Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In with Google

Become a Subscriber!

Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!

Read more...

The final leap in solid state amp design to give them equal performance with tube amps ?

What's Hot
13

Comments

  • andyozandyoz Frets: 718
    edited October 2017
    I also wonder with the expected advances in battery tech (driven by car industry and renewable energy storage) how much of backline gear will be battery powered in 10+ years.  Small scale PA as well TBH. Less cables in general and no shitty venue 'power' to deal with.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • p90fool said:

    I can be totally charmed by an oily, scruffy 1930s motorbike while still recognising that new ones are "better".
    I like that analogy. I also think that "better" depends on what you measure and how you measure it. I've seen spiel in Hifi News where "experts" preferred the sound of a system with more %distortion, less s/n dB, and less bandwidth than the (more expensive) system, that according to the figures, they were supposed to prefer.

    As Robert Pirsig suggested, "Quality is what you like" (but not necessarily "... just what you like")
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • aord43 said:
    all the audiophile nonsense.
    mate, I've A/Bd the CD and vinyl of Traffic On The Road and trust me the CD sounds like it's been put through a graphic EQ with every other band notched out - it's dreadful. I've also heard the Linn CD of Dietrich Buxtehude's Membra Jesu Nostri and been knocked out by how good it sounded.

    Audiophile is about sound quality, it's not nonsense if you can recognise quality when you hear it irrespective of the medium or the means of amplification: I love my little Leak Stereo 20, but have to concede that my Quad 33/303 can sound better even though it is entirely solid state.

    That's more likely to be down to the cd not being mixed properly I'd have thought? 

    A lot of early cd's don't seem to sound as good as more recent ones. Perhaps they're just better at mixing for the medium? 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom

  • That's more likely to be down to the cd not being mixed properly I'd have thought? 

    A lot of early cd's don't seem to sound as good as more recent ones. Perhaps they're just better at mixing for the medium? 
    A lot of newer CDs are apparently better mastered. As I said, it is possible to get CDs that sound very good. However as I was just this bloke A/B-ing the same album on different media, I went with what my ears told me, which was that the CD was crap and the vinyl sounded right.

    When CD sounds good, it's almost as good as vinyl ;)
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom

  • That's more likely to be down to the cd not being mixed properly I'd have thought? 

    A lot of early cd's don't seem to sound as good as more recent ones. Perhaps they're just better at mixing for the medium? 
    A lot of newer CDs are apparently better mastered. As I said, it is possible to get CDs that sound very good. However as I was just this bloke A/B-ing the same album on different media, I went with what my ears told me, which was that the CD was crap and the vinyl sounded right.

    When CD sounds good, it's almost as good as vinyl ;)

    Often better, in smaller form factor and less pops and crackles ;) 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom

  • When CD sounds good, it's almost as good as vinyl ;)

    Often better, in smaller form factor and less pops and crackles ;) 
    smaller form factor = you can't skin up on the cover and you need a huge magnifying glass to read the sleeve notes (should there be any :s )

    pops & crackles are things you get when you don't look after your vinyl properly
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 8481
    edited October 2017
    I'm not entirely convinced about that, although you are right that there are crap CDs (there are also crap LPs!). The problems IMO are (i) if you try to cut everything above (eg) 20kHz you may say you're only cutting what most people can't hear but you're ignoring that the presence of these higher frequencies will modulate the things you can hear - there will be heterodynes, or beat frequencies set up (ii) when you re-assemble the analogue you have to add a noise floor to it to smooth out the harsh transitions between a very high sample and a very low sample (iii) re-assembling the analogue means you are adding to the re-assmbled sound the modulation effects of other high frequencies which weren't in the original. That doesn't mean that you can't produce a digitised then decoded sound which is pleasing and acceptable - I have one or two CD players (Rotel, Marantz to be specific) which sound very civilised indeed.

    You're right about the snake oil
    He's right AFAIC - mathematically, the theory of digital audio encoding is perfect. You can generate any complex wave containing harmonics up to half the sampling rate, and you can do it down to the level allowed by the given bit depth - lower if you use dither appropriately when reducing the wordlength.

