I've been enjoying Axioms (M22, VP150, M2 & 25-31 PC+) for over a year now, basically 50:50 HT & music. I'm now considering "scaling into" tubes for music. A friend suggested I get tube pre-amp and tap the amp section of my Marantz SR-7300 as the most cost effective route. The set-up essentially entails hooking the CD player outs into the pre-amp's line-in and the pre-amp line-out into the CD input of the Marantz. I tried this with a borrowed tube pre-amp and noticed the sound subtly openned up. Any comments on this set-up?
We have, at least, two tube fans here among the regulars, 2x6 speeds and Haoleb. Haoleb is in Hawaii, and I believe 2x6 is on the West coast, so they don't get here until late. Be patient, they'll be coming by eventually.
In reply to:
I tried this with a borrowed tube pre-amp and noticed the sound subtly openned up.
I think you pretty mcuh answered your own question.
If you tried it, and you liked it, go ahead and do it for yourself! I have a friend who uses a tube-based preamp and a DAC with a tube-based output section. He hooks the DAC up to the digital output from his transport and the pre-amp's outputs are fed to some beefy NAD power amp. With his Von Schweikert Audio speakers, he certainly does not have a system to laugh at. That being said, I
DO prefer my NEC transport + Pioneer 1014 (rebadged elite 52Tx minus RS-232C, attractive front bezel, and 12V trigger input) + M60s combination to his system overall.
Because I am a purist, I prefer all solid-state gear (well for loudspeakers at least; with headphones, I wouldn't mind a nice tube amp), but I do have to admit that tube equipment has a very nice and gentle characteristic sound that can be attractive to many. I rather have a sound closer to the original source, even if it DOES mean that it isn't as "appealing," but then again, I
am a purist when it comes to audio.
With tubes, the old adage "be careful what you wish for" applies. I have just recently "scaled" away from an all tube 2 channel system which included a Cal Audio tube DAC, Anthem Pre 2Lse pre-amp and Quicksilver tubed mono amps.
The first tube piece I bought was an Anthem tubed Pre-amp(replaced a B&K PT3). This was a wonderful pre and very versatile but the difference between SS was as you say "subtle" at best and (to my suprise) really didn't sound very "tubey".
With each tubed component that I added to the system, I noticed what I percieved to be a very subtle decline in bass quality but not so much so that I was dissapointed. Up until this point, I didn't feel like there were any great overwhelming differences one way or the other, only very subtle differences.
When I added the tube amps is when I knew I had gone too far. The mid to high range of frequencies sounded very good and was very easy to listen to but the music now sounded too "sweet/polite" for my taste and seemed to lack some of the realistic characteristics that come from a live performance. Music such as blues, rock and jazz sounded "polite" even if it wasn't meant to be by the artist and sound engineers. With the addition of the tube amps, bass took a nose dive becoming loose and flabby and very unrealistic sounding. I must say that with the tube system I never got "listener fatigue" even from bright recordings.
I consider my experience with tube components to be a positive one because:
1. It was just damn fun (the hobby thing)
2. It helped me realize my preference for:
A.The transparency of solid state components.
B. The grip/control they maintain on bass.
C. The way they can more convincingly convey (IMO) a wider array of characteristics (raw, gritty, subtle etc.) which are often found in live music.
I have no regrets with my tube experience. I bought used components (except for the amps) and got every bit of my money back (and then some) when I sold them.
It is not my intent to argue the "Tube vs. SS" debate. It is not my intent to influence anyone one way or the other. These are just my opinions from what I've experienced in my room on my speakers. Your MMV and there is only one way to find out.
I agree with mwc whole-heartedly. He, unlike the majority of people on the 'net, is able to see both sides of the debate and approach them impartially.
I think the best lines that basically sum up the feelings he got with the tube equipment are: "Music such as blues, rock and jazz sounded "polite" even if it wasn't meant to be by the artist and sound engineers." and "I must say that with the tube system I never got 'listener fatigue' even from bright recordings."
From what I have heard using both types of equipment, I couldn't agree more!
Now that being said, ultimately audio is about your own personal preferences. Who are you trying to please when you buy and listen to your audio components? I hope it is not some person who lives a few cities or states away from you and has no influence over the enjoyment of your system, but rather yourself. If you are able to audition the components that you want to purchase, it would be very wise to do so before buying. You definitely DO NOT want buyer's remorse. Also, make sure you listen to many types of music, as some may be more 'compatible' with the 'tube sound' than others.
