solid state vs tubes

The discussion here is equally facinating and confounding. Because the arguments are great. But, lets remember that original post was about whether in direct comparison between tube and solid state amps the difference was non discernable. Atmasphere as usual presents a well thought out technical discussion regarding the benefits of tube amplification and some drawbacks for solid state. As I pointed out, with well engineered/designed tube or solid state amps, I'll take either because a correct well engineered design is just that, regardless of whether it is tube or solid state. Most of the arguments (not all) against solid state really stems from the mass produced stuff produced in the 70s and 80s. It wasn't really terrible, it was just not really good enough for serious listening, but background music. I have several systems in my home that are used specifically for background music when I'm not doing serious listening. However, Bob Carver was correct in that if you give a good engineer enough time and money, they can make an amp sound like the best made. Just copy the transfer function of the best. But, solid state distortions vs tube distortions, come down to how hard the engineer wants to work to eliminate the worst kind of distortion and leave only distortions that aren't bad. Both in tube or solid state. Nelson Pass has an excellent article on his DIY Pass Labs site about this very topic. Wonderful reading. Compromises abound in this industry. How much time and money does the engineer have to work with? If unlimited, you will have a solid state amp that no tube amp can touch and the same can be said for a tube amp. I have heard some not so great tube amps and some not so great solid state amps. I have also heard some wonderful tube amps and some wonderful solid state amps. sooner or later I'm going to hear some Atmasphere tube amps and I bet they are absolutely great and I would be faced with the decision to go broke again for a short time or not. But, even when I'm sitting worrying about how much money I just spent, I ultimately end up smiling when I realize that the music is absolutely wonderful and life is good. First thing first. I know good music when I hear it and I can tell a bad recording or simply bad music when I hear it. I played classical violin (first chair), oboe, sax, and many other instruments. I know Jazz, R&B, rock, classical, etc. I know live unamplified music and have heard very good amplified music. So, I know what a real symbol sounds like. So, my point is when you sit in front of that special system and listen to music, does the singer come out on stage? can you see the stage? where is the piano?, drummer, etc? can you see it? how deep is the stage? If you can't see this, then 1) either something is wrong with your system, 2) something is wrong with the recording or a combination of both. but, you absolutely should know that something is wrong. I am a advocate of making friends with a very good stereo equipment shop and on occasion go in and listen to their best system (that you know is good) and reacquant yourself with what a great system should sound like, so you will know what is wrong with yours and work slowly in fixing (a piece at a time) yours. It takes years, unless you have a lot of money now. Enjoy the music. Life is short. Equipment come and go and does slowly improve over time. But, don't marry the equipment, marry the music. I really enjoy reading your threads.

enjoy

Minorl, all good points, but, I do agree with Atmasphere on the point that in many instances one technology will work better than the other, and visa versa. In such instances, one or the other can not be swapped in and out and be expected to work at their best in such varied systems.
Obviously, this often compromises direct comparison, and one has to ultimately decide what pro and cons of the total system, best suit the individual consumer.

All of the tech talk aside,what it all boils down to is,you need to have a tube amp at home,in your own system.If possible,it would be nice if you also could have the solid state amp at home available to change between the two, and spend a good amount of time with each.The more time you live with each one,the more of a chance you have to find out what each has to offer.Being in this hobby for several decades, and many different amps,plus other types of components in and out of my system,I find that tube amps do offer a natural sound about them that solid state never has offered me.That aside,I do use solid state also,but mostly for convenience.I am not saying solid state amps are bad.They just can't do the same.People say tubes can't either,mostly in the bass resign.Ever since solid state came out(over fifty years plus ago),they have been trying to give the consumer what they noticed is missing,since their introduction.After all those past years of them (the designers),trying to achieve this,it hasn't changed much,if any.I don't think the tube amp builders are feeling any loss to the serious listener,that has spent a lot a time with both.On the other subject about Bob Carver,that got him taken as being a serious designer in the audio world.He himself stated that the Transfer Function is not going to take place of tubes.He finds that he could be satisfied with solid state.If they did that test at the reviewers home,in their own systems,I imagine the outcome would have been totally different,and would have been more fair.With all of this said,you need to compare the two in your own system,for some time.How long depends on you.I don't think there are any rules in general for the time it may take for someone to notice the plus and minus of each amp type.If they took my amps away,and gave me a choice of one tube amp,or one solid state amp,I think I myself would settle for the tube amp.

Hifi,

Yes, I think each person has their own goals and motivations that determine the right solution for them. Each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses with considerable overlap possible.

In my case, my speakers are the determining factor. My OHM speakers are the key ingredient in my system that cannot be easily replaced by other designs cost effectively. In lieu of using a separate sub perhaps, these speakers require SS amps to get everything they are capable of out of them. That dictates my course. The results satisfy me when I compare them with the best reference systems I have heard, which includes various systems run off tube amps.

So its worth r-iterating again that it is hard to focus on switching just one component (a tube for SS amp) and delivering similar or better results. USually a major change like this will have ripple effects that require other changes to go along with it to achieve the desired results. You should be prepared for that if you make a major change to a system you already like, regardless of teh technologies applied. If you are not ready to potentially have to start all over again, then stay put.

Soft clipping means that dynamic range is restricted to some extent as I understand. That means loudness cues are reduced relatively, all other things aside, as well, right?

What I was talking about is the types of distortions made by tubes and transistors, VS how the ear hears. It is true that the soft clipping of tubes means you will get less of the odd-ordered harmonics, but this has nothing to do with dynamic range. That is a completely different issue!

Minorl, I do take exception to one comment you made about
"well engineered/designed tube or solid state amps", which is the issue of the human ear. If the equipment is "well engineered" to look good on paper, how "well engineered" is it to obey the rules of human hearing? In my book, it is thus not well engineered to the task that it was built for, since the bench specs have very little to do with how human hearing rules.

Have you seen this link? IMO this is one of the more serious stumbling blocks MrT has to face in his quest, and why I commented earlier on the particular SS amps that I did.

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html