|
Re: Which Is Better, Tube Amps or Solid-State Amps? [message #65413 is a reply to message #65410] |
Fri, 24 December 2010 04:54 |
Adveser
Messages: 434 Registered: July 2009 Location: USA
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
Solid State all the way. Accurate, but still has Saturation points and Q values too. You can make an op-amp sound tube-like if you want. That just hasn't been the traditional role of of solid state. The guitar tech is starting to get really specialized and they are learning how to use SS to do the same things as tubes.
http://adveser.webs.com/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Which Is Better, Tube Amps or Solid-State Amps? [message #66596 is a reply to message #65629] |
Wed, 09 March 2011 16:24 |
AudioFred
Messages: 377 Registered: May 2009 Location: Houston
|
Illuminati (1st Degree) |
|
|
I'm fully converted to solid state. The overwhelming disadvantage of tubes in in the cost. You can buy a new 50 watt/ch solid state integrated (NAD, Cambridge Audio, etc.) for about $500 msrp. The equivalent 50 watt/ch tube amp, with high quality transformers, etc, sells for about $1,500-$2,000. You can get a no-name Chinese amp on Ebay for less, but there will be quality control issues.
The second disadvantage is in a tube amp's reliability. Power tubes blow, and they usually take a cathode bias resistor with them, so you're looking at a repair job. I have four high quality tube amps, and right now two are out of service.
There was a time when budget priced solid state equipment sounded harsh and grainy compared to tube equipment. Solid state has improved quite a bit in the last ten years, and that $500 fifty watt amps sounds pretty good. In an effort to gain some "tube warmth" I added a tube buffer to the system that includes a $170 Oppo player and a $500 Cambridge Audio Azur integrated. I gained a very slight warmth but lost a very slight amount of resolution, and decided I prefer the system without the extra component in the signal path.
|
|
|
Re: Which Is Better, Tube Amps or Solid-State Amps? [message #66739 is a reply to message #66596] |
Tue, 22 March 2011 22:00 |
Bill Epstein
Messages: 1088 Registered: May 2009 Location: Smoky Mts. USA
|
Illuminati (2nd Degree) |
|
|
AudioFred wrote on Wed, 09 March 2011 17:24 | There was a time when budget priced solid state equipment sounded harsh and grainy compared to tube equipment. Solid state has improved quite a bit in the last ten years, and that $500 fifty watt amps sounds pretty good.
|
Funny, my experience is just the opposite. Back in the Seventies, along with platform shoes I had a Bedini 25/25 pure Class A, mosfet power amp that was wonderfully musical. I think it was about $350. In the Eighties my Muse 100 (I'm still on the lookout for a well-priced Muse amp) and Counterpoint SA-100 were excellent. All 3 of these played Acoustat 1+1s, not at all forgiving on top!
Over the past several years I've had An Accuphase E-450 integrated $4500, A Conrad-Johnson Sonographe 250 $1250, A Classe CR-70 $900 and a B&K 202ST, none of which had acceptable upper mids and treble. All were grainy, or etched, or both. The only really fine SS amps I've heard in the past 5 years were the big John Curl monoblocks $8000 and the McCormack DNA 1 $1995.
My Tubelab Simple SE has less than $400 in parts and is sublime with $50/pair EH 6CA7s. OK, maybe not sublime, but it kills any of the above-mentioned solid state.
|
|
|