Which is better: Tube or transistor audio?
Which is better: Tube or transistor audio?
JAKARTA (JP): There are two kinds of high-end amplifier and
preamplifier (preamp), namely tube and transistor.
In Indonesia until recently, the high-end market belonged
almost entirely to solid-state equipment.
But, audiophiles and engineers are still involved in a
seemingly endless debate to determine which of the two has the
best sound quality.
Is there an audible difference between them? Which one sounds
better?
The use of tubed equipment in the making of amplifiers started
as a semi-nostalgic subculture, with the use by audiophiles of
vintage hi-fi amplifiers before 1970.
Transistors were faster, lighter, smaller, and cheaper. They
started a revolution in the world of electronic design which led
to the subsequent logical step in electronic devices, the
integrated circuit.
Tubes, invented in 1906 by Lee DeForest are basically light
bulbs with a few extra gizmos inside, and trace their heritage to
the Edisonian age of the 19th century.
Unlike users in the music performance market, audiophiles
often prefer tubes for their clean, smooth sound -- in some
cases, far more detailed and life-like than most early solid-
state equipment.
Preamp is more likely to use vacuum tubes instead of solid
state devices (transistors). It is because preamp handle only low
level signals, making tubes more practical and affordable than in
power amp.
Unfortunately, power amp tubes are larger, more expensive, run
more hot, and require more frequent replacement than transistors.
Tubes have several advantages in their favor as audio
amplifying devices. Why?
First, the circuitry associated with a vacuum tube -- the
ancillary parts that make the tube work -- is generally much
simpler than a circuit using transistors.
Second, the distortion tubes produce is very different from
the distortion created by solid state electronics.
Harmonic distortion, introduced by all active electronics adds
spurious frequencies to the signal being amplified. If a preamp
is passing a 1 Khz signal, for example, the preamp will generate
distortion at 2 Khz (second harmonic), 3 KhZ (third harmonic), 4
kHz (fourth harmonic) and so forth.
Tubes circuits generally produce lower order harmonic
distortion components such as second and third harmonic, in
contrast with the higher order distortion (seventh and ninth)
introduced by transistors.
In Indonesia, some high-end audio businessman/audiophiles
believe that if the system is to include tubes, they are best
employed closest to the signal source -- such as in the preamp.
They claim that tubes have a more natural treble, which is
warmer and sweet. Much of the legendary "warmth" is attributed to
the differences in the way tubes and transistors respond to
overload signals.
According to them, tube records have more bass. The bass
actually sounds an octave lower. The middle range of tube
recordings is very clear and each instrument has presence, even
at very low playback levels, while transistor recordings tend to
emphasize the sibilants and cymbals, especially at low levels.
Other audiophiles believe that solid state preamps tend to
make the treble dry, brittle, metallic and etched.
The result is steely sounding strings (such as violin),
unnaturally emphasized vocal sibilants(s and sh sounds).
A natural sounding tubed preamp can tend to ameliorate the
system's tendency toward these amusical characteristics.
Transistor records sound restricted like they are under a
blanket, have highs and lows but there is no punch to the sound.
Transistor recordings are very clean but they lack the 'air' of a
good tube recording.
Transistors add a lot of musically unrelated harmonics or
white noise. especially on attack transients.
This same phenomenon has been expressed by another person as a
"shattered glass" sound that restricted dynamics.
1t was generally agreed that tubes did not have this problem
because they overload gently.
So guess, who is the winner?