Solid state/class d vs tube amps

[Eddie LeBlanc]

Have a couuple of class D amps, size and portability is nice. Mostly gig with Ampeg SVP PRO (5) tube preamp with Crown power. Love it, best of both worlds.

Tried that, but sorry had the Ampeg Pro crapped out on me at a gig...... Never again... POS in my book. It wasn't the tubes. Somehow the relay shorted and wouldn't allow a signal through.
Still in my garbage dump. Anyone want to buy it????

 

[brocco]

Used mine many years with no problems maybe I should start bringing a back up

 

[BadExample]

Somehow the relay shorted and wouldn't allow a signal through.

Shorted? Unlikely. Open circuit, more likely.

 

[Mark Andrew]

~
I just looked it up and it seems quite impressive.

A switching power supply is where they seem to have saved some weight.

Includes a graphic EQ, uses common tubes, and weighs only 37 pounds for 300 Watts RMS into various switchable impedances.

Hmmmm.... drool
~

I was very interested in one but a little unsure of how reliable they have been. In the end I opted for a classic 400 that came up back in 2015 but it's weight does limit it's practicality. Should a good second hand vb3 come up I would still be tempted

 

[ThisBass]

Yes most definitely

But they are electro-mechanically analogue - not synthetic

That's what makes the difference

But as always - to each his own

That's not quite correct.
With LP records the system of LF (audio) signal transduction goes the path of
electro to mechanical to electro.
Every conversion of the "storage medium" does cause losses.
At least since Claude Shonnon's fundamental work for Bell laboratories in the very past century its common sense that every conversion does cause losses of "information".
Science wise there is no way to make any multy-layered transmission channel superior versus a different framework. Your aim appears as nothing but an (impractical) attempt on the ground of additional signal conversions which does cause "coloring" at best.

 

[DJ Bebop]

Tubes, SS, Class D. I use and love them all. Each for different reasons, seasons and sessions.
Which one’s better? Who cares.
View attachment 2880208
Lately I use this (Eleven Rack, direct w/iem’s) as much as anything else. It allows me to thrive in the speakerless stage world. Tone, tone and more tone:
View attachment 2880213
Advice from a 48 year bass vet; Bassists, don’t get stuck in one world!

Dude I hear ya! Life's too short to be stuck on one thing!

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

That's not quite correct.
With LP records the system of LF (audio) signal transduction goes the path of
electro to mechanical to electro.
Every conversion of the "storage medium" does cause losses.
At least since Claude Shonnon's fundamental work for Bell laboratories in the very past century its common sense that every conversion does cause losses of "information".
Science wise there is no way to make any multy-layered transmission channel superior versus a different framework. Your aim appears as nothing but an (impractical) attempt on the ground of additional signal conversions which does cause "coloring" at best.

Yes and no. With digital (synthetic), it's about how practical it is to augment the sampling frequency (as per Nyquist) until all the intelligence (information) can be recovered. Limitations include complexity hence cost. On the other hand with vinyl for example, RIAA curves must be implemented to account for physical/mechanical shortcomings in extracting the information from the media. Both yield very subjective non quantifiable (as far as the human ear is concerned) results IMO.

 

[seamonkey]

Class-d isn't digital

Even if it was, and there's confusion on sample theorem, here's some science on digital audio
Xiph.Org Video Presentations: Digital Show & Tell
This site explains it well, but it's above many attention spans. Most dumbed down sites have it wrong.

For a digital copy, The 1 millionth copy is the same as the first.
Vinyl lp presses aren't so lucky. They wear out. They scribe numbers on the discs, and listen to random samples to be sure the presses are still accurate. People are paying premiums for hot vinyl that may not be the first pressed, but it definitely not a high number.

LP's themselves wear out during play. But you can preserve them by recording them to digital. A captured recording in digital will not degrade.
Invalid Link Removed
"THE “ANALOGUE SOUND” RECORDED ONTO A CD IS PRESERVED 100%"

In the end, it's the music matters, not the medium.

 

[Bulldawg82]

Who doesn't love the sound/feel of tubes? However, they are high maintenance and you will still end up sounding "solid state" to people in the audience because they hear the PA system. That tube sound is for you and the drummer on stage. Now, if they had a tube PA system worth a damn . . . . hmmmmm.