That said, HAVE FUN with the hobby!
Wonderful post! It's nice to hear descriptions of the tube sound without the usual "warm, smooth" adjectives used. Now I have a better understanding of the sound. Someday I'll have to try it out.
Yes indeed DJ, it's all very subjective and there is no definitive right or wrong when it comes to personal taste in music playback systems.
One of the best things about my experience with tube gear was that it helped me to better understand/realize what I wanted out of a music playback system.
Thanks Ken!
In reply to:
Someday I'll have to try it out.
Won't hurt to try it out. It can only enhance ones appreciation of audio playback systems and can help one have a deeper understanding of ones own preferences and tastes. The trick is to not let it pull you down financially
.
That... would be the problem. I'd probably have to go the opposite route; ie use a tube amp as opposed to a tube preamp, since I don't have a separate SS amp. Someday...
Why not just do something similar to what rebel is doing and hook a tube pre-amp up to your existing SS receiver and enable direct stereo if offered by the receiver?
No amp-ins. Would it work using the standard inputs?
Yeap. It would just possibly introduce some additional noise due to two pre-amp stages being used. Does your receiver have a 6-channel input or Direct Stereo mode? If so enable them (use 6-channel input only if no Direct Stereo mode is available) so that no processing is done on the signal to minimize the effects of your receiver's preamp.
Finding the 'correct' volume setting for your receiver while using an external pre-amp might be a chore, but it would be a more budget-friendly way to determine if you do indeed like the 'tube sound.' Then if you do, you can purchase a solid state power amp for the tube pre-amp at a later date.
rebel,
Now if you want to experience a tube preamp one of the cheapest ways is to go to audiogon.com and look for a Bottlehead (foreplay) this is a preamp that you can purchase usually for about $200.00 used or buy a kit to build for the same price. I did this! I have my forepay connected to my Marantz MM9000 power amp. that I had just sitting around this is hooked up to a set of Axiom M3ti speakers in my computer room and I just love the experience. If you decide you don't like the Tube Setup you can resell the Preamp on audiogon and loose nothing but your time. TRY IT YOU MIGHT LIKE IT, I DO.. I also love all my SS stuff.
I like amps, dunno why. I'm redecorating. That means new amps and shuffling around the rest. I just picked up 2 more Yamaha M80s to go with the one I already have. I think I'll get an Outlaw Monoblock for the center channel and sell my Anthem PVA5 (if the Yammies sound as good or better).
My second HT system will have a brute of an Onkyo M504 with big power meters on the face, and a pair of Onkyo M282 for a 5.2 channel system.
Perhaps my best sounding solid state system is my upgraded garage system - motivated by a slightly tweaked Kenwood KA9100 silver faced beauty driving a pair of modified Dahlquist DQM905s.
I have nothing against solid state amps, I have 'em coming out of my ears.
That having been said, my favorite system for music is still driven by a 5 watt per channel (in Single End Triode mode) integrated Antique Sound Labs MG S1 15DT. Sorry if some are tired of or have been misled by such descriptions as "liquid," "smooth," "warm," etc. I agree that these terms attempt to distinguish the quality of the music produced by at least this tube amp. What may be misleading about these terms is the expectation that we are talking about distortion or something "added" to the music.
I did a quick audition for Big Will of this tube amp playing Loreena McKennett's "Elemental." Big Will commented that he thought it sounded very much like a solid state amp. I should have played some other pieces. I have a jazz CD, I think it is one of Noel Jewekes' pieces, anyway, there's a nice double bass fiddle riff, and at one point he THWACKS the string against the fingerboard ... it'll make you jump and it sounds like you just heard it happen in the room. Now, this is not warm or liquid, but rather immediate and realistic. Yet, my tube amp recreates this musical effect, and others, better than any of my solid state driven systems.
For those who think a tube amp "adds" 'warmth' or some other distortion effect to the music, consider the possibility that solid state amps tend to remove some quality of the music.
