Ye Ol' Solid State vs. Tube Debate

Early B. · January 2008

Just thought I'd post something I ran across on the 'net one day to advance our knowledge base of all things audio...

BrettT1 · January 2008

I found this to be an interesting read.

Brett

Ricardo · January 2008

BrettT1 wrote: »

I found this to be an interesting read.

Brett

If you are talking about the 10 biggest lies in audio....IMO this is just the writer's opinion (on all subjects) biased to one of the two sides that we always see on these subjective audio world. I stopped reading when he said that there's no burn-in on electronics. That is BS.

BrettT1 · January 2008

Ricardo wrote: »

IMO this is just the writer's opinion (on all subjects) biased to one of the two sides that we always see on these subjective audio world.QUOTE]

Just trying to add to the debate thread.;)

rskarvan · January 2008

Ricardo,

I'm in the camp that believes that electronics may not have any burn-in time.
The truth is that I have no idea. But, I do have a theory why electronics burn-in may be a myth.

Have you ever had an ear infection? You know... the type where you can't hear SH#$ for days because of all the sinus/related-blockage problems. Then, finally, your ear clears/pops and all of a sudden you hear better than you have your entire life. Do you remember the first time you put on a pair of eye-glasses to fix being near-sighted? All of a sudden, you experience this "RUSH" of all that you were missing when your senses were impaired.

The problem is this "RUSH" doesn't really last. After a few hours/days... your brain adjusts to its "senses/inputs" and the thrill of the newly-added detail is forgotten/filtered and lost. The fact of the matter is that your brain is forgetful (by design). We are designed as predators. Our eyes face forwards. Predator's brains are attuned to looking for immediate differences. Once we get accustomed to the "way it is" we accept that as normal and our attention will be redirected.

I never thought of the Monitor 10's as a muddy/boomy speaker until I heard Thiels. Now, my brain is accustomed to the Thiel sound and the Monitor 10's sound considerably worse. But, if I were to only listen to the Monitor 10's for a few weeks... my ears would, predictably, adapt and pretty soon, I'd be smiling ear-to-ear once again listening to the M10's.

Are Thiel's shrill? Perhaps. Maybe some people describe the detailed sound of a cymbal or top-hat ringing as shrill. I listen to live music quite a bit (playing Trumpet) and I can say that the Thiels don't quite capture the sound of a ringing cymbal perfectly. But, they capture the sound of a flute much more accurately than any speaker I have ever heard.

When I listen to the Monitor 10's, the first thoughts that invade my mind are:
1. Pretty good tweeter. Though, not quite as detailed as the Thiels.
By the way, the SL2000 and SL2500 suck when compared to the SL3000.
2. Muddy mid-range sound. (Sounds like someone tossed a blanket over the mid-range).
3. Loose bass.

As far as imaging goes, I really liked the SDA effect for quite a few years. But, the Thiels image so well that the SDA effect is unnecessary (redundant). The Thiel speakers disappear more effortlessly than any speaker that I have heard.

As much as I enjoy listening to the Thiels, I really prefer the open/airy sound of an electrostatic speaker. But, I also enjoy the punch of a dynamic driver. Both systems are very good. It quickly becomes an apples vs. oranges comparison.

In any event, I am very sure that my brain is much more forgetful (percpetion memory) than any subtle differences that may (or, may not occur) in the first few weeks of listening to new electronic equipment.

Here is another (more drastic) example regarding perception:
If you are stranded alone on a deserted island with an ugly 25 year old, after a few years, she will begin to look pretty darn good. Thank goodness women have the same issues regarding perception!

- Ron

haimoc · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

Ricardo,

I'm in the camp that believes that electronics may not have any burn-in time.
The truth is that I have no idea. But, I do have a theory why electronics burn-in may be a myth.

Have you ever had an ear infection? You know... the type where you can't hear SH#$ for days because of all the sinus/related-blockage problems. Then, finally, your ear clears/pops and all of a sudden you hear better than you have your entire life. Do you remember the first time you put on a pair of eye-glasses to fix being near-sighted? All of a sudden, you experience this "RUSH" of all that you were missing when your senses were impaired.

The problem is this "RUSH" doesn't really last. After a few hours/days... your brain adjusts to its "senses/inputs" and the thrill of the newly-added detail is forgotten/filtered and lost. The fact of the matter is that your brain is forgetful (by design). We are designed as predators. Our eyes face forwards. Predator's brains are attuned to looking for immediate differences. Once we get accustomed to the "way it is" we accept that as normal and our attention will be redirected.

