Is anyone aware of an objective and repeatable comparison between a
valve amplifier and a reasonable transitor amplifier, operating well
away from clipping, where the difference was significant and
overwhelmingly in favour of the valve amplifier. To be useful the valve
amplifier would need to be relatively cheap and use currently
manufactured parts. The speakers would need to be fairly common and not
present a difficult load. The source would need to be accurate and
repeatable.

One of the problems with objectivty from the cost stand point is that Tubes
amps are no long mass made--hence the price is much higher.
If you compare hand made transistor amps--their price is relativly similar
to (hand made) tube amps--leaving aside the top end insanity.

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Is anyone aware of an objective and repeatable comparison between a
valve amplifier and a reasonable transitor amplifier, operating well
away from clipping, where the difference was significant and
overwhelmingly in favour of the valve amplifier. To be useful the valve
amplifier would need to be relatively cheap and use currently
manufactured parts. The speakers would need to be fairly common and not
present a difficult load. The source would need to be accurate and
repeatable.

On 21 Apr 2005 16:59:32 -0700, "andy" wrote:

Is anyone aware of an objective and repeatable comparison between a
valve amplifier and a reasonable transitor amplifier, operating well
away from clipping, where the difference was significant and
overwhelmingly in favour of the valve amplifier.

This is an utterly pointless question. For there to be *any*
difference, one of the amps must be audibly distorting. Most SS amps
don't do this, so the odds are that you'll be hearing valve amp
artifacts if there is an audible difference. These are typically
euphonic, i.e. 'nice' even though inaccurate, so there may well be an
expressed *preference* for the tube amp.

However, this has nothing to do with fidelity to the source, where you
want *zero* audible differences. What was the point of your question,
and what did you mean by 'in favour of the valve amplifier'?

To be useful the valve
amplifier would need to be relatively cheap and use currently
manufactured parts. The speakers would need to be fairly common and not
present a difficult load.

Why? Utility is not related to cost, and the ability to drive tough
speaker loads is definitely a useful feature.

The source would need to be accurate and
repeatable.

CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

andy wrote:

Is anyone aware of an objective and repeatable comparison between a
valve amplifier and a reasonable transitor amplifier, operating well
away from clipping, where the difference was significant and
overwhelmingly in favour of the valve amplifier. To be useful the valve
amplifier would need to be relatively cheap and use currently
manufactured parts. The speakers would need to be fairly common and not
present a difficult load. The source would need to be accurate and
repeatable.


Yea,here in my room...
(Okay,this is by no means anything definitive....but... )
I have a Sansui AU-7900 amp,which I've used for a while,and loved (still
do). Built like a tank,and sounds great for a SS amp,IMO. Well regarded
in it's day. (80Wpc,IIRC.)

Then,I rebuilt a small 6V6 PP amp from a console,with (mostly) new
parts.(couple resistors I reused in the PS CRC for the input stage,they
were still right-on,and the can-cap is still in great shape.) Pretty
'generic' little amp,but it blows the Sansui out of the water,and I
-really- like the Sansui. The 6V6 amp makes ~8Wpc,both channels driven,I
measured ~10W one channel driven.)
The OPT's are kinda small,and I'm sure the PS caps could be bumped up a
bit...like I said,pretty 'generic' little amp.

I hate to say it,But I think this little amp even sounds slightly better
than my Dyna ST70-(and it rocks my socks!) Of course,the ST70 has ~4
times as much power.

The speakers I have were homebrewed,about 20 years ago by my father.
They're great sounding 3-ways,a little on the power-hungry/inefficient
side though.
They use a Phillips/Becker woofer and mid,and a Peerless dome
tweeter.Second Order passive x-overs.

I nearly wet my pants the first time I listened to the small tube amp..
I've compared it to a couple SS amps,(couple Sansui's,an older Onkyo,a
newer Pioneer,and something else I forgot.) And a few Tube amps,ST70,SE
6V6,couple SE 6BQ5 monoblocks,and a few homebrewed setups..
Nothing too "high end" or impressive,but decent..

To my ears,the small PP 6V6 tube amp wins everytime,hands down.
It's damn impressive for a cheaply produced,"common" type of amp.
The only complaint I have about it is,that sometimes the high treble can
seem a bit "harsh"..perhaps I need to tweak the feedback values a bit,or
maybe thats just 'the nature of the beast'..can't expect everything from
those small OPT's.But,if i've been able to overlook it for this long,I
guess it isn't that bad,and the rest of the sound surely makes up for it.

