Home » Audio » Thermionic Emissions » comparing amplifiers
Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10839 is a reply to message #10838] Fri, 10 December 2004 08:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thetubeguy1954 is currently offline  thetubeguy1954
Messages: 29
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
akhilesh, thanks for welcoming me to the "table". I knew from your post that you both owned and enjoyed the sound of SET amps. As I said this is a tough topic to discuss, for a myriad of reasons. We do need to establish one thing however or else this discussion will have too many variables. What is going to be our definition of accuracy for this discussion?

My definition of accuracy is; An accurate replication of music is the one that SOUNDS the closest to the original acoustic event as interpreted by the human ear. I do not believe we can define accuracy as the one that MEASURES closer to a microphones interpretation of the original event. I noticed you completely ignored this area of my post. If a microphone hears or interpets a musical signal differently than the human ear does, and I believe that is the case for reasons stated in my previous post. How or why would we use the microphones interpretation as the standard of accuarcy? For example: Humans hear differently than dogs. Granted in this case it's in areas of frequencey and sensitivity, but ihey hear differently. Could we then use a humans hearing to accurately determine what a dog hears? No, we cannot! Neither do I believe can we use a microphone to accurately determine what a human hears, for the exact same reasons. The "hear" differently. If we are to continue this discussion you'll need to address this issue. But I will not continue this discussion after this if you do not address the issue or whether or not; a) Humans & Mics hear differently and b) Why you choose a Mics interpretation over a humans as your basis for defining accurate.

Now to address some of your points.

A)You stated "I LIKE how they (SET's) alter the signal. But that they alter the signal can be easily proved.

The question my friend is not whether an SET alters a signal or not. I will readly admit that an SET will alter the electronic signal it receives. But, what we really need to know is how close does the signal fed to an SET accurately represent what a human hears? It's my belief that in altering the signal, the SET's output is actually closer to what a human hears. Hence, the output sounds more realistic because it's a more accurate replication of what we hear at an unamplifed acoustic event.

B)I think most people would define it as the measurable faithful reporoduction of an input signal at hte output...but hey....who cares? It's all semantics.

I think ENGINEERS would define accurate as the measurable faithful reproduction of an input signal at the output. Music lovers "should" define accurate as an output that replicates the original acoustic event as faithfully as possible to the human ear.

C)Anything a tube amp can do in terms of amplifying a signal, an SS amp can do.

I don't doubt this at all. I remember when Bob Carver did that famous experiment. If I remember correctly he fed the output of his amp and the amp he wanted his amp to sound like, to a common location. He then kept making adjustments to his amp until he got a "null" as the reading at this common location (or something like this) and when he got a null reading the amps sounded the same! However, I do believe that Solid State designers won't make their amps sound like a SET's Why? Because they are glued to specifications as their guide instead of their ears. Why else doesn't Bob buy a $5K or $10K SET and make a $1000 solid state amp that sounds like it? Trust me I'd buy it in a New York minute! I'd save 1000's of dollars, not have to deal with the heat of 845 in Class A, not have to pay BIG BUX for good NOS tubes, the amp wouldn't weigh a ton, I could afford to Tri-amp etc. But if it should happen that someone out there does make a solid state amp sound like a good SET, he'll just charge you $5000 for a $500 amp because it sounds like an SET. So I don't have much faith in that group of engineers. But you're correct they could do it "IF" they wanted too.

D)The reason why such a thng is not done, in my opinion, is becuase most amps today are based on commercial chips, and no chip designer will design an amplifier that would conform to the specs of a tube...they'd be laughed out of the business.

I disagree with this statement 100%. Bob did it with components back in what the 70's or 80's? It's not because of the commercial chips being used. Again I say it's because they are glued specifications as their guide to being accurate, when they should just use their ears.

Again, this is a very tough discussion. Until we agree on how we define accurate we cannot agree on anything else in the discussion. It's catch 22 Thanks for your thought and input.

Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)

Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10840 is a reply to message #10839] Fri, 10 December 2004 09:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
akhilesh is currently offline  akhilesh
Messages: 1275
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (3rd Degree)
Hi Tom,
Any measure of accuracy is fine by me. IF we choose it as what a human hears, then it becomes psychoacoustical, and will vary from person to person. Also keep in mind, the recording one is hearing has already been miked, and encoded. So, maybe you are saying that somehow a SET undoes the effects of the mike-encoded signal, and makes it sound live. I think it simply does the 3 things I mentioned in my earlier post, and makes the music sound better. For example, exaggerated midrange leads to greater presence, lower damping factor leads to more bass (though less controlled) and the distortion leads to a "richness" or fatness in sound. All of these can be interpreted by us as sounding better, and so, by your definition of fidelity a SET is indeed better. I think it's semantics: essentially we are agreeing: a SET will not output the (transformed) input signal as accurately as a SS amp, but it does sound better.

BTW, Bob Carver's Sunfire amps actually did a pretty simple thing, his "Current" output speaker terminals simply had a 1 ohm resistor in series, to reduce damping factor. In his ads, he stated that the reduced damping factor accounted for 90% of the tube sound. I am not sure how he reached that conclusion...my own opinion is that increased distortion & frequency curve play a role as well.
You are right, one can use standard chips to do many of the things a SET does....including I guess introduce even order distortion. Since I am not an electrical enginner, I will not speculate how one can do that.

-akhilesh

PS: try having a civil discussion liek this in the asylum....ha

Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10841 is a reply to message #10840] Fri, 10 December 2004 11:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thetubeguy1954 is currently offline  thetubeguy1954
Messages: 29
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
Hi Akhilesh, you're 100% correct it would be impossible to have this discussion in the Asylum, I tried and was insulted and ridiculed for my beliefs. I want you to know I have no experience with DIY or building amps. I cannot tell you why SET's do what they do. However, I've been a music lover/audiophile for 36 years now. Also I play some acoustic guitar, so I have a pretty good ear. When you said "So, maybe you (thetubeguy1954) are saying that somehow a SET undoes the effects of the mike-encoded signal, and makes it sound live." YES Akhilesh, I think that expresses exactly what I believe.

Now I'll grant you that not every person hears exactly the same amount of information, do to a variety of factors. However how we hear is the same. We all know when a Sax is live as opposed to recorded. I believe that somehow Mic's and 99.9% of solid state equipment adds or removes something to the signal that alters the original acoustic event. Then on a psychoacoustical level, when it played back our brain tells us "This is NOT real, it's a recording." I believe 2 of the major factors that contribute to this are: Greatly reduced dynamics as opposed a live event and two different sets of reflections existing at the same time. For example: When we play back music on any system (even an SET based system) we hear reflections of sound waves as they reflect off the floor, ceiling, walls, etc of the room the music was recorded in. Now when we play that recording in our homes we add to those reflections the reflections that occur in our room as the sound reflects off the floor, ceiling, walls, etc of our room. Hence again on a psychoacoustical level our brains cry out, this is NOT real!

Lastly when you mention "Bob Carver's Sunfire amps actually did a pretty simple thing, his "Current" output speaker terminals simply had a 1 ohm resistor in series, to reduce damping factor. In his ads, he stated that the reduced damping factor accounted for 90% of the tube sound. I am not sure how he reached that conclusion." Akhilesh, to that I can only say that I know for a fact that his Sunfire amp doesn't sound like my SET does. I also know that it took him a hell of a lot more components and time then just adding a 1 ohm resistor in series to make his amp sound like the tube amps when he accepted the original challenge. I think it takes a lot to make a solid state amp sound like a $5K or $10K SET does, heck even $2K SET's don't sound like the $5K and more expensive SET's do, do they?

Please talking with you.

Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)


Re: Carver's Pro Tripath Amp [message #10842 is a reply to message #10820] Fri, 10 December 2004 11:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thetubeguy1954 is currently offline  thetubeguy1954
Messages: 29
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
Colin, no I haven't read any of his articles. What's the Tand Bang project? Is that the speaker called "NEEDLES"? That speaker looks interesting. They use 16 three inch Tang Bang drivers and 1 ARg3 ribbon tweeter per side. Here's a link to it...

http://www.creativesound.ca/details.php?model=NEEDLES

Still like I said in an earlier post. "IF" I spend $3000 I want to get $3000 worth of equipment. I just cannot sanction the belief that because an amp sounds like a $3000 amp means it should cost $3000. If the amp only has a the same amount and quality of components as another company's $800 amp does, it should cost $800. I get sick when I see a good product come along, solid state or tubed, get a great review and then BAM!!!! it goes up in cost by 33% to 50%. The engineers that make solid state amps could go out buy a $10K SET amp and taylor their solid state amp to sound just like it. Bob Carver did that exact thing years ago. The fact that they don't proves either they truly believe their solid state gear sounds better. To which I say "Clean out your ears!" or they just don't care. I long for the day that I can get $10K SET tube amps sound in a $2000 solid state amp. I'll save on the intial expense of purchasing the amp, I'll save on energy bills as opposed to running paralleled 845 tubes in Class A, I'll save on the expense of NOS tubes, etc. So why don't they do it? Huh? OK guys speak up, because I really want to know the answer to that question.

Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
====================================================================
Music never makes you sick, but noise always annoys.


Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10844 is a reply to message #10841] Fri, 10 December 2004 14:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
akhilesh is currently offline  akhilesh
Messages: 1275
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (3rd Degree)
There you go, bud. Agree with you. In fact, one approach is: what does it matter what a signal measures, as long as we like it. THat's the attitude of most SET owners, like you & me, and frankly, to me that makes sense as a music listener, though maybe not if i were an acoustical engineer, or trying to get the best measured performance.

If Bob Carver reads this, maybe he can tell us what he did... he knows a helluva lot more about amp design & acoustics than almost all of us, including almost all folk in the business.

BTW, the SETs i own cost me a LOT less than what you are saying. THe zen amp is hand made for you by Steve deckert at $499 (it comes with a 30 day back guarantee: you MUST try it & steve offers GREAT customer service), the Asusa amp i got online for far less than that, and the 45 set (which has pretty high end parts: blackgate caps, good resistors, stancor power tranny, james output trannies, jupiter coupling caps) also cost me under $1500.

I like them all. They are cheap & LOADS of fun.

What kind of system do you have, Tom?
-akhilesh


Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10845 is a reply to message #10844] Fri, 10 December 2004 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thetubeguy1954 is currently offline  thetubeguy1954
Messages: 29
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
Akhilesh, ok since you asked. My amplifier is a 150LB, Italian designed, Mastersound Reference 845, inetgrated SET amp. http://www.acousticdreams.net/mastersound845referenceampmainpage.htm
It uses (per channel) a Mazda "chrome-plate" 12AU7 for preamp, then a Bendix 6900 as a driver, followed by paralleled 845's running in Class A for 40W channel of the sweetest SET music I've ever heard.
My source is also Italian designed. The Blue Note Stibbert CD Player 24/96 http://www.bluenote.it/bluenote_product.asp?cat=tabCdplayers My speakers are again Italian designed. The Aliante Pinafarina Ones http://www.aliante.com/pf/onepinin.htm For interconnects I use American Z-Squared Au/Au's. http://www.z2audio.com/auaualloy.html These are an incredible find. They are a gold/silver/copper alloy that's 24K gold plated. They list for $1799. However they can often be bought on Audiogon for $250. "IF" you don't think that's too much for an interconnect I say JUMP ON THEM! You'll never look back and probably never upgrade cables again. For speakerwire I use American Nordost Blue Heavens. http://www.nordost.com/Cables/speaker-flatline-blue-heaven.htm These are also an incredible buy for the money. I've seen them smoke cables that cost many times more. Their only problem is they can be a little splashy at times. I didn't hear that until I got the Mastersound/Blue Note combo working together. I'd wager that in about 90% of the systems out there you wouldn't hear what I describe as splashy. Also they give a real taste of the Valhalla's at a fraction of the $$$$ Finally my powercords which are also American are Stealth Audio M21 Super's http://www.stealthaudiocables.com/products/m21power.htm I provided links so you can see these components for yourself. My listening preferences are, in order of preference; 1)Smooth Jazz (Fourplay, Skywalk, Spyro Gyra, Khani Cole) 2)Jazzy New Age (Max Laser, Peter Kater, William Belote, Val Gardenia) and finally 3) Progressive Rock (Marillion, Genesis, YES, Starcastle)

Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)
====================================================================
If natuer abhors a vacuum, why does vacuum tube equipment sound so damn good?

Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10846 is a reply to message #10845] Sat, 11 December 2004 07:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
akhilesh is currently offline  akhilesh
Messages: 1275
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (3rd Degree)
Sounds like a great system....pretty high dollar too.

