solid state vs tubes


has anyone compared a tube amp to a solid state amp and discovered that the diffference sonically between them was undetectable. ? if so what was the tube amp and what was the solid state amp ?

the reason for the question is the basic issue of the ability to distinguish a tube amp from a solid state amp.

this is especially interesting if the components were in production during the 90's , 80's or 70's.

if the components are in current production the probability of such aan occurrence might increasea.

why own a tube amp if there exists a solid state amp that sounds indistinguishable from it ?
mrtennis
Magfan, You might appreciate this advise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpTyG60zvcI&feature=related
This thread is one of those no-win threads.
Like a 'what is best' thread. No single answer.
I'll probably never own a system better than I've got now, unless I win the lottery or somebody tosses me the key and alarm codes to the local fantasy land.
Just trying inject some levity.....the opposite of gravity. It was getting too serious.
And seriously, don't you think I've got a reasonable viewpoint?

Enjoy!
10-05-10. Magfan: As near as I understand it.....Carver nulled the amps by somehow comparing thru a single speaker. When the speaker made NO sound....or some large value 'down', they amps were producing the SAME sound. The louder the speaker, the greater the difference between amps. This is the source of the 't-mod' which was part of my now ancient Carver Cube, the M-400t.

I don't remember the exact numbers, but just for example, when the speaker being used was say......nulled to -60db, you could say they were the 'same' to 1 part in 10,000 or some such.

ONE possible flaw in this ointment is that of the speaker used. If it was a highly reactive load, the tube amp would not be at its 'best' while a speaker of the single driver/full range persuasion may put the SS at a disadvantage. I doubt there is an 'easy' or even 'best' answer here.
You make an excellent point IMO, Magfan. A perfect or near perfect null with one set of speakers, or even a variety of speakers that represent relatively easy loads, would not be meaningful with speakers that are highly reactive, or that have impedance dips that demand more current than the amp's power supply can provide.

As you probably realize, the target amplifier whose transfer function the M400t attempted to duplicate was the Mark Levinson ML2, a pure Class A solid state amp, which although low powered (due to voltage swing limitations) could provide enormous amounts of current into low impedance loads. That effort preceded by a couple of years or so the Stereophile "challenge" where the target was a C-J tube amp, and was performed for and reported by Peter Aczel in "The Audio Critic." That was well before Mr. Aczel's later unfortunate conversion to the belief that all amplifiers meeting certain basic criteria sound the same.

The technique actually involved three speakers. One speaker was connected to amplifier A in the usual manner, except through long cables that allowed the speaker to be placed at an inaudible location. Another identical speaker was connected to amplifier B in a similar manner, and placed at an inaudible location. A third speaker, as well as measuring instruments, were connected between the red terminals of the two amps. It was reported that a 74 db null was achieved, with a variety of music, with the monitor speaker remaining dead silent except for a small ground loop hum. Which is pretty remarkable.

According to a follow-up article in "The Audio Critic" a few years later (Issue 10, in 1987), while the Stereophile challenge initially resulted in a 70db null between the prototype Carver 1.0t and the C-J amp, a later test of that same C-J amp and a production 1.0t resulted in only a 28db null. Unfortunately it wasn't determined if that was because the production 1.0t didn't match the prototype, or because of tube aging or other changes in the C-J, even though Carver had returned the original prototype to Stereophile to enable that determination.

I too used to use an M400t, which I still have although I haven't used it in several years. I found it's sound, with easy to drive speakers, to be quite respectable, but to me far less preferable than the sound of several tube amps I've had. The main differences being that it projected a considerably smaller image (that surprised me, and I have no idea why it would be so), and, not surprisingly, it lacked what I would refer to as the harmonic richness of the tube amps.

Best regards,
-- Al
The m4.0t I had did very well with Magnepan mg1c speakers for years delivering a lot of tube-like attributes in the sound. Most notably, zero fatigue....the longer you listened, the longer you wanted to listen. I cannot go so far as to say the sound was indistinguishable from the tube amp it emulated since I never did that comparison. My perception was it did what it said it did pretty well and I'd leave it at that.

However, it failed miserably when I went to the big OHM 5S3 speakers I currently run. It was a high power 360w/ch amp but had relatively low damping factor and did not deliver much current. Bass was weak. It was never spectacular on the Maggies either, but I attribute that more to the speakers than the amp. The bass on the OHMs is rock solid now with a suitable high curren, high damping amp, the BelCanto ref100m Class D IcePower monoblocks I currently use.
If you perceive the peaks as less loud because that is how people hear, that would seem to infer that the dynamic range is affected, at least as perceived, since the peaks do not seem as loud anymore, just as those nasty loudness cues due to negative feedback that you are focused on make you perceive things as louder as you describe.

Mapman, that is true but is not the same as real dynamic range. I don't think it is a good idea to promote a practice of intentionally distorting the loudness cues in order to make something sound louder than it really is. A lot of amps do that though, and is why they sound loud and shouty, as in: "Turn that !@#$%^ down!!"

IOW, if your system has the ability to sound loud, the loudness cues are being distorted. It is possible to build a stereo that does not seem to play loudly, so that even 105 or 110 db is comfortable. I'm a fan of being able to play the system to life-like levels, that is not possible if it also messes with the loudness cues!

IMO/IME in about 90% of the conversations that audiophiles have about dynamics, the word 'distortion' can safely be substituted without changing the meaning of the conversation. It is the reason I avoid using 'dynamics' except in for this context.