Stewart Pinkerton wrote:

On 21 Apr 2005 16:59:32 -0700, "andy" wrote:

Is anyone aware of an objective and repeatable comparison between a
valve amplifier and a reasonable transitor amplifier, operating well
away from clipping, where the difference was significant and
overwhelmingly in favour of the valve amplifier.

This is an utterly pointless question.

And Stewpid Oinkerton is an utterly pointless poster
at r.a.t.

Go sell you pork chops elsewhere.

I'll just warn anyone new to our group that engaging in a
"discussion" with Oinko about whether tubes do music better than
transistors will only end in a flame war and a lotta BS
since Oinko openly thinks tubes have no place and are **** for hi-fi.

He's a hater.

And yes, I am aware of many occasions where a whole group of ppl unaminously

thought triodes did better with music despite measurements indicating
otherwise.

But to know, you must conduct your own test.
You won't be wiser arguing about it with Oinkerton.

Patrick Turner.


For there to be *any*
difference, one of the amps must be audibly distorting. Most SS amps
don't do this, so the odds are that you'll be hearing valve amp
artifacts if there is an audible difference. These are typically
euphonic, i.e. 'nice' even though inaccurate, so there may well be an
expressed *preference* for the tube amp.

However, this has nothing to do with fidelity to the source, where you
want *zero* audible differences. What was the point of your question,
and what did you mean by 'in favour of the valve amplifier'?

To be useful the valve
amplifier would need to be relatively cheap and use currently
manufactured parts. The speakers would need to be fairly common and not
present a difficult load.

Why? Utility is not related to cost, and the ability to drive tough
speaker loads is definitely a useful feature.

The source would need to be accurate and
repeatable.

CD.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

For there to be *any* difference, one of the amps must be audibly
distorting. Most SS amps don't do this,

A reasonable design, operating within the linear region and driving a
benign load perhaps. Do all transistor amplifers sound the same driving
1 ohm loudspeakers?

so the odds are that you'll be hearing valve amp
artifacts if there is an audible difference. These are typically
euphonic, i.e. 'nice' even though inaccurate, so there may well be an
expressed *preference* for the tube amp.

The study of this would be the point of the exercise.

However, this has nothing to do with fidelity to the source, where
you want *zero* audible differences.

Ideally one would want this as an option.

What was the point of your question,
and what did you mean by 'in favour of the valve amplifier'?

To compare a transistor and valve amplifier where the former is working
in as linear a manner as practicable but there is a strong preference
for the sound of the latter.

Thanks for the reply but I was looking for something that could be
repeated and in which a group of people had come to the same conclusion.

"andy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for the reply but I was looking for something that could be
repeated and in which a group of people had come to the same conclusion.

When mixing in one location for a period of time, I often
take my own monitors and power amp with me.

The system consists of a Radford STA100 (UK built
late 1960's) and a pair of Tannoy Lancaster loudspeakers.

Many studio systems can offer a lot more power, but I
have yet to hear one offering such detail. I put my
system up for audition by the client or artists with whom
I am working, and they usually agree that this is the
combination on which they wish to monitor the
project as it evolves.

It's quite fun to see a valve power amp in the
control room of an otherwise all digital studio:-)

SS Studio power amps are rarely below 0.5 kW, and have
distortion figs with a number of zeros to the right of the
decimal point. One would expect them to sound better.

Be aware though that valve amps have a much lower levels of
NFB, and thus a lower damping factor (15 is typical) So some
modern and a few not-so-modern loudspeakers represent a
difficult load for a valve power amplifier.

However, the impedance of any good speaker should conform to
IEC/EN/BS EN 60268-5 which means that fore a speaker of
nominal 8 ohm, the impedance may drop to 80% of the
rated value, i.e. 6.4 Ohms.

So, as far as a valve amp is concerned, you should chose the
amplifier speaker combination with care.

Cordially,

Iain

On 22 Apr 2005 03:10:00 -0700, "andy" wrote:

For there to be *any* difference, one of the amps must be audibly
distorting. Most SS amps don't do this,

A reasonable design, operating within the linear region and driving a
benign load perhaps. Do all transistor amplifers sound the same driving
1 ohm loudspeakers?

