lindsayt said:
He's fishing to see who will bite.
It's Sunday evening and there's no good arguments......yet!
steve_1979
Well-known member
Vladimir said:
This is all true.
But some people like the way they sound. Nothing wrong with that if they enjoy it.
Al ears
Well-known member
CnoEvil said:
He may well have a point regards push-pull ..... it's all to do with no even harmonics... honest guv!
Let's say I know absolutely nothing about audio. Can someone please explain to me the need for a valve amp today in 2014 without using the following words: quality, better, silkier, smoother, richer, punchier, leaner, musical, sweeter, nicer, brighter, darker, PRaT. Please replace those with: higher, lower, more, less, so I can understand as a layman. Thanks.
Ok lets break it down:steve_1979 said:
Push pull annihilates any SET for performance and sound quality.
I've been to 4 bake-offs where SET's have been compared to push pulls. The SET's have won every time.
A high efficiency speaker + valve amp system is for those that don't care for accuracy and performance,
Depends what you mean by accuracy and performance. Performance is a subjective term in this context. Accuracy. Depends what you mean by that. If we're talking about tonal accuracy between 20hz and 20khz, you can find high efficiency speakers and SET's that excel in this area. You can also find some that don't. The high eff speakers that excel at tonal accuracy tend to be the huge ones that give you bass extension and bass efficiency. Hoffman's Iron Law.
that just want something sounding and looking different, special, unique
Special when it comes to dynamics, detail, clarity, physical impact, ability to sound great at low and high volumes, yes agreed. They also do have different front to back soundstaging to conventional low efficiency speakers, which listeners used to the more restrained soundstaging of conventional cones and domes may not like.
And only with female jazz vocals and plucking guitars, mind you.
SET's and the right high eff speakers are a lot more than two trick ponies. Go and listen to some and compare them against your favourite sub 90 db efficient speakers with solid state or push pull amps. On the subject of vocals, male and female. These are the most important part of the performance for me on the vast majority of rock and pop music. Solid state and push pull just don't quite do it when it comes to putting the vocalist there in your room time after time, recording after recording.
Forget fullrange sound at high SPL and dynamic transients with classical or electronic music altogether.
Full range? Is 20hz minus one or two dbs full range enough for you? High SPL? Is 112 dbs per channel at 1 metre (remember this is full range down to 20hz) continuous from my 8 watt SET enough for you? Efficiency beats watts if you've got high enough efficiency.
But some people like the way they sound. Nothing wrong with that if they enjoy it.
Some people like the way they sound, because when it comes to putting the vocalist in the room, nothing sounds more realistic than a good SET. Some people like the way high efficiency speakers with SET's sound, because when it comes to the combination of dynamics and clarity, nothing beats them. Some people like the way their restrained / polite sounding conventional cones and domes and solid state amps sound. Nothing wrong with that if they enjoy it.
Your question is best answered by letting a decent SET, high efficiency speaker combination speak for itself. Go listen to some.Vladimir said:
Vladimir said:
Go listen and then tell us. Some things just have to be experienced....otherwise it's like explaining red to a blind man.
Welcome back to Snobbyville, PP.
Can we bang a different drum, rather than how great valve/Class A amps are, and what a pile of s###e all others are. *diablo*
Can we bang a different drum, rather than how great valve/Class A amps are, and what a pile of s###e all others are. *diablo*
CnoEvil said:plastic penguin said:
Whose thread is this anyway? *biggrin*
...from July 2012, only given the kiss of life by ebentjerodt a couple of days ago. Anyway, it was more of a conversation thing rather than a direct question.
Understanding and Experiencing are two very different[/b] things. I've experienced but I need help understanding why would anyone need a valve amp (any valve amp) to listen to music in 2014.
Because they sound better? Why do they sound better?
Because they sound better? Why do they sound better?
Thank you so much both Lindsay and Tannoyed for the write-up.
So if I have large enough and efficient enough speakers, I won't have distortion and clipping from an 8W SET amp? Let's see how big is big enough.
I've used the Crown SPL calculator and for 95dB SPL at listening position 3m away, I will need a 28Wpc amplifier, with reserved headroom of 15dB, to push signal through 105dB efficient speakers.
For an 8Wpc amplifier, I need 110.5 dB efficient speakers so there wont be any clipping and distortion. Any suggestions of new 110dB efficient speakers with 30Hz-30kHz +-3dB FR for a reasonable price that will also fit in my average living room?
So if I have large enough and efficient enough speakers, I won't have distortion and clipping from an 8W SET amp? Let's see how big is big enough.
I've used the Crown SPL calculator and for 95dB SPL at listening position 3m away, I will need a 28Wpc amplifier, with reserved headroom of 15dB, to push signal through 105dB efficient speakers.
For an 8Wpc amplifier, I need 110.5 dB efficient speakers so there wont be any clipping and distortion. Any suggestions of new 110dB efficient speakers with 30Hz-30kHz +-3dB FR for a reasonable price that will also fit in my average living room?
