Tube amp vs Solid State ouputs?

madmax

Zero wrote: »

I just wish that audiophiles in general could look beyond their own bias more often.

Tube guys can't do that, it causes problems.
madmax

Face

I can't keep my eyes off this: http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?ampstube&1253049523&/Cary-120S-Jensen-Oil-Caps-Mod

beardog03

^^^oooooohhhh

niiice !!

reeltrouble1

tubes rule.

D is for--Dodd is Dandy
C is for--Cary is Cool
B is for--Bat is Beautiful
M is for--Manely which is Marvelous

S is for Sand which is Screechy
I is for Ice which is Icky.

T of course is for Tubes which are Terrific.

RT1--That is All

mhardy6647

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

tubes rule.

D is for--Dodd is Dandy
C is for--Cary is Cool
B is for--Bat is Beautiful
M is for--Manely which is Marvelous

S is for Sand which is Screechy
I is for Ice which is Icky.

T of course is for Tubes which are Terrific.

RT1--That is All

Put it all together and it spells Dcbmsit

Face

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

tubes rule.

D is for--Dodd is Dandy
M is for--Manely which is Marvelous
B is for--Bat is Beautiful


S is for Sand which is Screechy
C is for--Cary is Cool
I is for Ice which is Icky.
T of course is for Tubes which are Terrific.

RT1--That is All

mhardy6647 wrote: »

Put it all together and it spells Dmb Scit

Fixed.

slack56

Tube vs SS???? Too funny. I'll be the first to admit I like the sound of tubes for vocals but, you can find warm sounding SS amps also. I would love to hear a perfectly neutral amp. Not bright, not warm, just play everything as the recording engineer heard it. Seems to me you would need a good headphone amp for your Sony MDR 7506's. I know my Denon 3803 doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as a tube amp for some of you but it will have to do for now. Some of us have money constraints, and dollar for dollar SS will get you more for your money and it's maintenance free.
Doesn't it really depend on the music you listen to anyway? What if your rig has to double as a home theater? This debate could rage on until they don't make tubes anymore.
And by the way I am still using my little NAD 3150 which is going strong after 30 years for my two channel rig (10A's). LOL Great for a little Diana Krall but for Tool, give me 7 channel stereo in my home theater with my JL Audio subs. If you have a Telarc recording of Tchaikovsky 1812 Overture, give me 7.2 channels and you will duck when the cannons go off.
Just my humble opinion.

G

madmax

slack56 wrote: »

What if your rig has to double as a home theater?

G

Nothing wrong with an all tube HT setup. I had one for awhile and it was awesome! Only thing is, I'm more into music so I let it go.
madmax

slack56

Wow a HT tube setup, that must have set you back. I am sure it sounded awesome. Even tho I am 52 and grew up on 2 channel, I still love music surrounding me too. I have a Carlos Santana Presents - Blues At Montreux 2004 DVD and to listen to Buddy Guy in DTS or DD 5.1 is a real treat. I relish DVD-A or SACD. Too bad the general public is going MP3. I still have more vinyl than CD's and I love to show off the sonic superiority of records over CD's but DVD audio has really bridged the gap. Well, since I don't have a Quadraphonic decoder the only surround sound I will get will be with either a DTS or DD cd or a DVD.

G

PS
I will never disrespect tube amps, a friend has an old set of Magnaplanars on their own McIntosh tube amps and it is an incredible experience. It lacks the bass I've become accustomed to but I suppose he could ruin it by adding a sub. I love the huge soundstage, and the imaging is so good it's scary, but alas I will have to suffer with my meager setups. (I actually love my equipment)

megasat16

I've been busy playing a bit with Tube Killer SS Preamp. Just a few days and Tube Guys are Making A Big Deal out of light bulbs.

Who cares about Tube Glows when you can see real gold in the dark?

slack56

That is an impressive looking preamp. I don't know exactly what I am looking at, capacitors, rectifiers, diodes, resistors, transistors, rechargeable batteries, but they look beautiful to me. I always wondered how you keep the dust out tho. (question for the people who leave the tube amps open) What amps will this beauty control?

