2. amps-preamps
  3. 1342812008

Tube guy gets a B&K: tubes vs solid state

You folks probably already know all this, but maybe these observations will be helpful for some newbie... (tubey newbie?).

I've been looking to understand how to improve the sound of my tube system and decided to try a SS amp as a point of reference, and potentially as a permanent switch. Thanks to many here, the desirable choice seemed to be a McCormack DNA. But being unsure I decided to take a cheaper approach and bought a B&K ST-140 ($202 on ebay + $27 shipping), version 2, toroidal transformer. It is like new. After swapping back and forth with my Marantz 8B I have the following observations. Rest of system is stock CJ PV-5, ProAc One SCs, ordinary car audio speaker cable (next upgrade), all Kimber PBJ interconnects.

The issues I have with my system are a desire for tighter bass, more openness, less of a congested presentation. I got my system in 95 or so, and did some comparisons to SS then, but sometimes you have to relearn old lessons.

1) I am amazed at how pretty and smooth a sound the B&K has. It is a "lighter" sound, more even and polite or reserved, and the various instruments don't seem to be congesting together. For a $200, 20 year old amp, it is quite amazing.

2) The sound of tubes is different from the sound of solid state. It's difficult to overstate the significance of this. The tube sound is palpable and dimensional. I knew this before, and these have to be the most commonly used terms but it's true. But it's a bit stunning to hear it again.

3) I would never be happy with solid state because no matter how pretty, it does not have this tangible substance, palbability, or dimensionality. It is key to enjoyment of the sound. It is sonic sculpture versus sonic painting.

4) I expected the bass to be deeper, larger, and tighter with the B&K. At first blush I thought it was. But after several comparisons, it is none of these. It is stronger and...tighter doesn't seem like the right word but it is as tight with the 8B. More importantly it is more real, because of the palpability, and that makes it sound more accurate or defined. On recordings with fuzzy bass, though, I think the even, clear, laid-back presentation of the B&K renders the bass with more seeming definition whereas the 8B seems to be trying to make it full and tangible but having nothing to work with, it just puts forth a kinda warm and soft bassiness.

5) I now believe the comment I read here, that a SS amp with a tube preamp will not give the dimensionality and palpability of tubes. One needs a tube amp for this.

I no longer feel I need tighter bass; I see it differently and very much like the bass I have with the 8B. I do think I could use more openness, a bit better high end (PV-5s, I'm told here, have rolled-off highs), and a less congested sound when the band gets busy, which somehow seems to be linked to the palpability or substance of the sound. It's like the thick palpability is a bit too thick and things get congested together.

I'm not sure whether changes to the amp or preamp will solve those, but the experience with the B&K suggests the next move is the preamp. I'm trying to decide whether to pick up something less romantic/lush like an ARC or VTL, or to send my PV-5 off for upgrades, or buy a newer CJ. At this point not knowing which will be the more effective it's a coin toss unless a killer deal comes along. I'm getting more reluctant though to alter the nature of my PV-5. Since getting back into hifi I have never seen one for sale.

Any suggestions or thoughts on my next move would be most welcome.

Jim
river251
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Jmcgrogan2,
I understand the point you`re making but disagree on one point. IMO there`s no such thing as "too much transparency".if you are in a room and someone is playing an instrument (like when I`m playing my trumpet)that is ultimate transparency. There`s nothing between you and the performer i.e. no veil ,wall or blanket. Thus you hear all the tone,harmonics and body the instrument provides.

There is pseudo transparency where a component is voiced for ultra resolution and 'hyper' detail and these often sound clinical,thin,analytical and very unnatural and unconvincing. This is sometimes mistaken for transparency but in fact is a false presentation that strips away the normal body and full tonality of real insruments.There is a emphasis on note attack but the note substain and decay are short changed(crucial error).
The more true transparency the better you`ll hear the instrinsic 'full' beauty of instrumnents and vocals.This is why some components that have impressive low distortion measurements(often by employing generous amounts of NFB) have the potential to sound artificial and less organic and natural.
Regards,
jmcgrogan2's avatar
jmcgrogan2
6,346 posts
 
Charles1dad, I agree. For the sake of simplicity, I was trying to keep it basic, as generally there are two directions to go towards as far as tonality is concerned with audio gear. Someone either wants more warmth or they want more resolution.