 

[ThisBass]

Yes and no. With digital (synthetic), it's about how practical it is to augment the sampling frequency (as per Nyquist) until all the intelligence (information) can be recovered. Limitations include complexity hence cost. On the other hand with vinyl for example, RIAA curves must be implemented to account for physical/mechanical shortcomings in extracting the information from the media. Both yield very subjective non quantifiable (as far as the human ear is concerned) results IMO.

In Shannon theorem a loss of information due to quantization error is very low even for (outdated) 16 bit sampling signal processing. The SNR for 16 bit equals about 100 dB while for Vinyl you are fine with numbers equal to about 65dB at best.

I just remember on the legendary Ensonq DP/4 quad CPU 16 bit effect processor. The unit is out of production for about 25 years. The "digital" DP4 is a well sought after tool because especially the modulation sounds are well known to provide a noticable warmth (analoge like) sound versus "generic" PC aided sound processing.

I think sometimes its the "perfect" amount of "coloring" that can provide a distinct musical feel for just playing any instrument or listening to music at a living room.
Even the legendary "musical" Hammond sound can be explained with design bugs rather than sound perfectionism.
Sometimes its also interesting to consider the perception of sound under psychoacoustic and social culture aspects. I think Wolfgang A. Mozart would not (and could not) like the sound of a big arena show. May be he could feel comfortable with if he was born in 2005.

 

[ThisBass]

Consideration of sound perception versus age (experience)
Unfortunatelly there are two things that go congruent just the same time.
Hearing ability is best when you are of young age about 30yo at most. Hearing experience improves with age and can improve a lot while growing older beyound the 30th age of live.

Personally I deal with music since I was a 5 yo kid but I claim my best time of "hearing ability" was at the age of about 40..50. The time when I was younger than 40yo I didn't had enough experience to right evaluate sound "correctly" while (now I'm a boy beyond 50) my hearing ability gradually sucks year after year so the "experience" must compensate the going down hearing ability.

I think a man who is living in a log cabin for about 60 years and listening to a vintage AM tube receiver day by day and year after year, I think you can't do him a favour by make him a present of Klipsch Horns to his 61th birthday

 

[DJ Bebop]

Who doesn't love the sound/feel of tubes? However, they are high maintenance and you will still end up sounding "solid state" to people in the audience because they hear the PA system. That tube sound is for you and the drummer on stage. Now, if they had a tube PA system worth a damn . . . . hmmmmm.

How about a mix of tubes and solid state PA Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) - Wikipedia

 

[ThisBass]

Who doesn't love the sound/feel of tubes?

Interestingly a pure tube gain stage versus pure ss gain stage can't be detected by hearing test within headroom level limits each.

 

[BadExample]

Interestingly a pure tube gain stage versus pure ss gain stage can't be dected by hearing test within headroom level limits each.

You don't want to say that too loud, friend!

 

[AE1]

How about a mix of tubes and solid state PA Wall of Sound (Grateful Dead) - Wikipedia

​

For the record, this particular shot was taken on a day when the entire system was driven by a set of 350W rms McIntosh MI350 tube amplifiers - seen at the bottom left and right of the pic

*************************************************************************************

EDIT: Should read McIntosh MC2300 - 2 x 300 watt rms - see posts 757 and 769 below

My error was due to the similarity in appearance of the MC2300 and MI350



The Grateful Dead may have gone SS later on but their early concerts were MI350 tube, tube, tube

************************************************************************** end edit

Proof is at



The massive array of speakers creates a "planar" driver effect, instead of the conventional single source cone radiator. This technique delivers high-efficiency natural sound and forms the basis for the modern "array" systems.

The Grateful Dead developed an innovative way to achieve clean sound at high SPL from conventional drivers.

​

 

[seamonkey]

Interestingly a pure tube gain stage versus pure ss gain stage can't be detected by hearing test within headroom level limits each.

This holds true for even power amps, any class or devices used:

"The Richard Clark Amp Challenge is a listening test intended to show that as long as a modern audio amplifier is operated within its linear range (below clipping), the differences between amps are inaudible to the human ear. Because thousands of people have taken the test, the test is significant to the audiophile debate over audibility of amplifier differences."

Now some special amps are built to distort at lower levels as it gives a signature sound, but not power amps. Not McIntosh tube or SS amps. 99% of the sound is in the linear range. Turn it down or add another power amp if it's outside this range. With smart EQ, and side-chaining you can add an extra 9 ... 99.9%

 

[agedhorse]

View attachment 2891995 ​

For the record, this particular shot was taken on a day when the entire system was driven by a set of 350W rms McIntosh MI350 tube amplifiers - seen at the bottom left and right of the pic

The Grateful Dead may have gone SS later on but their early concerts were tube, tube, tube

Proof is at



The massive array of speakers creates a "planar" driver effect, instead of the conventional single source cone radiator. This technique delivers high-efficiency natural sound and forms the basis for the modern "array" systems.

The Grateful Dead developed an innovative way to achieve clean sound at high SPL from conventional drivers.

View attachment 2891969View attachment 2891970 ​

Well, it looks like proof is not in your favor here. Those amps are CLEARLY MC2300's.

It might be helpful to understand the history of this because only then can you appreciate how absurd your chasing this rat down the hole really is. I am quite familiar with this history, as this was the live sound industry that I worked around (I started in 1978, near the San Francisco Bay Area, many of the guys I worked with were part of this scene so I had the opportunity to see what was happening more first hand)

The concept for the wall of sound was hatched in 1972, the year that the MC2300 was introduced into production. Production volumes were very low, it was brand new technology for McIntosh and it was very expensive. There was ample supply of the tube amps though, which is what they started with, but they turned out to be entirely unacceptable, not enough power for what they were trying to achieve. Once the MC2300's were available at sufficient quantity, the tube amps were immediately swapped out, with a few remaining for various applications where they were more suitable.

My MC-2300 service manual is dated March 1972, production was very limited throughout the early 1970's.

 

[BadExample]

Interesting bit of history...

I think the price is back up now

mcintosh mc2300 | eBay

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

Well, it looks like proof is not in your favor here. Those amps are CLEARLY MC2300's.

It might be helpful to understand the history of this because only then can you appreciate how absurd your chasing this rat down the hole really is. I am quite familiar with this history, as this was the live sound industry that I worked around (I started in 1978, near the San Francisco Bay Area, many of the guys I worked with were part of this scene so I had the opportunity to see what was happening more first hand)

The concept for the wall of sound was hatched in 1972, the year that the MC2300 was introduced into production. Production volumes were very low, it was brand new technology for McIntosh and it was very expensive. There was ample supply of the tube amps though, which is what they started with, but they turned out to be entirely unacceptable, not enough power for what they were trying to achieve. Once the MC2300's were available at sufficient quantity, the tube amps were immediately swapped out, with a few remaining for various applications where they were more suitable.

My MC-2300 service manual is dated March 1972, production was very limited throughout the early 1970's.

Yeah I remember the 2300's. Real pain in the culo to work on and used Mac's signature unity coupled output xformers.
Great sound though and expensive when noting that Kodak would sell their recycled Crown DC-150's for 200 bucks a pop. Unbelievable...

 

[Chucky Stiletti]

In Shannon theorem a loss of information due to quantization error is very low even for (outdated) 16 bit sampling signal processing. The SNR for 16 bit equals about 100 dB while for Vinyl you are fine with numbers equal to about 65dB at best.

I just remember on the legendary Ensonq DP/4 quad CPU 16 bit effect processor. The unit is out of production for about 25 years. The "digital" DP4 is a well sought after tool because especially the modulation sounds are well known to provide a noticable warmth (analoge like) sound versus "generic" PC aided sound processing.

I think sometimes its the "perfect" amount of "coloring" that can provide a distinct musical feel for just playing any instrument or listening to music at a living room.
Even the legendary "musical" Hammond sound can be explained with design bugs rather than sound perfectionism.
Sometimes its also interesting to consider the perception of sound under psychoacoustic and social culture aspects. I think Wolfgang A. Mozart would not (and could not) like the sound of a big arena show. May be he could feel comfortablu with if he was born in 2005.

Totally agree. I was working for E-Mu/Creative when they bought Ensoniq back in the mid 90's. The DP/4 was a hot item and very much prized by the sound designers at E'Mu many of which came from Sequential Circuits and heatedly advocated analog synthesis as in the Prophet 5. Again with you on the B3, but then again, these are such subjective topics. I firmly believe the sound of R&R evolved from pushing tube guitar amps of the day past their intended design purpose. So, not really a bug but more like serendipity in discovering a certain harmonic content in a sound produced by an amplifier pushed past it's limits due to the shortcomings (low available power) of PA's at the time and guitarists looking for more volume. fascinating topic, one that deserves a dissertation imho.