    So i'm a member of the church of good digital, in theory.

    All the audiophile arguments about the ultrasonic stuff being important are nice but misguided. IMO of course! If harmonics over 20k are loud enough to be modulating and producing beat frequencies in the audible range which are significant, then as a recorder, mixer or mastering engineer I'd question what's gone wrong with the audio! The signals up there are far more likely to be undetected electrical oscillations or switching noise from power supplies, and I'm happy to leave them out of the end product.

    A CD can accurately encode the information at 20k with no distortion. A tape machine, even a high quality one, exhibits progressively higher distortion at higher frequencies, and depending on the tape formulation, record speed and how well maintained it all is might be anywhere from flat to barely capturing any 20k in the first place. Meanwhile, a well pressed vinyl might be 10dB down by 20khz with more added distortion, so for this reason too I don't buy the argument that people enjoying vinyl do so because of the ultrasonic information.

    Of course, the implementation of digital is where they getcha.

    Converting to digital, involves an A/D converter, and there's plenty of ways they can screw things up subtly from cheap analogue front end op-amps to lack of headroom, poor power and jitter in the digital clock. It's the same on the way back to analogue. In the '80s there were plenty of bad converters around that really did sound bad, and engineers had to unlearn the standard practice the analogue world had taught them - even basic stuff like knowing that it was better to be a bit too bright, because the vinyl would smooth that out nicely, and the same with transients like loud snares.

    So to begin with, people weren't comparing like for like. The whole record creation process had learned how to make music that worked with the limitations of analogue, and that meant the Digital masters often sounded worse because they weren't doing what the production team were expecting. Then at the final stage of the process, mastering engineers were working with top of the line analogue mastering gear alongside first generation A/D converters that weren't quite delivering the goods.

    So it's no surprise that people who cared about sound quality found CDs lacking.

    However, by the early '90s things were shifting in the right direction, and I think CDs from that era are often fantastic sounding, and easily trounce the vinyl versions where those exist. Because production teams had learned how to use it, and the technology was living up to the theory. Go and listen to the dynamic range, clarity and punch of, say, Nirvana, or Pearl Jam's Ten, or U2's Achtung Baby, or Rage Against the Machine's Self-Titled Debut. These are fantastic sounding releases that I'm happy to listen to over any good system and enjoy the sonics as works of art.

    Then the loudness wars kicked in, and suddenly there was a new reason to hate CDs - the medium was being abused for the sake of loudness, with detrimental effects on the records coming out. For artistic reasons, of course - the slamming, in your face brickwalled sound worked for some styles, but there are plenty of acts that suffered in the quest for volume. I don't think it helped that by the late '90s people were taking CDs that were clipping at 0dBfs (the maximum allowable sample value in digital) and encoding them to MP3 causing even more clipping (mp3 converters often, almost always, create peaks that are higher than the source file)

    So what's my point, besides proving that I like rabbiting about this stuff?

    Just that 44.1k/16 bit digital can sound *fantastic*, unless it's being messed up somewhere.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 4reaction image Wisdom
  • @Cirrus - you "win" - until my ears tell me something different
    "Working" software has only unobserved bugs. (Parroty Error: Pieces of Nine! Pieces of Nine!)
    Seriously: If you value it, take/fetch it yourself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • CirrusCirrus Frets: 8481
    @Cirrus - you "win" - until my ears tell me something different
    Sure, I wouldn't argue with that  =)
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RogerRoger Frets: 20
    I saw Metallica last night in Birmingham! Not an amp in sight! How did they sound? Freaking awesome! I don’t think we want Solid state to equal tube amps we want it to beat them! Amazing tone from 1 all the way up to 10 is the want not amazing tone just when it gets loud enough to dislodge masonry. Studio amps are great but most you’ll find in isolation cabinets so no trouser wafting going on there either
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • When I listened to a tangerine dream vinyl LP on a hifi system comprising sme turntable, sme v tonearm, koetsu cartridge, audionote tube preamp and monoblock power amps feeding Wilson loudspeakers.....with the pops and all it was the finest sound I have heard in my life.