No, they don't, but those that are *specified* to drive 1 ohm speakers
do (e.g. all non-AV Krells). Can *any* valve amp *drive* 1 ohm
speakers to a reasonable level? OTOH, most SS amps do indeed sound the
same into real-world 4-8 ohm speakers.

so the odds are that you'll be hearing valve amp
artifacts if there is an audible difference. These are typically
euphonic, i.e. 'nice' even though inaccurate, so there may well be an
expressed *preference* for the tube amp.

The study of this would be the point of the exercise.

But *why*? We already know of this preference for euphonic
inaccuracies such as even-order distortion, a high noise floor, and
reverberant microphony.

However, this has nothing to do with fidelity to the source, where
you want *zero* audible differences.

Ideally one would want this as an option.

Not if you're a fan of valve amps, where the target seems to be to
sound *different* from a good SS amp, hence by definition inaccurate.

What was the point of your question,
and what did you mean by 'in favour of the valve amplifier'?

To compare a transistor and valve amplifier where the former is working
in as linear a manner as practicable but there is a strong preference
for the sound of the latter.

Common enough with the SET gang, but so what? We already know that
nonlinear valve amps produce euphonic artifacts, so what are you
trying to learn here?

BTW, just ignore Turner's spiteful whining from the sidelimnes, he's a
bitter old Aussie who's woman quite rightly dumped him, and he has
nothing new to say.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

Stewart, one often overlooked item is that transistors are by their
nature non-linear, so surrounding them with oggles of negative
feedback, is responsible for their low THD scores on a meter. But maybe
doesn't really reduce their inherent distortion - those distortions of
a non-harmonic nature... time related distortions and other types.

So who is really so sure that tube amps are inherently more distorted ?
Of course, those few tube amps which lack an output transformer, do
seem to be more transistor like sounding in some ways, but are too few
and far in between to make up another category.

Perhaps we need to have output transformered transistor amps for making
a rightious comparison ? Interesting that among vintage amps, those
amps known for unusually good sound often had an "interstage"
transformer, both expensive tube ones like the $100K. lunatic fringe
stuff and the transistor ones (like the old gold faced AR Integrated
Amp) which probably sounded better than its ancient 2N3054 Drivers and
2N3055 output transistors would otherwise have allowed, simply because
it had a huge interstage tranny in there.

So really maybe my speaker also has some of that euphoric even
harmonics stuff too, but really I don't rely on a meter to tell me what
sounds more like music and what sounds like SH^T. I've done the tube
amp / transistor amp comparison here and had others doing the
listening. They all think bottles and silicon sound different, and in
general, the non-linearities of the transistor stuff is quite audibly
apparent. Also, similar transistor amps sound different too - worse as
the level of complexity goes up. Adding a single differential input
stage might make the THD meter go down to .005% from .05% for a
single-ended input stage, but the amp with the differential input
stage, being several transistors more complicated, sounds decidedly
WORSE on real world speakers.

Truth be told, all amps are "audibly distorting" just maybe in ways
your ear knows, but which would elude a THD Meter, that is why there
are half a dozen types of distortion, not "just" THD.

Stewart, why is it that the tube amp sounds more like "music" ? Could
it be that the artifacts of the transistor amp are the result of the
feedback, which are subtractive to the music ? If the nonlinearities
are in fact removing some harmonics that SHOULD be in there, the
resulting transistor amp sounds thin, unlike real music ?

So maybe tube amps DON'T produce Euphoric or Euphonic Effects,
transistor amps just LOSE the existing harmonics that should be in
there, and that shows up as low THD results, but the ear knows which
sounds like music.

So who is to say which amp is more distorted, a THD Meter, or your ears
Stewart ???

-Steven L. Bender

Stewart, one often overlooked item is that transistors are by their
nature non-linear, so surrounding them with oggles of negative
feedback, is responsible for their low THD scores on a meter. But maybe
doesn't really reduce their inherent distortion - those distortions of
a non-harmonic nature... time related distortions and other types.

So who is really so sure that tube amps are inherently more distorted ?
Of course, those few tube amps which lack an output transformer, do
seem to be more transistor like sounding in some ways, but are too few
and far in between to make up another category.

Perhaps we need to have output transformered transistor amps for making
a rightious comparison ? Interesting that among vintage amps, those
amps known for unusually good sound often had an "interstage"
transformer, both expensive tube ones like the $100K. lunatic fringe
stuff and the transistor ones (like the old gold faced AR Integrated
Amp) which probably sounded better than its ancient 2N3054 Drivers and
2N3055 output transistors would otherwise have allowed, simply because
it had a huge interstage tranny in there.

