View Full Version : Funny or misguided, "tube audio," ya right
W7DJM
05-30-2005, 09:39 PM
http://www.montagar.com/~patj/tubeart.htm
For those of you too young to know about dynamotors or B+, next time you want to listen to music in your car, just tape a couple of Makita brand battery drills to your head, and tape the switches down while you listen.
to put your feet back on the planet, most people can't "hear" the difference between a tube and a transistor amplifer, especially in a car.
Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ May 30 2005,14:39)]For those of you too young to know about dynamotors or B+, #next time you want to listen to music in your car, #just tape a couple of Makita brand battery drills to your head, and tape the switches down while you listen. #
Naahhh...do what the "big strappers" of the CB world do:
Throw a couple Leece-Neville alternators under Ye Olde Hood, couple them to a suitable HV transformer with a "Y" primary then rectify and filter accordingly.
Filament power can be supplied via the vehicle's 12VDC charging system, regulating as appropriate. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
kb2vxa
05-30-2005, 10:27 PM
Hi DJM and all,
"to put your feet back on the planet, most people can't "hear" the difference between a tube and a transistor amplifer..."
I most certainly can and I prefer tubes, triodes sound best. Could be that's why those top end European amps use all triodes? Could be that's why Glass Audio is such a success? Pick up a copy and read all about it, then maybe you'll be tempted to buy a "hollow state" amplifier kit, well, maybe not when you see the price.
I had all tube equipment, an H.H. Scott preamp/control center and two 100W Macintosh Williamson power amps were the heart of it. With good speakers (nobody knows what an Altec-Lansing 500 Voice Of The Theatre is these days) you most definately CAN hear the difference.
"especially in a car."
Now you're comparing apples to oranges. The last tube automotive audio equipment made was an AM in dash radio, then hybrid (low plate voltage tubes and germanium audio transistors) and finally solid state. Those sophisticated rolling entertainment systems came along later, MUCH later.
As for having my feet on the planet, mine trudged through plenty of mud and oil down at the junk yards searching for the ultimate AM broadcast DX receiver. I found it, a 1955 6V Buick Sonomatic with built in 8" speaker. Now you're comparing THAT to your CD changer or what? Sorry if I just don't get it.
W7DJM
05-30-2005, 10:40 PM
""I most certainly can and I prefer tubes""
Well, I have news. Most people over the age of say, 40, can't. Yes, they can hear the difference between different systems, between different speakers, changes in equalizers.
Most, however, CANNOT hear the miniscule difference in distortion from EQUALLY engineered systems.
""""""""""""""""""especially in a car.""""""""""""""""""""""'
Evidently you didn't read the web page very far, as in
"""Now you're comparing apples to oranges"""
I'm doing no such thing. The guy who built the thing is--HE is the one claiming that it's worthwhile ("I don't get it) to spend untold amounts of time and money to build a not just one but TWO dynamotor powered, 6146 (they ain't triodes) amplifier, and then claim that in an automotive environment, that this is somehow "better."
I doubt like hell that the specific situation this website promotes---namely an amplifier run in this fashion off a typical auto 12v system, with all the shortcomings that an automotive environment brings to bear, including limitations in speakers, size, quality, placement, the audio characteristics of the car itself, on and on.
Let's not forget road, engine, transmission, AC blower noise, and the wife/girlfriend/crying kids.
Oh yeah, and the forementioned dynamotor noise----
what I'm saying is, a car ain't no concert hall.
k4kyv
05-30-2005, 11:21 PM
Maybe there are subtle differences between well engineered solid state units and tube units. I suspect it mostly has to do with the clipping effect when an amp is driven into saturation. Due to transformer coupling, there is some buffering between the clipped peaks and the speakers, whereas with solid state the harsh sound of the sharp corners on the clipped waveforms is delivered right to the speaker or headphones.
If neither amp is driven beyond linearity, there is negligible difference in sound. Of course, some people like the sound of even harmonic distortion and swear by single-ended amplifiers.
Audiophools have lost all credibility with their $600 power power cords, oxygen-free speaker cable, and now, frozen tubes (view the url below).
http://www.tubeworld.com/cryovalve.htm
A phool and his money are soon parted.
Audiophools are to hi-fi enthusiasts as CB'ers are to hams.
Audiophools - the CB'ers of the audio world.
Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ May 30 2005,11:40)]6146 #(they ain't triodes) #amplifier
what I'm saying is, # a car ain't no concert hall.
Not to mention that 6146's are a pretty poor choice for audio amplifier tubes...
But, if this guy has got the room to mount a four foot rack in his vehicle to house this thing, it probably IS damn close to a "concert hall" !