Now, not all tube amps are the same, and neither are all solid state amps, nor are all violins the same. There are Strads and Guarneri and those made in Taiwan. Ask an accoustical engineer to explain the difference in sound between these different instruments. Think of all the different components, circuit choices, material choices that go into a solid state amp and then wonder at the proposition that all solid state amps with the same specs sound the same.
Most of my music listening is in my office using either a streaming slim server or digital cable source. The office system uses a Sony TA E9000ES (Firmware upgraded to VER 2.50), a Yamaha M80 for the front speakers and 2 Onkyo M282 2 channel amps for the rest. It sounds great. Yes, this sytem puts out more bass than my tube set up because the tube set up uses only a single Vance Dickason Titanic 10" sub and the Office system uses 2 subs, a 1640 watt Klipsch LF10 and a 15" Dahlquist. The solid state system has its "liquid" moments and is not fatiguing in any way. I'd go so far as to say, I love this system and enjoy the music it produces. But, for kicking back with a scotch and water, I have to say, that for me, it is the 5 wpc tubie.
An alternative would be to buy from a company like Decware or Quicksilver which offers a 30 day money back trial period.
I tried out Decware's ZSLA-1 preamp/attenuator this way and all it cost me was the $15.00 shipping charge to send it back.
As a side note, it turned out to be a real waste of time and $15.00 because I really didn't get to get a good feel for this product because, out of the box, it produced static in the left channel and I sent it back 3 days later for the full refund.
In reply to:
Now, not all tube amps are the same, and neither are all solid state amps, nor are all violins the same. There are Strads and Guarneri and those made in Taiwan. Ask an accoustical engineer to explain the difference in sound between these different instruments. Think of all the different components, circuit choices, material choices that go into a solid state amp and then wonder at the proposition that all solid state amps with the same specs sound the same.
Ay ay ay. Please tell me you didn't just use the fact that violins sound different to support your reasoning for why solid state electronics
should sound different? Please? I'm begging you.
VIOLINS AND TUBE AMPS!!!!!
them there is fightin' words!!!
bigjohn
Thanks for the all insights. Personally, I did find the sound more open and less fatiguing with the tube pre-amp. Quite pleasant actually. But I also noticed that some "crispness" is lost in certain recordings, particularly live rock performances. I mean this in relative terms, i.e. vs. what you would actually hear in a live concert, for instance. This isn't necessarily unpleasant, just different.
All told, I'm quite happy with the set-up. The AVR allows me to use a sub for bass that I doubt an all tube set-up could achieve, not to mention the M22's own bass limitations. And for certain recordings, I can always opt for the AVR's pre-amp section should I prefer.
I have a question for DJ Stunna, though. The Marantz doesn't have direct stereo, so I use either the CD-R ins or the L/R ins of the 7.1 inputs (AUX2). Frankly, I didn't notice any difference. In either case, all the DSP modes and features remain functional if I choose to. But I gather the idea is to minimize the AVR's effect on the signal. Am I doing it right then?
And although I might be getting ahead, what can I expect if I get a dedicated amp to go with the pre compared to the current set-up now?
Thanks.
Rebel: I am not sure if I understood you fully... Did you try the 7.1 channel input and find that it still allowed you to enable DSP modes while in 7.1 channel input?
If this is the case (7.1 channel input DOES allow DSP modes to be activated):
I incorrectly assumed that the 6-channel input would be a way for the receiver to give you Direct Stereo without the "Direct Stereo" mode. On most receivers this would work, but yours apparently is more advanced.
If DSPs can still be activated with 6-channel input, that means that your receiver has analog to digital converters on all channels, and thus is able to do processing on the signal in the digital domain. Since that is the case, then just run it to the CD-R in. I assumed that it would not have ADCs for all channels because most receivers do not (but then again, I've never used a Marantz receiver).
If you tried 7.1-channel input and found that DSP modes CANNOT be enabled then:
I would just use the front two channels of 7.1 input since it is essentially the same as a Direct Stereo circuit because no processing can be done since the receiver doesn't have ADCs on all channels to do digital processing on the analog 7.1 channel input.
