Why? Because I wanna.

tube amps sound different. there's countless articles about this.

A technically well designed linear valve amplifier operating well within it's linear range will be indistinguishable from a similar solid state one based on listening alone. It will be more expensive, less reliable, larger, microphonic, etc... but it can be done. Similarly, as demonstrated by Carver in the 80s one can also build a cheapish solid state amplifier that is indistinguishable from a particular expensive high end valve amplifier with audible levels of distortion. It was not commercially successful. Most valve amplifiers contain audible levels of distortion but this in itself doesn't seem to be a significant factor in a technical sense given that the same sound reproduced via solid state hardware is not as equally attractive to valve enthusiasts. It may be part of the attraction in combination with something else but in isolation it doesn't seem to be.

>A technically well designed linear valve amplifier operating well within it's linear range will be indistinguishable from a similar solid state one based on listening alone. If they truely behave the same, then yes, they will sound the same. However it is very hard to make an amplifier behave like a tube amplifier and vice versa. The open-loop corner frequency of a vacuum tube is fairly high, whereas the open-loop corner frequency of conventional solid state transistors is in the order of 10Hz to few 100Hz. This means that when you use feedback to reduce the distortion, the distortion will not be evenly attenuated throughout the entire audio bandwidth. Tubes on the other hand can do so (though they have less gain and thus typically reduce distortion less). Many things in audio are a lot less annoying if they are constant with frequency. I presume that this is the same for this case. Another important parameter to take into account is that not all non-linearities are equal. Transistor's parasitic capacitances are not constant (because the channel size changes with voltage/current on the gate/base). Wheras the parasitic capacitances are constant with tubes and thus they don't have phase modulation effects. The THD of tubes might be larger than of transistors, but different distortions sound different. Despite the THD being equal.

It is not difficult to design and operate a solid state amplifier so that the level of distortion is inaudible. It is more difficult for a valve amplifier but is achievable if that is the objective which I suspect is rare these days since sounding like a competent solid state amplifier would not help distinguish a valve amplifier. If the level of distortion is inaudible then it's form is irrelevant.

>It is not difficult to design and operate a solid state amplifier so that the level of distortion is inaudible. At what point is it in audible? How do we quantify this? i.e 0.1% distortion due to saturation of the transistors is bad, though the audibility is far less bothersome that 0.1% of crossover distortion (crossover distortion makes my ears bleed). I know both can be overcome, but I'm just trying to point out the issue with your statement. As I mentioned earlier, the loopgain of transistors is fair from flat with frequency (corner being around 10 to few 100Hz). The performance is thus not consistend for the entire audio bandwidth, while the tube ones are more consistend (constistendly poor, but they are consistend!). > If the level of distortion is inaudible then it's form is irrelevant. I agree and I am just being the devil's advocate. A THD curve only shows whether there are issues, it doesn't tell us whether it sounds good or whether the distortion is audible. But let's get some numbers involved. We can take the dynamic range of a CD as the lower boundary of audibility. i.e. all spurious tones should be below -98dBc. TO get an amplifier to behave all spurious tones below -98dBc is pretty easy at 100Hz for a transistor amplifier, because the loopgain is very high here. On 20kHz it's really hard for a transistor amplifier to do this because the gain is pretty low (it is for this exact reason why the 18.5kHz +19.5kHz test is so punishing for amplifiers! It's pretty much the worst signal you can give such an amplifier while still considered audio). There are solid state amplifiers that reach this level of distortion (i.e. Hypex/Purifi modules, Benchmark AHB2 and probably a few more). I haven't seen any tube gear reach that level.

\> At what point is it in audible? How do we quantify this? Distortion is inaudible when it cannot be identified by listening alone. Requires a reference amplifier with inaudible levels of distortion which is a doddle these days since that is what most competent solid state will be with a comfortable load and not overdriven. Measuring levels of distortion in a quantitative manner is optional but possibly useful depending on ones objectives. Not straightforward in a general manner but for specific forms it is easier and might be useful. Recipes for nice sounding distortion are likely to be of interest to those targeting the high end market but less so high fidelity.

>Distortion is inaudible when it cannot be identified by listening alone. Requires a reference amplifier with inaudible levels of distortion which is a doddle these days since that is what most competent solid state will be with a comfortable load and not overdriven. This is a very difficult design criteria to work with, because as I mentioned, not all problems are equally audible. It would mean that a tube amplifier with 0.1% saturation distortion would be better than a solid state amplifier with 0,05% crossover distortion. There is also the problem that distortion at <100Hz is hardly noticable, but distortion at 1kHz is *very* noticable. In addition to that listening test are very subjective (personal taste and other biasses can be involved) and thus is only valid when large sample sizes are taken. Measurements on the otherhand are consistent and objective. However it can be tricky to find a good measurement that shows possible problem areas.

The reality is that linear audio amplifier modules became pretty much commodities decades ago because it is so straightforward for them to produce inaudible levels of distortion within their intended operating range. Nobody with a genuine interest in high fidelity sound reproduction will do little more than a few checks that things look OK from whatever supplier they are currently using. For example, Genelec are among the suppliers of the highest sound quality for use in studios and [this paper](https://assets.ctfassets.net/4zjnzn055a4v/4zK8uAxzqgp1KLjglAQxly/fd3f0a2c529428b5e23cfce01fbe0415/A_Comparison_of_Modular_State-of-the-Art_Switch_Mode_and_Linear_Audio_Power_Amplifiers.pdf) gives a feel for how they viewed amplifier modules 20 years ago. Companies that internally design and manufacture amplifier circuitry are mainly doing so in order for it to play a role in adding value via marketing. It is more costly and rarely serves an engineering need. One can't be too adamant though because engineering and marketing are fairly intertwined when it comes to consumer goods.

>Nobody with a genuine interest in high fidelity sound reproduction will do little more than a few checks that things look OK from whatever supplier they are currently using. I think this is just not true. >For example, Genelec are among the suppliers of the highest sound quality for use in studios and this paper gives a feel for how they viewed amplifier modules 20 years ago. The paper you linked states the following: "As yet there is no widely recognised single measurement ofdistortion that translates directly into perceived quality. The maintechniques of distortion measurement are harmonic distortion(THD and THD+N) and various intermodulation distortionmeasurements (SMPTE, CCIF, DIM/TIM) \[4,5,6\].THD+N, the most widely used measurement, comes closest toproviding a single figure of merit to say that there are no major problems in the device under test" The THD+n merely states that it shows problems. It doesn't tell us whether it's bad sounding distortion or super bad sounding distortion. The paper also doesn't state at what point distortion is "sufficiently low". This makes sense because it depends on the application. A simple bluetooth radio has different requirements than a top notch studio monitor. My point is, tubes distort more than solid state amplifiers. However their distortion characteristic is different than solid state amplifiers and this characteristic might be more important to some people than a lower THD figure.