73 de Jeff
Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ May 30 2005,16:21)]Audiophools have lost all credibility with their $600 power power cords, oxygen-free speaker cable, and now, frozen tubes (view the url below).
http://www.tubeworld.com/cryovalve.htm
Hey - I got me a couple big metal transmitting tubes - reckon I could throw 'em in your freezer until I get my latest tramplifier built? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
K9STH
05-31-2005, 12:37 AM
Supposedly the prmary difference in "sound" between a tube type amplifier and a solid-state amplifier is the following:
Tubes are "prone" to generating odd order harmonics and solid-state devices are "prone" to generating even order harmonics. Odd order harmonics are much more "pleasing" to the ear than are even order harmonics.
Most of the time it doesn't matter to me if the amplifier is tube or solid-state. But, if the amplifiers are compared by hooking up to the exact same speaker system I can usually tell a very slight difference in favor of the tube amplifler. However, most people stick with one type or the other and the vast majority of people cannot really tell which is which. There are a few, and there are people who hook up all sorts of test equipment just to be able to "say" that they have the "best" system available. But, when a decent set of speakers is hooked to a decent amplifier I don't complain about "how" the systems sounds.
Glen, K9STH
WA2ZDY
05-31-2005, 01:14 AM
Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ May 30 2005,18:27)]I had all tube equipment, an H.H. Scott preamp/control center and two 100W Macintosh Williamson power amps were the heart of it. With good speakers (nobody knows what an Altec-Lansing 500 Voice Of The Theatre is these days) you most definately CAN hear the difference.
Here's a prime example of "apples and oranges." #I've no doubt a classic MacIntosh toob amp could well have sounded better than most of what's out there today. #My stereo here at home is solid state, puts out about 10w per channel and I can assure you the old EJ Korvette's branded Harmon Kardon amp I blasted my eardrums with day in and day out as a teenager#would sound better than my stereo today.
But that sure doesn't prove anything. #
I think KYV - an expert on the subject of audio in my opinion - is mostly right with the understanding that Glen's theory on odd vs even order harmonics is probably true. # (I did literally burn out a set of AKG cans on my head one night while seriously melting my brain to Van Halen at about age 20. #I no longer claim to be able to hear the difference in anything. #Thus my utter and complete satisfaction with mp3 encoded audio.)
The biggest thing the audiophools have done is made the Chinese and Soviet/Russian tube manufacturers filthy rich selling tubes that have an out-of-box defect rate approaching 50%. #Additionally, the audiophools are so brainwashed that they are willing to pay prices that have pretty much made keeping a boatanchor on the air past its next tube need a dicey proposition.
Me? #I thank goodness that solid state ham rigs work just fine.
KA4DPO
05-31-2005, 01:56 AM
Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ May 30 2005,15:40)]""I most certainly can and I prefer tubes""
Well, I have news. #Most people over the age of say, 40, can't. #Yes, they can hear the difference between different systems, between different speakers, #changes in equalizers.
Most, however, CANNOT #hear the miniscule difference in distortion # from EQUALLY #engineered systems.
""""""""""""""""""especially in a car.""""""""""""""""""""""'
Evidently #you didn't read the web page very far, as in
"""Now you're comparing apples to oranges"""
I'm doing no such thing. #The guy who built the thing is--HE is the one claiming that it's worthwhile # ("I don't get it) # to spend untold amounts of time and money to build a # # not just one but TWO dynamotor powered, # 6146 #(they ain't triodes) #amplifier, and then claim that in an automotive environment, #that this is somehow # "better."
I doubt like hell that the specific situation this website promotes---namely # an amplifier run in this fashion off a typical #auto 12v system, # with all the shortcomings that an automotive environment brings to bear, #including limitations in speakers, size, quality, placement, # the audio characteristics of the car itself, #on and on.
Let's not forget road, engine, #transmission, #AC blower noise, # and the wife/girlfriend/crying kids.
Oh yeah, and the # forementioned dynamotor noise----
what I'm saying is, # a car ain't no concert hall.
(VXA) I don't know about wamth, depth, and all the other terms used to describe tube amplifiers. #I do know about linearity, harmonic distortion, flat topping, falling off and a host of other measurments for amplifiers. #
A well designed solid state amplifier with a stiff power supply sounds as good or better than any tube amp on the planet. #Now obviously someone will have a different opinion so they should look at the specs.
Most of the old tube amps, Macintosh, JBL, Aiwa, etc. were of the push pull type output. #All of these amps suffered from crossover distortion (the point at which one tube cuts off as the other is comming on) and rolloff on lows because the power supply would bottom out.
