Tube Vs. Solid State (1 Viewer)

[Yogi]

Ok this might be a pot stirrer, but it might be enlightining to know what everyone's priorities are.

First let me list the pros and cons of each type. Others please add to the list.

Solid State:
------------

PROS:
1) Maintenence free.
2) Forward presentation: More snap and sizzle to the presentation than Tube gear.
3) Fast and Accurate: Higher slew rates, high damping factors, very accurate in terms of reproducing the orignal waveform.

CONS:
1) Higher amount of odd-order distortion leading to listener fatigue if not properly designed. Some of the designs from Pass, Mark Levinson, Proceed and Krell dont lead to listener fatigue, though.
2) Go into hard clipping that is strident and destroys drivers (tweeters) almost instantly.

Please add to the CONS list as I couldn't think of any other reasons.

TUBE:
-----

PROS:
1) Vintage appeal.
2) Warm laid back presentation.
3) Sound louder than SS gear for the same output levels (in terms of watts) due to large amounts of even ordered distortion that makes it sound louder.
4) Even ordered distortion sounds 'sweet'.
5) Go into soft clipping that doesnt sound strident and doest destroy drivers as fast as SS gear does.
6) Tweakability of sound by simple change of tubes.
7) Could double as space heaters esp. the high powered amps (100+ watts)
8) The glow-in-the-dark appeal. Seriously, some of them love this aspect of tube gear too.

CONS:
1) Highly colored sound, due to higher amounts of THD so less accurate compared to the original waveform.
2) Costly to maintian. Have to change tubes and re-bias them.
3) Could sound different everytime a tube is changed.
4) Tube Microphonics.

My question to all of you is what do you prefer? and why? One one end there is accuracy and consistent sound year after year and on the other there is colored sound that changes year after year. Which do you pick?

Having said that I myself found tube gear to be quite musical and sweet. I might someday take the plunge into tube audio myself for my 2 channel listening.

 

[DanielM]

first off I have listened to krell and had listener fatigue
in about 5 mins...so...
and as far as accuracy what is accurate when reproducing electronic instruments...when an electric guitar is played with a tube amp and all kinds of effects where is the reference?? whats coming out of the amp?? what is/was picked up by a microphone??
I prefer the sound of tubes yet I also prefer the ease of solid state

 

[Robert_Dufresne]

As you said Yogi, solid state is more accurate and
to me that is what HIFI is all about.

If tube amps sound sweet because they add something
to the original signal, how can they be called hifi .

Robert

 

[Yogi]

and as far as accuracy what is accurate when reproducing electronic instruments...when an electric guitar is played with a tube amp and all kinds of effects where is the reference??

Interesting point. I see what you mean, i.e, when the sound of the guitar is already colored in mastering what reference am I talking about. Well, in that case the reference would be the sound of the guitar during mastering (no matter how much colored it is at that point). All I mean is that the reproduction mechanism shouldn't add its own color no matter how musical it sounds. A sweet lie is a lie nevertheless. The reproduction should be a faithful copy of the master, is what I mean.

I personally like tube sound myself so we are on the same side. I would however would like to know of what others think esp. people who prefer SS gear.

As far as Krell goes. I think their FPB series are true audiophile statements. Their KAV and TAS series are not that great, I agree. In fact I prefer Proceed gear to Krell gear at that price point. Much more airy, neutral and easier to listen to.

 

[Yogi]

If tube amps sound sweet because they add something to the original signal, how can they be called hifi.

You have a point and going by the dictionary they should be called sweet-lie instead of hi-fi.

 

[Larry B]

Yogi:

Very interesting post....

After years of using SS, I have recently switched (in fact, am in the process of switching) to tubes. First a comment: Despite having owned better than average gear, and having considerable familiarity with many of the best names in SS, I am less than convinced that solid state is more "accurate" than tubes.

The reason that I switched to tubes is simple: I find tube gear more musical than SS. (Or to put it another way, I get greater emotional reaction when listening to tube gear.) Tubes sound more like music to me, while SS sounds more clinical. It is not unlike the difference between hearing a tight band performing live, vs. a bunch of experienced studio musicans laying down tracks in isolation.

Obviously, everyone's MMV.

Larry

 

[mike_decock]

One one end there is accuracy and consistent sound year after year and on the other there is colored sound that changes year after year. Which do you pick?

I pick the one that sounds better.

People who haven't listened to tubes simply don't understand why tube users love them. I used to be one of those skeptics until I picked up a pair of 8 watt tube monoblocks just to see what all the commotion was a bout. They blew away my 65 wpc integrated in every respect and they just made music better.


-Mike...

 

[mike_decock]

As you said Yogi, solid state is more accurate and
to me that is what HIFI is all about.

I used to think that way and until recently I realized that I was missing the goal of HIFI entirely. The point of HIFI is to have a system which creates the most realistic musical reproduction in your home. The goal is to find the hardware that best conveys the artist's message and creates the greatest emotional response.

All the measurements we make are pretty much meaningless. I doubt if any audiophile could distinguish between 0.1%, 1% or 5% distortion in an amplifier. Speakers have far more distortion than that anyway.

At the end of the day, you listen with your ears, not with a microphone and a spectrum analyzer. Would you rather listen to something the measures with greater "accuracy" or something that sounds better?

-Mike...

 

[John Kotches]

Let's go back to the guitar example, which uses a tube amplifier.

In this example, where we are mic'ing the amplifier to get a specific sound, the amplifier itself is adding additional 2nd and 4th (and higher) components -- which adds at one and two octave intervals to the sound that is produced by the guitar alone.

When played back through a tube amp, another layer of harmonics again at the one and two octave intervals are added in again. So we've got harmonics on top of harmonics, the result being a harmonically richer, though less accurate result.