For the sake of this being Audiogon, I am strictly dealing from a audio gear veiwpoint, not comparing to live music. As you noted, yes, there are many pieces of audio gear that define themselves as transparent, but actually emphasize the upper midrange and/or highs, which is not accurate. They sound thin, clinical. I was merely pointing out to the OP that just as he is dissatisfied with a system that is now too warm for his tastes, it is entirely possible to go too far in the opposite direction (transparency/resolution/whatever you wish to call it) too.

If you wish to call it pseudo transparency, that is fine, I know what you are talking about and I agree. I was just trying to keep things as simple as possible.

Cheers,
John
csontos
1,311 posts
 
Charles1dad, while I agree with your explanation, I would not describe such an amp as having "ultra resolution". The lack of sustain and decay contradicts this assertion. I remember certain amps back in the 70's behaving just this way and were quickly recognized for what they were,...Junk. Excessive NFB being the main culprit. The good ones had no such issues.

charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Hi John,
Okay I get your perspective clearer now and agree.
Csontos,
Yes you`re right there`s no 'too much' resolution or transparency, just failed attempts to emphasize detail with certain frequency region 'spot lighting' as john pointed out.
Regards,
counterbiz
2 posts
 
Hi, first time posting here. I have Luxman MB 3045 mono blocks with 6lf6 output tubes, bone stock configuration. After owning many many solid state setups, this pair fell into my lap at a price I couldn't refuse. I had to claim complete ignorance to anything with tubes. I actually stayed away from the idea of tubes since I had no experience whatsoever. I had heard many extol the superiority of the "tube sound", but had no frame of reference.

After receiving this pair, two friends came over with their tube amps (Mcintosh MC275 & Dynaco ST120 modded. They cycled their gear one by one with my Pioneer Spec 1 pre, Infinity Kappa 9's & we tore up some half speed masters/mobile fidelity vinyl on a VPI turntable. It was a fairly long session lasting six hours plus, much to the frustration of my wife.

After all these years I was converted. What joy to my ears. I had never been able to listen that long without the familiar fatigue we encounter so often. I did however experience a lack of what I will refer to as "tight accurate bass". My opinion after experimentation is this: Solid state is great for the low end. I have since bi-amped my system using the tubes on the highs & mids combined with my Spec 2 on the bottom. Obviously the Kappa's are bi-amp capable.

One caveat, the Kappa's work the Spec pretty hard. I am in the process of re-capping/restoring a pair of Bose 1801 power amps, which I plan to cycle in one of them on the bottom. (They can be wired to mono block configuration, but alas not stable with anything besides an 8 ohm speaker load. As most of us know, the Kappa's dip much much deeper into the abyss. I do believe one of them will perform much better than the Spec 2 since it is more of a high current design. I re-capped using a pair of 47000mf 100v output filter caps, which may prove to give me the reserve headroom that the Kappa's will require.

My previous amplification was a re-capped Carver M1.5t with a fair amount of power and current, but still had to be reserved with the Kappa's. They are wonderful speakers but hazardous to a majority of gear. They have an extended bass mode switch linked to the Xovers that make them dip even lower. I clipped the Carver one time and never used it again.

Sorry for the rater long diatribe, I just wanted to weigh in and comment on a worthy compromise of blending what I consider the best of both worlds. I am currently content with the obvious improvement in the bass until I finish the 1801's this week. One improvement on the near horizon will be a competent tube based pre-amp. For now I am filtering my digital library through a Music Hall 25.3 DAC with a tube buffer output with tangible positive results.

Most of us don't have deep enough pockets to approach this hobby with no limitation on obtaining what we would really like to have. I feel like I have been extremely fortunate considering the level of sound quality I enjoy compared the the modest resources invested. I suppose for those who can afford high powered tube amplification, the bass would perhaps not be an issue. I would love to be able to test this theory, but alas there is reality.

In summary, if you have tube amplification & speakers you love with bi-amp option, do not hesitate to put in a beefy solid state amp on the bottom. IMHO, it is the best combination out there.
More to discover