actually listened to a NE5534 in a well designed pre-amp, It is still today a great sounding part, Doug Self still seems to think so and so do I.

 

[quiet]

I think you can track SS audio design like tracking opamp design progression to what it is today, You have the early years uA471/LM301, then the TL071, then the infamous NE5534, now you have the AD797/LM4562 types, we are talking magnitudes of performance differences. Also passive components have also come a long way from the 60-70's.
In the 70's they went out of there way to get ecaps out of the signal path. Now it is not such a big deal it seems.
I really do wonder, how many people have actually listened to a NE5534 in a well designed pre-amp, It is still today a great sounding part, Doug Self still seems to think so and so do I.

I bet I'm not the only one here that's not up to speed on that, way over my head but I'll pay attention.

 

[rcs16]

The NE5534 is older than many members and still many will never experience listening to a $2 chip which is a basic reference point from the 70's era. Now on to dinner Fish tonight, need some more brain juice for the old noggin

 

[DEAFASABAT]

Some may say that my Epi M1 should be recapped and rewired etc. because it's over 43 years old and all original.

I'm not doing that because it still sounds great and works flawlessly and barely even gets warm even at high output.

I'm sure it would be good for the amp but I'm on a quest to see how long it will continue to operate as well as it does as all original.

I do alternate using the three channels on a regular basis.

The M1 sold for just under $1,000 in
1974 and there's some great stuff in there.

$5,053 in 2018 dollars

 

[DEAFASABAT]

I do have some Ottala designed HK 700 series components, I believe those date to around 1980. Unfortunately they are set up in a very suboptimal space.

I use an HK 725 preamplifier which I can't complain about. I consider the Ottala designed EQ functions superior to the standard rotary tone controls in every way. The Ottala designed amps & preamps were built for HK by Shin Shirasuna, and are of superior build quality for their timeframe.

HK Citation X:
Quote: Launched as an "abolute amplifier" project in 1978 with the famed Matti Ottala at the helm, the Citation XX landed in the catalogs in 1980 and in a few (rich, very rich) homes at about the same time. You don't see these that often, in fact you never do : just plain mythical.

Accompanied slightly later by a smaller combo (Citation X-I and Citation X-II) which you don't see that often either. In fact you never do.

An optional wooden crate was available for both the XX as well as for the Citation XXP preamp - needless to say : you never see these either !

If the crates bear a "Produced by Harman/Kardon, Woodbury NY USA", the rest, the electronic design was handled by Mr Mamoru Sekiya, at Shin Shirasuna (aka Silver), with the engineering recommendations of Dr Matti Ottala naturally included in the final designs.
Mr Sekiya holds today a senior position at Onkyo. Close quote

 

[N8Nagel]

I use an HK 725 preamplifier which I can't complain about. I consider the Ottala designed EQ functions superior to the standard rotary tone controls in every way. The Ottala designed amps & preamps were built for HK by Shin Shirasuna, and are of superior build quality for their timeframe.

https://www.radiomuseum.org/m/silver_j_en_1.html

Well things have changed since I made that post. I need to go into the 725 and deoxit it because it's going crackly again. However, in the intervening months I have found both a Luxman TP-117 and a HK 775 amplifier (the TOTL ~130W mono amp from that line) - I already had *one* (non working). So I got the non working amp fixed and... wow. Unfortunately the second 775 has gone distorted. I'm really not sure if it's the Lux pre or the amps but even on some KLH Twenty Threes - good speakers but not my favorites out of the ones I have - it just sounds better than anything else I've tried.

 

[McGowdog]

I bet I'm not the only one here that's not up to speed on that, way over my head but I'll pay attention.

I'm not up to speed on it either because I haven't yet found the need.

I start with what my ears (hardware) and my brain (software) tell me and go from there.

Paul McGowan from PS Audio said something iirc about how tubes make superior sound quality in the preamp stage but perhaps not so much after that. He's admittedly not been a fan of tubes.

I'm trying to discern what folks mean when they say their rcvr or amp is "tube-like". That attribute typically comes from very old solid-state iirc, ymmv.

Interesting subject though. I'd like to learn more about ss audio design and it's progression.

These places have been a good start for me.

 

[4-2-7]

What year would people say solid-state came into it's own and could reasonably compete with the sound of tubes?

Instantly
Sound Quality is subjective and one could ask the same question about tube amps.

 

[OMGCat!]

Instantly
Sound Quality is subjective and one could ask the same question about tube amps.

This is very true but even though I'm mostly a solid state guy to my ears there are a lot of solid state stuff that just sounds dull and not something I'd want to sit and listen to (I'm not going to name any names because I don't want to poop all over someones favorite gear). On the other hand I can't remember ever hearing a tube amp that I didn't at least find pleasant or better.
I'll edit to add that I haven't listened to nearly everything that's out there so I'm going to guess that there are also terrible tube hi-fi gear but I've been lucky enough to avoid it so far.

 

[unfairlane]

Instantly
Sound Quality is subjective and one could ask the same question about tube amps.

One of the biggest misleading misunderstandings in the audioworld. While musical taste is a subjective matter sound quality is not.

 

[4-2-7]

While musical taste is a subjective matter sound quality is not.

And when you go from a little table top compact system, to some lets say vintage receiver and big speakers, even of low quality you might think it sounds awesome. Now to you and your reference point it does, and it's subjective to your reference point and taste. Sorry SQ is subjective.

 

[N8Nagel]

And when you go from a little table top compact system, to some lets say vintage receiver and big speakers, even of low quality you might think it sounds awesome. Now to you and your reference point it does, and it's subjective to your reference point and taste. Sorry SQ is subjective.

I think what you're saying is that *relative* SQ is subjective, yes? As you say, if someone is used to an old table radio and listens to ANY system that I have, they'll probably think it sounds phenomenal. I would *hope* that if I took my best system and A/B'd it with a whole rack of top line McIntosh, Accuphase, etc. and some big DeVore, Focal, etc. speakers that that would sound better yet. However in the room in the middle there may be people who prefer different flavors of slightly inaccurate. As in, some people like Marantz, some Sansui, some Kenwood, something like that. To flip an old quote around, if it sounds good but measures bad, you are measuring the wrong thing, or something like that, would be my take on it.

HOWEVER... if I have two rigs, and one measures better in every distortion, frequency response, slew rate, etc. parameter I would have to admit without even listening that the better measuring one is better, and the one I would want. (I think. Would I still like live recordings as much?)

 

[McGowdog]

There seems to be a lot of p-ing up a rope threads in here.

 

[quiet]

One of the biggest misleading misunderstandings in the audioworld. While musical taste is a subjective matter sound quality is not.

I think there is a little room for subjectivity in sound quality. Highs, lows, boom, snap, tingle, air, space, image...........................