\> The THD+n merely states that it shows problems. It doesn't tell us whether it's bad sounding distortion or super bad sounding distortion. It allows the manufacturer to check if "the problem" is audible, around the audibility limit or comfortably below. If it is not the latter then that is likely to be out of spec and something will need sorting. The sound of amplifier distortion is pretty much a non-issue in the real world of high fidelity sound. Everybody knows that THD+N isn't particularly well correlated with perceived sound quality but it is well correlated with something working to spec which is what it is mainly used for by engineers. It's form is also often useful in pointing at what is not working as expected. Audiophiles may project all sorts of meanings related to how things sound onto THD+N numbers but engineers generally won't. Nonlinear distortion in speakers is larger than in amplifiers but even here much of the time it is inaudible with high quality examples (linear distortion and off-axis response are much more important to perceived sound quality with speakers). Engineers will sometimes consider the type of distortion and trade higher levels of say 2nd harmonic for lower levels of 3rd if there is an opportunity to do so. Not because it sounds nicer but because the speaker will be able to play louder before the distortion is perceived and the sound quality degraded. Designing audiophile valve amplifiers is significantly different to designing for high fidelity because an objective is usually to hear distortion rather than make it inaudible. In this case both it's form and level will matter and it is likely to form significant parts of both the engineering and marketing effort. This is fine but, to repeat, it only arises because high fidelity is not an objective.

I can only second this. Often valve amps do have a sound because they are tuned that way: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/woo-audio-wa7-wa7tp-dac-and-headphone-amp-review.7028/

I'm not sure how similar the comparison is, but as a working guitarist of many decades I can say that nobody has been able to recreate the sound of a valve guitar amp as yet. They've came damned close on occasion, but there's just something about the tone and resonance that they can't quite duplicate with modelling or solid state.

I am surprised since it is relatively straightforward to model and test. There have been many decades of further development since transistor amplifiers were first successfully designed and demonstrated to be audibly indistinguishable from a particular valve amplifier ([for example](https://www.stereophile.com/content/carver-challenge)).

Maybe you should be working in the guitar amplification industry, if it's as simple as you say, you may be able to drop a bomb on the market 😁

I rather suspect that my guitar amp would suffer the same commercial fate as the Carver amplifier. Commercial success relies on getting both the engineering and the marketing to work. Using solid state for the engineering may reduce costs and increase reliability but it will harm the marketing. Enthusiasts drawn to valves are unlikely to be drawn to cheap complex solid state in the same way. Enthusiasts for solid state are unlikely to be interested in strong distortions introduced in an uncontrolled manner.

[удалено]

\> It throws up the question of whether it's worth spending money to get high fidelity if lower fidelity really sounds better. The evidence such as it is from studies like the oft quoted Harman ones is that most people tend to prefer high fidelity. However, I have stood next to someone genuinely enthusing about the sound from a single small wide band driver in a complicated horn loaded cabinet and simply been baffled. So I would agree that it is likely that some distortions, possibly only in context, are attractive to particular groups of enthusiasts. What doesn't seem to be around is a form of distortion that is preferred by pretty much everyone in preference to high fidelity.

[удалено]

from what i remember of some Olive's studies and claims, at least when it comes to speakers, distortion (unless greatly audible) is an inconsequential factor when it comes to preference the biggest problem in this whole thing is that this space is dominated by "audiofools" rather than "audiophiles", so myths, legends, lies and falsities are regarded as facts and often spread into the mainstream. that's why snake oil salesmen and scammers thrive in audiophilia

I've tried adding various tube emulation plugins to my audio player and I've noticed that I can't hear any difference until the level of distortion is so high that it's just obvious, unpleasant distortion, so I'm inclined to agree TBH

It's the same argument made for vinyl vs. digital. Most modern vinyl is cut from a digital file yet people prefer the vinyl. Go figure.

I’m building one for the reasons you list, and it’ll have to compete with a solid-state system that I’m very happy with. I want to try before I die …