Please take a look at the noise figure of modern devices vs tubes. #TSK TSK, tubes loose. #How can you build a quieter amp with inherantly noisey devices? #
Bottom line is we all like to remember the good old days with fond memories and there are tube audio dealers who also want you to feel that way. #Try looking at specifications and test results or, have someone set up top of the line tube and solid state amps in a room. #Be sure they can use the same speaker system. #Now without looking, and be honest, try to tell the difference. #I would be willing to bet you can't. #Of course you'll say "Oh no, your wrong, I can tell because my ears are so highly refined". #Uh hu, Show me the absolute measurements and I'll be a believer.
Ah tube vs. solid state for audio -- a subject near and dear to my heart!
I approach this from the perspective of both an amateur musician and formally trained electrical engineer.
From the engineering perspective, there is no doubt. Solid state amps definitely result in better readings on a distortion analyzer than any tube amp. And that should end the question, shouldn't it? If solid state amps "distort" less than tube amps, shouldn't they "sound" better? And for the pure engineer, that is indeed the final answer. Tube amps simply distort more than solid-state amps. No question about it. End of story.
And yet, my ears prefer tubes. And so do the ears of my wife -- a person who hasn't the slightest idea of how either tubes OR semi-conductors operate or how either is "supposed" to sound. (When I replaced my SS amp with a tube amp a number of years ago without telling the XYL, she immediately noticed the difference and asked what I did to make our system sound better. Admittedly, I was expecting to hear a difference -- but she wasn't. To me, that's fairly compelling evidence the differences are indeed real rather than imagined.)
Let's draw an analogy to another of our senses, namely taste. Let's assume our original "signal" is lemon juice diluted with water. Now let's "distort" that signal by adding either of two adulterants, namely sugar or lye (NaOH). Now most people will accept and even prefer considerable "distortion" in the form of added sugar, while even a trace presence of lye will result in a disagreeable "soapy" flavor. But the chemical engineers will assure us -- correctly -- that the sample with lye is less "distorted" (i.e. closer to the original) than the one adulterated with sugar. But who actually prefers lemonade made with lye rather than sugar? Do you? Similarly, the preference for even order distortion over odd is something that seems to be wired into the human brain. (And it doesn't appear to have much to do with the loss of high frequency sensitivity that we experience as we age. Indeed, most of the differences I now hear in tube amps seem to be in the lower registers.)
There is much in the world that can be explained by science and much that cannot. Music is fascinating in that it transcends both worlds. There is a definite mathematical and scientific basis underlying music. And yet, in the final analysis, the ultimate decision as to what is "good' or "bad" music rests with our own ears and, ultimately, our own primeval, emotional response to what we hear. The explanations, if any, have more to do with the hypothalamus than they do with distortion analyzers.
The general preference for the "tube" sound can be demonstrated and measured with scientifically controlled double blind tests. (I admit, the same cannot be said for magic interconnect cables and other such nonsense.) The mechanisms have less to do with engineering than they do with how our ears and brains react with the world. But is that somehow bad?
KA4DPO
05-31-2005, 01:53 PM
Yes but your ears are superrior to ours. Those of us who believe that lower harmonic distortion means truer reproduction have tin ears incapable of hearing the magic of electrons boiling off of the fillament.
I agree with you that there are things that can't be explained by science. I too am a EE but I refuse to believe in electronics having never seen an electron. Have you? I prefer to think that there are little spirits in the circuit.
wa9cwx
05-31-2005, 02:17 PM
Someone PLEASE diuscuss the difference between DIGITAL audio and ANALOG.
I think I hear a difference, AND I FEEL better listening to my old analog tapes(?). My wife (a lifelong music lover/multi talented musician) prefers her digital recordings.
(actually I prefer CW, but that's not the point!!) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
w0aew
05-31-2005, 02:20 PM
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ May 31 2005,06:53)]I too am a EE but I refuse to believe in electronics having never seen an electron. Have you?
http://home.comcast.net/~winterbauer/ham/electron.jpg
Not only do my ears prefer tubes, they also prefer vinyl.
Someone once said it this way....
"With tubes you get that "fat" sound that solid state can never produce"
73
George
K3UD
KA4DPO
05-31-2005, 03:45 PM
Quote[/b] (WA5OES @ May 31 2005,07:20)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ May 31 2005,06:53)]I too am a EE but I refuse to believe in electronics having never seen an electron. Have you?
http://home.comcast.net/~winterbauer/ham/electron.jpg
So thats what those little devils look like. Thanks...
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ May 31 2005,06:53)]Those of us who believe that lower harmonic distortion means truer reproduction have tin ears incapable of hearing the magic of electrons boiling off of the fillament.
