Amps - valve or SS?

[Ned664]

I have been reading a bit about valve amps, one passage included the phrase 'I am now listening to music rater than sound' apparently after conversion to using a valve amp. I wondered whether other members have had any experience of the change from SS to valve good or bad?

Thanks

[Gordon Steadman]

This is a very good question but........... there seem to be few that sit on the fence and most fall in one camp or the other.

I have been using a Leak Stereo 20 since 1990. I found it in the loft when I moved in and just plugged it into the system to see if it worked.

Instant conversion. It replaced a Quad 405. I still used the 34 pre-amp then but now have a Creek passive. Its always possible that it is just a perfect match for the Quad 57s.

I have listened to many others since but none have approached the sheer musicality (if thats possible... some would say not) of the valve amp. Until a few weeks ago that is, when I heard another valve amp which will replace the Leak in the main system next week.

I reckon twenty six years speaks of satisfaction. The Quad still sounds good but the bottles just have that bit of extra magic. Not just in sound but in placement, up/down, left/right and back/forwards.

I strongly suspect that to get the same performance with trannies, would take considerably more investment. A good amp is a good amp but I can only have what I can afford.

[DSJR]

They all sound the same! - Well, they should do if the load they're driving doesn't stretch them in any way and they're not pushed to clipping....

You know, it's not really the technology used, but HOW it's used that's the thing I feel. I've heard solid state amps which are grainy, harsh and nasty to listen to for long periods, especially if played a touch too loud (I'm talking new amps here and Naims of various periods all have some of these characteristics to a greater or lesser extent - they've gone from one extreme in the mid 70's to the opposite in the mid 80's and are slowly trying to gain the middle ground again, limited by the ancient and *apparently* PA nature of the original circuit), yet other ss amps can sound pure, atmospheric and almost velvety, not hugely different from their valve ancestors (Quad 303 and well sorted examples of their current dumpers - IMO). Some modern Sugden ss amps sound as if a thick blanket has been thrown over the spesakers, a deliberate design quirk IMO. On the other hand, in recent times, I've heard some of the Icon Audio range (not the wacky ones) and these, range from soft and almost thick toned for the £1K model to neutral, clear and utterly clean without any harshness in the copper topped Stereo 40 (I think) and 60 models.

I believe that speakers are the final arbiter, since ALL of them add so much character, colouration and distortions of various types to the listening experience, and this is before they're placed in a listening room! What I feel you need to do is to listen to a few good setups and see how you FEEL about the music being played. Some speakers need the usually extra grip and damping available from a good ss amp, other speakers have a tight enough bass as they are, but may have tweeter or crossover harshness built-in, needing a restraing order at thiose frequencies

Not really helpful I'm afraid, but many peeps buy valve gear because of the way they look, and since music reproduction is so emotive in the firat place, they have EVERY right to do so in my opinion

[DSJR]

I have been using a Leak Stereo 20 since 1990. I found it in the loft when I moved in and just plugged it into the system to see if it worked.

Instant conversion. It replaced a Quad 405. I still used the 34 pre-amp then but now have a Creek passive. Its always possible that it is just a perfect match for the Quad 57s.

I have listened to many others since but none have approached the sheer musicality (if thats possible... some would say not) of the valve amp. Until a few weeks ago that is, when I heard another valve amp which will replace the Leak in the main system next week.

I reckon twenty six years speaks of satisfaction. The Quad still sounds good but the bottles just have that bit of extra magic. Not just in sound but in placement, up/down, left/right and back/forwards.

I strongly suspect that to get the same performance with trannies, would take considerably more investment. A good amp is a good amp but I can only have what I can afford.

The Stereo 20 is a funky little thing, but low power output (but with superb soft clipping performance) may or may not be the deal maker or breaker. The Quad 405 is possibly the weakest of the current dumplings and both my series 2 samples needed to be on for several hours before they lost a slight sting in the hf, which the 306, 606 series and pro 500 models don't do in the first place.