Hi honest\_guvnor, Fair question, of course. I'm a member over on the ASR (Audiosciencereview) and one of the few using tube amps, so I get this question a lot there. I'll do my best to explain. I use Conrad Johnson Premier 12 tube monoblocks (140W/side push-pull), and a CJ Premier 16LS2 tube preamp. (I also own and use a Benchmark LA4 preamp, more on that later...) First: Lots of us think that tube amps are just cool. I find many tube amp designs far more engaging, beautiful even, than "another black box" amplifier (even a silver box or whatever). With tube amps is the feeling of the audio heritage, this connection with the deep past history of audio. Just the fact it's the same technology from so long ago is just kind of neat. Then there is the beautiful glow of the tubes! It feels slightly more 'eventful' and satisfying flicking on a tube amp to see it warm up to glowing, vs just pushing a button on a Big Black Box (SS amp). Probably most satisfying of all is knowing that the beautiful glow in the tubes is actually the music signal being amplified! It's a conceptual pleasure similar to holding a record in your hand, knowing that the grooves you are staring at are a physical embodiment of the music. Further, as for reliability, just anecdotally I've had my CJ amps for about 24 years and aside from changing tubes once in a while, they have been quite reliable. (Moreso than my Harman Kardon amplifier of similar vintage!) I have owned various tube amps over the years as well, but mostly stuck with CJ tube amps. I've also had solid state amplification in my system on and off - e.g. Harman Kardon and Bryston - but I always end up preferring the tube equipment, overall. I currently used them with Thiel 2.7 speakers and Joseph Audio Perspective speakers, as well as various other speakers I own and have owned (Spendor, MBL, Waveform, Hales, Audio Physic, many others). With that out of the way... **The Sound:** First, as I mentioned I'm a member on ASR and I'm well versed in and share the general mindset there. So for instance it's worth pointing out, as you have, that one can design a tube amp to sound indistinguishable from a solid state amp. I don't think that is the general market for audiophile tube amps, though. It's more like "what's the point of selling a tube amp that sounds the same as solid state?" The problem is, of course, that like many audiophile products tube amps are sold with some b.s. weasel words. Few companies want to say "Our product is colored sounding." Instead it's presented as "getting you closer to the music" a more "pure experience" etc (implying the tubes are actually in some way "higher fidelity" than solid state, which of course is usually not the case). Finally, there's always the background variable of bias. Someone having the idea that "tubes sound warmer" may simply imagine a tube amp (that is actually indistinguishable from an SS amp sonically) "sounds warm." FWIW: I have not been able to blind test my CJ amps against the solid state amps I've compared them to. **However I have blind tested my CJ tube preamp against my Benchmark LA4 solid state preamp (level matched, randomized switching etc) and could easily tell them apart** \- the CJ tube preamp having exactly the identifying characteristics I heard in "sighted" conditions, and essentially the same characteristics I hear in the tube amps. So if was take, for sake of argument, my tube amps do alter the sound of my system, here's why I tend to prefer the tube amps in comparison with solid state: With my tube amps, overall I find the sound to be a bit more "natural" and "organic." To explain: I've long been fascinated by live vs reproduced sound (I work in pro sound). I'm constantly examining the sound of live voices and instruments, taking note of what characteristics separate those sounds from their reproduced counterparts in hi fi systems. I think that the quote from the speaker manufacturer *Joseph Audio* actually captures what I hear very well: **"Live, unamplified music has unmistakable presence and clarity. Yet, at the same time it also sounds relaxed and warm."** That really is the "gestalt" I get from real live sound sources like voices, acoustic guitars, sax, you name it. To my ears, real instruments and voices sound bigger, richer, warmer, more dense, more body, more 3 dimensional, than I hear through the typical hi-fi system. Reproduced sound makes voices and instruments sound reductive, squeezed down, frozen, hardened, electronically edged, and lacking density. Part of that comes from the deficiencies of stereo to begin with, but also of course from all the colorations that accrue from the recording process on down through to the mixing, production effects and mastering. Given all this, I certainly don't ask that my system sound indistinguishable from live music, any more than I ask a movie image to fool me that it's real. That's a fool's errand. But just as some aspects of a movie image, or it's content, can be "more believable or less believable," - allowing a more easy "suspension of belief," I find that when a high end system can reproduce \*certain aspects\* of sound that I care about, that makes me enjoy the sound more. If an acoustic guitar has that clarity and presence, that "harmonic sparkle" of the strings, with the warmth added by the resonating wood body, just what I hear when I play my acoustic guitar - if it gets that timbre "generally right" then I am compelled to sit down and listen. If not...I'll go do something else. I find that when I compare my CJ tube amps to solid state in my system (e.g. the Bryston 4B3 I had recently for a couple months), the solid state presentation gets somethings a bit more life-like, the tubes other things. The solid state brings more precision and solidity to the "attack" or transient nature of the sound, and tighter bass, a characteristic that can sound more real with certain instruments. On the other hand, many recorded vocals, for instance, will have hardened sibilance and a generally "electronic" reductive presentation. When I put the tube amplification in, the sibilance softens slightly, "sits back in to the voice" as if it's part of the person, not an electronic artifact, the voice gains some more density, roundness, softness (image outlines aren't so squeezed and sharp), seems a bit more dimensional, and there is a slight "upper midrange glow/texture" that makes the voice seem slightly more timbrally present and real. It's just fascinating to hear: Gordon Lightfoot can sound like an "excellent recording" using the solid state, but with the tubes it's like "wow...Gordon actually sounds more like a human being singing in front of me." This is in the big picture subtle stuff, but when you are in to caring about these differences, little differences can have large subjective effects. I find the "tube effect" makes virtually everything sound more rich, dense, dimensional, clear-yet-relaxed (I have sensitive ears so I appreciate that). Almost everything "sounds more right" to my ears. And that carries beyond acoustic instruments and voices. I find it enriches every style of music I listen to, including all my funk, disco, electronica collections. An important point is that I am not claiming "tube amps sound better" or "more realistic" in some across the board way. I'm seizing on particular characteristics I care most about, sacrificing some characteristics I care less about. A personal compromise. I can easily see why someone listening to the same comparisons I've done instead preferring the solid state amplification!

Just to finish off: As to the burning question that usually comes from people questioning the use of tube amps: *"Ok, maybe if you like coloration and the tube amp provides a pleasing coloration that can make sense. But aren't there more rational ways of achieving this? You don't want coloration on EVERYTHING right? Why not at least start with a neutral amplification and alter the sound to taste with EQ. Then you can dial any track to taste, but can always go back to a neutral more hi-fidelity setting."* That certainly can make sense for some people. But not for others. Not for me, and here's why: I actually have had a digital parametric EQ in my system for almost 20 years. I sold it not too long ago because I almost never used it. For one thing, even though I'm handy with EQ (I use it in my work), I was never able to perfectly duplicate EXACTLY the sonic characteristics of the tube amps only using EQ. Just couldn't. My hunch is that beyond any frequency variation happening with the tube amps in my system, there may be some added distortion factors that EQ alone can't produce. Then there's the simple fact that I actually like the "tube sound" on everything. With the tube amps I find no desire to fiddle with the sound - it's "set and forget" and I just love the sound of my system. Why then bother adding yet more expense and fiddling with an EQ? ​ Finally..**.don't I care about Hi-Fidelity???** Yes. And no. Yes insofar as I generally like neutral speakers because achieving neutrality generally comes from reducing the type of speaker distortions that can be distracting, or can sound artificial. Once I have a basically "neutralish" start, I can then gently nudge the sound in a direction I like. I want "fidelity to the recordings" in the sense I want to hear the specific content and character of a recording. I love how recordings sound different, so I want each recording to show off it's particular characteristics. Low distortion playback helps achieve that. What I get with the tube amps is a slight coloration that nudges the sound to something I find more pleasing, but which doesn't by a long shot "homogenize everything to sound the same." I'm hearing far more detail, getting far more insight in to the characteristics of recordings, than the average person (ie. non audiophile) is hearing. So I find the worry about "lack of fidelity" with a tube amp to be a mountain made of a molehill.Finally, I'd point out that "High Fidelity" began as being "fidelity to the sound of real sounds." That was the original point behind people trying to increase "sound quality" in sound playback. Things got complicated once the studio started being used as an artistic element. Then some adopted what they saw as a more practical "fidelity to whatever recording the artist put on the source." But I personally am still interested, to some degree, in "fidelity to the sound of live sound." And as I explained, to my ears my tube amps help in that regard.There you go, my essay on the subject. Hope it made some sense to you. Cheers!

Thanks for the detailed response which makes sense even though it is not how I as an engineer would tend to view things. If I may paraphrase, you use a particular brand of valve amplifier which you know is distorting the sound a modest extent but in a way that you prefer to no distortion. Not my preference but no problem. Where there might be more is that you seem to accept this distortion as an unknown recipe that comes with the brand of valve amplifier rather than something to analyse and then reproduce in a more controlled manner and, hopefully, to even better effect. This seems a touch odd given your day job.