No real disagreement here, although no one has claimed there is magic involved. The differences in the types of distortion created in tube and solid-state devices are well understood. Perhaps I should have said that it's the difference between tube and solid-state "sound" that is real and measurable. Whether the tube sound is "better" is, of course, more subjective and open to opinion. And I think I stated there is no question SS amps measure lower total distortion than tube amps. I only take issue with those who claim there is "no difference" between the sound of tube and SS amps. There is a difference. I can hear it and so can many others. I happen to prefer the tube sound, but can accept that others don't. (I also understand that some people like puting mustard on ice cream but that's another matter.)
Now as to those who claim to hear differences among different types of fuses, power cords, volume control knobs, support feet, etc....
K8ERV
05-31-2005, 04:43 PM
Neato pix, going to send it to all my doubting (or is it "doubtful")? friends.
One thing that never seems to be mentioned in HiFi discussions is the damping factor.
Had a guy buy some SMALL magnet wire from me, wanted to make a long speaker run with it, thot it would improve the sound. I asked him if he ever heard of the damping factor, but have not heard from him on his results.
I think that "better" is just very subjective.
I like the sound of silence. I never put batteries in my hearing aid. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
TOM K8ERV #Montrose Colo
kl7aj
05-31-2005, 04:53 PM
Quote[/b] (k9cn @ May 30 2005,19:42)]Ah tube vs. solid state for audio -- a subject near and dear to my heart!
I approach this from the perspective of both an amateur musician and formally trained electrical engineer.
From the engineering perspective, there is no doubt. #Solid state amps definitely result in better readings on a distortion analyzer than any tube amp. #And that should end the question, shouldn't it? #If solid state amps "distort" less than tube amps, shouldn't they "sound" better? #And for the pure engineer, that is indeed the final answer. #Tube amps simply distort more than solid-state amps. #No question about it. #End of story.
And yet, my ears prefer tubes. #And so do the ears of my wife -- a person who hasn't the slightest idea of how either tubes OR semi-conductors operate or how either is "supposed" to sound. #(When I replaced my SS amp with a tube amp a number of years ago without telling the XYL, she immediately noticed the difference and asked what I did to make our system sound better. #Admittedly, I was expecting to hear a difference -- but she wasn't. #To me, that's fairly compelling evidence the differences are indeed real rather than imagined.)
Let's draw an analogy to another of our senses, namely taste. #Let's assume our original "signal" is lemon juice diluted with water. #Now let's "distort" that signal by adding either of two adulterants, namely sugar or lye (NaOH). #Now most people will accept and even prefer considerable "distortion" in the form of added sugar, while even a trace presence of lye will result in a disagreeable "soapy" flavor. #But the chemical engineers will assure us -- correctly -- that the sample with lye is less "distorted" (i.e. closer to the original) than the one adulterated with sugar. #But who actually prefers lemonade made with lye rather than sugar? #Do you? #Similarly, the preference for even order distortion over odd is something that seems to be wired into the human brain. (And it doesn't appear to have much to do with the loss of high frequency sensitivity that we experience as we age. #Indeed, most of the differences I now hear in tube amps seem to be in the lower registers.)
There is much in the world that can be explained by science and much that cannot. # #Music is fascinating in that it transcends both worlds. #There is a definite mathematical and scientific basis underlying music. #And yet, in the final analysis, the ultimate decision as to what is "good' or "bad" music rests with our own ears and, ultimately, our own primeval, emotional response to what we hear. #The explanations, if any, have more to do with the hypothalamus than they do with distortion analyzers.
The general preference for the "tube" sound can be demonstrated and measured with scientifically controlled double blind tests. #(I admit, the same cannot be said for magic interconnect cables and other such nonsense.) #The mechanisms have less to do with engineering than they do with how our ears and brains react with the world. #But is that somehow bad?
What people don't realize is that INTERMODULATION distortion is far more annoying and "un-musical" than Harmonic distortion. It is INCREDIBLY easy to obtain harmonic distortion figures down to the vanishing point in any solid state amplifier. All you need is gobs of inverse feedback. Unfortunately, massive quantities of inverse feedback almost alwas causes differential phase problems and a really obnoxious sounding thing called Transient Intermodulation Distortion. Vacuum tube amplifiers sound better because they have lower INTERMOD and TRANSIENT distortion figures, not lower harmonic distortion! This was conclusively proven back in the 60s....it's not black magic!
eric
wa4brl
05-31-2005, 05:13 PM
What's wrong with running your system WITHIN its power range so it DOESN'T flat-top and DOESN'T produce harmonics (odd OR even) and keeps the total harmonic distortion down within the amplifier's published specifications?