Yes, PMB, I am. Think about it. What could be more simple than a violin? a neck, a fingerboard, pegs, some pieces of wood, some strings. How many variables do you have to deal with to explain the differences in sound between 2 violins? Fewer for certain than between solid state amps which employ different capacitors, resistors, circuit designs, transformers, transistors, materials. Would you not agree that a solid state amplifier is many orders of magnitude more complicated than a violin? Now if you want to measure the output of a violin, you could say, "2x6 the strings of these violins each vibrate at the same frequency when you play a middle C, so how can you say they sound different? If you think there's a difference between a Strad and a Taiwanese violin, you've been brainwashed. Middle C is about 262 Hz, no matter which violin is producing it. We, who know it all, can accurately measure this frequency to a few parts per billion accuracy and can tell you with confidence, middle C is middle C whether you sawing on a Strad or on a knock off."
In reply to:
Now if you want to measure the output of a violin, you could say, "2x6 the strings of these violins each vibrate at the same frequency when you play a middle C, so how can you say they sound different? If you think there's a difference between a Strad and a Taiwanese violin, you've been brainwashed. Middle C is about 262 Hz, no matter which violin is producing it. We, who know it all, can accurately measure this frequency to a few parts per billion accuracy and can tell you with confidence, middle C is middle C whether you sawing on a Strad or on a knock off."
But one who believes in scientific tests could just as easily say, "2x6, although the strings of these violins each vibrate at the same frequency when you play a middle C, they sound different due to the measurable resonances caused by the differences in wood shape and design. These differences are real and are not a placebo effect because they can be seen in this sonogram. Additionally, due to the differences in cabinet shape, they exhibit different dispersion patterns which can be seen in this plot."
The fact is that while the fundamental note may be the same, the resonant frequencies will not have the same characteristics between different violins. It is like trying to compare the piano to an accordian each playing the same note.
About the differences between solid state amps, the measurable differences (while the amps are not strained) are extremely subtle at best and only tend to show up at the extremes of high and low frequencies. These deviations are never going to be close to 1 dB in any well designed SS amp when asked to produce a signal in the audible spectrum.
DJ: Yes, the L/R 7.1 channel input allows DSP modes (and crossovers) to be activated. But the same's true using the CD-R inputs. I suppose this means there are ADC's there as well. Thanks.
I learned something new then today. I had no clue that Marantz did the same thing Harman Kardon does. That is pretty nice (not in this specific scenario, but that is a useful feature).
DJ, thanks for taking the time to craft an intelligent reply to 2x6. I would have said pretty much the same thing had I not been too busy pointing my finger and laughing.
In reply to:
I would have said pretty much the same thing had I not been too busy pointing my finger and laughing.
... Or pointing at my other sig.
DJ,
That has got me laughing to no end!
I'm glad that some people can see the humor in it.
I'm sure in a few days I'll have about 50 PMs in my inbox all yelling at me for having it, though.
In reply to:
What could be more simple than a violin? a neck, a fingerboard, pegs, some pieces of wood, some strings. How many variables do you have to deal with to explain the differences in sound between 2 violins? Fewer for certain than between solid state amps which employ different capacitors, resistors, circuit designs, transformers, transistors, materials.
Respectfully, I would submit that there could is as many variables in a violin as there could be in a solid state amp, and probably more.
For example: the type of wood used in each part of the violin - the top; the bottom; the neck; the bridge; the bracing etc. The age of the wood in each part when the tree was cut, the size of each part, the shape of each part, all of which can be different in violins by different makers.
The type of finish applied; the chemical makeup of the finish; how it is applied;, how MUCH is applied.
The type of glue used to hold the parts together; how much glue is used.
All these things, and more, can make one violin sound different from another. Yet, in the end, the difference between violins is very subtle. I would be surprised if 99.9% of the general public could tell the difference between a Stradavarius, and a lesser violin. Do they sound different? Absolutely! Different enough that the vast majority of people can tell them apart? No!
I LOVE it!
We were having that exact same conversation over last night's steak. I mean, look at your teeth. We are designed to be omnivores.
Sure, but if herbivores had evolved opposable thumbs, even they could hold a knife and fork and enjoy a nice cut of meat once in a while.
In reply to:
The Marantz doesn't have direct stereo
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to accomplish, but my SR5200 (two models down and one year behind) certainly has a direct stereo mode. Select your input and choose "S-Direct".
