Tube cdp's and Tubed Output cdp's

If you want the benefit of tubes, I would put a tube preamp in the system. The MF X10 is overrated and adds the expense of another pair of interconnects. If a CD player NEEDS the X10 to sound good, time to get a new CD player. It's really sub $1000 players that benefit from the x10. I'd say save the money and buy a better player.

For me, lots of average sounding players $1000 and under (used), some gems. Once you spend $1000+, things get interesting and tubes are not necessary. Tube output stages help the cheaper players, but somewhat unnecessary in better players.

Tube output stages help the cheaper players, but somewhat unnecessary in better players.

I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. If the sonic characteristics of tubes are beneficial in a $1000 CD player, why would those same qualities be diminished or trivialized in the high-dollar players? Answer: they're not. Solid state is solid state, and tubes are tubes. You can simile them to death, but they do not sound the same.

My current player is the Shanling T-100, with NOS National tubes to replace the stock ones. Most people buy this player for looks (and it does look stunning) but it was the sound that got me. How's this for versatility? SS output, tubed output, upsampled ss and upsampled tubed, and... the icing on the cake as a bonus - a very good tubed headphone amplifier built in. Try this with a pair of Senn's HD-600's, no need to buy an expensive dedicated headphone amp. My previous player was the great Sony 9000ES SACD DVD player. Now, the ss output on the Shanling is very, very good. To my ears however, the sound of the tubed output is just so much more open. I get better timing and pace with the ss output and a somewhat tighter low end, but the tubed output goes almost as low, but in a more ''organic'' and life-like way. It just sounds more real.

As for matching with an all-tube system, I used to have a very expensive solid state amp. Now I have this little Cayin TA-30, and I just cannot beleive the sound I'm getting from this ''budget' amplifier when paired with the Shanling. Speakers are the much under-estimated (in my opinion) QUAD 22L. Very neutral was a nice midrange and surprising low-end. It makes for a well-balanced system. You can get better, but I feel I would have to spend much more to improve on this.

Just mentionning my system in the context of your question on tubed cd players. I, personnaly, would not want to go back to a ss-only output in the context of a moderately priced system. Of course, if you have a $ 3,000.00 SS-only cd player and a pair of mega-buck monoblocks, that is another story. I did use a Sonic Frontier Line 1 (great full-function preamp) with an Electrocompaniet amp once, some ''exquisite and refined'' speakers, and an Arcam FMJ 23 - just didn't do it for me.

So, in a certain context of value, a tubed cd player with a moderately priced tube amp could be the way to go....especially if you can fine-tune your sound the way you can with the Shanling and that nice Cayin TA-30 with the extended bias option and all the different tubes this amp can take ( el34, kt-88, 6550, 6L6, KT-90...and more)

Cheers |

Well, boa2 you are correct. Tubes do have a sound and magic about them that is quite their own. I do not think I ever implied or said that tubes and solid state sound the same. Please do not put words into my mouth.

I suppose I should have said that in my experience to my ears with some of the better digital gear in certain system contexts, I did not feel that adding tubes either to the output stage of the digital gear or to the system as a whole would have added anything for me. So, in these instances I felt tubes were unnecessary to add to system synergy or my enjoyment of music.

In contrast, with lesser digital I have heard, I did feel that adding tubes either to the output stage or somewhere in the system would have added to system synergy and my enjoyment of the music.

Audio is subjective. I feel like tubes are good some of the time and perhaps for some of the people. I'm not of the opinion that a system is required to have tubes to sound good or that tubes are ALWAYS beneficial. And, I would never say that tubes and solid state sound the same.

I've heard tubed players that sound wonderful, and SS players that do as well. A tube(s) in the output stage of a CD player, does not, by any means, to my ears, make anywhere near as profound a distinction as does implementation/comparison of tubes in the amp and or pre-amp stages of a system. Perhaps I have just not heard enough tubed players(?). I don't think I'd be able to blindly identify a high-end CD player implementing a tubed output stage and consistently distinguish it from a high-end player with an SS output stage. I do, however, think I could blindly tell the differences between a thoughtfully assembled SET tube system and any comparable SS system where it comes to tubes in the amplification stage. I think what is being implied by Zosima, if I may be so bold, is that the lower priced CD players are more often prone to digital glare or harshness simply because of the economy of their circuitry and transport. A tubed output stage has the ability to take the hard edges off the output signal and therefore would occur to some as making a fairly significant contribution in that case. The more expensive SS players which tend to have a no-holds-barred design do not have the same problems with digititis as cheaper players, and in fact have many strengths to offer that are unique to their SS roots. In the case of the latter those strengths may actually be compromised by implementation of a tubed output stage. In any case the differences in implementing a tubed output in the case of the latter, would occur to me to be less profound. I don't think it is necessarily a matter of the quality of the tubed output being "diminished", but rather a case of those qualities no longer having as great an advantage. In many cases the advantages of the no-holds-barred SS may win out over tubes. I don't think it is as apples/oranges as in the case of amplification.

Marco