Selecting an exhorbitantly priced tube amplifier because because it will produce more pleasing odd-order harmonics when it flat-tops seems an oddly curious compromise. If you're amp is flat-topping on peaks, you can simply turn the volume down and eliminate that distortion. Better yet, You can purchase a reasonably priced solid-state amp with enough power to handle those peaks with headroom to spare at the volume you prefer. Quality (NOT necessarily expensive) solid-state amps will also provide a THD figure an order of magnitude BETTER than the best tube amp That figure won't fade over time as a tube amp's will, either.
The finest reproduction at the lowest cost. What could sound better than that?
(And I didn't need to do any name calling to say it) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ May 31 2005,09:53)]Vacuum tube amplifiers sound better because they have lower INTERMOD and TRANSIENT distortion figures, not lower harmonic distortion!
Well, I thought tubes were higher in all distortion figures. I think amplifier design -- which you sort of mentioned -- is very important for these comparisons.
For road work I think that the inherent microphonics of tube designs under vibration would be undesirable. This is in addition to considerations of space, heat, ruggedness, and the tendancy for vibrated sockets to loosen.
For home use, give me a glow-in-the-dark amp anyday. I love to take a rare-Earth magnet next to an operating audio triode to hear the distortion for myself. Transistor rigs are boring.
73,
Dave/al2i
kl7aj
05-31-2005, 05:33 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ May 31 2005,10:16)]Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ May 31 2005,09:53)]Vacuum tube amplifiers sound better because they have lower INTERMOD and TRANSIENT distortion figures, not lower harmonic distortion!
Well, I thought tubes were higher in all distortion figures. #I think amplifier design -- which you sort of mentioned -- is very important for these comparisons.
For road work I think that the inherent microphonics of tube designs under vibration would be undesirable. #This is in addition to considerations of space, heat, ruggedness, and the tendancy for vibrated sockets to loosen.
For home use, give me a glow-in-the-dark amp anyday. #I love to take a rare-Earth magnet next to an operating audio triode to hear the distortion for myself. #Transistor rigs are boring.
73,
#Dave/al2i
I don't think the lower intermod figures of tube amplifiers is necessarily due to the the tubes themselves. However, traditional design of most tube amplifiers calls for much less inverse feedback (or none at all!) than transistor designs...because in most tube amplifiers you didn't have as much gain to start with. I've heard some really sweet sounding zero feedback transistor amplifiers too. But these are rarities....generally some sort of feedback is needed in a transistor amplifier, just to prevent thermal runaway...not a problem in a tube amp. If people built transistor amplifiers like they built tube amplifiers, there probably wouldn't be as much audible difference...but that's a big IF. Sad fact of life is, with op-amps and such, it's just too easy to come by nearly infinite gain, and infinite feedback....great for scientific instrumentation amplifiers, but genuinely "suckworthy" for audio.
eric
w0tdh
06-02-2005, 12:44 AM
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..........Oranges es Apples again. Frozen Tubes. Sounds like a compote.
All I can say is my A2 is sounding just fine. My 756Pro is in shop now for 2nd week ( they have not yet looked at it ).
Guess what just keeps right on plugging? It isn't the RICE BOX. At least I could fix the A2 "At Home".
If you folks under 40 don't know what an A2 is, please ask someone older http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
73,
Tom - KØPJG
K9STH
06-02-2005, 02:32 AM
PJG:
The 75A2 came out in 1951 and was replaced by the 75A3 by 1953. The 75A4 came out in 1955.
It might even require someone older than 40 to correctly identify an "A2".
I have a 75A2, 75A3, and a 75A4. Over the years I have owned three other 75A2 receivers and 75A1 serial number 4. Unfortunately, I got rid of the 75A1 back in the mid 1970s when you almost had to pay for someone's gasoline to haul them off. Sure wish I had it back.
For those who don't have a "clue" as to what we are "talking about" go to
http://home.comcast.net/~k9sth
and "click" on the link about the latest shack photos. It is located near the bottom of the list of links.
Also have a 51J2, two 75S-1, and a 75S-3A in my set of active receivers.
Glen, K9STH
KA8DKT
06-02-2005, 06:13 PM
Quote[/b] (W7DJM @ May 30 2005,15:40)]""I most certainly can and I prefer tubes""
Well, I have news. #Most people over the age of say, 40, can't. #Yes, they can hear the difference between different systems, between different speakers, #changes in equalizers.
Most, however, CANNOT #hear the miniscule difference in distortion # from EQUALLY #engineered systems.
""""""""""""""""""especially in a car.""""""""""""""""""""""'
Evidently #you didn't read the web page very far, as in
"""Now you're comparing apples to oranges"""
I'm doing no such thing. #The guy who built the thing is--HE is the one claiming that it's worthwhile # ("I don't get it) # to spend untold amounts of time and money to build a # # not just one but TWO dynamotor powered, # 6146 #(they ain't triodes) #amplifier, and then claim that in an automotive environment, #that this is somehow # "better."