Thanks for the replies DJS and Ajax. I haven't seen any sonograms of different violins, but DJS if you can post some I'd like to see them. Ajax, I agree there is subtle complexity to violins - I really do think there's a difference you can hear between Strads and Taiwanese knock-offs. I also think the different designs, signal path length, capacitors, resistors, transistors, transformers, sound different. Folks upgrade capacitors in amps with audible results. Do these differences show up in sonograms? I think the proposition that all solid state amps sound the same is based on many assumptions including the assumption that the individual components which make up the amp do not have any audible effect on the sound. If all capacitors, resistors, transistors, transformers, circuit designs sound the same, then I suppose you could say all solid state amps with the same power output will sound the same at any given output. I just don't believe it. I'm not a actually a scientist but I did stay in a Holiday Inn and I'm open to letting my ears fool me. Sure sounds like upgrading components change the sound.
Do audio engineers measure all there is to measure about sound? Are our ears connected to more sophisticated sound analyzing software than a microphone generating 'sonograms'?
You're right, dmn (lol). I didn't notice because there's no button on the remote, only on the receiver. Thing is, I didn't detect anything different between s. direct and stereo mode. But with the latter, you can opt to have a sub. Thanks.
In reply to:
haven't seen any sonograms of different violins, but DJS if you can post some I'd like to see them.
Here you go 2x6. While not a true sonogram, it is close. It shows a way to track string motion via a laser sensor which basically does almost the same thing that a sonogram would do.
Here is a page dedicated to sonograms and spectograms, but there are no pictures of violin sonograms within. Obviously I don't have any comparison sonograms between different types of violins because people buy the violin that sounds and looks good. They do not buy the violin that has a nice looking graph. This is due to the fact that there is no right or wrong with a violin. The characteristic sound of any particular violin is not "incorrect" as there is no reference to judge what is accurate. With an amplifier, there DEFINITELY is a right or wrong. The signal input is the end-all be-all reference point. A perfect amplifier will output exactly what is inputted with the sole exception of modulation of amplitude. "Right" is having a very linear power output throughout its rated bandwidth, power levels, and with different impedance loads. "Right" is having as low of a THD as possible and having a perfect square wave, sine wave, and triangle wave response when tested at different levels and under different loads.
I have to make one thing clear: I am not one to say that all amplifiers sound identical. Experience has shown me otherwise. I have an old reveiver (a 200W per channel stereo monster from the early 90s) that sounds different from my Pioneer 1014. It has a slightly overemphasized bass output and a sort of rolled-off, smooth treble. While I believe that there can be differences, I am a firm believer that if there ARE differences in amplifiers, they WILL show up with in-depth tests.
Just to show that I am not a pure "meter man," I do not hold the same views regarding loudspeakers because I feel that it is impossible to fully measure the output of a speaker in a 4-pi chamber in all directions with the temporal resolution needed to characterize a speaker as sounding a certain way. Plus, there are so many additional things to take into consideration with speakers such as resonance intensities around ports and if there are multiple ports how they affect eachother when their waves interact. This is not even taking a listening room into account which will further complicate the situation because due to differences in phasing as a result of crossovers, some speakers will by definition be harder to place in rooms than others.
In summary, my opinion on the matter is as follows:
Can there be differences in the sound of amps? YES, by all means. I have never stated otherwise.
If there are differences, will they show up in measurements? Yes.
Should there be differences in the sound of amps?
If they are competently designed solid state amps that have no coloration placed intentionally by the manufacturer, have ample power and are not strained during the test, no.
I hope that I have explained what I believe in an understandable manner.
Thank you DJ for your thoughtful response. Seems to me that matching the inupt and output of a single frequency test signal or a even a sweep does not necessarily correlate to very complex waveforms like music which would probably be much more difficult to test.
Typically a full bandwidth signal (pink noise for a logarithmic scale chart and white noise for a linear scale chart) is used. No serious review site uses sweeps. This would take ridiculously long to do (since to get a high resolution plot you need many, many points). These are undoubtedly more complex than music, I would assume, though I have no proof other than it simply having output at more frequencies at the same time than music. I see and respect the logic behind your arguement, but because pink noise is used instead of single frequencies, I believe it does not apply in this situation. Also please be aware that since all frequencies are used, there will be differences in phase as a function of time due to the different frequencies having constructive and destructive interference with eachother. That would prevent the amplifier from having an "easier" job with a full bandwidth signal compared to a test tone or music.