I have found both solid state and tube equipment to have their positive attributes and limitations. I really enjoy both. The problem is that at the price level that I am willing to come out of pocket for equipment, I have found that it took me years to get to where I am currently at equipment and sound reproduction wise. I have auditioned some solid state equipment that were absolutely excellent imaging, soundstaging, dynamics, etc. I have also auditioned some solid state equipment that left me seriously questioning the designers ability and sanity. Same is true for my experience with tube equipment. So, here we go. most opinions are typically biased because they are starting off at a different listening, enjoyment level than others and they also have a totally different price point whereby they can audition or purchase equipment. So, as I have mentioned many times, not only is it correct to compare equipment "apples to apples" based on price point, but it is also correct to recognize that some people have inherent biases that they don't want to change. Sound quality, music types, equipment types (tube or solid state), cd vs analog, democrat or republican, etc. You can go to equipment shows or auditions and can't get people to even agree on the types of music to demo the equipment on. I understand that people may have preferences. What I don't understand is that some aren't willing to agree that the other side may have a correct view also. I learned years ago that there may be more than one right answer. Just because it doesn't agree with mine doesn't make it any less correct than mine. But I will tell you this. Life is good and all things considering, I'm enjoying the ride. Good and not so good. I enjoy the back and forth, as long as insults aren't part of it. And, (yes I started a sentence with and), Although I currently use two Mark Levinson 23.5 amps, which in my opinion are still better than many much higher priced amps today, I would take the Audio Research REF 250 amps in a heart beat. If I could justify the expense. They are some of the best amps (tube or solid state) I have heard.
Sorry for the long post.
enjoy |
MichaelKingdom - To your quote below. My experience seems to be the same as everyone else's on this thread except for the fact that I have my amplifier technologies reversed. Hopefully time will tell what the missing variable is. I think some of what you've experienced may have to do with the "interactions" and system dependencies that Almarg mentioned. Almarg's quote below. Undoubtedly in many arguments about the sonic performance of audio components and cables those on both sides of the argument are correct, in the sense that they are accurately reporting what they heard. But what is often lacking on both sides is an understanding of the interactions and system dependencies that are involved. Interactions between amplifier output impedance and speaker impedance vs. frequency characteristics, for example, amplifier output impedance of course being very different between most tube amps and most solid state amps. Some of the speakers you listed in quote below, namely Dynaudio C1 sig; B&W 802n, 805n, 805d; and Sonus Faber Cremona Auditor m are much better served by SS amps in general. Many disagree, but Maggies **CAN** work well with the right tube amps, but there are concomitant compromises. I'm not familiar with the other speakers you listed, but they too *may* be better served by SS. I have had quite a few speakers that are popular on this site, many of them being monitors or many monitors which are famous for pinpoint imaging. Dyn c1 sig, focal utopia be, harbeth shl5, maggie mmg, 1.6, 1.7, pas imagine b, bw 802n, bw 805n, bw 805d, usher tiny dancer, metlin tsm mmi, sf cremona auditor m, selah monitors... With my solid-state electronics I truly feel like spoken voices are coming from a definite pinpoint in space. When using tubes on the same speakers I feel the image is more general and not as pinpoint. Also when using solid-state I hear something that is akin to a Hall effect that you might find on an A/V receiver which makes the room sound bigger. While I am not doing this via digital processing, this is one of the things that I would attribute to a three dimensional soundstage. Also using solid-state I feel that I can judge distances between instruments front to back, side to side better. Much of what you describe in your paragraph above matches what I have heard when I've matched tube amps with some of the speakers you listed. Paraphrasing Almarg, the match between speaker and amp is very critical when evaluating amps or speakers, but particularly so when debating between SS and tubes. It may just be that other attributes have drawn you to speakers that don't particularly work well with tubes. That's perfectly valid. This hobby is, afterall, about our *own* pleasure, not those of others. Jordan |
@ Robsker, Hi, Your post above is spot on with me!, LOL!, you hit the nail on the head!, It was like I wrote that post, awsome, cheers to you. |
It's an interesting proposition to compare high cost SS amps to low cost tube amps. I've hear various Boulder, Pass, Krell, and other SS amps and think they work really well...some of those cost more than a nice car. I've also lived with a modest factory modded Jolida tube amp that cost a fraction of some well regarded SS amps, and, to me, sounds better in every way, although this could be system dependant and due to the fact that I'm an idiot...but an idiot who saved thousands over the cost of a Boulder. |
I agree; maybe I'm a idiot too. While Almarg's (and others') comments about the importance of the amp/speaker interface as the determinant of how an amp will perform are very true, to my ears, just as with analog vs digital (PLEASE! I don't want to open THAT can of worms) there are certain intrinsic sonic traits about each technology that, yes, become less and less obvious as the quality level rises, but are alway there to varying degrees. |