I haven't heard it, but Beobloke gave a fantastic review to the little Cambridge 640v2 or 3 I think it was - a £200 Chinese made ss integrated which sounded very good indeed, so don't just assume that ss amps have to be expensive to work at all, at least if efficient speakers are being used Of course, Glenn Croft has really put cat amongst pigeons by introdung a very successful hybrid amp - very simple circuitry with a valve driver feeding MOS-FETs..

[Gordon Steadman]

The Quad 405 is possibly the weakest of the current dumplings and both my series 2 samples needed to be on for several hours before they lost a slight sting in the hf, which the 306, 606 series and pro 500 models don't do in the first place.

I replaced the 405 with a 306 and found the difference to be marginal. Slightly better, yes, but hardly night and day. The Leak still stayed though. It has plenty of punch through the 57s at all but head banging levels, in big rooms too. Obviously with very inefficient speakers things would be different.

We have a Pioneer/JBL system for the pyrotechnics.

The trick is to listen yourself and see what you like best.

[Reffc]

It's still interesting how many people believe generically that a valve amp must sound better because it uses valves

Truth is that the amp is part of a circuit made up of speakers, speaker cable and amp. The way the speakers behave under load at different frequencies largely determines the suitability of a particular amp. Some speakers require very low output impedance and have a frequency response that looks like the Alps and phase angles to match. These generally don't perform well driven by most valve amp designs, irrespective of cost, so then it's down to picking a SS design capable of handling the transients without clipping.

SS designs vary enormously too though (well at least that has been my finding). The better ones seem to use very decent power supplies more than capable of dealing with transient swings and use decent output stages which are well damped electrically, some are the reverse.

The main thing though (I suspect) is that when people compare valves against SS, they often use under powered SS amps which start to sound harsh when driven hard (clipping) whereas even modestly rated valve amps may add colour (distortion) when over-driven, but as it's largely even order it's easy on the ears so they are perceived to sound better.

Truth is, a good SS amp and a good valve amp if properly designed should both be capable of sounding superb. Getting top class performance is often much cheaper going down the SSS route because a decent valve amp relies on its output transformers for high bandwidth and low distortion and decent transformers cost decent money.

As with all hifi related things, always best to audition in your own system and let your ears do the choosing rather than unintended prejudices!

[DSJR]

I replaced the 405 with a 306 and found the difference to be marginal. Slightly better, yes, but hardly night and day. The Leak still stayed though. It has plenty of punch through the 57s at all but head banging levels, in big rooms too. Obviously with very inefficient speakers things would be different.

A friend has used a 606 with incredible results into some 57's with their limiters fitted - a lovely system that always puts the music first after a few seconds to get used to the presentation...

The 306 is an odd one I found. Limp wristed into some loads and enchanting into others, the power supply obviously rules it's heart I reckon The 405-2 has had some detailed work done on it since I had mine (issue 7 boards) and I believe the boards from Quad (which I believe are still available) are now issue 10 and may be slightly different. As it is, dada Electronics, net Audio and others have their own versions of the mk2 boards with all the latest components and tweaks on them, so the slight "sparkle" I used to hear may have been forever banished. As it is, the 405 is the eldest of the current dumper designs and the IC at the input is used outside of the signal path on all the others I understand...

Anyway, some valve amps look so gorgeous glowing away - who gives a fugg what they sound like

[Gordon Steadman]

Anyway, some valve amps look so gorgeous glowing away - who gives a fugg what they sound like

I can't believe that you are suggesting some people may care more about the equipment than the music

[Gordon Steadman]

Getting top class performance is often much cheaper going down the SSS route because a decent valve amp relies on its output transformers for high bandwidth and low distortion and decent transformers cost decent money.

Hmm... my Leak is going upstairs into system 2 next week. Being replaced with an OTL that strangely, has no output transformers at all

[DSJR]

I can't believe that you are suggesting some people may care more about the equipment than the music

Well, excuse the shameless plug, but apart from the excellent sound quality from the KT120 Icon Stereo 60, with its sexy meter on the front and copper top, the looks also add value and the weight and feel of the thing complete the deal. In another life, I'd love one, but for now, the 'Crofted' Quad II's will just have to do I haven't used 'em for a while and think I should give 'em some use just to make sure they're OK.....