They were in both pre and power amp. It was a full on tube amp. But I'm almost positive it had SMPS. Probably AB, but I think the bigger deal in a tube amp would be the power supply, not the class.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Solid state/class d vs tube amps
- Thread starter Sparkl
- Start date
Hmmmm, interesting comment. I guess my thought on that would be that DC plates voltages, as long as they are the same between different supplies and regardless of how they are derived, don’t make that much difference in sound as long as the voltage was clean and constant.
Isn’t there also some power supply sag with tubes and conventional PS? Doesn’t that sometimes contribute to their character? IDK.
I may be thinking backwards but I would expect an smps to have better regulation than the typical PS found in a tube amp due to feedback of the outputs. PS for tubes that I am familiar with mostly just relay on lots a big capacitors to act as brute force regulators.
As much as I love my tube amps (and SS, favorite probably being a GK400B) I play out 10 times a month on average and don't use a roadie. My Markbass setup is my main gigging rig. It is by no means my favorite amp tonewise but it's easy to transport. I indulge on the heavy amps at rehearsal where they live. Got an ACC 220 with a 402 cab at one band's rehearsal space and an SVT with a fridge at the other. It's a half baked compromise but works for now..
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,961
- 5
- 220,634
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
You don't think the same compression and limiting hasn't been used on vinyl? It's probably more common with vinyl, to keep the stylus in contact with the groove. There is only so much modulation available on vinyl, less than what is available on a CD.
SMPS can be regulated, unregulated and designed with whatever impedance and compliance the designer chooses.
You're asking me when you got Andy here?
I learned long ago that my brain will never understand this stuff on a component level. It's just not built for it.Brickwalling...the loudness wars......check with mastering engineers like Steve Hoffman.
Of course limiting and compression have always been used, but many CD's were mixed starting in the 80's to sound good on cheap boomboxes.
The legendary Led Zeppelin II original masterings by Bob Ludwig are highly prized because, yes, on "cheap record players" the needle would jump......the next "remixed versions" sound like crap.....later in the very late 70's and early 80's the remixes were redone very similar to the original Bob Ludwig masters.
If your quality turntable/cart is properly isolated "needle jumping" is not an issue.
Btw, some of the Zeppelin remixed CDs often sound very unnatural with boosted bottom end on the kick drums (and where is the bass guitar?)....some CD remasters are decent but many are not...too brickwalled so to be used on cheap ear buds, boomboxes etc otherwise you cannot hear everything at a low volume.....just an example.....bloated, tubby and strident sounding is common.....but of course it is getting far better
Of course the range is wider on CDs 'potentially'.....but not always the case.
- Feb 12, 2006
- 60,961
- 5
- 220,634
- Disclosures
- Development Engineer-Mesa Boogie, Development Engineer-Genzler (pedals), Product Support-Genz Benz
The stylus jumping from acoustic feedback is not what I am talking about. I'm specifically talking about maximum displacement (modulation) with respect to the possible lateral stylus velocity and acceleration. There were limiting algorithms developed specifically to address this and they have some very brick wall characteristics (some early 2 band limiters came out of this). Iirc, the Aphex dominator was one of these standards.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
The Peavey VB-3 or VB-2? I can't remember the model but yeah there was a MB tube SMPS amp too at one point.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
I don't believe anyone suggested it was. Jimmy was talking about smps with tube power sections rather than traditional transformer based power plants in amps.
Yeah Andy has more knowledge of this stuff in the toe nail clippings he tosses out than I ever will.You're asking me when you got Andy here?
And you have knowledge of important stuff on different subjects.
So you don't get to cash in your IDK ticket THAT easily.
I only asked you about it because you mentioned it.
OK? That's why I asked the question.
I think some folks hear SMPS and automatically assume Class D.
Now some class D bricks include the SMPS. But it doesn't follow automatically that the use of one implies use of the other.
SMPS is a type of power supply.
Class D is an amplification scheme.
BurningSkies
CRAZY BALDHEAD
- Feb 20, 2005
- 27,956
- 20,348
- Disclosures
- Endorsing artist: Dingwall Guitars
I'm not sure where your confusion lies. Jimmy mentioned that he remembered some amps that had tube power sections and SMPS power supplies. I replied to him and I was verifying that those existed. I think you'll find that at no time in this thread have I suggested that they're class D.
I did post a PDF to a paper that suggests that you can certainly build a class-D tube power amp, and that the concept dates to the middle part of the last century. I'm unconvinced that there's any good reason to use tubes in a class D/ PWM power amp implementation in this day and age or that it would impart any effective tubiness to the equation rather than just adding inefficiency and/or unneeded technical hurdles to the equation.