Tannoyed
Well-known member
oh well here goes
They sound better because the harmonic distortion you get is from even rather than odd harmonics. These sound warmer and nicer but I believe (and I may be wrong here) that you could do the same with a bipolar transistor or a FET. Valve amps are Class A (in my experience). The Anode has to be half way between 0V and supply when quiescent) so the load resistor (Transformer primary) is cooking away with V/2 times V/2 divided by its resistance. For this reason it is incredibly inefficient, the sort of inefficiency that would turn a green party member purple!
We could do the same with a transistor. Interestingly power consumption reduces as the power delivered to the speaker increases.
Valves work by applying the signal to the grid and biasing is achieved using a cathode bias resistor. It was said (by whom I forget) that valves and FETs have a lot in common because the cathode/anode current is controlled by an electric field around the grid just as the FET source/drain current is controlled by an electric field in the gate region. So would a FET in class A be just as good??? At least with class A you don't get crossover distortion.
On the other hand valves often suffer from microphony where mechanical feedback from the speaker finds its way into the valve and shakes it (the grid I should imagine which is a metal mesh covering the cathode). The sound is like a PA with the mike gain turned up too far ie varying degrees of howl round.
If you like valves-use valves. If you like FETs use Fets and if bipolar is your thing then break out the 2N3055's!
Another important difference is that the signal is coupled to the speaker using a transformer with valve amps, because they work at high voltages. Could this make the sound warmer? ie loads of inductance floating about will round off transients very nicely.
Probably all rubbish but there we go. From a repair point of view lets bring back valves-so much more work for me!!!! I grew up fixing dual standard hybrid (or not ) TV's in the seventies. That taught me a lot about the folly of valves!!
Long live the PCL82
They sound better because the harmonic distortion you get is from even rather than odd harmonics. These sound warmer and nicer but I believe (and I may be wrong here) that you could do the same with a bipolar transistor or a FET. Valve amps are Class A (in my experience). The Anode has to be half way between 0V and supply when quiescent) so the load resistor (Transformer primary) is cooking away with V/2 times V/2 divided by its resistance. For this reason it is incredibly inefficient, the sort of inefficiency that would turn a green party member purple!
We could do the same with a transistor. Interestingly power consumption reduces as the power delivered to the speaker increases.
Valves work by applying the signal to the grid and biasing is achieved using a cathode bias resistor. It was said (by whom I forget) that valves and FETs have a lot in common because the cathode/anode current is controlled by an electric field around the grid just as the FET source/drain current is controlled by an electric field in the gate region. So would a FET in class A be just as good??? At least with class A you don't get crossover distortion.
On the other hand valves often suffer from microphony where mechanical feedback from the speaker finds its way into the valve and shakes it (the grid I should imagine which is a metal mesh covering the cathode). The sound is like a PA with the mike gain turned up too far ie varying degrees of howl round.
If you like valves-use valves. If you like FETs use Fets and if bipolar is your thing then break out the 2N3055's!
Another important difference is that the signal is coupled to the speaker using a transformer with valve amps, because they work at high voltages. Could this make the sound warmer? ie loads of inductance floating about will round off transients very nicely.
Probably all rubbish but there we go. From a repair point of view lets bring back valves-so much more work for me!!!! I grew up fixing dual standard hybrid (or not ) TV's in the seventies. That taught me a lot about the folly of valves!!
Long live the PCL82
Tannoyed
Well-known member
I'm no defender of valves Vladimir!! Don't get me wrong they aren't for me but there is a certain nostalgic warmth to them nevertheless!
lindsayt said:
could not agree more!
It is also intersting that one of the most awarded speakers in the highend at the moment are Voxativ. a full range speakers made to be used wiht low power amp, ideally a SET. but at the end of the day what really matters is to hear the music in the way you like, independent of any theory or argument. I make my mind clear already.
Vladimir said:
Just out of interest, lets repeat the calculation for B&W CM1's. They're 84 db efficient.
So... we'd need 3583 watts through them to achieve the same sound levels. Do you think they could take that much power?
You are talking rock concert front row live volume levels here. 95 db average with peaks of 110dbs! That's deafeningly loud. Poor neighbours too.
How about aiming for an average listening level of 86 dbs at a distance of 5 metres from the speakers (for far field listening in a room appropriately sized for full range speakers) with our 15 db headroom for peaks at 101 dbs at the listening position? With my 103 db efficient speakers in a stereo pair my 8 watt SET will deliver that fine.
To achieve these 101 db peaks at 5 metres, we'd need 628 watts through the B&W CM1's. Do you think they could handle 628 watts? Even if the CM1's could miraculously handle this power, they'd still sound and feel less loud and authoratitive than the SET and full range high efficiency speakers because of the amount of bass below the 100 hz the CM1's filter out.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram