Why do we tube lovers love tubes?

[aborgman]

i'm not saying that making/designing a SS exactly equivalent to a tube amp will never be done or couldn't be in the future, but it's so much easier just to buy a tube amp that does everything that i want since they're so plentiful. and i've haven't played thru a SS one yet that accomplishes it.

Right now I tend to agree.

Thing is, Moore's Law means that processors are going to double in processing power every 18 months (well, really the "law" says transistor counts will double every 18 months) and it has held for years.

In 1970 something with the computing power of an iPod costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now they're almost free.

...and that cost/performance curve isn't slowing down any.

It isn't about designing an SS equivalent to a tube amp - it's using an SS amp that is so clean as to provide a "straight wire with gain" merely amplifying a modeled signal.

Anything that can be measured can be modeled. It's just a question of whether the modeling can be done cheaply and quickly enough to provide adequate performance.

 

[michael_atw]

That just because we haven't seen/heard something, and just because it is difficult to do - doesn't mean it CAN'T be done.

Sounds like a psychology professor's encouragement book. "How to be your greatest person! You CAN!"

Anywho, that whole turning lead into gold sort of thing is so expensive, it's not even worth doing more than once. It costs far more for the procedure than the product can bring in. Also, just like many other doors, opening that one will absolutely desecrate world economic systems at some point in the future. Some things are just better left alone.

Kind of like trying to emulate tube tone.

 

[michael_atw]

In 1970 something with the computing power of an iPod costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now they're almost free.

Anything that can be measured can be modeled. It's just a question of whether the modeling can be done cheaply and quickly enough to provide adequate performance.

And in response, I say "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."

Besides, when did Ipods become "almost free"? They cost as much as a used MIM Jazz bass.

 

[aborgman]

And in response, I say "Just because something can be done, doesn't mean it should be done."

If you can make something indistinguishable sound wise, but cheaper, lighter, and more easily replaceable... why wouldn't you do it?

Besides, when did Ipods become "almost free"? They cost as much as a used MIM Jazz bass.

You can get an iPod for $100.

Compare that to what equivalent computing power cost in say 1980.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Right now I tend to agree.

Thing is, Moore's Law means that processors are going to double in processing power every 18 months (well, really the "law" says transistor counts will double every 18 months) and it has held for years.

In 1970 something with the computing power of an iPod costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now they're almost free.

...and that cost/performance curve isn't slowing down any.

It isn't about designing an SS equivalent to a tube amp - it's using an SS amp that is so clean as to provide a "straight wire with gain" merely amplifying a modeled signal.

Anything that can be measured can be modeled. It's just a question of whether the modeling can be done cheaply and quickly enough to provide adequate performance.

DSP with more than enough capability to convincingly emulate tube amplification is already pretty inexpensive. The remaining challenge is good programming--i.e., a thorough analysis of the characteristics of the tube circuits and implementing them into DSP.

I'd still like to do my FET stuff, just for kicks.

 

[NecroticImbecil]

Cant we all just agree to the following:

a) We all like many different tones.
b) These tones are made by a variety of amplifiers all employing different technologies.
c) No one technology is inherently "better". That's why both types are still readily available in the marketplace.
d) It's ok if someone else prefers a technology or amplifier that I don't personally prefer.
e) It's ok if someone else prefers a technology or amplifier that I don't personally prefer.
f) It's ok if someone else prefers a technology or amplifier that I don't personally prefer.

Silly rabbit. You realize TB would still have less than one full page of threads from its first day up until now? Heck, expand the core philosophy of your statement and we'd hardly have any war.

Brutally fighting over differences is is what being human is all about. Any bunch of humans will come up with some difference to divide themselves into at least 2 groups..."us" and "them." The more similar the humans in question actually are, the harder they have to look for differences, but when they find one, it's on!

If we all liked the same amp, we'd be fighting over carpet vs tolex.

If you can make something indistinguishable sound wise, but cheaper, lighter, and more easily replaceable... why wouldn't you do it?



You can get an iPod for $100.

Compare that to what equivalent computing power cost in say 1980.

While I admit the possibility of 100% accurate emulation at some point (I like science fiction as much as the next guy) I wonder if the Cylons will emulate the particular amp I am so fond of, it's pretty rare. Heck, even JimmyM's B15 may sound a little different from the next guy's B15. Will we all take our amps into the Apple store, have them de-rezzed and reassembled as software, each one customized to the user, or would the robot overlords base their models on what they concluded was a representative sample?

One final note, while I admit the possibility of relatively cheap, light, emulators with crazy processing power, they would have to be cheap indeed to be more financially appealing to me than the ones I have already paid for, even if they are perfect duplicates of something I already own.