G

mmadden28

That thing is from the 80's (if I'm correct)--I doubt its got rechargeable batteries in it.

But the simplicity and clean design sure is sweet looking.

megasat16

mmadden28 wrote: »

That thing is from the 80's--I doubt its got rechargeable batteries in it.

But the simplicity and clean design sure is sweet looking.

Ever heard the saying "OLD IS GOLD"

There is Gold in there if you don't believe it. :cool:

mmadden28

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

S is for Sand which is Screechy
...

You are aware that there is quite a bit of sand in tubes ya know...;):p

megasat16

slack56 wrote: »

That is an impressive looking preamp. I don't know exactly what I am looking at, capacitors, rectifiers, diodes, resistors, transistors, rechargeable batteries, but they look beautiful to me. I always wondered how you keep the dust out tho. (question for the people who leave the tube amps open) What amps will this beauty control?

G

Thanks! It's a beautiful preamp with caps, resistors, rectifiers (diodes), transistors all there...:D But no rechargeable batteries.

It'll be driving one of my amps in this post.

http://www.polkaudio.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1104125&postcount=1

Systems

Cool,that may have been Nelson's first foray into Fets?The chrome cans in the upper left step up transformers for MC phono cart?

megasat16

GV#27 wrote: »

Cool,that may have been Nelson's first foray into Fets?The chrome cans in the upper left step up transformers for MC phono cart?

Yep! It may well be Nelson's First Attempt to get into FETs Class A Preamp. It also is STASIS design.

You are absolutely right. These are the step up transformers for MC Phono Cart.

Sound? No stinkin Tube Would Sounds that Good.....:D

slack56

Very nice collection of amps, looks like about 30 years worth.

G

megasat16

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

I did read recently in an audio article where the sand makers are in fact realizing the benefit of many smaller caps, one for each output transistor as opposed to those god awful coke can looking ear bleeding things they pushed out as high power but with a total lack of any refined sound. If sand is your bag something to take note of.

RT1

So, you've been reading an Audio Magazine from the early 90s? As I recall, most manufacturers (domestics or foreign brands alike) would use a bank of smaller caps in parallel as power supply filter caps (aka reservoir caps) in the lower end models to cut cost and will only use the bigger Beer Cans in the higher up models. The advantage? Saving more to make better margins. And easier to implement since they are small and can put into smaller chassis. Well, it's was a good thinking.

If you are reading a very recent article, it may be just that they are renewing the old trend to make more money. That's all....:D

heiney9 wrote: »

You mean like this......heeeeee.....heeeee.



Always hated the Coke cans and never thought they did anything but hurt the final sound. I'm not fond of any of the Japanese 70's-90's amps that seem to think effing huge caps were anything more than for eye candy.

Nice and clean looking amp there, H9! But it is another BS from manufactures that a bank of smaller caps would work better than beer cans coz the high end Sand Amps will have a Bank of Beer Cans in it. A good sounding amp or a crappy sounding amp has all to do with the overall design and build and little to do with whether beer cans or small caps banks are used. Usually, an amp with beer can caps will have some kind of bypass caps (smaller value caps) too.

The Onkyo Grand Integra M-508 has 4 x 10000uF caps in each channel. So, **** has been doing that to cut cost in the mid 80s. I am sure our American Manufacturer were doing the same with the smaller caps around that time.

megasat16

Zero wrote: »

If you think you can do better than Nelson Pass, than go right on ahead...

The question is are you asking me or someone else? I did not remember I said I can do better than NP.

Where do you get that from anyway?

I don't even make an amp for a living. I just study many different amp designs and compare them. NP is undoubtedly a Genius and gifted in creating a good sounding audio equipments.

reeltrouble1

megasat16 wrote: »

I've been busy playing a bit with Tube Killer SS Preamp. Just a few days and Tube Guys are Making A Big Deal out of light bulbs.

Who cares about Tube Glows when you can see real gold in the dark?

fools gold I tell ya, fools gold.

the world will end in fire or ice, I choose fire.

Tubes Rule.

RT1

megasat16

reeltrouble1 wrote: »

fools gold I tell ya, fools gold.

the world will end in fire or ice, I choose fire.