    You could take a technically more accurate and less coloured modern cd player and dac but it just doesn't sound as good, it's too clean, too polished and sterile by comparison, maybe it's tube deficiencies that just sound better.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • RolandRoland Frets: 8590
    ecc83 said:

    ... as a speakers DC resistance increases as it heats up (Thermal Compression) and the drive current drops, valves are able to maintain the power into the load because they can supply the necessary greater voltage. I have no evidence for this (can't play for ***t!) but I would put money on this high OPZ being the major factor that players call "feel"?

    The latest Fractal firmware includes a thermal compression algorithm. I haven’t tried it yet.
    Tree recycler, and guitarist with  https://www.undercoversband.com/.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • Yeah, the sound at Brum was great.  (Doubtless someone will be along to say that it was best during the second half of 'One', though ;))

    And without wishing to derail the thread, Greeny (I assume it was Greeny) sounded epic.  Good to see it out there being played, not tucked away in a vault somewhere.
    Trading feedback | How to embed images using Imgur

    As for "when am I ready?"  You'll never be ready.  It works in reverse, you become ready by doing it.  - pmbomb


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • TeetonetalTeetonetal Frets: 7801
    edited November 2017
    Danny1969 said:
    I think AxeFX \ Helix etc is fine for high gain stuff like Metallica ..... it's just not as convincing on lower gain stuff with more complex chords. It is pretty darn good though. 
    I have heard a lot of good solid state amps which don't use modelling, Tech 21 Trademark 60, Trace Elliot something or other combo, my own Fender Champ 110. 


    It's funny but you see low gain players say best for hi gain and hi gain players say best for low gain. People too tied to their sound to see the wood for the trees.

    Helix/axe fx good for both. 

    As for ss? No idea. But my old bandit 112s was decent and perfect for the punk I was playing at the time.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • Honestly think the AC30 models are good on both Helix and Axe FX. Don’t really care much about other low gain sounds except generic clean clean for myself
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • peteripeteri Frets: 1283

    I'm a recent convert to digital.

    Have always had valve amps and pedals, from a Boss BE-5 and a Marshall Guvn'r into a Jubilee stack onwards.

    (That's the sound I'm always trying to simulate BTW - until I tried the Jubilee re-issue and realised I'd romanticised the memory).

    Then I got a Helix, which didn't last long - because I also got a Fractal.

    Yesterday I was playing the AX8 loud! Into Tannoy Reveal Monitors, so nothing too esoteric or high end, and also quite small speakers.

    The Plexi, AC30 and JCM800 sounds are all just wonderful, responsive, lots of bottom end, controllable high-end etc.

    I really couldn't be happier with the sound, and by comparison my very expensive valve amp (Carr) sounds not quite so good.

    Reason for that is it actually sounds like my romanticised view, the Plexi sounds like (not identical to) a Plexi I could never play.

    Is it exact?

    I think it's now at a point when it's absolutely close enough just to move on and embrace. All previous versions were missing in that regard - classic point I made about earlier Line 6 products, the TS sounded like a TS, the JCM sounded like a JCM.

    But the TS into a JCM was miles off accurate.

    That's changed.

    So I now have a set-up where the volume knob is really just that, it makes things louder - ok my perception because of volume change is different, but everything else is fundamentally the same - I love that. How many times with valve amps, I'd get an amazing sound at one volume, and change things very slightly and it's all changed. Or the voltage drops a bit and somehow something is different.

    People have been talking about CDs, I remember when they first came in - and have read up enough about how they were mastered. Reality is when it was a niche medium it was just awful, there are even stories of people playing a record into convertors.

    Now that's not the case, and they sound much better.

