I love tubes............

heiney9

FTGV wrote: »

as in the boat load of 2nd order harmonic distortion those little single ended vacuum state thingies are adding to the signal...;).





I'm just fun'in ya and I know why they have their appeal and they would be muchpreferable to some of the nasty SS stuff thats floating around.

I get it Fred . Having a little fun as well.

mhardy6647 wrote: »

It's funny that younger engineers (not to mention audiophiles) don't appreciate how linear a triode amplifier is, compared to transistors, which require rather complex circuit topologies to work around the fundamentally nonlinear characteristics of a transistor.

The 2HD stiff has nothing to do with vacuum tubes and everything to do with topology; only a single-ended amp (vacuum tube or solid state) will show predominant even (principally second order) distortion. This is cancelled out in a push-pull amplifier. http://www.aikenamps.com/SingleEnded.htm

EDIT, and, yeah, it does sound good, it's euphonic distortion (an octave above the fundamental) - ask the guitar guys...

I just find the regular (less expensive, simple) tube gear sounds better than cheap to mid priced solid state. Inexpensive SS sounds very. very sterile as well as veiled. I'm not a huge fan of over syrupy toobiness but the pieces I've assembled so far have great synergy and sound soooooo much better than any entry to mid level SS piece I've tried. I'm talking strictly about my office rig..............NOT the main rig.

H9

mhardy6647

I don't like that boozy, bluesy "toob" sound either (if that hasn't been obvious). That's one reason why there's no Dynaco ST-70 at my house :-)

I just ask that the stuff I listen to in the living room sounds as close to real as possible.

No doubt there's some fine-sounding solid state hardware - I am an unabashed fan of Nelson Pass's approach, for example.

heiney9

I agree, the main rig with the Aleph and a tube pre-amp is pure heaven.

When I say inexpensive that's in reference to a budget system like I have in my office. It's ridiculous how good the Dared VP-16 sounds for what I paid. I've had atleast 4 inexpensive SS integrated's in the past as well as a Nak SR (Stasis) receiver and the tubes are leaps and bounds ahead of all that past gear. I guess if add the cost of the RCA 5691's and Gray glass, black plate 6V6's the cost is a whole lot more. I actually have as much in tubes (including spares) as I have in the unit..............so maybe it's not as "budget" friendly when you think of it that way.

H9

doctorcilantro

heiney9 wrote: »

I agree, the main rig with the Aleph and a tube pre-amp is pure heaven.

When I say inexpensive that's in reference to a budget system like I have in my office. It's ridiculous how good the Dared VP-16 sounds for what I paid. I've had atleast 4 inexpensive SS integrated's in the past as well as a Nak SR (Stasis) receiver and the tubes are leaps and bounds ahead of all that past gear. I guess if add the cost of the RCA 5691's and Gray glass, black plate 6V6's the cost is a whole lot more. I actually have as much in tubes (including spares) as I have in the unit..............so maybe it's not as "budget" friendly when you think of it that way.

H9

Interesting article.

heiney9

I'm just going state this as my impression based on the recent (last 5 years) tube gear surge especially from over sea's:

I think today's tube gear is designed to be closer to solid state (in very general terms) compared to older tube gear that is refurbed. Now I realize that's a very general statement and it may not be as true for the higher end tube gear. You still get that tube euphoria but it seems to be the better or both worlds for some good tube gear.

What I mean is modern tube gear seems to have lessened that sickly, overly syrupy, sloppy, loose, type of sound really vintage tube gear *can* have. Perhaps it's just better parts, technology and tighter tolerances and better assembly, etc, etc.

Before I seriously got into tubes (and I'm still just a relative noob) I had a very poor attitude about tubes and thought they were slow, sloppy, muddy and rolled off, PITA in general.

Boy oh Boy was I wrong!!!! But my impressions came from older 60's and 70's tube gear that I heard as a kid and in my late teens, etc. Plus, in the beginning I didn;t want to put in the effort and research to learn about tube rolling, etc. I have spent close to $700 rolling tubes for the Dared preamp and (2) Dared integrated's.

H9

Jon, hows that new 6V6 based amp? Have you had a chance to hear it yet?

doctorcilantro

Interesting point. My first tube amp was a Sherwood integrated PP with EL84.

I actually decided against the 6V6 amp, at the last minute, as I wanted to build a Bottlehead headamp, however I do have a 6V6 amp, and Steve describes his mini-Torii as a "SET amp with balls". It's got clarity and body in spades. I sit my father-in-law down and he is shocked at how good it sounds, even with those "toobes".