I doubt like hell that the specific situation this website promotes---namely # an amplifier run in this fashion off a typical #auto 12v system, # with all the shortcomings that an automotive environment brings to bear, #including limitations in speakers, size, quality, placement, # the audio characteristics of the car itself, #on and on.
Let's not forget road, engine, #transmission, #AC blower noise, # and the wife/girlfriend/crying kids.
Oh yeah, and the # forementioned dynamotor noise----
what I'm saying is, # a car ain't no concert hall.
6146s seem to me to be a poor choice for audio tubes. 6550s would be a much better choice.
And, what is a "MacIntosh Williamson" Amp? McIntosh used a special circuit that required a specially wound output transformer, but it certainly wasn't a Williamson amp.
Lastly, a car is possibly the worst possible listening environment for quality audio. (OK, next to a bottling plant.) No imaging possible, reflections, refractions, too small an area for any of the sound from the speakers to properly propagate, even the quietest of cars have noise levels 30dB above an even marginally acceptable listening room, etc., etc.
I doubt that anyone, even a "golden ears", could tell the difference between a good (i.e. properly designed) tube amp and a solid state amp in a car moving at 50mph on a highway.
Now I happen to like tube amps myself, (my main stereo system is a pair of MC 240s) but I know of several companies that are building solid state MOSFET output amplifiers that have harmonic distortion, IM distortion, phase errors, and noise levels almost as low as a piece of wire. OK, perhaps a very slight exaggeration, but these amps are *clean*!
Not that you could tell in a car.
-gary
KA8DKT
06-02-2005, 06:18 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ May 31 2005,10:16)]Quote[/b] (kl7aj @ May 31 2005,09:53)]Vacuum tube amplifiers sound better because they have lower INTERMOD and TRANSIENT distortion figures, not lower harmonic distortion!
Well, I thought tubes were higher in all distortion figures. #I think amplifier design -- which you sort of mentioned -- is very important for these comparisons.
For road work I think that the inherent microphonics of tube designs under vibration would be undesirable. #This is in addition to considerations of space, heat, ruggedness, and the tendancy for vibrated sockets to loosen.
For home use, give me a glow-in-the-dark amp anyday. #I love to take a rare-Earth magnet next to an operating audio triode to hear the distortion for myself. #Transistor rigs are boring.
73,
#Dave/al2i
Actually, the "warm" sound of a tube amp is caused by the intermod distortion. This is what caused the so-called "fat" sound of many tube amps.
Most tube amps had a bit of this because of the output transformer. The lowest distortion amps were the McIntoshes because of their special feedback design using specially wound output transformers that had a winding for the cathodes of the output tubes.
-gary
kb2vxa
06-03-2005, 10:53 PM
Hi again,
"Audiophools have lost all credibility with their $600 power power cords, oxygen-free speaker cable, and now, frozen tubes (view the url below).
http://www.tubeworld.com/cryovalve.htm
A phool and his money are soon parted.
(A phool and his phunny are foon farted. W. E.)
Audiophools are to hi-fi enthusiasts as CB'ers are to hams.
Audiophools - the CB'ers of the audio world."
I can't help but agree 110%. Then again we have something akin to another code/no-code debate going here as I expected. What it amounts to as it has since solid state was introduced is the ear can hear what instruments can't measure, that certain je ne c'est quois (don't mind my spelling, I don't speak French) of a well designed tube amp. No more need be said no matter what the engineers may speculate having no meaningful baseline (instrument readings) to confuse us with.
"And, what is a "MacIntosh Williamson" Amp? McIntosh used a special circuit that required a specially wound output transformer, but it certainly wasn't a Williamson amp."
Now that's a perfect example of not knowing what a Williamson amp is. Mac and Heathkit sold Williamson amps having that special output transformer where the screens were connected to taps on the primary winding rather than receiving voltage from dropping resistors and blocking caps or a low voltage tap on the power supply resistor string.
"The lowest distortion amps were the McIntoshes because of their special feedback design using specially wound output transformers that had a winding for the cathodes of the output tubes."
That was another design Mac used, they built a simple negative feedback around the output stage using a tertiary winding on the transformer. E. F. Johnson used something similar in the Viking Ranger but the feedback went to an earlier stage.
Now if you want to get really picky, certain European amps used triodes exclusively with class A outputs. That gives the lowest distortion of all which is why all the Western Electric telephone repeaters used high power triodes.
BTW, you can't compare analog to digital recording when it comes to "sound" because analog used EQ while digital needs none to achieve what amounts to a better S/N ratio, that's the only practical difference when it comes to recording.