My systems tend to be el cheapo with multiple components.
Here is a fun idea for you to thnk about: Get the 2 watt zen amp for $499 with a 30 day money back warranty, and also get steve deckert's high eff. speakers (single driver doped fostex) with eff of around 96 db i think. These go for around $1700. try the combo, and see if you liek it. I am not sure if he gives money back on the speakers, but the amp for sure. You'll need high eff speakers for a low pwer amp. try this combo if you ever get a chance. I thihnk you'll like it. I know John (manual block) has heard it. Maybe he can tell us what he feels.
Alternately, you can also try other high eff speakers: high eff speakers & low powered SETs are a good match.

My speakers are a pair of 104 db klipschorns (1978), and a pair of homemade speakers (vintage trusonic drivers & a tweeter) around 95 db. SOmetimes I run them in parallel, esp if I am listening to a symphony. Pretty dynamic!

My source is by museatex: transport, with a bidat dac (fully modded by john wright) and/or an unmodded bitstream dac (yes I use 2 dacs running out of 1 transport to my 2 sets of speakers).

This rig has certainly kept me happy, until i build my NEXT dream speaker project (this time using modern drivers) that is.
-akhilesh

Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10847 is a reply to message #10846] Sat, 11 December 2004 14:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
thetubeguy1954 is currently offline  thetubeguy1954
Messages: 29
Registered: May 2009
Chancellor
Yes Akhilesh, it does sound great. I was very lucky on every purchase I made. I seem to have this knack for finding dealers who want to dump demo units. For example: I bought the Mastersound amp as a dealer demo with warranty @ 60% of list. The Blue Note CD player was also a dealer demo with warranty that I got @ 50% of list. Being disabled makes buying anything a long slow process of saving. Thank goodness I also had a few goodies in the closet after, 36 years of being an audiophile. So I can use these either sell or make trades at times. However the closet is now down to a pair of virtually NOS Stromberg-Carlson Slimline 15" Coaxes, that smoke the Altecs & JBL's. And IMHO are of equal footing with Tannoy RED's. I've thought about putting them in a 60 inch high rear loaded folded horn based on 1956 Jensen~Imperial Folded Horn. The plans are available on Decware's site: http://www.decware.com/newsite/mainmenu.htm I'm a member of the Central Florida Audio Society, so I've heard my share of Lowthers, Fostex, Voight Pipes along with 2A3, 45 and other low watt SET's. They're nice but not a road I plan on travelling. I'd be willing to put the 1st watt of the Mastersound with any 2A4, 45 or 300B i've heard to date. So don't need or want a low power SET, but Im considering a Hi-Efficincy speaker design as I mentioned above. I'm also thinking about a completely unique design that uses 4 of the higher quality Fostex 4" drivers in a line-source/horn design that will ROCK the single-fullrange, hi-efficiency and horn world. I just need someone that will help me make the cabinets and share the vision with me...

Tom Scata (thetubeguy1954)

Re: Some reasons why SETs sound different [message #10848 is a reply to message #10847] Sat, 11 December 2004 17:48 Go to previous messageGo to next message
akhilesh is currently offline  akhilesh
Messages: 1275
Registered: May 2009
Illuminati (3rd Degree)
Sounds good! It's all about fun! Looks liek you are having plenty of it.
-akhilesh

"good but not great" [message #10860 is a reply to message #10805] Mon, 13 December 2004 20:57 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
johnf is currently offline  johnf
Messages: 1
Registered: May 2009
Esquire
It is possible to achieve great set sound for cheap.

My friend has built amps that are great sounding. They have come up on audiogon for 500-600.

I started with a zen, then heard various diy set amps, some of which were very good.

But then by accident, my friend built a great amp, and with the formula almost every amp he built subsequently was great.

I posted about it a couple of years ago on audio asylum. The amps use a certain vintage transformer that for some reason gives a great sound.

For some reason, the price of these transformers has gone up a great deal on e-bay but i still think it is the only transformer I'm really interested in.



Previous Topic: Really cool DIY Rogue's Gallery I fell over
Next Topic: Stoetkit arrived!
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Fri Mar 29 06:49:01 CDT 2024

Sponsoring Organizations

DIY Audio Projects
DIY Audio Projects
OddWatt Audio
OddWatt Audio
Pi Speakers
Pi Speakers
Prosound Shootout
Prosound Shootout
Smith & Larson Audio
Smith & Larson Audio
Tubes For Amps
TubesForAmps.com

Lone Star Audiofest