That article is fascinating; I suspect there is much yet to learn about the relationship a pattern of orders of distortion has with the human ear. Modern tube implementions may be organizing this pattern more accurately ?

heiney9 wrote: »

I'm just going state this as my impression based on the recent (last 5 years) tube gear surge especially from over sea's:

I think today's tube gear is designed to be closer to solid state (in very general terms) compared to older tube gear that is refurbed. Now I realize that's a very general statement and it may not be as true for the higher end tube gear. You still get that tube euphoria but it seems to be the better or both worlds for some good tube gear.

What I mean is modern tube gear seems to have lessened that sickly, overly syrupy, sloppy, loose, type of sound really vintage tube gear *can* have. Perhaps it's just better parts, technology and tighter tolerances and better assembly, etc, etc.

Before I seriously got into tubes (and I'm still just a relative noob) I had a very poor attitude about tubes and thought they were slow, sloppy, muddy and rolled off, PITA in general.

Boy oh Boy was I wrong!!!! But my impressions came from older 60's and 70's tube gear that I heard as a kid and in my late teens, etc. Plus, in the beginning I didn;t want to put in the effort and research to learn about tube rolling, etc. I have spent close to $700 rolling tubes for the Dared preamp and (2) Dared integrated's.

H9

Jon, hows that new 6V6 based amp? Have you had a chance to hear it yet?

heiney9

Nelson Pass in many of his articles (many I've posted here) talks a lot about distortion patterns and types. His belief has always been ultra low distortion isn't really all that desireable mainly because of the intrusive methods a designer has to use in order to get the measured levels that low.

He has a new amp called the M2 and I posted the article about it. I'll post it again since it really hits the nail on the head and is very much on track for a tube thread.

http://www.sixmoons.com/audioreviews/firstwatt11/m2.html

It's a great example (as all his amps are) of not worrying so much about how it measures but what it sounds like.

H9

doctorcilantro

It would be interesting to conduct his tests using the "new" method described on this forum.

There is a little support in these findings for Hiraga's thesis, in that Pattern 1—with its full complement of even- and odd-order harmonics—indeed proved preferable to the denuded harmonic Patterns 3 and 4. But neither Pattern 1 nor Pattern 2 sounded preferable to the undistorted reference. I entreat those with a particular interest in this issue to repeat my experiments and judge for themselves, but for me the issue is now settled. Unless and until somebody comes up with a "magic" pattern of nonlinearity that truly enhances sound quality, I will believe euphonic distortion to be a fantasy. The only "good" nonlinear distortion is that of a nature and amplitude such that the human ear cannot detect it.

zingo

heiney9 wrote: »

Seduction at it's finest!!!

That's what tube are..................

mhardy6647

Seduction

http://www.bottlehead.com/store.php?crn=220&rn=429&action=show_detail

FTGV

Looks like you gents have had a nice discussion today and a couple of good links were posted.

mhardy6647 wrote: »

The 2HD stiff has nothing to do with vacuum tubes and everything to do with topology; only a single-ended amp (vacuum tube or solid state) will show predominant even (principally second order) distortion.

Which is why I specifically mentioned SE in post #31 as having hi levels of 2nd order added into the mix.While certainly less obtrusive to the ear it's still distortion.
Another shortcoming of SE designs is they usually have high output impedances(sometimes several ohms).Therefore when connected to a real loudspeaker who's impedance varies with frequency will have it's own frequency response change according to the actual load it is seeing.However despite the potential shortcomings I understand they can sound very musical in the right set up.

mhardy6647

All true.

I am currently back in the push-pull world but some of the most stunning sounding hifi in the "Northern New England Tube Group" is SE (not to mention DIY). Doing single-ended amps right is not, unfortunately, an exercise in frugality.
http://www.the-planet.org/nnetg.html

It would be a shame if you've never heard a good single-ended amp matched to an empathetic load. Gary's 211 SE amp is a good sounding amp, 'specially mated to Altec A5s with 1505 horns driven by 288s.

FTGV

One of these days I hope to dabble in the tube realm,maybe after I finish my 200watt Class D mono bloc's:)One of my preamp's is a SE Mosfet design that certainly gives me a glimpse of tube sound.

doctorcilantro

The Geddes AES paper is online and free. Interesting stuff.

I'm also confused why the author says there is little support just because the reference recording sounds best. Pattern one sounded "better" than pattern three, and that actually that seems to support Hiraga's hypothesis ???

There is a little support in these findings for Hiraga's thesis, in that Pattern 1—with its full complement of even- and odd-order harmonics—indeed proved preferable to the denuded harmonic Patterns 3 and 4. But neither Pattern 1 nor Pattern 2 sounded preferable to the undistorted reference. I entreat those with a particular interest in this issue to repeat my experiments and judge for themselves, but for me the issue is now settled. Unless and until somebody comes up with a "magic" pattern of nonlinearity that truly enhances sound quality, I will believe euphonic distortion to be a fantasy. The only "good" nonlinear distortion is that of a nature and amplitude such that the human ear cannot detect it.