Quite frankly the old analog material is digitally remastered which changes the whole mix, recording engineers never recorded what the levels were. That left the next generation guessing at what it's supposed to sound like and the result sounds nothing like the original vinyl pressing. With a bit of digital fiddling I have "restored" some of the original sound but sometimes the mix is so far off that has proved impossible, the musical balance out of whack and some instruments missing altogether.
Back to the top, unless you know your stuff you're not an audiophile, but I won't call you names. Oxygen free copper? Rather like carbon free steel, hmmmm.
Now I shall leave you, so like Buddy Holly sang, "Rave on, rave on, rave on." while I go see who's on the radio. "It's the sound vibration." (Warren Zevon)
Quote[/b] (kb2vxa @ June 03 2005,15:53)]Mac and Heathkit sold Williamson amps having that special output transformer where the screens were connected to taps on the primary winding rather than receiving voltage from dropping resistors and blocking caps or a low voltage tap on the power supply resistor string.
I always used the name "ultralinear" for that arrangement of connecting the screen grids, but maybe that and "Williamson" are the same thing. (I really don't know.)
Of course, this is just another form of negative feedback that the current, watch-'em-walk-on-water, "gurus" argue is a bad, very bad thing.
And the single ended, directly-heated triode guys turn their noses up at the whole business because only ignorant slobs with wax in their ears and water on their brains would use pentodes and/or push-pull arrangements in the first place!
The analogy with CBers is apt and funny.
Still, I love the sound of my unmodified Dynaco ST-70 (the one my dad put together circa 1964), and solid-state stuff will never beat the look of tube equipment glowing quietly in the dark.
W3MIV
06-04-2005, 01:03 PM
Quote[/b] (k9cn @ June 03 2005,21:31)]Still, I love the sound of my unmodified Dynaco ST-70 (the one my dad put together circa 1964), and solid-state stuff will never beat the look of tube equipment glowing quietly in the dark.
I guess I am of the same vintage as your old man. I built an Eico, but cannot now remember the model ID. This was around 1960 or so. It was an integrated amp, about 40 w total output. I opted for integrated since I could not afford to buy both pre- and power-amps as separate units.
Wish I had it now, just for nostalgia. Thanks for the memory.
KE7CWB
06-04-2005, 09:35 PM
just remember the "distortion guitar" sound that is pretty much standard in any type of rock music is the sound of tube distortion.
getting distortion from a tube guitar amp is easy (and these are still pretty common). you just turn it up until it distorts.
with a solid state guitar amp you need to synthesize that sound (i.e. a distortion pedal).
I can't tell any difference with typical audio systems between tube and solid state. However with guitar amplifiers I can tell the difference (tube amps have that fat sound and a lot of intermod in the background plus they are easy to get to distort, solid state are much quieter in the background and dont distort nearly as easy and when they distort it sounds like someone is trying to rip the speakers out)
KA4DPO
06-06-2005, 05:16 PM
Quote[/b] (KE7CWB @ June 04 2005,14:35)]just remember the "distortion guitar" sound that is pretty much standard in any type of rock music is the sound of tube distortion.
getting distortion from a tube guitar amp is easy (and these are still pretty common). you just turn it up until it distorts.
with a solid state guitar amp you need to synthesize that sound (i.e. a distortion pedal).
I can't tell any difference with typical audio systems between tube and solid state. However with guitar amplifiers I can tell the difference (tube amps have that fat sound and a lot of intermod in the background plus they are easy to get to distort, solid state are much quieter in the background and dont distort nearly as easy and when they distort it sounds like someone is trying to rip the speakers out)
And there you have it.
The goal of any engineer tasked with designing an audio amp for home or automotive entertainment systems is to design a system that reproduces the input as faithfully as possible without generating noise, distortion, or other unwanted products.
If the harmonic distortion of tube amps that some have lauded in this thread is so good, why then do symphony orchestras not have tube amplifiers on stage to help them sound even better?
Why does the recording industry use solid state digital recording equipment to capture and record the sound?
Why does every audio lab in the movie industry use state of the art digital recording equipment?
I suspect the people who really know will tell you that they want to hear the music exactly as it was recorded and not with added extra harmonic energy, noise, and cross over distortion.
If tubes are so great how come almost no one makes them anymore. If tubes are so great why doesn't some US manufacturer make them. Lastly, if tubes are so great, why isn't industry clamoring for tubes, spurring industry to start mass-producing them again. Anyone care to guess?
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:16)]If tubes are so great how come almost no one makes them anymore. If tubes are so great why doesn't some US manufacturer make them. Lastly, if tubes are so great, why isn't industry clamoring for tubes, spurring industry to start mass-producing them again. Anyone care to guess?
