Slashdot Mirror
Tubes vs Transistors: An Audible Difference?
cgenman writes "Are those vaccuum tubes worth the extra price? This paper, a transcript of a speech to the Audio Engineering Society of New York, indicates so, though the reason is surprising: Overloaded tubes behave better.
While the speech itself is from the early 70's, the paper takes on new importance with the recent trend in louder is better music."
If part of being better includes consistanly sounding the same, then glass audiophiles have to tuck their tales between their legs. Tubes wear out. As they wear out, their sound qualities change. Who's to say that the 'changed' sound is desireable? Maybe it's an improvement...that's the problem; it's not cosistent.
Regardless of which one you feel is more accurate in its source reproduction, solid state devices have the advantage in that they pretty much (not 100%) maintain whatever sound characteristic they start with.
Tube amps are considered more of a "status" item these days... When someone tells you they just got a nice new $300 tube amp, you kind of want to check it out, because it sounds cool...
It seems like you have listened to the 1970s-era solid-state proponents a bit too much. The "nice sounding distortion" myth is just that.
The issue brought up in the article is no longer a concern. There are transistor amplifiers with soft clipping, and clipping shouldn't happen in normal situations anyway.
However, high-quality tube amplifiers have one characteristic that class B transistor amplifiers do not: zero negative feedback. Transistor amplifiers need large amounts of negative feedback to obtain low distortion. Tubes don't need it. That means you have virtually no high-order distortion harmonics in a tube amplifier, while transistor amplifier distortion is mostly high-order.
It has been shown that high-order harmonics sound very nasty, even in tiny amounts. It has also been shown that the human ear produces its own low-order distortion, so low-order harmonics do not sound objectionable to us. Now put two and two together. Tube amplifiers may not have very good distortion numbers, but the type of distortion they produce is not as objectionable to a human. It's not that 2nd harmonic distortion sounds good -- it doesn't. It just doesn't sound as bad.
>Just try to design 3kW hifi audio amp and see what will be cheaper...
You have a source for tubes than can handle (assuming we are hooking up some magically-able-to-handle-3kw-home-speaker) 20 amps of current? If so, show me the money. Otherwise, you know the old saying, shut up or put up.
I say this because I am certain I can find transistors that can do that.
Now, since I can't find ANYTHING in a tube amp that can handle 3kw (examples, please), I'll post this example, a 200 watt tube amp running at (*GASP*) $6000!
To show I'm not making those numbers up, here's another (now discontinued) tube amplifier, weighing in at a "hefty" 60 watts RMS (my 30 year old H/K 430 solid state amp beats it! LOL!). MSRP: $1,995.
Now, assuming the usual laws of economics apply, I will again, assume, that a 3kw tube amplifier will cost much more.
I can assure you a 3kw RMS solid state amplifier will cost under $6000. In fact, it'll cost you $1,129. If you bitch you don't like the brand name, I can find others in the same price range. And you'll look silly bitching about it, too, because Peavy definately isn't Yorx quality.
But please, please, do tell me where I can get get a 3000 watt tube amp for that price or lower. I'd love to buy, oh, say, 10,000,000 of them. I'd be richer than Bill Gates when I sell them for, oh, about 1000x the price without a hitch.
If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
~jeff
So yes, there are tubes which can handle extremely large (nigh-insane) loads. The tubes might be big, bulky, and made of ceramic, but they exist.
I wholeheartedly agree with the article discussing the Rush album; those waves *were* severly clipped, and whoever mastered that CD should be very very ashamed of themselves (although it looks like the clipping happened in several stages, not just in the final mastering) for forgetting what matters the most in audio production: Quality control of the product by using their ears. Californication of the Red Hot ChiliPeppers lacked the same final check, it's horribly clipped as well.
HOWEVER, As someone with (some) experience in audio production, I should mention that when a signal is compressed and then amplified, this can help increase the detail in weak signals. This is nothing new; in old vinyl recordings, especially of classical orchestras (music with a lot of dynamics) the sound engineer had no choice but to apply some compression to the result.
For digital audio, it is easy to maximize audio levels with any wave editor: Almost every one of them has a "normalize to maximum" function. No harm in that; it allows to maximize the level without clipping it. Typically, gives a result with average sound level of 3-6 dB below 'professional' CDs which is so common to find in 'amateur' demos. The best way to punch up the volume further is by turning it up on the amplifier. However I found my customers wanted the CD itself to be louder. Here's how I did it without causing any clipping.
By itself there is no problem of punching up the level another 3-6 dB, but if you're going to do this by simply increasing the amplitude, the signal *will* clip and sound horrible. Instead, apply a very light distortion over the signal (in cooledit 96 it used to be under the Special menu, draw a slightly bent curve, amplifying softer signals a bit more than the louder ones), essentially mimicking what a tube does. This will increase the average level of the signal, increase perceived definition of the signal, but will not cause clipping. It will color the signal, but in a pleasant way, just like tubes.
This technique does however have two downsides: 1. Because it does color the signal, it may mess up with your carefully balanced mix and equalization. 2. when used to excess, it may still cause unwanted distortion sound. Use your ears to proof the final result. As with all audio matters, don't go for bullshit. Most importantly, let your ears be the judge. And did I mention to use you ears to judge the final result?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Of course not, but they do contain extremely-hard-to-model non-linear responses of a bewildering variety of kinds. If they didn't, then no one would pay $500+ for DSP emulators like Native Instruments' recently released Guitar Rig, and everyone would just code their own in csound or Max/MSP.
In other words, the software market shows that it takes quite a lot to mimic the sound of classic tube amps (and speaker cabinets, etc.). So, when someone (who actually uses these things on a daily basis, for example) says that tube amps can't be matched by software, they're not necessarily saying there are magical fairies in their tubes (though some meatheaded guitarists might say that), they could be reflecting a knowledgeable point of view on the reality of the current situation.
Personally, since I use these things a lot (I do a lot of home recording) and have seen how they've progressed, I have no doubt that software will eventually match classic tube amp sounds for guitar; it may not even be that far in the future. But it ain't here now.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
My old ~1987 Proton D940 uses magnetic amplifiers. The little reciever/amp clocks in at around 40lbs. Sounds better than almost everything available today.
I wonder why this technology quietly died.
Get a free ipod.
... and CD's made more than a decade ago, the old stuff wasn't mastered with all the hypercompression and clipping that almost all modern pop CD's have to have to be contenders in the "VOLUME WARS."
You can make both tubes and transistors sound clean or dirty (distorted), and they do sound quite different when dirty and each is "appropriate" in different contexts, but having whole albums sounding dirty causes ear fatigue and it just sucks.
Does anyone else find it ironic that LP's were recorded with a substantially greater dynamic range than is used on current CD's?
Tag lost or not installed.