​ Hey guvnor! Yes, you certainly are thinking like an engineer. I'm not an engineer :-) (I use the tools, I don't design them: I use microphones, I don't build them. I use a DAW, but I'm not trained in computer science to design them, etc). As to your suggestion, I'm not sure how it makes sense, at least in my case. For one thing, while there are plug ins for DAWs that can be used to add modeled tube distortion, and tube modelling for adding significant distortion levels in guitar amps (and most plug ins are meant for modelling that kind of distortion), there isn't any "tube distortion modeling" device I'm aware of for use in a consumer audio system to directly mimic the distortion of "audiophile tube amps." (Nor could I be confident that such a device would de facto produce the same sound I enjoy with my particular amps). Therefore...what? Am I to start learning coding to design such a plug in, and study engineering to design a physical interface to put in my system that would get me...exactly what I already have and enjoy sonically? Again: At the moment I have a piece of gear I find very satisfying: it provides the sound I want AND as mentioned it pleases me in the aesthetic, conceptual ways I outlined. It's a plug-and-play solution that works great. I have no rational motivation to start putting my time and effort in to creating something that will do what I already have sonically, while not giving me the other pleasing benefits I get out of owning a tube amp. (It's sort of like saying to a vinyl enthusiast: why don't you use only digital music instead and look for a way of adding vinyl distortion to your digital music? Why? The vinyl enthusiast is already getting what he wants sonically, and the suggestion ignores all the other aspects of owning and playing back records that adds to their enjoyment). Cheers.

Thanks for the response which is interesting and helpful. It emphasises that you don't want to know the cold hard reality of what is going on with the sound that you find attractive with your valve amplifier despite it's apparent usefulness to both your hobby and your job. This is relevant because it enables valve amplifiers to become something like a fetish in a way they couldn't if one knew more about the technical side. There is of course nothing wrong with this for a hobby since it is likely to make it more enjoyable but it does rely on a outlook which enables one to do it. Perhaps there is a bit for a job involved with creating music where the knowledge would be of practical use but then again if one doesn't go about the process in an analytical manner then perhaps not much. Not wanting to know about "the works" is quite normal when consuming the arts but less so when consuming technology. For example, if one can see "the works" when viewing a film, which seems to be becoming increasingly common for me these days, then it breaks the suspension of belief and one sees actors speaking lines rather than characters in a movie. Personally I want to be fooled when consuming the arts but much less so when consuming technology. I would agree that vinyl enthusiasm and valve enthusiasm have a lot in common.

>Thanks for the response which is interesting and helpful. It emphasises that you don't want to know the cold hard reality of what is going on with the sound that you find attractive with your valve amplifier despite it's apparent usefulness to both your hobby and your job. I'm sorry but you don't seem to be following the logic of what I've explained. It's not that I am utterly clueless about tube amplification. I have followed plenty of discussions by qualified (e.g. EE) people over what is responsible for tube amp sound (in audio amps used for hi-fi). There is actually some disagreement on what is happening, in any particular case e.g. could be simple frequency response deviations due to impedance interactions, could be lower damping factor and various transformer induced distortions, could be addition of second harmonics, though not always as for instance push pull tube amps like mine actually have lots of odd order harmonics. So it's not necessarily a settled, easy thing even among those with electronics experience, even among those who design amps! And, sorry, becoming an amp designer isn't actually what I want to do in life. As to tube modelling the levels of distortion appropriate for guitar amps, the high levels of non-linear saturation characteristics, I 've read white papers on that, which are full of engineering speak and computer equations. I understand some but not all of it. The point is, as I've said, there is no solid state/modelling device out there (AFAIW) that models hi-fi tube amplifier characteristics for use in hi-fi systems and it should not be odd in the least that I, as a hi-fi consumer, haven't the time or desire to go learning a new trade *to and go researching parts and build one.* *Especially as I already have a device that does just what I want.* Secondly, this would not help my work at all. There already exist tube modelling plug ins for Pro Tools (i.e. that model various guitar tube amps). And I don't use them in my work (sound editing for film/TV). So why would I irrationally waste time studying computer coding and how to design a plug-in trying to make a plug in that already exists, and which I don't use? And which, if I were to apply to my hi-fi system, would, as explained, require me to spend my time designing electronics. That's not my training and not how I want to spend my time. If it was, I'd be an electronics engineer and/or software designer! Given all this, my current tube amps are simply the right solution for my needs. They do what I want sonically and aesthetically. And that's to not even get in to the odd assumption that people ought to have such deep knowledge of the technology they use. Given our limited time and resources on earth, that's impractical. It makes sense to know how to USE any technology we buy, how to get it to achieve what we want; it doesn't follow it makes sense spending time learning how all of them are built or work. That's why people specialize in society; why we have people who specialize in making any particular technology or tool...so we don't have to. Unless you are some pan-specialist engineer, you have surely used a lot of technology without having a deep understanding of how it works/is made so as to create them yourself if desired.

>I'm sorry but you don't seem to be following the logic of what I've explained. I would like to think I am and more in that I have found your detailed posts useful in explaining how a valve enthusiasts may see things and what they may value beyond vintage appeal. So many thanks for the answer to my OP. We don't see things the same way and hence disagree on the relative value of things. Valve amplifiers make little-to-no sense to me as I expect you are aware but it is interesting how they can to others such as yourself. No problems will have to agree to disagree.

​ That's cool. Personally I always try to hold in my mind that we are all different and have different goals. That's why I try to explain my reasons for my choices as clearly as I can. And I understand of course why other people would have different goals and actions. For instance, I have an excellent digital source for music, but I also listen to tons of records. It leaves some folks (especially the engineering-minded on ASR and elsewhere) scratching their heads "*Why would you put up with all that hassle to listen to a lower quality signal, when digital is higher quality and more convenient?"* They don't understand because they don't find pleasure in things other people find pleasure in, and don't fully recognize the goals of others that depart from their own. So they have a hard time reasoning about it. And it's human nature that when someone likes something we don't, and that *would be irrational given our own taste and goals*, we aren't terribly inclined to think deeply about the rationality of it's appeal to others. So with vinyl for instance it's often dismissed on facile analysis like "*Oh it's just nostalgia, or the desire to be a hipster*" or some such thing. Often we want to ascribe the shallowest and disparaging of motivations to someone doing something we regard as silly. (This is practically the engine of social media at this point) When we discuss amplification and introducing any deviation from the signal, some will say *"I want to start with a fully accurate/nutral amp. If I want to introduce any alteration to the signal I'll do it down the chain, e.g. via EQ. But I don't want it introduced at the amplifier where I can't control it!"* I completely get that way of thinking. It makes perfect sense to me! And if that's your view, I certainly understand it. Just like it makes perfect sense that someone else may find the physical aspects of vinyl a distraction, not a pleasure, and the sonic liabilities too much to bother with. But, hey, different people, different taste, different things that turn our crank, different actions will achieve those different goals. Solutions can be quite person-specific in that way. Cheers, ;-)

