Have Tubes become "Gimmicky"? What is the TUBE sound?

That is a myth that tube amps can't have great bass, they can in a well matched system.

 

I’ve read Amir’s reviews there but never the following comments. What is the point of that site? From their perspective it’s all a “solved” problem and audiophiles (used pejoratively there) are wackos. Is it just back slapping and self congrats from Topping owners?

 

My journey has lead me to tube preamps, and class A solid state amps as my number one preference. However, like jupiterboy pointed out, gimmicky is more tied to lower end gear, where relatively newcomers will try because of looks,and low price point.

 

Are transistors gimmicky?

 

Yes, they want to collectively convince themselves that there is nothing better than their $300 dacs. They won’t be told otherwise.

 

Haven’t tried it, but I’m guessing it’s not going to make an AV receiver sound like a tube amp

 

I started off with some SS receivers then a Fisher X101b. The push pull tubes, to me, were nicer sounding than SS.
My like for tubes is because I wanted shortest path between source and speakers possible which is why I run SETs now.
I wouldn't go back to PP and my next amp will be a SET.

I think hybrids and such are kinda frivolous.

I don't know if there is such a thing as tube sound; I've had a couple of SS receivers that were nice; my HK comes to mind.

 

The point of the site is to gain and offer knowledge about audio gear, how it works, and to look in to claims with some engineering and (when possible) scientific rigor.

In other words, weed the truth from the bullsh*t.

Some people want to avail themselves of such knowledge; others don't; others don't even recognize the legitimacy of such an undertaking and want to hold on to the belief that they didn't pay more than they had to for the performance they got

Incorrect. Over at ASR they actually offer ways in which they can be convinced there are, for instance, audibly better performance than a Topping (or some other) DAC.
It's just that they...gasp!...ask for better evidence than an audiophile's say-so. But if a piece of audio gear measures better in ways that are either known to be audible and/or could be shown to be audibly different in bias-controlled listening tests...then this is a way to establish such a claim.

In contrast, it's actually the Golden Ears, the ones who stick to "I Trust My Ears Above All Else" who will say "I heard a difference" and they won't be told otherwise. There is no objective evidence that can defeat their belief, nor will they submit their belief to tests controlling for bias, or they will just dismiss the relevance of such tests. That's actually the more dogmatic mindset.

 

Our ears are all different, and so is our taste.

 

I did and it’s good…. Real good

 

Some people do have golden ears …. George Counnas of Zesto definitely does. His preamp is perfectly voiced. Well balanced from top to bottom

 

That is the most back assward thinking over there at ASR … if it tests good , therefore it MUST sound good. Non stellar numbers? It sucks

 

One of the advantages of tube amplifiers is that people tend to pass DBTs against SS amplifiers - so there is a difference that can be heard. Now it becomes about preference to the resulting sound.

The vast majority of people under the age of 50 grew up on CD and SS amplifiers. They ALL KNOW that SS and CD is "technologically" superior in terms of measured performance. So if they leave their bomb-proof measuring gear behind for Single Ended Triodes and LP it's because they prefer the sound- it is "more PLEASING to the ear." The subsequent arguments about it are all meaningless. You WILL hear it in a DBT and you already KNOW about the measurements. You plain like the sound better - and whether some people want to be snide and say "you like distortion" is fine - you can't control what other people think.

Of course, some companies jump on the bandwagon - this industry has always had "lifestyle" products from Bose and B&O selling cool on wall multi-disc cd changers and little cube speakers to hide in the plants. Cute tube glow and blue meters from McIntosh have sold for decades.

Most tube amplifiers are pedestrian mediocrity as is most Solid State.

I would say that the disadvantage of Turntables and tube amps is that to do them really well costs a helluva lot more money than a good CD player and a Good SS amplifier. Some exceptions of course but not the majority.

 

I understand that a lot of tube gear is noisy, troublesome, have bad specs..... all three of my pres have pretty flat response

Frequency response 10Hz to 100Khz – 1dB with 10K Ohm load
Distortion ~ 0.02% at 1V RMS input
Gain 12dB
Signal to noise ~ 100dB below operating level
Non inverting output polarity
Cross talk >90dB

Those specs are my Zesto, they are quite good for a tube pre. The ESP power supply upgrade further improved noise by a few dB. Dead quiet, absolutely no noise with 99 dB sen speakers

My other tube preamps also have wide bandwidth 2hz to 100k + not as good as the Zesto but pretty good for tube gear . There are a small number of companies building really great tube gear. There are a lot of not so great tube amps giving tubes a bad rap

 

The only one I know to do that is my retro-freak young nephew.

