In Reply to: Why tubes sound 'bigger' posted by peterh on August 11, 2006 at 15:01:34:
The word 'bigger' in describing tube sound is a bit awkward, but the word 'fleshier' hits the mark. I switched out amps recently, going from a Yamaha M-85 to an Audio Research VT130. The contrast in sound was dramatic; the Yamaha may have had loudness and raw power, but it sounded a bit flat and uninspiring. Switch in the ARC VT130 and wow! Suddenly the music had 3 dimensional depth and an excellent soundstage; individual instruments stood out clearly in my living room space. The 'flesh' metaphor you used is very good; tube sound seems to impart a dimensionality or 'body' to sound that is persuasive to our ears.However, we may be way off the mark in comparing budget solid state gear (Yamaha & NAD) with top quality tube gear (CJ and ARC). Do the same listening tests, but this time use Pass Labs or Plinius amps. Result? Our "tubes sound better" hypothesis will be less persuasive. My personal opinion? I think you are correct; tube gear 'fleshes-out' the music better than any solid state gear that I've heard.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- "bigger in the sense of fleshier"?. That makes good sense! - vacuous 08/11/0617:10:26 08/11/06 (7)
- its funny, everything you describe.. - BJordan 19:04:07 08/11/06 (2)
- Ok, man, what solid state amps do you suggest? - vacuous 19:48:15 08/11/06 (1)
- Re: Ok, man, what solid state amps do you suggest? - Ted Smith 10:45:38 08/12/06 (0)
- Re: "bigger in the sense of fleshier"?. That makes good sense! - Sean 17:40:29 08/11/06 (3)
- re: Yamaha M-85 - vacuous 18:33:36 08/11/06 (2)
- Re: re: Yamaha M-85 - JANDG 10:43:53 08/12/06 (0)
- Re: re: Yamaha M-85 - Sean 18:45:11 08/11/06 (0)