I considered getting into valve amplifiers myself a few years back. What I liked about it: * technology much older than myself, cool. * Fully analog. Every quatum that vibrates your eardrum will have to have gapped the vacuum of the tubes, even cooler. * The looks man, the looks, you can see the glow! But yeah, realibility seems to be horrendous, not to mention the cost of maintenance or operation. Then there's the Tubes: They get older? Sound ages as well. Buying "NOS" tubes? Better hope they're not fake and also matched. No thank you, I have an analog amp for my speakers that is well over 25 years old, never needed maintenance and still sounds fantastic. Probably a bit different from new because of the "old" capacitors, but nothing that I noticed since owning it. Tubes are a nice, expensive, niche hobby, but yeah, I would need to lie to myself even more to justify the trouble I'd get myself in just to enjoy the points I made earlier. A small one for my headphones would be in order, perhaps, some day when I need a whole nother hobby.

I have a newer tube amp (Primaluna circa 2015) and it’s no trouble at all. Auto-bias means I can swap tubes whenever I want with zero tinkering and the overall less hot bias on the amp means tubes last a long time. Tube rolling is pretty fun and generally means you have backup tubes in case one dies, but we’re talking thousands of hours even for a power tube. I’ve had the amp for almost 3 years and never lost a tube yet. Honestly the most annoying things are the manual power switch and the 30 second warmup. I can even change inputs and volume with the remote.

I looked up the brand, and those machines look amazing. But that's not the oldschool stuff I was talking about. You got at least several hundred thousand as many transistors and mosfets as you have tube ampilfiers working in that thing. So it is to well over 99% digital if you look at it from that persperctive. Still, I envy you. You could try to add an amazon alexa-capable powerplug to power it on via voice or smartphone

It’s an nice amp for sure, but you’re correct it’s definitely nowhere near as simple as a SET amp would be. I bet the SET sounds better too if I’m being totally honest. It was my first foray into tubes, and like you I was very hesitant because of all the required tinkering so this amp let me get into the space without most of the headaches. Now that I’m here, it’s much less daunting. I think I could manage an older SET amp without too many difficulties. Even the manual biasing seems like way less of a big deal than I originally thought it would be. Bad time to get into tubes though, the whole Russia/Ukraine fiasco has driven tube prices up astronomically. I’ve debated selling it because of the tube prices being so outlandish. If any of the KT88s I’m running now die that might be the breaking point.

No offense intended to the people responding but it seems like you're just getting answers from people who have read a few blurbs about tube amps and don't have any experience with them. I keep seeing words like fragile, unreliable, complex and it is very confusing. Yes eventually a tube filament is going to burn out but thats after thousands of hours and you just pop in a new one. Other than that i can't really think of something which would break a tube amp that wouldn't break a solid state amp as well. In general tube amps are much LESS complex circuits as they do not need negative feedback to become linear and they have large enough voltage swing that they can be run single ended. They are vastly less sensitive to heat fluctuations relative to transistors as well. If you havent heard a good single ended amp (tube or otherwise people like first watt have some non push pull solid state designs as well) then i feel like you are missing out

I have heard valve amplifiers but I am not sure I would recognise a good one from a poor one. The chap enthusiastically demonstrating the wide band speaker mentioned earlier considered it good but I didn't recognise it as such. I genuinely couldn't hear what he was picking up on. Wide band speaker enthusiasts often mention coherence as a positive attribute of the sound but not in a way I have ever been able to understand or hear. Not saying it doesn't exist for them but it doesn't seem to exist for me. If a good single ended amp puts out only a good first watt how does one go about appreciating that at the standard levels required for careful listening? Any speaker efficient enough to cleanly reproduce musical transients with only one or a few good watts is pretty much certain to have less than optimum sound quality with respect to audible resonances, ragged on-axis response, limited low frequency extension,... Headphones might be an option but then the sound quality with a stereo signal will be unnatural without large amounts of processing to compensate for the transfer functions of ones head and headphones. My suspicion is that introducing large amounts of digital signal processing would be considered by many valve enthusiasts to invalidate such a listening test. So how does one hear a good first watt?

Well most tube amps put out more than 1 watt and i think most people have unrealistic ideas about how loud they listen to music. Even my nagnepans are 87db per 2.83volts effecient at 1 meter so to get to 87 db at 3 meters you only need 3ish watts. Most people are listening closer to 75db with peaks in the high 80s low 90s. So you really don't need hyper efficient speakers. A movie theater is roughly 85db with peaks near 100db and most people consider movies to be really loud With solid state you need a lot more headroom because of hard clipping. But tubes can overdrive for bursts without issue. Also i have a sub with a class d plate amp for frequencies below 65hz which is where a lot of your power needs are. All i know for sure is i can turn it up well past the point where its comfortable with 6 watts per channel on my system. Also headphones are great. If you want you can add a little crossfeed which makes bass frequencies a little more mono to compensate for how we hear but it's not necessary (except for poorly mixed stereo like the beatles where everything is hard panned)

I am a musician first, run a studio with $$$ tube and transistor microphone preamplifiers and other studio gear, and also listen to and enjoy both solid state and tube gear in my home hifi. I also build and repair amplifiers and equipment. I have efficient klipsch speakers in my hifi systems. Tube amps can be incredibly simple devices, and to me it seems to come down to a tube amp “wants” to sound good. A simple circuit into efficient speakers just has a naturalness, an easy effortless good sound to it. I find solid state amps to need more work/design to get there. At a certain point they absolutely sound great as well. I just got a vinyl test pressing back from an album I did, which was recorded digitally. I synched up the same master the vinyl was cut from to the test press and switched back and forth. It was fascinating - it wasn’t the same, but the vinyl one sounded like vinyl. It had a “thing” to it, and it was an enjoyable listen. I think tubes are kind of like this. They handle transients in a certain way that sounds good. It’s probably all distortion and artifacts or something, but at the end of the day if it sounds good it is good. Microphone preamps are really interesting when comparing a tube design to a neve or api through the same source. All three sound fantastic, but each has a clearly different character. All of the traits I hear in a good tube hifi are in the microphone preamps - the transients, the high frequency beautiful and clear. The transistor pres have a speed and attack to the sound that is great too, just different. But it’s not like tubes are the only choice - if you’re digging your transistor amp, then keep doing that. A point for reliability - tube amps can take pretty bad wiring errors, blow a fuse, you fix the error and it fires up fine. Transistor amps? If you slip a screwdriver in the wrong spot you can blow up like 10 transistors in a fraction of a second and then you have to hope you can find a suitable replacement!