I never thought of the Monitor 10's as a muddy/boomy speaker until I heard Thiels. Now, my brain is accustomed to the Thiel sound and the Monitor 10's sound considerably worse. But, if I were to only listen to the Monitor 10's for a few weeks... my ears would, predictably, adapt and pretty soon, I'd be smiling ear-to-ear once again listening to the M10's.

Are Thiel's shrill? Perhaps. Maybe some people describe the detailed sound of a cymbal or top-hat ringing as shrill. I listen to live music quite a bit (playing Trumpet) and I can say that the Thiels don't quite capture the sound of a ringing cymbal perfectly. But, they capture the sound of a flute much more accurately than any speaker I have ever heard.

When I listen to the Monitor 10's, the first thoughts that invade my mind are:
1. Pretty good tweeter. Though, not quite as detailed as the Thiels.
By the way, the SL2000 and SL2500 suck when compared to the SL3000.
2. Muddy mid-range sound. (Sounds like someone tossed a blanket over the mid-range).
3. Loose bass.

As far as imaging goes, I really liked the SDA effect for quite a few years. But, the Thiels image so well that the SDA effect is unnecessary (redundant). The Thiel speakers disappear more effortlessly than any speaker that I have heard.

As much as I enjoy listening to the Thiels, I really prefer the open/airy sound of an electrostatic speaker. But, I also enjoy the punch of a dynamic driver. Both systems are very good. It quickly becomes an apples vs. oranges comparison.

In any event, I am very sure that my brain is much more forgetful (percpetion memory) than any subtle differences that may (or, may not occur) in the first few weeks of listening to new electronic equipment.

Here is another (more drastic) example regarding perception:
If you are stranded alone on a deserted island with an ugly 25 year old, after a few years, she will begin to look pretty darn good. Thank goodness women have the same issues regarding perception!

- Ron

Very nice to know how brain cope with differences... Thanks.

Ricardo · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

The truth is that I have no idea.

I do; there is changes in sound with new electronics. I don't have golden ears and I've experienced these changes.

hearingimpared · January 2008

I've experienced over and over again the burnin/breakin phenomena. It is NOT what I THINK occured but what actually occured. Symptoms of break in are as follows; intermitent harshness, intermitent thin or non-extended bass, intermitent collapse of soundstage & or depth, intermitent muddled mid-range etc. . . . and there are more. This happens everytime I get a new pieced of gear or upgrade caps during the first, depending on the gear, 30 to 400 hours.

I wish it weren't true but it is.

Now back to tubes and transistors. I don't care what science or technical mumbo jumbo is written about either, I find tubes in the front end and preamp stages matched with a sand amplifier to be very pleasing to my ear. What does that mean? It means an excellent tonal match i.e. saxes sound like saxes, drums sound like drums, double bass sounds like double bass, piano sounds like a piano the list goes on ad nauseaum.

BTW I never heard Robert Plant sound so natural as when I played the Classic Records 200 gm pressing of any of the LZ studio recordings. The recordings themselves had a lot to do with that but the fact that I played it through the hybrid of tubes and sand made the biggest difference.

Now I admit that I've only heard Robert Plant sing live 5 times and all five were amplified and not in the best acoustic venue but when I hear the LPs I get chills and goosebumps. I wasn't getting that before introducing tubes into my rig.

mulveling · January 2008

I think debates on the superficial differences between tubes vs. sand trivializes all the difficult design decisions & trade-offs that a good amp designer should be adept at making. These often have much more impact on the sound. I've heard tube amps that are bright (despite expensive tubes) and a SS amp or 2 that are dark & muddy - both probably resulting from bad design choices and/or lack of technical knowledge - sure these examples are on the fringes, but they exist, and probably more will now that we have the Chinese re-enacting a Wild West in the hifi world.

That said, I have an inexplicable fondness for the aesthetics and history of tubes, and the sonics of good tube gear. The explanation I've heard is that tubes have a harmonic distortion profile that is more aesthetically pleasing, visually and supposedly sonically too (decreasing higher-order distortion products being the key to produce a non-jagged distorted sin curve despite relatively high amounts of THD - you can see non-aesthetic distortion pretty easily even with lower THD), but what I'm not clear on is whether this is more an attribute of tubes vs. SS or the circuits they're used in, and how just much influence the amp designer's decisions have on the distortion profile despite the device used.