I don't want an Ipod. My 1950's tube console stereo doesn't have an Ipod dock.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

Maybe, but if you are actually cutting your dynamics you are setting the comp wrong.

uh, how should you set a compressor then?
If it doesnt impact your dynamics there isnt any point in using one.
If all you want is something to grab loud peaks you are better off with a limiter.
Me I prefer to use the tube amp to even out my dynamics. When recording I always put a comp (or limiter) on the bass. I have yet to meet the basssit that actually plays evenly enough to not require it!

 

[michael_atw]

If you can make something indistinguishable sound wise, but cheaper, lighter, and more easily replaceable... why wouldn't you do it?

Because I don't always want crap that's cheaper. That's why our economy has been on a down-slide for the last 50 years. I want something that's worth my money...and tube amps are very much worth my money. It shouldn't be about what's 'cheaper' but what's 'worth it'. Have fun outsourcing tube emulators to China to be made cheaper so your grand-kids make all of their music exclusively on little boxes. Yeah, that's...really...great.

 

[michael_atw]

I don't want an Ipod. My 1950's tube console stereo doesn't have an Ipod dock.

+1!

I wasn't even alive in the 50's. Heck, I wasn't even alive in the 70's. But man...when I saw a free console stereo on craigslist, I went and dragged that 200 pound monster over to my apartment.

 

[Calaverasgrande]

I don't mean to pic nits, but I'm not sure I'd consider the results meaningful unless it were a double-blind playing test, instead of a double-blind listening test.

I double agree with that!
now disrepsect to Bob of QSC, I value his being here and chiming in, but his company does make amps, and amplified cabs. While I dont think he cynically makes pro amp-modeling comments in the hopes that people will buy RBIs and PLXs, I do think he is predisposed to like modeling technology.
As as can you get a tube amp tone with modeling, yes it is possible to get a model to sound like a tube amp 99.99% of the way. What I find really differs is when you start turning the knobs on the modeled amp it wont sound as good. Its as if they model an SVT (or JMP) with all the knobs at 5. As soon as you dime the bass and treble and scoop the mid it is working in imagination land. It's an interestgin tone, but not the same kind of tone the real amp would do.
I use modelers for samples and keyboards. Its great running analog synths through amp modelers! In real life a moog mini would sound muddy/shrieky through a marshall stack, in modeling land I can get it just right.

 

[Mudfuzz]

uh, how should you set a compressor then?
If it doesnt impact your dynamics there isnt any point in using one.
If all you want is something to grab loud peaks you are better off with a limiter.
Me I prefer to use the tube amp to even out my dynamics. When recording I always put a comp (or limiter) on the bass. I have yet to meet the basssit that actually plays evenly enough to not require it!

I
Am
Talking
About
Overuse
Not
Just
Impact.

Lots
Of
People
Set
Them
Where
It
Killz
All
Or
Most
Dynamics.

Dig?

 

[NecroticImbecil]

+1!

I wasn't even alive in the 50's. Heck, I wasn't even alive in the 70's. But man...when I saw a free console stereo on craigslist, I went and dragged that 200 pound monster over to my apartment.

I inherited it from my dad. It's been super unreliable and expensive to maintain though. Now entering its 7th decade, it needed to be retubed and thoroughly cleaned after sitting unused in a musty unfinished basement for 10 years. What a hunk of crappy old technology.

I wonder if one day Grandad's Ipod will be handed down as a family heirloom?

 

[michael_atw]

I inherited it from my dad. It's been super unreliable and expensive to maintain though. Now entering its 7th decade, it needed to be retubed and thoroughly cleaned after sitting unused in a musty unfinished basement for 10 years. What a hunk of crappy old technology.

I wonder if one day Grandad's Ipod will be handed down as a family heirloom?

Nice! Old radios/phonographs/consoles/etc. are awesome. I've been looking for an antique jukebox myself. I wonder what aborgman thinks about those! Massive, obsolete, very breakable machines.

Ipods? hahaha...nope. And that's the way society is heading. Things are cheaper, but their real value is approaching zero. I refuse to buy a new Ipod because in a year it will be worth maybe 1/6 of what I paid for it. The quantity of things we have has grown exponentially...but the quality of what we own keeps going down. That's why our great-grandfathers could live on so little...and we struggle with living with so much.

 

[Tommygunn]

Warmer vs solid state. Plus I grew up listening to bassists who used tube amps

 

[Deluge Of Sound]

Warmer vs solid state. Plus I grew up listening to bassists who used tube amps

You know, neither of those are probably as true as you think they are.

 

[JimmyM]

I inherited it from my dad. It's been super unreliable and expensive to maintain though. Now entering its 7th decade, it needed to be retubed and thoroughly cleaned after sitting unused in a musty unfinished basement for 10 years. What a hunk of crappy old technology.