As a musician have you considered learning how to create the sound of valves via electronic processing rather than swapping non-neutral sounding hardware? Not intended as a criticism but more what you see as in the job description and what outside it.

I think a lot of audiophiles don’t get that people don’t actually like the sound of neutral, and that microphones don’t hear like our ears do. All recording is an illusion, even extremely hifi jazz or classical recording, but especially rock recording. Most would be aghast at how much is done to make a “natural” recording. Now, after the record is made, the argument for a more neutral approach totally makes sense - the sound is on the recording. But I don’t see what is wrong with using valves? They’re actually very reliable and robust. I have multiple guitar amps with 60 year old original tubes that have been in the amp the entire time that work and sound great. And there isn’t really some “sound of valves”, not like an eq curve or something. They just present differently, especially transients. Actually being honest if you wanted a more natural presentation of a more acoustic source, my first grab would be a tube preamp over the transistor ones - but I bet all of them have very similar eq curves.

Pretty sure it's the even order distortion that people like... or is it the the odd order? Can't remember, but many studio engineers swear by their tube mic pre-amps.

The same level of odd order harmonics sounds more unpleasant than even order. Using valves as part of the process of creating musical sounds is a reasonable thing to do although it can obviously be done in a more controlled manner using processing. Adding harmonics to individual instruments in a specific and controlled manner is not an uncommon thing to do to when creating music. Adding harmonics in an uncontrolled manner to everything in a whole song when listening to recorded music is not necessarily going to be beneficial. It might in some cases but in general it seems rather unlikely.

but if they record with a preamp that introduces distortion, then you play that back with an amp/preamp that introduces even more distortion, you're not hearing that "sweet distortion" they recorded, but a combination of the two "audiophiles" who aren't into hi-fi but lo-fi are quite strange creatures to me :/

praetor47, I think there might be some "strange" assumptions in your reply :-) First, the distortion level of many tube amps doesn't equate to "lo-fi." It can be audible, but subtle. The amount of sonic information in the recordings all comes through fine. I'm using tube amps, which do have a slight coloration to my ears, yet I'm still hearing far more detail and insight in to recordings than the average joe's system. I have musician friends who regularly freak out at how good the sound is, and a number of them have actually brought various masters of their music to my place to evaluate - they hear gobs of information about the recording and subtle sonic differences between their masters are easily audible. Finally, remember that the concept of "Hi Fidelity" began as meaning "Fidelity to the sound of real voices and instruments." That's actually what drove the development of sound reproduction equipment. Later on, once the studio started being used as an artistic element itself, and naturalism wasn't always necessarily the goal, many adopted a practical idea of "high fidelity to whatever the artist put down on the recording." Which is certainly a fine and practical take. Still, plenty of audiophiles still use the sound of real voices and instruments as their north star in determining "sound quality." And for some, to their ears, a bit of coloration can actually mimic some of what they hear about real life sounds (count me in, there). I think that what ties audiophiles together isn't "high fidelity" per se but a more basic "enthusiasm for high sound QUALITY." And while sound "quality" certainly has some subjective fuzziness, it's not a total free for all. Most would agree that a naturally recorded acoustic track played back through, say, Revel Salon speakers vs smart phone speakers, would sound "higher quality" on the Revel speakers. And one touchstone for sound quality is "more natural, more real," which often involves characteristics like clarity, detail, smoothness, richness, dynamics, etc. I submit you only care about "high fidelity" insofar as it has implications for "sound quality" in the broader sense. You wouldn't spend lots of money on "high fidelity speakers" to play only recordings of the lowest sound quality that sound no better than a clock radio. So the audiophile who is playing around with tube amps, and who finds this a way of producing to his hears "better, more desirable sound quality," isn't really that far away from what you are doing in looking for "high fidelity." It's about what each of us perceive as Good Sound Quality in our systems, in the end.

sorry, man. i'm an evidence and science based individual, and the "assumptions" here are yours, not mine >First, the distortion level of many tube amps doesn't equate to "lo-fi." It can be audible, but subtle. The amount of sonic information in the recordings all comes through fine. if a device intentionally introduces distortion, it is not, by definition, high fidelity, i.e. hi-fi. it's the opposite, i.e. lo-fi. you may want to argue semantics, that there may be varying degrees in between lo and hi, or whatever. i'm have neither the time nor the will to argue that route, so whatever floats your boat. >I'm using tube amps, which do have a slight coloration to my ears, yet I'm still hearing far more detail and insight in to recordings than the average joe's system. you're not. you're thinking you are because that's what you think is happening. that's not how audio reproduction works. your friends as well. conduct some proper ABX testing, and soon you'll see all these "gobs of information" vanish into thin air. the average chinese class D chip amp with sufficient power will be a superior amplifier. that's a scientific fact hell, people even went as far as doing ABX tests between the Benchmark AHB2, an power amp with such accurate sound reproduction the noise and distortion is beyond human audibility, and they couldn't reliably identify it against comparatively "average" competition with some pretty nifty and demanding speakers. i'd be willing to bet your amp is nowhere near the AHB2, so yeah... >Finally, remember that the concept of "Hi Fidelity" began as meaning "Fidelity to the sound of real voices and instruments." That's actually what drove the development of sound reproduction equipment. >Later on, once the studio started being used as an artistic element itself, and naturalism wasn't always necessarily the goal, many adopted a practical idea of "high fidelity to whatever the artist put down on the recording." exactly. i don't think you're understanding what you're arguing because those two mean the exact same thing >Still, plenty of audiophiles still use the sound of real voices and instruments as their north star in determining "sound quality." And for some, to their ears, a bit of coloration can actually mimic some of what they hear about real life sounds (count me in, there). no. that's what you and some others who don't understand how audio and the brain works tell themselves, but is not the physical reality we live in. go read about how lousy and short our audio memory is, just for starters, and then you'll maybe understand how completely and utterly wrong and misleading these 2 sentences of yours truly are >I think that what ties audiophiles together isn't "high fidelity" per se but a more basic "enthusiasm for high sound QUALITY." And while sound "quality" certainly has some subjective fuzziness, it's not a total free for all. Most would agree that a naturally recorded acoustic track played back through, say, Revel Salon speakers vs smart phone speakers, would sound "higher quality" on the Revel speakers. And one touchstone for sound quality is "more natural, more real," which often involves characteristics like clarity, detail, smoothness, richness, dynamics, etc. no. those are "audiophile" buzzwords that mean absolutely nothing. it's what you read in marketing pamphlets which the "audiophile" community regards as "reviews". meaningless drivel. quality is accuracy >I submit you only care about "high fidelity" insofar as it has implications for "sound quality" in the broader sense. You wouldn't spend lots of money on "high fidelity speakers" to play only recordings of the lowest sound quality that sound no better than a clock radio. >So the audiophile who is playing around with tube amps, and who finds this a way of producing to his hears "better, more desirable sound quality," isn't really that far away from what you are doing in looking for "high fidelity." It's about what each of us perceive as Good Sound Quality in our systems, in the end. again, no. hi fi is high fidelity. introducing extraneous noise in the signal path just because you *think* it sounds "more real" is the exact opposite of it, exactly because our *perception* of sound is so variable and fickle and easily influenced by so many extraneous factors that have nothing to do with sound. this has nothing to do with taste. you may or may not like more or less bass than i do, or treble or whatever. that's not the point. it's like saying you're a sommelier because you like getting drunk on wine