One can't argue personal preference -- I've spent time with both tube and SS amps. I understand the affection many have for tube amps, but when the day is done it's not for me.

Regards,

 

[Rob Rodier]

Great thread, It is nice to finally see some of the false stereotypes of tube gear being addressed in this forum.
I would like to add that tubes don't "add" anything to the music, they simply have a different presentation that is considered by many, much more natural. It -seems- that many have not actually heard tube gear, and just make an opinion about how they "think" it sounds. It is my opinion that good tubes are much more natural than their SS counterparts.
I think that the biggest problem that tube electronics face is that they are not considered HT friendly. HT is were all the buzz and revenue are these days. Tube manufactuers need to find a way to participate or they are going to be stuck in the ever shrinking world of high end stereo.
It is sad but true.
What we need is a design with a 10x lifespan over traditional tubes, and some good marketing.
(I can dream)
-rob

 

[Chu Gai]

Personally I'd weigh in along Mr. Kotche's point of view. One can find merits in both means of playback and its quite a choice of preference. So many I see that are involved in tubes also take great pleasure (angst?) in switching tubes to further explore things. For those who occasionally find the appeal of tubes compelling, one can always insert devices which provide the 'benefits' of tubes with the 'benefits' of solid state. I'm sure this is heresy to either proponents though The statements I often hear 'being faithful to the live performance' I take with a grain or two of salt as unless you're milli vannili, performances in a particular club or stadium or concert hall will vary both within that particular venue and as it moves from place to place. For those who may be Sinatra fans, there've been many renditions of "my way" as he lent his own interpretation that varied. I don't see it as a big thing, choosing one over the other.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

When played back through a tube amp, another layer of harmonics again at the one and two octave intervals are added in again. So we've got harmonics on top of harmonics, the result being a harmonically richer, though less accurate result.

More myths about tube amps :rolleyes. There are tube amps which do not color the sound with warmth or any other unrealistic enhancement. This is a myth that started when this was the case back in the 70s. Nowadays, the better designs like Audio Research and Conrad-Johnson have eliminated these in the pursuit of accuracy. The best tube amps also do bass very well, a past weakness.
I think we should be thinking about the differences of high end amps being much more similar these days. I like many amps like the new Thetas, the X series from Pass Labs (Nelson is God! ) and when I heard the Super$$$ Halcros in NYC a year ago they had to pick me up off the floor.
It will always be a matter of opinion, but to say that tubes are less accurate than solid state is a myth that has to stop. It is simply not true.
I have used both tube and solid state for many years, but when I listen to test pressings, what do I use?
Tubes baby yeaah! I think, outside of the Halcros and very expensive solid state, they capture the tonality and midrange of musical instruments much better. And I say this having worked with real instruments almost daily since 1990.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Yogi and Friends,
Thank you. Great thread and great discussion, but I want to add some comments as a tube amp lover:

2) Warm laid back presentation.

Only to the extent (in better designed) that the presentation on the master tape is warm. I think we audiophiles are all just shooting for closeness to the master tape and hoping that was done well. I don't like the idea of using a tube amp as a tone control at all.
I will get off my soapbox now.

 

[Earl J]

What about price? I have never purchased a tube amp before, only demo'd. But it seems that tube amps seem to be more expensive (not including maintenance) than their SS counterparts. Granted this is based on my limited experience with tubes, but if its true, that would be quite a hurdle for them if they're thinking about entering the "affordable" or mid-level HT market.

Just my .02

 

[Howard_S]

I have never really had experience with tube amps. But I believe the preference is based on what kind of music you prefer? I mean if I'm listening to old jazz records of singers I think I would most likely prefer tubes whereas if I'm listening to pop/rock /jazz instrumental with modern sound engineering I think I would probably prefer solid state.

I think tube sound is generally regarded as better since pretty much all solid states amp seem to want to achieve a tube sound. So a hybrid or tube sounding solid state amp is probably the way to go.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I mean if I'm listening to old jazz records of singers I think I would most likely prefer tubes whereas if I'm listening to pop/rock /jazz instrumental with modern sound engineering I think I would probably prefer solid state.

Like other high end components, if the designer creates a "neutral sounding" product. It should work great on all types of music. My Audio Research amp does rock awesomely! I find anything acoustic even double bass guitar is natural and lifelike.

 

[Bruce Chang]

For vocals, guitar, midrange I would choose tube

For tighter bass I choose SS gear.

The tube amp for me is better for my musical tastes, but sometimes I wish have have a tighter bass in Rock music.

 

[Saurav]

If any of you are interested, here's an article that appeared in the IEEE Spectrum magazine in August 1998:
Link Removed
This article goes into some of the objective engineering reasons for using tubes in audio equipment. It might be useful in dispelling some fairly common misconceptions about tube audio in general. Some test results are included too.
Incidentally, tubes by themselves are much more linear and have much less distortion than transistors or opamps. If you find that hard to believe, read the article
One point in Yogi's original post that that article doesn't cover is cost. My monoblock tube amps cost me $250 for the pair, bought from a local dealer with full warranty. A matched set of new tubes cost me $15. I'm driving $500 bookshelf speakers with them in a medium sized room, so that dispels another myth, that you need to spend a lot on speakers to be able to use tube amps.

 

[John Kotches]

Lee,

Sure there are "less colored" tube solutions out there. They are in the minority.

Most are in the 3% (or more) THD range, and the predominant component of the distortion is 2nd order @ the octave.

Regards,

 

[John Kotches]

Saurav,

I'm not a circuit expert, but I'm wondering what the intended output of the low voltage bipolar and JFETs under test were.

Also, are the tube parts tested power amp type tubes, or preamp type tubes?

Interesting reading, and thanks for the link.

Regards,