Transistor Preamp that sounds like a Tube Preamp?

07-14-08: Mrtennis asked:
"is it possible that replacing capacitors and resistors from some solid state preamps can bring one closer to a "tube-like" presentation?"

Generally, no. You can make a cheaply built SS amp sound better by improving its parts, but it's best to start with an amp using high quality parts to begin with, made by a great designer that was trying to make the best possible sound.

If the designers goal was to make an amp that sounds "tube-like", stay away.

Dave

If the designers goal was to make an amp that sounds
"tube-like", stay away.

Dave
Dcstep (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

Why, if that's the designer's goal. Or, if it's the listener's goal?

Perhaps, you mean YOU should stay away because "tube-like", as
you define the term, does not fit your criteria or ideal of high end audio.

I think it's important for anyone using the term "tube-like" to
describe specifically what they mean by the term.

If I were to generalize, I would bet most who use the term mean a sound
that's a bit rolled off in the highs, that has an emphasized midrange, and
perhaps has bass that's somewhat loose. I have yet to hear a tubed
component in the past five years that sounds this way: Lamm, VAC, Atma-
Sphere, Modwright, Audio Horizons. The only tubed preamp I have heard that
had some of the characteristics mentioned above was the Supratek Cortese,
but the highs were extended, and the bass was pretty well controlled.

I suspect how MrTennis defines tube-like may be completely opposite of how
the vast majority of top-shelf, presently produced tube preamps sound:
Atma-Sphere, VAC, ARC, BAT, Modwright, Messenger, and just about any
other I can name.

If a designer stated they have designed a solid state preamp that sounds
"tube-like" in the fashion of Atma-Sphere or VAC preamps
(which are uniquely different, but have more in common than otherwise), I
might be strongly interested in investigating their product.

I agree the Atma-sphere is not "tube-like" in the sense you describe (rolloff at the extremes with a mid-range push)- I think that older tube gear may have been a bit like that. What is tube-like to me, for both preamps and amps is the elusive concept of bloom which I think Asa described well. It's the way an instrument projects sound into the room and that always seems more realistic (whether it is or not)than what I've been able to accomplish with SS, not that SS gear can't be wonderful, with its own sonic signature. While the Pass XA30.5 doesn't "bloom" like my tube amps, it doesn't mean it isn't a great sounding amp, it is - but it still does not sound like a tube amp, and frankly there is proabably no reason it has to, or should, or ultimatley, can.

Pinkus, that's funny! I understand what you are saying, though. If I saw something like that I might say to myself, what a boviating blowhard! I mean, how can I possibly listen when I'm talking so damn much? Not sure, though, that a stereo is only a sound machine, if that is what you also meant. Stereo is an art to me - the opportunity to use technology to produce an emotive, even meditative-like experience, in addition to good background music while cooking pasta.

Basicallty,I took a chance; more bread on the water.

I generally agree with what "tube-like" means, and it is not a favorable idea. I once had Western Electric 91B amps. They were rolled off beginning at 13k and had little bass below 50 Hz. This is not to say that I have never heard a tube amp that did not sound "tube-like."

Similarly, I generally agree that there is a solid-state sound. It use to be quite common in transistor gear, but there have always been exceptions to this in solid state gear. The solid state sound is graininess and harshness, most evident in the high end.

I don't think these distinctions get us very far, as many solid state components don't sound solid state and many tube components don't sound "tube-like." Nevertheless, in my experience there is a pretty strong relationship for tube gear to be "tube-like" and solid state gear to sound edgy. Fortunately, there are exceptions.

I have problems with characterizing sound as "musical' versus "analytical" also. Musical is not necessarily a good thing in my mind. Many say we cannot achieve realism and should be happy if our system gives us an emotional or satisfying musical presentation. I know that you can achieve the magic of realism, and I will not be satisfied with just "musical." Realism is not "analytical" either. Usually, I have found that "analytical" is an error in optimizing the system, such as the wrong VTA, poor isolation, or bad cabling.

There are some who hate silver interconnects as too bright. I generally prefer silver interconnects but have also heard great sounding copper interconnects. I tend to not like gold interconnects, platinum interconnects, and amorphous metal interconnects, such as the Indra, but I resist generalization here also.

It really comes down to what you hear and what you hope to hear. Finally, I am always quite aware that there is little or not consensus on any topic or component. It is quite obvious that tastes differ greatly. At it root this suggests that there really is little purpose for Audiogon other than to report personal experiences. Certainly, I have much experience with reporting my personal experiences only to have others tell me that I am delusional as what I hear is impossible. Right now I have been involved in commenting on the benefits of Walker Audio Step Four in cleaning records. I hear a great improvement over the previous three step cleaning. Some say that is impossible as pure water cannot be improved on. Observations have always had greater credence to me than theory. I will keep using Step Four and allow the doubters to not hear as good a sound as they might.