Valve amplifiers go musically further?

[Darth Vinyl]

I'm curious about a subject that is beginning to become a fascination - valve amplifiers. After reading comments from various sources, it seems that there is a growing census towards technology of yester year, especially those who seek a "warmer" and "non-clinical" sound to their music.

Question: Is it true that valve amplifiers can change the tonal perception of our favourite recording, say on vinyl to something more pleasurable than a "flat and lifeless" MP3 on modern equipment?

Second question: For vinyl recordings, does a valve amplifier reproduce the analogue signal more faithfully,in the sense of reproducing the quality of music, and therefore be a better bet for our listening sessions?

(If this is so, then should we consider keeping/seeking old equipment and lovingly restore it to yester year glory or revert our "technologically advanced" transistor amplifiers to their valve counterparts to squeeze out the musical utopia that we all seek?)

Having recently purchased a Project Genie III turntable, it has changed the perception of my Rotel RA-05 amplifier and B+W 685 speakers set up in comparison to that of CD's and their convenience. CD's seem "clean and clinical" but now I feel I need something else in order to bring out the fullness of 12" vinyl recordings and enjoy that throwback to youth.

Is there anyone out there who knows about this subject and can help me make an informed decision?

Thanks.

 

[Anonymous]

Question 1: yes, especially with a valve DAC

Question 2: yes, very much so! I think analogue music (ie LPs) is hugely improved heard thru a valve amp

 

[Anonymous]

What valves do, is basically to add harmonic distortion.

Very simply explained, this means that each note is 'duplicated' in harmony with the original note. To some this sounds 'natural', 'warm', 'musical', 'clear' etc -- to the rest of us, it means that the device alters the sound, and thus should not be called 'high fidelity'...

The 'shrillness' or 'cold' some people hear in digital music, might simply be the absence of distortion...

In other words: There's no 'concensus' here -- there's some people who love the valve sound, while others (most) try to avoid it.

Try playing a valve based recording of acoustical music and/or human voices (ie, sounds that's easily recognizable from real life) on a neutral hi-fi set-up, and you'll hear that it's very far from natural.

 

[chebby]

Fahnsen:... there's some people who love the valve sound, while others (most) try to avoid it.

Fahnsen:Try playing a valve based recording of acoustical music and/or human voices (ie, sounds that's easily recognizable from real life) on a neutral hi-fi set-up, and you'll hear that it's very far from natural.

Valve based recordings (like all those from the 1940s/1950s and a lot from the early 1960s) are not only an unavoidable historical fact, but are often superb to listen to and put modern digitally compressed recordings (with their emphasis on making everything equally loud) to shame.

I am not going to.. "try to avoid" (your words) listening to many of the 20th century's greatest jazz performances (for instance) or classic Rock n Roll of the 1950s just because of some misbegotten notion of 'digital purity'.

Your digital 'hair shirt' is too harsh for me.

Writing off the 'old masters' because they weren't photographs is the first analogy that sprang from your post.

 

[Anonymous]

Played jazz guitar through a valve guitar amp for a few years, in musical terms it can certainly change the natural tone of the instrument, making it sound a lot fuller, also higher volume is easily achieved lower down the scale. Would agree with chebby,s comments about 1950,s music since they were mostly recorded on and through valve equipment. As for the sound of a valve based hi-fi amp, well you like it or you don,t. Simple, only you can decide. Good luck

 

[Andrew Everard]

Was having an extended play with a Quad II Classic Integrated a week or so back, for a forthcoming Gramophone review. It was laaaaarvely...

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:Was having an extended play with a Quad II Classic Integrated a week or so back, for a forthcoming Gramophone review. It was laaaaarvely...
Andrew is there much difference say in the sound of guitar through a valve based system, quite curious now

 

[Andrew Everard]

No, not really; I suspect the recording has much more influence on how the instrument sounds.

 

[Tonya]

IMHO, you cannot beat the musical experience of listening to a first class analogue recording through a nice valve rig.
No sampling, just pure emotion.

Closest thing to being there . . . .

My first serious amp (apart from a HeathKit) was an Avantic tube job.

 

[Anonymous]

Andrew Everard:No, not really; I suspect the recording has much more influence on how the instrument sounds.
So stick to the suggy then?

 

[Anonymous]

From what I have read it comes down to the differences in how a well designed tube amp distorts the sound in comparison to a typically designed modern amp.

It is often claimed that well designed tube amplifiers produce more even order harmonic distortion which can sound good. When driven into clipping tube amps softly round the square, so sound ok. In the unlikely event they are driven into their slew rate limit, tube amps softly round the triangle, so sound ok. Some tube amplifiers can have high output impedance so as the speaker impedance loading varies with frequency, the sound produced varies more dependant on the speakers characteristics.

Typical modern amplifiers in comparison produce more odd order harmonic distortion, which always sound bad. So modern amplifiers have to be design to produce as little distortion as possible. When driven into clipping modern amps produce waveforms with edges and sound harsh, so clipping needs to be avoided. In the unlikely event they are driven into their slew rate limit they again produce waveforms with edges and so sound bad.

Distortion sounds worse with modern amps. So more care must be taken to have the amp/speaker combination producing as little distortion as possible. The distortion produced by tube amps is less objectionable and even order harmonic distortion can sound pleasant.

 

[Andrew Everard]

johnnyjazz:So stick to the suggy then?

No, if you're that interested I'd certainly try to have a listen to some valve amps. But don't expect the kind of difference you might get when changing from playing through a solid state guitar amp to using a tube one.

 

[drummerman]

All further complicated by the sheer variety of valve products, different topologies etc etc.

I certainly enjoyed my system which did'nt sound 'valvey' in the way some might imagine.