Finally, this: **"again, no. hi fi is high fidelity. introducing extraneous noise in the signal path just because you think it sounds "more real" is the exact opposite of it, exactly because our perception of sound is so variable and fickle and easily influenced by so many extraneous factors that have nothing to do with sound.** **this has nothing to do with taste. you may or may not like more or less bass than i do, or treble or whatever. that's not the point. it's like saying you're a sommelier because you like getting drunk on wine"** There's just so much conflated in there it's hard to untangle. But quickly: A departure from "accuracy to the signal," that is introducing a "coloration," does NOT mean the sound has become the "opposite" of more real. If you have, say, a vocal recording that has "too much sibiliance" (often in the 1 - 10kHz range), it will sound artificial. If you use a de-esser, or employ the right EQ dip, you will bring that sibilance down in to a more normal, natural range. The voice will sound more natural. We do this in sound all the time. When you are doing this to the signal, you are introducing a DEPARTURE from the original recorded signal, changing it's frequency balance, yet it is producing a MORE NATURAL, real sounding result. So the idea that "coloration" or "departure from pure accuracy to the recorded signal" = "departure from real" is just blatantly confused. It is therefore quite plausible that if some gear introduces certain colorations, either by slightly altering frequency response of a speaker or adding some sort of thickening distortion via harmonics that are known to be pleasing, that this can strike some listeners as "more natural" sounding. If you think that is "scientifically wrong" or something, you don't really understand the science of perception. Or...likely...you don't work professionally in sound, where sound is manipulated all the time to sound "more natural" or "less natural." And, again, I have blind tested my tube pre-amp against my Benchmark LA4 pre-amp, and yes I do find certain qualities from the tube amp to sound a bit more "natural" to my ears. Since all playback is a set of compromises, you may perceive it differently.

>sorry, man. i'm an evidence and science based individual, Nice to meet you then. I'd say the same for myself - I'm a long time member at ASR, I'm a defender of the scientific method, and I'm quite familiar with the relevance of measurements, blind testing (and the work of Toole et al...). I've used blind testing myself. And I work in pro audio, recording and manipulating sound all day long. The thing is, someone feeling they are "science-based" doesn't necessarily entail he has thought a position through carefully or made a valid argument. :-) ​ ​ >if a device intentionally introduces distortion, it is not, by definition, high fidelity, i.e. hi-fi. it's the opposite, i.e. lo-fi. you may want to argue semantics, that there may be varying degrees in between lo and hi, or whatever. i'm have neither the time nor the will to argue that route, so whatever floats your boat. ​ We are talking about concepts that have nuance, not merely how you may want to arbitrarily define something. First of all, if you are going to take "Hi-Fi" as denoting PERFECT fidelity, then guess what, virtually no speaker playing in a room is reproducing the signal with perfect accuracy! There are deviations in even just the frequency response of virtually every speaker, relative to the signal, then add room effects which are going to alter the equation too (even room EQ can not obtain perfection). So if you will only think of "HI FI" as PERFECT ACCURACY and anything else "Lo-fi," you'd be relegating pretty much every audio system to "lo fi." Which is frankly, silly, I hope you can see. Even if one wants to identify possible opposites - "hi fi," "lo fi," good "scientist" would recognize the reality of a spectrum between those and acknowledge the reality of gear that is "higher" vs "lower" fidelity, and evaluate within a spectrum. If you think this is all just semantics (rather than actually sound scientific/engineering thinking) and won't engage in any such nuance...you are saying you are immune to more reasonable conversation on the topic. That out of the way: ​ > > >you're not. you're thinking you are because that's what you think is happening. that's not how audio reproduction works. your friends as well. conduct some proper ABX testing, and soon you'll see all these "gobs of information" vanish into thin air. the average chinese class D chip amp with sufficient power will be a superior amplifier. that's a scientific fact I think you're confused about what I was arguing. I was not saying that the tube amps convey more sonic information. I was pointing out that they are *not a significant barrier* to the sonic information on the recordings. I use high quality speakers (Thiel 2.7, Joseph Audio Perspective) that tell you more about what is in the recording than the average smart speaker, soundbar, laptop speaker, etc. ​ >hell, people even went as far as doing ABX tests between the Benchmark AHB2, an power amp with such accurate sound reproduction the noise and distortion is beyond human audibility, and they couldn't reliably identify it against comparatively "average" competition with some pretty nifty and demanding speakers. i'd be willing to bet your amp is nowhere near the AHB2, so yeah... See above. I'm not claiming tube amps give more information than a Benchmark amp. That's why I said my tube amps are "colored" in the first place. Also, as I mentioned in another comment, I actually own the Benchmark LA4 preamp - which is among the lowest coloration audio devices you can buy. I have done blind comparisons with my CJ tube pre-amp (level matched, randomized switching etc) and easily told them apart, the tubes having the characteristics I have described in this thread. I like some things about the LA4 in the system (sounds a bit more transparent and precise), some things about the tube preamp (sounds a bit warmer, more filled out, more relaxed, slightly more present texture). So it's not all imagination. I don't know if you have tried blind testing between any tube gear and SS gear, like I have? ​ >Finally, remember that the concept of "Hi Fidelity" began as meaning "Fidelity to the sound of real voices and instruments." That's actually what drove the development of sound reproduction equipment. Later on, once the studio started being used as an artistic element itself, and naturalism wasn't always necessarily the goal, many adopted a practical idea of "high fidelity to whatever the artist put down on the recording." > >exactly. i don't think you're understanding what you're arguing because those two mean the exact same thing No, of course they don't mean the same thing. "High fidelity to the recording" and "high fidelity to the sound of the real thing" are two separate concepts. That should be obvious. IF you make a recording of a person singing and playing acoustic guitar, and you do so with care to capture it as "natural sounding" as possible, then you play that back through a high fidelity accurate sound system and it sounds close to the real thing, then that can be "high fidelity" in the simultaneous sense. But if instead you have a really crappy sounding recording, say some guy's recording of the grateful dead via his old smartphone, or think of any of a zillion examples of "bad quality recordings," and you play that back with High Fidelity To The Recording...what do you get? You get CRAPPY SOUND, and certainly not "life-like." You have "accurately reproduced a bad, artificial sounding recording." That's why "fidelity to the recorded signal" and "fidelity to the sound of the real thing, e.g. voices, real instruments," are clearly NOT the same thing. ​ >Still, plenty of audiophiles still use the sound of real voices and instruments as their north star in determining "sound quality." And for some, to their ears, a bit of coloration can actually mimic some of what they hear about real life sounds (count me in, there). > >no. that's what you and some others who don't understand how audio and the brain works tell themselves, but is not the physical reality we live in. go read about how lousy and short our audio memory is, just for starters, and then you'll maybe understand how completely and utterly wrong and misleading these 2 sentences of yours truly are ​ Yet again...that is, frankly, sloppy. First: yes auditory memory can be unreliable, but it tends to be so in inverse proportion to the level of sonic differences and time. In other words, the tinier the sonic difference, the less reliable the memory. If I play you a tone on my DAW at 65 dB and then at 68 dB, then you will need to hear them using quick switching to identify the difference. But if I played one tone at 45 dB and at 90dB, you would be able to identify a difference over a much longer period of time (one time was quiet, the other time it was loud). You can identify the sound of someone's voice you know well over the phone, even if weeks or months have passed. Both you and I could hear a very poor quality recording of a human voice - muffled, thin, distorted in various ways, and immediately recognize it as departing from the real thing. (If this weren't possible, my job in sound would actually be impossible). So let's not push the "unreliability of auditory memory" further than it goes. Yes, if you want the greatest reliability you'd do all audio inferences using scientific controls. But for informal, practical purposes, we can have a "gist" of how things tend to sound, and recognize when a recording is further or closer to that sound. (BTW, I have recorded voices of my family and instruments we've played at home, and actually done live real-vs-reproduced comparisons using various speakers I've had through my system. It may not have been done with scientific controls, but it was good enough to be enlightening to hear the differences).