Tubes Rule.

RT1

Well, Gold is Gold. I am not happy with either ICE or FIRE so far.

Beware the Glow of Light Bulbs. Their shine is bewitching to the man with a faint heart.

madmax

megasat16 wrote: »

So, you've been reading an Audio Magazine from the early 90s? As I recall, most manufacturers (domestics or foreign brands alike) would use a bank of smaller caps in parallel as power supply filter caps (aka reservoir caps) in the lower end models to cut cost and will only use the bigger Beer Cans in the higher up models. The advantage? Saving more to make better margins. And easier to implement since they are small and can put into smaller chassis. Well, it's was a good thinking.

If you are reading a very recent article, it may be just that they are renewing the old trend to make more money. That's all....:D

I'm thinking RT1 found something new here. The old idea was to bank them up to save money. What RT1 is saying is to seperate into individual caps right at the entrance to each output transistor. What this would do is to keep trace (or wire) losses from lowering voltages on big dynamic hits to the supply. For example, a cap right at the output transistor can deliver all of the stored charge when called for while keeping trace losses only pertinent to charging the caps back up. Great idea, better dynamic performance while being the same price as a bank or cheaper than a big cap! One more thing to add to my bag of tricks.

madmax

sucks2beme

Some of us prefer our sand processed a bit more! (Go glass!)
Sand or glass, good gear is good gear. I'd NEVER
turn down a Pass amp/preamp just because it's SS.

mhardy6647

sucks2beme wrote: »

Some of us prefer our sand processed a bit more! (Go glass!)
Sand or glass, good gear is good gear. I'd NEVER
turn down a Pass amp/preamp just because it's SS.

... or one of his power amps.

cnh

mhardy6647 wrote: »

... or one of his power amps.

Have to agree with both of you...and will be looking for a NP pre-amp soon!

cnh

heiney9

cnh wrote: »

Have to agree with both of you...and will be looking for a NP pre-amp soon!

cnh

Here you go:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?preatran&1254239465&/Pass-Labs-Aleph-P-balanced-rem

:D

megasat16

heiney9 wrote: »

Here you go:

http://www.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/cls.pl?preatran&1254239465&/Pass-Labs-Aleph-P-balanced-rem

:D

You being a Huge Pass Fan, I am wondering you would know the sonic difference between Aleph P and Threshold FET 1 Series II Stasis pre.

I know Aleph P has balanced circuitry but I don't mind not having it. How would they compare sonically? How about GFA 750 stacks up to the Aleph P? :cool:

megasat16

madmax wrote: »

I'm thinking RT1 found something new here. The old idea was to bank them up to save money. What RT1 is saying is to seperate into individual caps right at the entrance to each output transistor. What this would do is to keep trace (or wire) losses from lowering voltages on big dynamic hits to the supply. For example, a cap right at the output transistor can deliver all of the stored charge when called for while keeping trace losses only pertinent to charging the caps back up. Great idea, better dynamic performance while being the same price as a bank or cheaper than a big cap! One more thing to add to my bag of tricks.

madmax

It's possible to use filter caps close to each output transistors for the amps with less than 2-4 transistors for each channel. Remember you'll need a trace for (source in MOSFET and collector in BJT) for each transistor. So, if you have multiple transistors in one channel, designing a PCB with a trace for each transistor could be a nightmare.

If a substantial voltage drop during high dynamic power driving low impedance load is the primary concern for an amp, it should have fully regulated Power Supply Section which itself is a power amplifier. But remember, nothing is bullet proof in the audio amplifier. With enough time provided, any good amp will give up driving a hard load at a very loud volume. I guess the hearing will probably give up way before though.

Systems

megasat16 wrote: »

I know Aleph P has balanced circuitry but I don't mind not having it. How would they compare sonically? How about GFA 750 stacks up to the Aleph P? :cool:

The Aleph P and 750 have the same basic gain stages(differential pair of Mosfets) based on the DIY Bride of the Son of Zen pre, which is the balanced version of the single ended Bride of ZEN.One would expect the there to be a strong family resemlence between them.I have built two Bride of ZEN's and think it a great sounding little pre.