I wonder if one day Grandad's Ipod will be handed down as a family heirloom?

nope, but it does fit in your pocket a lot easier than a console stereo

btw, i've got an old edison console record player from 1926 that's my family heirloom! no tubes, but it does rely on ancient technology. even has a crank on the side!

 

[Calaverasgrande]

BTW moores law fell a couple of years ago.
Processors have hit a wall at about 3-4ghz for stock production units. Manufacturers have had to continue to parallel out to maintain any kind of increase in processing power. This along with increases in memory speed. They have kept up some increases in crunching ability, but even with paralleling it hasnt been doubling any more. Even if you double the number of cores in a CPU, you lose cycles to overhead for managing those multiple threads on different cores. Also, not sure if its fair to consider parallelled cores in the first place as part of the progression of moores theorem.

As far as the idea that anything can be modeled than amplified with a solidstate "straight wire with gain" amp, it doesnt exist. Solid state amps are known for being clean, but they are not perfectly clean. They will affect the sound in their own fashion. Some power amps have terrible slew rate and just cant handle low freqs at volume, esp certain brands smps based amps.
Then there is also the price. I can pick from 40 years of used tube amps, all under a grand (if not under $500!). The comparable modeling rig could exceed that quite easily, but it wouldnt smell like an old tube amp!

 

[groovaholic]

I'm a recent convert back to 100% tubes.

As others have stated, the sound is a big part of it, but the FEEL is the other huge kick you get from tubes.

I think the sound comes from the higher levels of distortion in a tube signal (even one that is not audibly "distorted") and the gradual, natural, and touch-responsive transition from clean to overdriven to nasty.

The feel...I don't know where it comes from, but I think the output transformer is a likely suspect.

I went from a pre-amp/power-amp rig rated at over 3,000 watts to a 400-watt tube head.

I won't argue that the tubes are louder (because NOTHING is louder than that 3,000 watt rack was!) but the tube amp sounds more alive, immediate, and three-dimensional.

 

[aborgman]

Nice! Old radios/phonographs/consoles/etc. are awesome. I've been looking for an antique jukebox myself. I wonder what aborgman thinks about those! Massive, obsolete, very breakable machines.

I think they're a lot of fun.

As an electrical engineer I have an affinity for all things of the sort, no matter their age. Heck, my last vehicle was a 1964 VW Microbus.

Truth is though - I'm just interested in what works best for the application, and I'm interested in seeing the state of the art advance.

Ipods? hahaha...nope. And that's the way society is heading. Things are cheaper, but their real value is approaching zero. I refuse to buy a new Ipod because in a year it will be worth maybe 1/6 of what I paid for it. The quantity of things we have has grown exponentially...but the quality of what we own keeps going down. That's why our great-grandfathers could live on so little...and we struggle with living with so much.

Yes, we've become soft because our quality of life is much better.

We get more stuff, for less work. We eat better, we have better medicine, safer everything, and even the poor can afford to clothe themselves.

 

[aborgman]

BTW moores law fell a couple of years ago.

No, it didn't - because as I noted in my original post the "speed doubling every 18 months" is a laymans misreading of Moore's Law.

Moore's Law stated that transistor counts would double approximately every 18 months, and this has held true.

Processors have hit a wall at about 3-4ghz for stock production units.

Not exactly.

Sections of the Pentium 4 architecture processors are running at 2x the advertised clock frequency.

Note - I spent 6 years as a design engineer at Intel working in microprocessor design. For example I designed the upper 32 bits of the AGU in the first iterations of the 64bit Pentium 4.

Manufacturers have had to continue to parallel out to maintain any kind of increase in processing power.

Not exactly.

Power density has caused manufacturers to have to go wide instead of fast. They could have gone faster - but the issues with heat removal were prohibitive.

This along with increases in memory speed. They have kept up some increases in crunching ability, but even with paralleling it hasnt been doubling any more. Even if you double the number of cores in a CPU, you lose cycles to overhead for managing those multiple threads on different cores. Also, not sure if its fair to consider parallelled cores in the first place as part of the progression of moores theorem.

Of course it is - because Moore's Law applies to transistor counts.

As far as the idea that anything can be modeled than amplified with a solidstate "straight wire with gain" amp, it doesnt exist.

It doesn't exist as far as measurement equipment is concerned.

There are amps that are "transparent" beyond the human ability to hear it.

Then there is also the price. I can pick from 40 years of used tube amps, all under a grand (if not under $500!). The comparable modeling rig could exceed that quite easily, but it wouldnt smell like an old tube amp!

Right now.

50 years from now that modeling rig will probably be the equivalent of $20, and that tube amp the equivalent of $5000.