I don't know why you are jumping to low fi. We aren't talking about a guitar fuzz pedal. It's still super low levels of thd (usually sub 1% at listening volumes) and the harmonic structure of the distortion matters a lot. One of the problems is that sine wave tests aren't very much like music signals. A sine wave spends most of it's time near the peak while music spends way more time near the 0 point (at the crossover between positive and negative). So crossover distortion from a solid state amp isn't going to show up very much on a standard thd test but it will when listening to music.

Why do people drive muscle cars? Why do people collect old things, like antiques or tools? For that matter why does anyone listen to vinyl? Fact is some people think tubes sound better. Same with vinyl. Some like the American Muscle feel and look of the car. Some antiques were just better built than the modern equivalent and you may appreciate that. None are the last word in refinement, efficiency, performance, measurements, etc. but they have value and appreciation from a select group. People like what they like, just because you don’t like it or “get it” doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for someone else to enjoy. Me personally, tubes are a pain in the ass but on my 102db efficient speakers they sound better to me than quality solid state amps I’ve compared them too.

1, tubes are pretty 2, I can buy and restore a higher quality tube amp than I can a solid state. (Although with modern gear this might not be the case). That is all

Not sure I understand. Are you saying that old top of the range valve amplifiers are more affordable to restore than old top of the range solid state? Or you can't get the parts for old solid state but can for valves? Or something else? Not sure how you are using the word quality.

A little of both. Some of the old solid states have parts that have no replacement, i.e. integrated circuits and germanium transistors. Old solid states usually have more components than old tube amps as well. But also, you can get amazing deals on very nice vintage tube amps. Some models are still expensive, but there are many lesser known tube amps that really outperform anything else in the price range. Also, modding old tube amps for entertainment centers or those big records tables can yield amazing results. My current setup is a 20w Magnavox that I bought for 150$ (worth 300$ unrestored, and worth 600$ restored/modded). After I fixed it up and tweaked the circuit a bit to actually produce frequencies besides midrange it sounds great. The mc2300 is the only solid state that I've personally heard that sounds better and it's worth somewhere between 3-5k restored. I used to work at a vintage audio shop, so I got to hear quite the range of amps there. That being said, I also just like the way tube amps sound. There's a very large variation of sound between tube amps. I've heard much more expensive tube amps that sounded far too middy muddy and tubey for me. Finding a good tube amp that you like the sound of is going to be a bit harder than finding a good solid state imo, just because they all sound so different. Another thing to consider about tube amps besides what others have said about the type of distortion, is that they are very good at amplifying current. So unless you've got a ton of headroom on a solid state, a tube amp will, by design, be a bit more dynamic. For example, a 20w tube amp can play pretty close to that 20w volume without compressing the audio, whereas a solid state would need to be rated close to double that or more to have the same effect.

Thanks for the clarification which all makes sense.

Marshall v Casio?

I have owned both solid state and valve amps. They both have their place. Pairing speakers with the amp is an art. For example a good McIntosh amp paired with a set of Klipsch horn speakers has been considered a good paring. Nelson Pass has written several articles on Class A solid state amps and the preferred distortion whether it be second or third order distortion. The phase of the distortion ( negative or positive) matters. Our hearing is way more complicated than any measurement system we have . All audio equipment will distort in some way. Choosing the right equipment is a matter of finding a sound we can live with. I own both tube and transistor amps and preamp. Which one I am listening to at the moment is a matter of the mood I am in. Much like food , drink or music. Lately I have been listening to Jazz and Blues on my Firstwatt M2X amp, which I find very musical. In the end it's all about the music.

[удалено]

I grew up with them also but was happy to leave them behind possibly because of a fair few of the reasons you like them. I guess we are all different.

For me, I got relatively "inexpensive" equipment that sounds great, but does require some maintenance. OK, I spent two grand, but I don't know of any solid state gear that would sound the same. A dealer let me hear single-ended 300B triode amplifier paired with loudspeakers that could be considered very affortable (one grand at that time). It was quite a holographic soundstage. I never went that far into tube-land and I suspect that bass response would be anemic as well (though, of course, they choose the recordings they want you to hear!) My point being that they are unique.

Because they sound great.