 

[idc]

Then add some hybrid valve amps into the mix as well. The aim being to get the best of both worlds with the lush valve and clinical reproduction of solid state amps. (I am exaggerating with that descriptive to make the point clear).

 

[Anonymous]

chebby:Valve based recordings (like all those from the 1940s/1950s and a lot from the early 1960s) are not only an unavoidable historical fact, but are often superb to listen to and put modern digitally compressed recordings (with their emphasis on making everything equally loud) to shame.

I was not thinking about old recordings here; there's actually quite a few new valve based recordings around. With electrical instruments the valves might be used to reproduce some nice, nostalgic sound; with acoustic instruments and voices they just mess things up in my ears.

1940s/50s recordings might be excellent in terms of musical performance. In terms of technical quality they are more limited, both in frequency range and dynamics, compared to modern recordings.

Just to put it straight: Digital recording has a considerably wider dynamic range than analog recording. Compression is not a consequence of technology; it's something that's done deliberately when mixing the recordings, to suit radio broadcast and casual listening through headphones. Also analog recordings used by FM stations are compressed before broadcast.

It might be true that valve amps are able to apply distortion nicer than modern equipment. The aim with modern hi-fi equipment though, is not to make distortion nice, but to avoid it.

PS:

So in a way, it's true that valve amps 'go musically further': They don't merely reproduce the music that's put into them; they interpret it in their own way...

 

[floyd droid]

idc: (I am exaggerating with that descriptive to make the point clear).

Only regarding the lush bit i trust ?

 

[idc]

Another way to describe the difference, in an exaggerated way would be musicality vs accuracy. Musical Fidelity, whilst only sometimes going down the hybrid route (both my X-CANs are hybrids) make a point about combining musicality with accuracy. It's how Antony Michaelson chose the name of his company. I totally agree with his view on musical reproduction and I can't see me ever moving away from an MF based setup because of it, whether they use valves or not.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:Another way to describe the difference, in an exaggerated way would be musicality vs accuracy.

What I don't understand, is why 'accurate' should be less 'musical'.

Is it like, if your TV don't render the pictures accurately, but make them resemble a painting by Monet, it's more 'picturesque'?

 

[floyd droid]

I knew what you were getting at idc. I was only yankin your chain. The thing is though, there are a lot of folk who bandy this ' valves are warm and lush ' tosh around, prolly never heard a valve amp if the truth be known.

 

[idc]

Fahnsen:

idc:Another way to describe the difference, in an exaggerated way would be musicality vs accuracy.

What I don't understand, is why 'accurate' should be less 'musical'.

Is it like, if your TV don't render the pictures accurately, but make them resemble a painting by Monet, it's more 'picturesque'?

I am trying to describe a sound, which often causes more confusion than is meant if you just go by basic meaning rather than feeling. So here I go again! Musicality means adding say extra bass to music where the emphasis is on bass for that music. So, you might want to buy Sony headphones with 'Bass Booster' declared as a feature to enhance your musical pleasure of dance music. Or you can go for the AKG K702 headphones which major on accuracy and dance music fans will usually describe as bass light and not enjoy. But, you will hear far more bass detail, rather than just a huge regular thud. Floyd Droid knows what I am going on about

 

[Craig M.]

Fahnsen:
idc:Another way to describe the difference, in an exaggerated way would be musicality vs accuracy.

What I don't understand, is why 'accurate' should be less 'musical'.

agreed. the more accurate the portrayal of music, surely the more "musical" it will be.

 

[idc]

Fahnsen:

What valves do, is basically to add harmonic distortion. (Musicality)

Very simply explained, this means that each note is 'duplicated' in harmony with the original note. To some this sounds 'natural', 'warm', 'musical', 'clear' etc -- to the rest of us, it means that the device alters the sound, and thus should not be called 'high fidelity'...

The 'shrillness' or 'cold' some people hear in digital music, might simply be the absence of distortion... (Accuracy)

In other words: There's no 'concensus' here -- there's some people who love the valve sound, while others (most) try to avoid it.

Try playing a valve based recording of acoustical music and/or human voices (ie, sounds that's easily recognizable from real life) on a neutral hi-fi set-up, and you'll hear that it's very far from natural.

Taking Fahnsen's post I have highlighted how I am differentiating between musicality and accuracy. Hopefully that helps to answer the OPs original question.

 

[Anonymous]

idc:Musicality means adding say extra bass to music where the emphasis is on bass for that music.

So tone control's 'musical' then?

Valves don't add to whatever frequencies that are supposed to deserve emphasis. No amps does, actually: If they've got a 'warm' sound, they indiscriminately add bass to everything. Like valve amps indiscriminately adds distortion to everything, regardless if the artist, the producer, or God Himself, intended distortion to be part of the sound.

EDIT:

I'm a litterary man myself. Say I'm especially fond of stories about old fishermen, or descriptions of dark skies full of stars, or steamy sex scenes. Would I want every novel I read to have all paragraphs containing fishermen, stars or sex printed in bold types? Hardly...

 

[idc]

I think that tone controls are a good example of trying to describe musicality. Direct mode is accurate, but many prefer to add their own musicality to the sound by distorting it to their taste. Distortion in this case is not meant to be a derogatory term.

 

[Anonymous]

No distortion maybe more true to source but if your going to have distortion it is much better to have the distortion produced by a well designed tube amp than a typical modern amp.

Even order harmonic distortion is musical. It usually reinforces the original note, as first, second, fourth harmonics are octaves, they are in scale and blend well. Odd order harmonic distortion works against the original note making it sound complex or unpleasant.. When the tube amp clips it also sounds more musical because the square wave produced by the clipping is rounded and not symmetrical, while when the modern amp clips the square wave is sharper angles and symmetrical so sounds crisp or harsh, unmusical.