So really maybe my speaker also has some of that euphoric even
harmonics stuff too, but really I don't rely on a meter to tell me what
sounds more like music and what sounds like SH^T. I've done the tube
amp / transistor amp comparison here and had others doing the
listening. They all think bottles and silicon sound different, and in
general, the non-linearities of the transistor stuff is quite audibly
apparent. Also, similar transistor amps sound different too - worse as
the level of complexity goes up. Adding a single differential input
stage might make the THD meter go down to .005% from .05% for a
single-ended input stage, but the amp with the differential input
stage, being several transistors more complicated, sounds decidedly
WORSE on real world speakers.

Truth be told, all amps are "audibly distorting" just maybe in ways
your ear knows, but which would elude a THD Meter, that is why there
are half a dozen types of distortion, not "just" THD.

Stewart, why is it that the tube amp sounds more like "music" ? Could
it be that the artifacts of the transistor amp are the result of the
feedback, which are subtractive to the music ? If the nonlinearities
are in fact removing some harmonics that SHOULD be in there, the
resulting transistor amp sounds thin, unlike real music ?

So maybe tube amps DON'T produce Euphoric or Euphonic Effects,
transistor amps just LOSE the existing harmonics that should be in
there, and that shows up as low THD results, but the ear knows which
sounds like music.

So who is to say which amp is more distorted, a THD Meter, or your ears
Stewart ???

-Steven L. Bender


** This article effectively and concisely debunks all the above crap - as
preached by demented lunatics like Bender.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm


Note fig 3 - the Baxandall cancellation test.

Audiophools shy away from it like Zombies from garlic cloves in old horror
movies !!!





............. Phil

On 22 Apr 2005 13:19:25 -0700, "
wrote:

Stewart, one often overlooked item is that transistors are by their
nature non-linear, so surrounding them with oggles of negative
feedback, is responsible for their low THD scores on a meter. But maybe
doesn't really reduce their inherent distortion - those distortions of
a non-harmonic nature... time related distortions and other types.

If you don't know, please don't make up non-existent 'distortions' to
justify your preference. There's no magic or arcane science lurking
behind the curtain here, it's a simple black box job. Take a device
with an input and an output, and you can easily characterise *all* the
distortions without having to know anything about what's in the box,
be it transistors, tubes or electric fairies.

So who is really so sure that tube amps are inherently more distorted ?

Depends on the amps in question, but 99% of the time it's true.

Of course, those few tube amps which lack an output transformer, do
seem to be more transistor like sounding in some ways, but are too few
and far in between to make up another category.

OTOH, they are also very bad at driving low speaker loads, which is
not at all 'transistor-like'.

Perhaps we need to have output transformered transistor amps for making
a rightious comparison ?

I believe McIntosh made quite a few of those, if you really must
destroy the linearity of a transistor amp by including an inherently
non-linear device like an output tranny.

Interesting that among vintage amps, those
amps known for unusually good sound often had an "interstage"
transformer, both expensive tube ones like the $100K. lunatic fringe
stuff and the transistor ones (like the old gold faced AR Integrated
Amp) which probably sounded better than its ancient 2N3054 Drivers and
2N3055 output transistors would otherwise have allowed, simply because
it had a huge interstage tranny in there.

That was only there because you couldn't get decent complementary
pairs in the early days. As soon as good complementary pairs arrived,
interstage trannies disappeared. We call it 'progress'.

So really maybe my speaker also has some of that euphoric even
harmonics stuff too, but really I don't rely on a meter to tell me what
sounds more like music and what sounds like SH^T.

Neither do I, I rely on level-matched blind listening tests.

I've done the tube
amp / transistor amp comparison here and had others doing the
listening. They all think bottles and silicon sound different, and in
general, the non-linearities of the transistor stuff is quite audibly
apparent.

Utter bull**** - good modern SS amps have no audible distortion
whatever. Bottles certainly can sound different, but they are *adding*
artifacts to the signal. It's well-known that these artifacts are
typically euphonic, so it's common enough to find a *preference* for
that rose-tinted sound - but it ain't hi-fi!

Also, similar transistor amps sound different too - worse as
the level of complexity goes up. Adding a single differential input
stage might make the THD meter go down to .005% from .05% for a
single-ended input stage, but the amp with the differential input
stage, being several transistors more complicated, sounds decidedly
WORSE on real world speakers.

Again, utter bull****, as I'll be happy to demonstrate in a *blind*
test.