 

MOSFETs are a total gimmick. A well done MOSFET amp can blend the sonic characteristics of solid state and tubes. Which means that MOSFETs are doing something wrong and are creating some sort of distortion similar to tubes.

My best hybrid headphone amps use MOSFETs. IMHO, MOSFETs combined with tubes for a hybrid amp is the best way to go.

My best sounding solid state headphone amp is also MOSFET.

MOSFETs are the best transistors because they can somewhat complement the good things that tubes can do. Which makes them a gimmick to be used by amp designers who want to color the sound with different distortions.

 

But what if their underlying presumption/dogma (sound quality is measurable) isn’t true?
Then it’s all nonsense, right?

They are great “Scientists”. They have a hypothesis, but they don’t feel they need to actually test it.

 

What if an invisible dragon is about to enter your house and eat you up? Shouldn't you vacate your house quickly, right now! Just in case?

In other words: "What ifs" are a dime a dozen.

Audio gear comes to Amir with the claim that they improve sound quality. He tests that hypothesis.

Amir appeals to what has been studied in terms of audible thresholds, and measures devices based on currently accepted electrical/engineering theory and practice.
In his technical tests/reviews of, for instance, the cheap RCA cables, the Audioquest power cable, the Nordost USB cable etc, he tests them for standard electrical/signal
integrity, measures for distortion, hypothesizes and tests for ways they might possibly change the audio signal vs other similar types of cable (they don't) etc.

So he provides plenty of evidence for his findings.

Just saying "maybe he's wrong" is hardly a counter argument. It is up to anyone who disputes his findings to propose some measurement he is missing, some technical theory that can be shown to be sound, or at the very least, show any of these cables can be distinguished from other competently built cables when the test controls for sighted bias.

Wrong: Amir actually tests the hypothesis that the gear in question can alter the audio signal in an audible manner.

If you mean instead "they don't test the hypothesis that engineering and scientific principles aren't sufficient methods of inquiry" that's pretty ridiculous. There's only been hundreds of years of development and support for those methods. If you think they somehow magically don't apply to audio gear that's an extraordinary claim for which you
need to supply evidence.

 

I don't know if my Benchmark LA4 or CJ Premier 16LS2 preamps pass your "mediocrity" demarcation but...

I was listening again tonight to a variety of music, level matched, switching back and forth between the Benchmark and CJ preamp. I love the Benchmark's transparency and clarity, but damn, the CJ just makes the performers sound a bit more "real," - drums, voices, strings sections, trumpets, anything...they all take on this solidity and timbral warmth that I don't get from the LA4. (Though I wouldn't want to give up the LA4 in my system either, for it's strengths).

 

In addition to illuminating my house they also make toasty little foot warmers in the Winter time. you can never have too many tubes.

 

What he does is not hypothesis testing in the very least.
He has a presumption, takes measurements which he believes prove his presumption.
And then proclaims his hypothesis has been proven.

Not scientific in any way shape or form

 

No, he's using well known methods of evaluating technical claims.

He's saying "these are all the things that I know of - methods often used by engineers - that are relevant for testing the claims (e.g. various signal tests, distortion tests, null tests etc). That's why he's using those methods.

Again: if you think that there is something wrong with his tests, or his method of vetting the claims, then you ought to be able to propose alternatives - e.g. other things he needs to measure and why. And keep in mind "just saying so" isn't good enough. You could well say he needs to measure cables while standing on his head. You - or anyone else - need to explain what he's missing in his measurements, or method, and why your suggesting needs to be taken seriously.

 

According to ASR your entire blind test is invalid because you tested using actual music instead of a scientific and repeatable test tone like pink noise. Really, if you're going to critically compare gear you need to do it using pink noise. Forget about music. It's all about test signals that can be replicated and repeated by other listeners. You can't do that with real music.

 

Nothing wrong with critiquing ASR. I've done it on that very forum.

But strawmen isn't the way to do it