Is it because transistors are easy to make, cheap, low maintenance, energy efficient, compact, rugged, and have simple power requirements?
Let me know if I guessed the right answer!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
73,
Dave/al2i
KA4DPO
06-06-2005, 05:24 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:19)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:16)]If tubes are so great how come almost no one makes them anymore. If tubes are so great why doesn't some US manufacturer make them. Lastly, if tubes are so great, why isn't industry clamoring for tubes, spurring industry to start mass-producing them again. Anyone care to guess?
Is it because transistors are cheap and low maintenance?
It's because they are more efficient, are less expensive, last almost indefinately, and have better dynamic range, lower noise figure, lower thermal noise floor, lower distortion, and better linearity than tubes. Other than that tubes are dandy.
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:24)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:19)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:16)]If tubes are so great how come almost no one makes them anymore. If tubes are so great why doesn't some US manufacturer make them. Lastly, if tubes are so great, why isn't industry clamoring for tubes, spurring industry to start mass-producing them again. Anyone care to guess?
Is it because transistors are cheap and low maintenance?
It's because they are more efficient, are less expensive, last almost indefinately, and have better dynamic range, lower noise figure, lower thermal noise floor, lower distortion, and better linearity than tubes. Other than that tubes are dandy.
I remember a really cool science fiction short story I read when I was a kid that had the first manned mission to the moon take a really hard landing that cracked the glass in almost all of the tubes in the spaceship's radio set. It was really important to talk back to Earth.
The solution to the problem was pretty neat.
73,
Dave/al2i
Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:24)]It's because they are more efficient, are less expensive, last almost indefinately, and have better dynamic range, lower noise figure, lower thermal noise floor, lower distortion, and better linearity than tubes. Other than that tubes are dandy.
Transistors started replacing tubes even before they had those characteristics, btw, for the other reasons.
My son http://chrismcgraw.com has a guitar effects preamp that has a little glowing tube in it to give his guitar that authentic tube amp sound -- even though his actual power amp is transistorized, and faithfully and accurately reproduces the tube distortion.
73,
Dave/al2i
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:30)]I remember a really cool science fiction short story I read when I was a kid that had the first manned mission to the moon take a really hard landing that cracked the glass in almost all of the tubes in the spaceship's radio set. It was really important to talk back to Earth.
The solution to the problem was pretty neat.
73,
Dave/al2i
OK, one of you guys has to guess the solution...
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:51)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:30)]I remember a really cool science fiction short story I read when I was a kid that had the first manned mission to the moon take a really hard landing that cracked the glass in almost all of the tubes in the spaceship's radio set. It was really important to talk back to Earth.
The solution to the problem was pretty neat.
73,
Dave/al2i
OK, one of you guys has to guess the solution...
Well, since they're already on the moon and in a vacuum, the glass envelope is not really needed. Simply take the radio out of the spaceship into the surrounding vacuum, and things should work pretty normally.
Did I get it right? (And do I win a pair of NOS WE 300Bs?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif)
Quote[/b] (k9cn @ June 06 2005,11:19)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:51)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:30)]I remember a really cool science fiction short story I read when I was a kid that had the first manned mission to the moon take a really hard landing that cracked the glass in almost all of the tubes in the spaceship's radio set. It was really important to talk back to Earth.
The solution to the problem was pretty neat.
73,
Dave/al2i
OK, one of you guys has to guess the solution...
Well, since they're already on the moon and in a vacuum, the glass envelope is not really needed. Simply take the radio out of the spaceship into the surrounding vacuum, and things should work pretty normally.
Did I get it right? (And do I win a pair of NOS WE 300Bs?http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif)
OK, you win. The solution was to put on a spaceuit and depressurize the spaceship cabin as I recall (it's been like 40 years). I suppose the lack of audio-modulated atmosphere would have required code or something, but I don't remember that part, and the last thing we need is another code/no-code debate.
73 & congratulations,
Dave/al2i
KA4DPO
06-06-2005, 09:29 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ June 06 2005,10:37)]Quote[/b] (KA4DPO @ June 06 2005,10:24)]It's because they are more efficient, are less expensive, last almost indefinately, and have better dynamic range, lower noise figure, lower thermal noise floor, lower distortion, and better linearity than tubes. Other than that tubes are dandy.
Transistors started replacing tubes even before they had those characteristics, btw, for the other reasons.
My son http://chrismcgraw.com has a guitar effects preamp that has a little glowing tube in it to give his guitar that authentic tube amp sound -- even though his actual power amp is transistorized, and faithfully and accurately reproduces the tube distortion.
73,
Dave/al2i
Right, greater efficiency, smaller size & weight.