Truth be told, all amps are "audibly distorting" just maybe in ways
your ear knows, but which would elude a THD Meter,

No, they aren't. This is easily proven by bypass testing, where you
can compare the output of an amp directly with its source signal.

that is why there
are half a dozen types of distortion, not "just" THD.

Certainly there are - and they're all easily measurable.

Stewart, why is it that the tube amp sounds more like "music" ?

I already explained that - they don't, it's just that they often *add*
euphonic artifacts.

Could
it be that the artifacts of the transistor amp are the result of the
feedback, which are subtractive to the music ?

There are *no* audible artifacts in any decent SS amp. Stop making
things up to suit *your* prejuduces.

If the nonlinearities
are in fact removing some harmonics that SHOULD be in there, the
resulting transistor amp sounds thin, unlike real music ?

That's just outrageously stupid.

So maybe tube amps DON'T produce Euphoric or Euphonic Effects,

Yes, they do.

transistor amps just LOSE the existing harmonics that should be in
there, and that shows up as low THD results, but the ear knows which
sounds like music.

Utter rubbish, a typical tubie fairy tale for which you can present
*zero* evidence. With *any* good amp, what goes in, comes out. Nothing
mysteriously 'lost' in the process. Works just as well for the few
really good tube amps such as the C-J Premier Eight and ARC VT 150, as
it does for the huge raft of competent SS amps.

As you'd expect, these excellent tube amps sound just like a good SS
amp in a level-matched blind test, where of course you *have* to trust
your ears as you don't *know* what's playing.

So who is to say which amp is more distorted, a THD Meter, or your ears
Stewart ???

My ears, which can tell the difference between any good amp (tube or
SS) and a *bad* amp, which is typified by the SET.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

"Phil Allison" wrote in
:




Stewart, one often overlooked item is that transistors are by their
nature non-linear, so surrounding them with oggles of negative
feedback, is responsible for their low THD scores on a meter. But
maybe doesn't really reduce their inherent distortion - those
distortions of a non-harmonic nature... time related distortions and
other types.

So who is really so sure that tube amps are inherently more distorted
? Of course, those few tube amps which lack an output transformer, do
seem to be more transistor like sounding in some ways, but are too
few and far in between to make up another category.

Perhaps we need to have output transformered transistor amps for
making a rightious comparison ? Interesting that among vintage amps,
those amps known for unusually good sound often had an "interstage"
transformer, both expensive tube ones like the $100K. lunatic fringe
stuff and the transistor ones (like the old gold faced AR Integrated
Amp) which probably sounded better than its ancient 2N3054 Drivers
and 2N3055 output transistors would otherwise have allowed, simply
because it had a huge interstage tranny in there.

So really maybe my speaker also has some of that euphoric even
harmonics stuff too, but really I don't rely on a meter to tell me
what sounds more like music and what sounds like SH^T. I've done the
tube amp / transistor amp comparison here and had others doing the
listening. They all think bottles and silicon sound different, and
in general, the non-linearities of the transistor stuff is quite
audibly apparent. Also, similar transistor amps sound different too
- worse as the level of complexity goes up. Adding a single
differential input stage might make the THD meter go down to .005%
from .05% for a single-ended input stage, but the amp with the
differential input stage, being several transistors more complicated,
sounds decidedly WORSE on real world speakers.

Truth be told, all amps are "audibly distorting" just maybe in ways
your ear knows, but which would elude a THD Meter, that is why there
are half a dozen types of distortion, not "just" THD.

Stewart, why is it that the tube amp sounds more like "music" ?
Could it be that the artifacts of the transistor amp are the result
of the feedback, which are subtractive to the music ? If the
nonlinearities are in fact removing some harmonics that SHOULD be in
there, the resulting transistor amp sounds thin, unlike real music ?

So maybe tube amps DON'T produce Euphoric or Euphonic Effects,
transistor amps just LOSE the existing harmonics that should be in
there, and that shows up as low THD results, but the ear knows which
sounds like music.

So who is to say which amp is more distorted, a THD Meter, or your
ears Stewart ???

-Steven L. Bender


** This article effectively and concisely debunks all the above crap -
as preached by demented lunatics like Bender.

http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampin...o/subjectv.htm


Note fig 3 - the Baxandall cancellation test.

Audiophools shy away from it like Zombies from garlic cloves in old
horror movies !!!





............ Phil





A well put article. I like it.