Tubes!?
The dominance of tubes -- or valves, as the British
like to call them -- evaporated more than half a century ago when transistors came along.
They were replaced in much the same way that CD took over from the LP. They became
yesteryear’s technology.
But, like the LP, the idea of using tubes for audio
purposes never died. Instead, tubes have had a life-span longer than probably anyone
expected, and they enjoy a comfortable niche existence today for audiophiles who could
never warm up to solid-state sound. As a result, we feel it appropriate to dedicate
editorial space to tube-based products, hence Jeff Stockton’s review of the Antique
Sound Lab AQ1003 DT integrated tube amplifier that appears this month.
Who listens to tube electronics today, and why?
Surprisingly, it’s some of the of the most influential audio reviewers on the planet.
They swear by tube sound. One of those is Marc Mickelson, the SoundStage! Network’s
editor-in-chief. As for why, I’ll let him explain:
What do I like about tubes? Everything except having to
replace them when they wear out. Audio absolutes are hard to come by because there are
exceptions to every rule, but products that use tubes simply sound more lifelike than
those that don't. There's a richness that gives instruments and voices the character of
those we hear around us, and an ease that overcomes the unnatural stridency of some
digital playback especially. Tube electronics are just easier to listen to, because they
reproduce everything in a more authentic way -- at least to my ears.
Another person on our staff whose preference leans toward
tubes is Vade Forrester, who reviews quite a few tube products on SoundStage!
Here’s what he says:
Actually, I hate tube amplifiers. They are big, heavy,
and hot, and they cost more than solid-state amps. They also have inferior high- and
low-frequency extension, and they’re fussy about what speakers and other equipment
they will work with. Worst of all, the tubes regularly wear out and require replacement,
which is often expensive. But I hate solid-state amplifiers even more. They are often
tonally threadbare, don’t do microdynamics well, don’t throw a believable
soundstage, and even though their bass usually goes deeper and has more slam, it sometimes
doesn’t sound much like music. So tube amplifiers are, for me, the lesser of two
evils.
As you'll see in Jeff Stockton’s review, he was also
won over by tube sound.
However, not everyone is as keen to praise tube gear, and
there are legitimate reasons why transistors supplanted tubes. There are many who call
tubes "distortion generators," mainly because tube amps have higher levels of
distortion than solid-state amps and, in general, their frequency response is often not as
flat. There are also those who criticize tube amps for being underpowered, not to mention
overpriced when compared to solid-states amps. Then there’s the problem of tubes
wearing out, as Marc and Vade pointed out. Not only is it is expensive to replace tubes,
but their reliability is suspect too. It’s no wonder the world moved to transistors.
But tube amplifiers have a quality that’s undeniable
-- visually and sonically -- and there has always been much debate about why they sound
the way they do, which is exactly why most people still swear by them. Some cite the fact
that their distortion characteristics, while not as impressive on paper as those of
transistors, might actually be more pleasing to the ear. Others have said that the
rolled-off highs and lows that some tube amps exhibit make them sound more forgiving,
which can again make for a more pleasant sound. To me, these things seem plausible.
Others, though, have different theories. One of those is
designer Derrick Moss of Aurum
Acoustics. Derrick created the cost-no-object Aurum Integris audio system, which
features a six-channel amplifier -- four channels with tubes and the remaining two with
transistors. Obviously, Derrick is a man in the middle, using the best technology where he
sees fit. In his opinion, the charm to tube audio electronics might have mostly to do with
the simplicity inherent in the design.
[A tube amp’s] old-school bulk demands circuit
simplicity: there’s only so much you can squeeze into an acceptable-size chassis. In
contrast, with solid-state, a circuit might be schematically a hundred times more complex.
Kept simple, a good tube amp or solid-state amp treats the signal very even handedly
across the spectrum and it comes out musically intact. Trying to make things too complex,
though, may endanger the musical rightness.
Derrick points out, however, that this is purely
speculation and that there’s more to the tube-versus-solid-state debate than the few
simple points that audiophiles like to fixate on. Furthermore, tube amps don’t just
come in one "flavor." There are numerous circuit topologies and many different
tubes. The most ambitious tubeophiles sample different brands of the same tube, often
finding certain sonic qualities in each and then settling on the tubes whose sound they
like the most. You certainly can’t do that with transistors. Subsequently, there are
a multitude of reasons why tube amps might sound different -- not just compared to
solid-state amps, but compared to each other as well.
I keep a tube amp on hand myself -- Zanden Audio’s
Model 600 integrated amp -- and I pull it out from time to time when I tire of solid-state
sound. It’s big and heavy, and it runs hot, but there’s a richness to its sound
that no solid-state amp that I’ve heard can match. Yesteryear’s tube technology
is alive and well in this century, and it appears as though it’s going to last for a
long time to come, even into the next century.
…Doug Schneider
E-mail comments to the editor@goodsound.com.
|
