Always wanted a valve amp?

In the interests of representing another side, interested readers should scroll down the link below (an article in Stereophile by our own Markus!)..

to the section by Jurgen Ackermann, a psychologist who performed a blind test on audio listeners / valve amps as a part of his PHD -

http://www.stereophile.com/features/203/index2.html

 

Basil,

I don't know, but I suspect that some very high efficiency speakers (98+db/watt/metre) aren't being designed with a powerful SS amp in mind. Maybe Keith can help, as he sells a very high efficiency speaker and may know what the designer intended them to be powered by.

Personally? By buying electricity from a low-carbon power supplier and paying a premium for it, and by making real energy cutbacks in far more important areas.

The extra juice my Stingray draws over, say, a 102, Hi-Cap, NAPSC and 250 (what I had before) is only a couple of hundred watts and only when the amp is on. This isn't that much energy and it's negligible relative to changing all the lights in the house to CFLs, living close to work, being a veggie, buying local produce when it's available, using public transport, walking -- i.e., the sorts of things that make a real difference.

(And what the blackdog said.)

Joe

 

I doubt many manufacturers would say that valve amps are the only ones to work with their speakers - after all to some extent, an amplifier is an amplifier - choice is a matter of taste.


quite a few loudspeakers were designed with 'valve amps in mind'.

If you go to the audio show advertised in another thread, you would have the opportunity to speak to plenty of loudspeaker designers.

About half the rooms (at least) use valve amps in them.. we have to presume this is because the exhibitors feel that this will makes the best sound - otherwise why make that choice?

 

I'm guessing there was no attempt at level matching, so the valve system was played at a lower level to produce the results?

I can do no better than this, one of the replies to the article

 

i always wated a good valve power amp using 211's with a great constant psu, but never heard one with a slid bass line, i am sure that is not the fault of the valves but more to do do with the psu, correct me,

 

Basil,

Did you select your equipment objectively based on specs and measurements or did you do it subjectively using your ears? Be honest.

Objectivism is all fine and proper in science, and audio could undoubtedly do with a great deal less bullshit and snake oil, but I'm not testing hypotheses with my system. It's a device that reproduces music in a way that I find appealing.

Joe

P.S. I hope you don't have a table. They're all terrible, distortion-ridden devices, easily beaten objectively by even the cheapest of CD players.

 

every divice has harmonic distortion no matter what specs say, the harmonic distortions also in the human body as most of our organs work in different frequencies, hence the different choice in "prefereable sound" however some hd's can be very confortable where others could be quite irritating, as most of the human organs can find a perfect fulcrom to sound waves others may not,

 

The green issue:

My SETs draw about 180 watts - or 360 watts for the stereo pair.

This is rather less than certain Krell ss amps that draw over 500 watts when idling, but rather more than my old Creek CAS4040 integrated.

 

would they sound better if we painted everything green?? will it then get aCE seal?!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

 

did you not read it then?

The components had been selected as being reasonably representative of their kind. The loudspeakers were held constant and had been selected for their ability to sound equally good driven by tubes or transistors. If anything, the system favored the expensive transistor combo, which had been selected because it was one of the best-selling combinations in its price range, and also because comparative listening tests against some other transistor amps had revealed this combo to sound particularly good in the test configuration. All three systems were played at exactly the same loudness level.

 

I never cared for valve stuff.
I never had one until that day that I bought my speakers (first version) second hand.
With them I bought the valve amps which were used for driving the mid and high frequencies at the dealer's place. These amps were from the same company as the loudspeakers.
Only afterwards I realized what a great deal I did. Now for the mid and high frequencies I wouldn't go back to solid state.

For my subs instead I wouldn't use any valve amp. At the moment I'll stick to my Krell FPB 700cx.

 

I quickly skimmed through it, as I thought I made clear.

But as the guy whos reply I quoted said:

 

Basil,

Curiosity got the better of me, so while I was out yesterday buying hedge clippers at the hardware store I bought a power meter, one of those deelies you plug things into to see how much power they draw.

I first checked the meter for accuracy by plugging some known wattage lights into it. The power reading was as expected — e.g., the meter read in watts what's printed on the side of the bulb — i.e., a 28-watt bulb drew 28 watts of power.

As expected, appliances like the kettle and toaster suck lots of juice, about 1,500 watts each.

The hi-fi as a whole draws less than 200 watts and that's with everything on — the P9's power supply, P-75 phono stage, CD2, Stingray and Creek headphone amp. The Stingray alone draws a bit more than 100 watts, about the same as a bright incandescent.

More is more, and less is less, but I think I can justify a compoent that uses about 100 watts when it's running. And it's only running when I'm listening to music. (When I had Naim amps I left the stack powered up continuously, as per conventional wisdom.)

If I had an active tube preamp (the Stingray has a passive one) and big, powerful tube mono blocks I'd be using much more, but the Stingray isn't a power hog.

Joe

 

Hmmm. Just joined this forum because I'll be looking up info on valve amp kits, (any pointers to the best thread re that would save me a bit of time), but I got drawn into this thread. I was always told you to get a good sound you'd best spend the most on the 1st component, I.E. the turntable. But that's not strictly true is it, it's the lug-holes first. I should think the best thing to do at the very beginning and before you start parting with your cash is get your ears syringed and get them tested. Talk all you like about measurable sonic properties but it aint nowhere near as complicated as the ear and brain as this short article will explain;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/may/14/brain-hears-silent-movies

 

The article mentioned by the original poster is generally very good and largely accurate, as is most of Rod Elliot's stuff.
There is so much I would like to say but in my line of work I have to try to be largely un-opinionated! Don't want to scare the punters off
Try this article from my website, some may find it useful

http://www.arklesselectronics.com/articles.html

 

That says it all, really.

Going off at a slight tangent, why do some audiophiles feel the need to have a go at others based on what kit they enjoy? "YOU haven't got kit as good as mine, 'cos your kit is WRONG and I can PROVE it." Yeah, and my dad is bigger than your dad.

I've always had valve amps. I've heard some good SS amps (and a very impressive valve pre/SS power combo) but none of the SS amps ever really fired my rockets. Some of the valve ones do, so that's what I've bought. It's never crossed my mind that people who like SS are wrong, or people that don't share my love of horn speakers (and there's lots of those) are wrong. In fact I don't see any conflict at all. Buy what pleases you and let others do the same. It ain't brain science. Or rocket surgery.

 

Only just saw this. With respect, I think Mr. Alter missed my point completely, as pointed out here.

As Chris has pointed out, the systems were played at identical levels.

There recently was some controversy on a German forum about another aspect of Ackermann's findings. They were never peer reviewed as he never finished his thesis, lured into gainful employment before it was completed. Had I known this at the time the article was written, I would have added a caveat.

I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the test set-up, and the correctness of the results given.

 

I don't think they do, generally.

Daft claims defying the fundamental laws of physics should however be challenged.

 

Unfortunately, hifi forum audiophiles do seem to have a problem with what others enjoy. Here's one example:

http://www.pinkfishmedia.net/forum/showthread.php?t=94191&page=11

Personally, I need some sort of evidence that there's an acoustical, mechanical or electrical relationship between one entity/adjustment or another before I'll be willing to buy into what's experienced (assuming I even hear a difference) but if some group of folks want to discuss how freezing photographs changed the sound of their rigs and their lives, I'm not going to disrupt their discussion -I simply won't participate.

 

Challenged, certainly. But don't forget laughed at, too