I did post a PDF to a paper that suggests that you can certainly build a class-D tube power amp, and that the concept dates to the middle part of the last century. I'm unconvinced that there's any good reason to use tubes in a class D/ PWM power amp implementation in this day and age or that it would impart any effective tubiness to the equation rather than just adding inefficiency and/or unneeded technical hurdles to the equation.
The thread title is Solid State/Class D vs Tube Amps.
The origin of this derail of that thread starts when I posed the question in #957.
The discussion was going in a direction that seemed to include Class D vs Tube comments.
To compare an amplifier class with a type of amplifying device like that is like comparing apples and oranges.
Likewise my question about class D tube amps was answered by saying SMPS was used.
I then asked for clarifications of tube vs solid state.
I don't argue the point that a class D tube amplifier can be built.
Nor do I argue that it would not be practical to do so.
But the discussion was going in a Class D vs Tube direction, which prompted me to muse out loud about how this conversation would turn if someone built a tube class D amp.
I wasn't confused, I just was not getting answers to the questions I had asked.
I guess that you wouldn't want this plugin then.
It allows you to add clicks, pops, noise, phase distortion, wow, flutter, and more.
Abbey Road Vinyl Plugin | Waves
Check out the videos. I find it interesting to use.
View attachment 3129952
And a free one:
Vinyl | Free Plug-in
Or if you want to digitally restore the old media Waves and Izotope have tools for that too.
You can rent a copy of Celemony Capstan to really clean it up Invalid Link Removed.
Lib of Congress and other Music archiving going on are using photographic methods to scan the grooves without a needle and then convert that to audio. They use photo over laser as it captures more information like that click is a defect in the wax.
After it's recovered as best it can, it can be played back through such plugins to give it the familiar sound it at at the time it was the only media and reproduction available. These processes also work for the old wax and tin that didn't have any electronic amplifiers.
We understand history more and more as better methods of recovery are being created.
And a simulation you can play with
Class-D Amplifier
This simulation is using a slow clock. And it's clipping with the given defaults.
But it can be seen the mosfets work just like switches.
There aren't going to be any affordable tubes and circuits to switch as fast and clean as MOSFETs, it took years to get MOSFETs to this stage. Even bipolar transistors didn't progress class-d until modern mosfets were developed.
In the preamp or power amp?
James Demeter drives his Class D power sections with tubes, usually an ECC81/12AT7. You can even get just the power section driven by the ECC81’s:
Invalid Link Removed
Free plugins are always welcome.
Celemony has some good products. Capstan is as expensive as it is impressive. Melodyne is very useful. The Waves Tune products are more affordable. I find that each has their strengths. There isn't one that fill all needs perfectly, I find that it depends on the requirements of the task. You have to try them and see which produces the best results. Use them too much and audible quantization can creep in. If I could only choose one, it would be Melodyne.
I’m with @BurningSkies regarding amp topologies. Get what I’m after using a tube preamp into the Class D power section. Doesn’t mean I don’t like, and in some cases hugely appreciate some of the bigger all tube heads. They are great if someone else wants to move them around for me. And no, that’s not just being wimpy. I have no back issues and don’t mind breaking a sweat. It’s just I get what I am after with what I’m using; so, why do more work for essentially the same result?
My main cover gig is ampless. I finally solved that particular signal chain issue to my satisfaction by using the tiny but awesome Demeter Bass400 as my “DI.” As an amplifier, the Bass400 is pretty potent; but, the really interesting part is the preamp in it is basically a single tube version of the VTBP-201. I still have my 1.5 space VTBP-201 for comparison. And, going back and forth between the two, I honestly have to say I’m not sure which I prefer. The SS output 400 is just a fraction cleaner and quicker. The 12AT7 output circuit is just slightly creamier. The difference is mainly noticeable when you are sitting in a quiet rehearsal space going back and forth. It is subtle. Not really something to get excited about. The magic in that circuit is in the V1 position. THAT tube makes a huge difference in tone when you roll various types. I like the Sylvania GB 5751; but, that’s me.
My main cover gig is ampless. I finally solved that particular signal chain issue to my satisfaction by using the tiny but awesome Demeter Bass400 as my “DI.” As an amplifier, the Bass400 is pretty potent; but, the really interesting part is the preamp in it is basically a single tube version of the VTBP-201. I still have my 1.5 space VTBP-201 for comparison. And, going back and forth between the two, I honestly have to say I’m not sure which I prefer. The SS output 400 is just a fraction cleaner and quicker. The 12AT7 output circuit is just slightly creamier. The difference is mainly noticeable when you are sitting in a quiet rehearsal space going back and forth. It is subtle. Not really something to get excited about. The magic in that circuit is in the V1 position. THAT tube makes a huge difference in tone when you roll various types. I like the Sylvania GB 5751; but, that’s me.