    People underestimate the impact of A/D convertors - both in the process of making the CD and also playing it, reality is - cost effective A/D or D/A conversion is so much better in retail level equipment compared to 20 years ago. And you can see that in guitar pedals too - I really can't hear it now, but listen to a Line 6 DM4 or the same era TC stuff and it's obvious

    I think we're absolutely entering a golden age as guitarists, Line 6, Kemper, Fractal - wow!


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • jpfampsjpfamps Frets: 2723
    Jalapeno said:
    How on earth does a 4 piece need 96 channels of live sound ? :/

    Smacks of Spinal Tap .....
    Yes, utter madness!

    Have you seen "Some Kind of Monster"?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom
  • JalapenoJalapeno Frets: 6378
    jpfamps said:
    Jalapeno said:
    How on earth does a 4 piece need 96 channels of live sound ? :/

    Smacks of Spinal Tap .....
    Yes, utter madness!

    Have you seen "Some Kind of Monster"?
    I have ...
    Imagine something sharp and witty here ......

    Feedback
    1reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • peteri said:

    I'm a recent convert to digital.

    Have always had valve amps and pedals, from a Boss BE-5 and a Marshall Guvn'r into a Jubilee stack onwards.

    (That's the sound I'm always trying to simulate BTW - until I tried the Jubilee re-issue and realised I'd romanticised the memory).

    Then I got a Helix, which didn't last long - because I also got a Fractal.

    Yesterday I was playing the AX8 loud! Into Tannoy Reveal Monitors, so nothing too esoteric or high end, and also quite small speakers.

    The Plexi, AC30 and JCM800 sounds are all just wonderful, responsive, lots of bottom end, controllable high-end etc.

    I really couldn't be happier with the sound, and by comparison my very expensive valve amp (Carr) sounds not quite so good.

    Reason for that is it actually sounds like my romanticised view, the Plexi sounds like (not identical to) a Plexi I could never play.

    Is it exact?

    I think it's now at a point when it's absolutely close enough just to move on and embrace. All previous versions were missing in that regard - classic point I made about earlier Line 6 products, the TS sounded like a TS, the JCM sounded like a JCM.

    But the TS into a JCM was miles off accurate.

    That's changed.

    So I now have a set-up where the volume knob is really just that, it makes things louder - ok my perception because of volume change is different, but everything else is fundamentally the same - I love that. How many times with valve amps, I'd get an amazing sound at one volume, and change things very slightly and it's all changed. Or the voltage drops a bit and somehow something is different.

    People have been talking about CDs, I remember when they first came in - and have read up enough about how they were mastered. Reality is when it was a niche medium it was just awful, there are even stories of people playing a record into convertors.

    Now that's not the case, and they sound much better.

    People underestimate the impact of A/D convertors - both in the process of making the CD and also playing it, reality is - cost effective A/D or D/A conversion is so much better in retail level equipment compared to 20 years ago. And you can see that in guitar pedals too - I really can't hear it now, but listen to a Line 6 DM4 or the same era TC stuff and it's obvious

    I think we're absolutely entering a golden age as guitarists, Line 6, Kemper, Fractal - wow!


    Those who knew bought AAD compact discs, those who hadn't a clue looked for DDD thinking it's all digital so it must be better.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
  • ESBlondeESBlonde Frets: 3576
    One of the problems these days is that fewer players have really played a classic/proper valve amp in anger. Back in the day when we played 1500 seat clubs on the US airbases with a backline and 200w Vocal PA system we tamed a beast. Without that yardstick they aren't really qualified to judge in the same way that players 25 + years ago might have been. Also tastes have changed, a lot. Once a sunburst LP into a cooked Stack was the tone many strived to emulate. Now they think Droped tuning and Raspy distortion is the norm and the natural guitar sound is to be masked.
    I accept these are exagerated generalisations to illustrate a point, but while there are lots of guitarists these days, few have gigged much and of them only a small proportion know the joy/pain of a valve amp.
    In addition as time has gone on the S/S amp has become part of our musical heritage, bands like foreigner had massive success and therefore influence with clipped transitors.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom
Sign In or Register to comment.