Comparing the raw attributes of tubes and transistors is also a shaky proposition because the contexts in which these devices are typically used - outside of audio - are so bloody different. That's great that you can fit millions of transistors on a chip that puts out a few watts heat, but that's not really a design need for hifi amps. Clearly, the context is going to influence the design decisions and device choice. It seems that either tubes or transistors can be reasonable choices in the context of hifi audio.

venomclan · January 2008

What about Tube/SS hybrids?
Venom

mulveling · January 2008

Here's a great illustration of why the profile of harmonic distortion can matter more than the total harmonic distortion (THD) number:

http://members.aol.com/sbench102/thd.html

rskarvan · January 2008

Ricardo wrote: »

I do; there is changes in sound with new electronics. I don't have golden ears and I've experienced these changes.

The question is: are these changes real (measureable) vs. are these perceived changes (subject to human interpretation)?

The only changes I have heard is that drivers tend to need a few moments (not hours) to break-in mechanically. I have never heard a SS amp stabilize or any piece of electronic equipment break-in.

I have had my hearing professionally checked (objectively) in an acoustic chamber and I am in the top 10% of the range. So, I'd classify my ears as "silver". Had I been in the top (measureable) 2%, I'd be golden.

When I hear a group of people saying.... "I've experienced THIS... when... THIS occurs... (in a cause/effect manner)"... I can't help but think of the alleged Witches burning at the stake in Salem, MA.

- Ron

treitz3 · January 2008

***yawn***

Ricardo · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

The question is: are these changes real (measureable) vs. are these perceived changes (subject to human interpretation)?

Is this a real question? Everything in this hobby is about perception. Have you measured how the Thiels sound better than the 3.1 TL's, or is it just your perception?

rskarvan · January 2008

Both Thiel and Polk use very sophisticated measurement devices to test their speakers. I believe that Thiel adjusts their custom-engineered drivers and very sophisticated cross-overs to more exacting test parameters than Polk does with their relatively simple cross-over and much more conventional drivers. Different markets.

However, that isn't the issue. Has anyone in the industry done any test measurements to define a break-in period for electronic components (scientifically)? And, have these measurements been confirmed with ABX (blind) testing methodologies?

Seems to me that if it were real, there would be some published DATA somewhere. Not recommendations. But, hard facts. Repeatable data.

I do understand that Tubes may have some break-in characteristics due to their very finite life-cycle. But, solid state electronics is something different entirely.

Ricardo · January 2008

Ron, I asked a simple question. I'm done here. Good luck.

mhardy6647 · January 2008

I've been listening to Class A solid state (Yamaha CA-800 in Class A mode, pretty low-end, actually) quite a bit lately -- and enjoying it. Very clean, luscious midrange (e.g., vocals).

rskarvan · January 2008

I'd like to try a Class A amp someday. I hear they are as hot as toasters!

mhardy6647 · January 2008

Depends on the output power. They dissipate pretty much full power all the time. The CA-800 (from the mid-1970s) is rated at 15 wpc in Class A. Heatsinks were warm, but not hot, last night after about an hour of spirited listening (on ads L-710s, in this case).

Joe08867 · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

I'd like to try a Class A amp someday. I hear they are as hot as toasters!

So you are commenting on something you have no direst knowledge about.

Wow if I don't know something about a subject I leave it alone.

By the way I know you love your Thiels but how many posts are you going to talk about them in. They don't have anything to do with this discussion.

As far as SS vs Tube, I would have to give percieved warmth to tubes. I would give instant dynamics to Solid State.

As far as sound overall I have never personally compared SS vs Tube from the same manufacturer except for in Musical instruments. If I use that as a reference I would say Tube over SS.

rskarvan · January 2008

Jump-on-the-bandwagon-Joe,

Jeesh. I'm commenting based upon the engineering knowledge that Class-A amps run at full power output at all times (even with no input signal). I'm a little reluctant to put a 1000 Watt toaster in my living room for both heat and economy reasons.

I love tubes in guitar amps (Fender Hot Rod). They certainly are warm sounding - and, can be VERY POWERFUL. I think the primary reason to go with SS vs. tubes is for reliability and ease-of-use. I also think that SS is capable of more intricate details (transients) than tubes. But, tubes are certainly worthy for many reasons.

