Tube Amp Suggestions

Wow! This is like some Monty Python lost episode. I think Dida is actually Eric Idle (wink, wink, nod, nod).

Specifications are important; agreed. But, which specifications and at what point is the chase for numbers inefficient? Amp companies were chasing high power and vanishing distortion in the 1980s. Is there really any difference between .5% THD and .1%? I don't think so in the real world. Same thing with things rated past 20k; who can hear past 20K? Yes, I understand about harmonics and that is one reason I think analogue recordings sound better than 44.1 (or 48khz) recordings. I have done parallel live recordings with very good microphones and used a Nakamichi ZX9 and a professional DAT recorder. Guess what; when we listened to the tapes later EVERYBODY much preferred the cassette recording! It sounded nicer. Period. The digital has specs all over the cassette; the cassete sounded better.

There are quality tube amps with excellent performance and bandwidth; check out the Wavac amplifiers for one example.

I kind of apologize for starting this thread. Would not a hybrid amp with a tube input stage and a ss output stage capture the best of both worlds. A musical reference rm200 (which I believe is a hybrid amp), was suggested by someone early in this post. A used rm200 was offered on audiogon the other day but got snapped up immediately.

Anyway thanks for all of the comments.

C1...
The difference is .4% :-) though surely not as relevant as the difference between say 0.005% and 1 to 2% (or more). But the point is whether it is audible, or not. Or if you like the idea of the source material being affected by a component at all, or whether you want to attempt to 'improve' the music with some distortion quality or other in one or more components.

Once recorded, though, is that even possible?

Please define, 'sounded "nice"'.

I really do not care to argue with those who enjoy their various qualities of distortion, regardless of how seductive the poetic terms used to describe it. From my perspective, there is No point.

Two schools of audio can be differentiated by 'goal'. Note that those who argue surprisingly ferverently against me personally (whatever that is about), and much less the point I attempt to make, rarely mention the music. And obviously have no ambition to reproduce it as accurately as possible in their listening room.

I do not know to what degree they acknowledge it, but they seem to only be concerned about the 'sound' of the individual components, and of their system collectively. Any sound whatever of which has to be 'distortion'. 'A good system is a silent system.' One that gets out of the way, and lets the music through.

That is my position, and I am sticking to it.

I imagine that if a musician was found to be so invloved in the sound of their instrument they would be corrected by their teachers and instructed to focus primarily on the music. Perhaps even to the degree of faithfully depicting the intention of the composer.

Anyway, I notice the Wavac's have no distortion measurement in their specs at all. They are pretty, though.

I have yet to see, even after contacting mfgrs specifically, that a spec indicating low distoriton was ever unintentionally omitted from publication. The cutoff seems to be 1 to 2% (THD/IMD) Some, but not all, 'brand names' will show that much, but never more. Whereas a mfgr ALWAYS shows when it is less. Hmmm.

To all: nothing personal, and no offence. BTW I have never cut and pasted a post in my life; Nor is my relationship with Seigfried Linkwitz other than one of a buyer to a seller. Since my speaker system is his design, I am just grateful he is accessible (and didactic by nature :-)

Do you listen to test tones or music? I guarantee you that any moderately good sounding tube amp will slay your SS home theater amps.

Oz