Joe08867 · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

Jump-on-the-bandwagon-Joe,

Jeesh. I'm commenting based upon the engineering knowledge that Class-A amps run at full power output at all times (even with no input signal). I'm a little reluctant to put a 1000 Watt toaster in my living room for both heat and economy reasons.

I love tubes in guitar amps (Fender Hot Rod). They certainly are warm sounding - and, can be VERY POWERFUL. I think the primary reason to go with SS vs. tubes is for reliability and ease-of-use. I also think that SS is capable of more intricate details (transients) than tubes. But, tubes are certainly worthy for many reasons.

Sorry I don't mean to jump on the bandwagon. I actually agree with most of what you said except break-in. But you have you opinion and I have mine.

As far as reliability goes they are both good but here again I agreewith you SS is much easier. I also used Dynamics instead of transients so we agree on that too.

One thing I have noticed though with tubes is there ability to reproduce spoken word with such realism (HT).

One thing can be said is bang for the buck SS over Tube.

Joe08867 · January 2008

I also forgot, Tubes do run at 100% all the time but that actually makes them better for moderate listening. That is why a 15w Tube amp sounds so much bigger then an equally rated SS. Tubes have there power available all the time where SS needs to create it instantly.

Now when the volume gets past 2-3 o

mhardy6647 · January 2008

I also forgot, Tubes do run at 100% all the time but that actually makes them better for moderate listening.

Nope, they don't, unless they are run in Class A. They're warm, of course, because the filaments are heated, but most of the real heat from output tubes comes from the plate dissipation. A Class AB tube amp is more efficient than a Class A tube amp, same as for solid state.

Class A vs. Class B makes more difference than tube vs. transistor. Single-ended vs. push-pull makes more difference than tube vs. transistor, too.

http://sound.westhost.com/class-a.htm

Most of the sense of "more powerful tube watts", IMO, comes from the typically far more graceful transition of tube amps into clipping (nonlinearity) compared to solid state amps. Tube amps tend to compress as they run out of steam; a much more euphonious sound than the harsh clipping of a solid state amp hitting its DC rails voltages like a brick wall.

madmax · January 2008

Early B. wrote: »

Just thought I'd post something I ran across on the 'net one day to advance our knowledge base of all things audio...

I noticed for tubes all the pros were sound quality related and all cons were convienence related. Compare this to SS where all pros were convience related and all cons were sound quality related. I must say I agree with the overall document.
madmax

jakelm · January 2008

madmax wrote: »

I noticed for tubes all the pros were sound quality related and all cons were convienence related. Compare this to SS where all pros were convience related and all cons were sound quality related. I must say I agree with the overall document.
madmax

You make SS sound like Bose:eek:

hearingimpared · January 2008

rskarvan wrote: »

The question is: are these changes real (measureable) vs. are these perceived changes (subject to human interpretation)?

The only changes I have heard is that drivers tend to need a few moments (not hours) to break-in mechanically. I have never heard a SS amp stabilize or any piece of electronic equipment break-in.

So let me get this straight all the years of experience I've had with piano, double bass, saxophone, drums etc on the way they sound is my interpretation of how closely my rig gets to that sound and you are going to discount that because it is not "real (measurable)?

How in the hell would these "real (measureable)" be better than my experience?

I gave detailed examples of what gear, components and cables sounds like when they are breaking in. If you can't hear that with your silver ears I suggest you go back to your Otolaryngologist and ask for your money back.

Oh BTW because a newer guy disagrees with you, you accuse him of jumping on the bandwagon.

There would be no bandwagon if you didn't behave like a person with "borderline personality disorder."

hearingimpared · January 2008

Joe08867 wrote: »

Sorry I don't mean to jump on the bandwagon. I actually agree with most of what you said except break-in. But you have you opinion and I have mine.

You don't need to apologize, he does.

jakelm · January 2008

Is this a cable debate thread?

LOL... We could start a thread about how the Mona Lisa was painted and we will still end up debating cables...lol

madmax · January 2008

jakelm wrote: »

You make SS sound like Bose:eek:

Just an observation from reading the posted item. I'm not making anything sound like anything.

madmax

jakelm · January 2008

madmax wrote: »

I'm not making anything sound like anything.
madmax

Lol...good pun...:p

Ye Ol' Solid State vs. Tube Debate

Comments