Tube Power Amp Reviews

Good grief.

False claim entirely. I don't apologize because my motives are pure. I observe all of the "sides", including those driven by propaganda and secret agendas (i.e. nearly all of those you've read about). I know them all, and I've been on the inside of many, from extreme Left to extreme Right. If you actually wanted to know something rather than add to the noise, I'm the person to ask.

To add to the above compare this amp to the Prima Luna power amp, which was reviewed and measured recently ........... the PL amp costs way less than the BP amp ...........

None of what you say is actually happening.

May be true ........ May be the amp was"intentionally" designed to measure and sound that way ..........

Here's a video that is a fantastic example of post production testing that would suggest changes to topology and design. There's also a follow-up video of the mods and some cool measurement and removal of some transformer noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6P4C9at5rV8

This BP amp is overpriced and underperforming on the test bench ............ No wonder, at least some of the manufacturers seem to prefer to submit their products for review at "other" audiophile magazines and websites because they don't perform any measurements .......... Stereophile is a great exception .......... Thank you JA ........ You are a "Jedi" fighting for truth and justice ......... "May the Force be with you" :-) ............

If you're making amps and you're that confident of your consistency, then bless your heart. But with some components (transducers, tube amps, etc.) the sample differences can be fairly large. My opinion from experience and looking around is that most audiophiles trust these pricy amps to be essentially perfect - the putative "straight wire with gain". They buy them, use them unless and until they get a negative feeling about them, and if that's the case sell them or trade them in. How do reviews figure into that? Guessing again, that potential buyers rely on the feature descriptions more than the sound.

Ok, so measurements don't matter .......... What about price/ performance ratio? ............ Does it sound any better than the Prima Luna tube power amp which costs a whole lot less than the BP amp? It was called a class A amp by HR ............. Although PL amp is not listed under class A recommended components, there are several other class A tube amps listed, which cost lot less than the BP amp, like for example the Music Reference amp ..............

For the last few decades it has been the subjective people saying this and that arguing that measurements have no meaning. On Audio Asylum there was so much love for crazy things until a few years back when even manufacturers like Charles Hansen (RIP) called out the nonsense.

Thankfully it is starting to change and BS products are starting to be called out as BS again even on AA!

There is no need to be insulting like calling anyone "dullwitted" or "brain-boring". Plainly seen on the measurements, clearly this product is not able to resolve beyond CD resoultion and not everyone will like the sound.

..there’s plenty of room for everyone at the bar, math nerds and street wise types alike.

"What we do is secret." - Darby Crash of The Germs.

Speaking of Carver, Stereophile had an article some time ago telling how Carver would come around for various tests with his tweaked amplifiers, and he could make them sound like any other amplifier on the market. I'm forgetting some of this, but Carver was a true wizard of electronics who understood intimately what made amps sound certain ways, and he was able to replicate those sounds in his tests. I need to find that article(s) and save it.

Pythagorean refers to the famous theorem of the right triangle. Google it in the version referencing squaws and braves.

I think you've just stumbled on the core secret of music criticism.

I know what sugar coated means, so no. Which makes the extensive text you provided a waste of time. Real audiophiles look underneath simplistic analogies like "sugar coating" to the things that drive sophisticated sensual pleasure. Perhaps you'd like to interview a few such audiophile tube users to get a deeper insight into what they hear (or don't hear) with tubes.

EDIT: I do have to admit, the "tube buffer" gizmo looks really sexy, and no doubt the $1000 cost is reasonable given that it has to be as transparent as possible.

Quote:

The article makes the point that the push-pull design results in a "sharper, less romantic sound" than the typical tube amp. What's your opinion on that?

Dalethorn --

You're referring to this segment from the review:

Quote:

Why design a 300B amplifier in push-pull rather than single-ended-triode (SET) mode?

"A push-pull 300B design will typically have 20Wpc, which allows it to work with a wider range of loudspeakers," Dews said. "Push-pull amps typically have tighter, punchier bass than SETs, can drive much more difficult speaker loads, and play a wider selection of music. A stiff power supply, like the ones used with BorderPatrol SETs, addresses the SET dynamic and bass issues significantly, but a similarly executed push-pull like the P21 will still be superior in those areas."

Note Dews's description of the typical sound of 300B SET amplifiers: "[They] are often charming and beguiling but have low power, are limited dynamically, and have poor bass performance. They need to be partnered with loudspeakers that have very high sensitivity, and a high and uniform impedance characteristic. Complex music with heavy bass is best avoided. SETs predominantly generate even-order harmonic distortion, which gives them the characteristic open, airy, romantic sound. It's not accurate, but it can be nice. Push-pull amplifiers predominantly generate odd[-order] harmonic distortion, which leads to a sharper, less romantic sound, but one that is still engaging."

The views of the "article" you point to more specifically are those of Gary Dews, the man behind Border Patrol, and goes to show he has a case to make for his specific push-pull implementation of 300B's. I'm not saying I believe he's way off comparing to an SET configuration, but that context is important, and moreover Mr. Dews is hardly the last word on this subject (though I'm fully aware he's very experienced and a gifted developer). The P21 no doubt suits a wider range of speakers compared to SET's, and as such has a bigger appeal - or certainly one Mr. Dews is likely interested in making more visible. By that I mean no discredit or to put into question his views, but rather to point out there're dependent on the context of speakers, which he rightly makes clear himself, though with the emphasis on combinations that are more obvious with the P21 - i.e.: speakers that aren't very highly efficient. With the right, very sensitive speakers SET's don't take a backseat dynamically, on the contrary, and the low damping factor of SET's more often than not mate extremely well with all-horn speakers where the bass horn section is typically very highly damped in itself (typically pro style, relatively stiffly suspended drivers oftentimes in sealed enclosures). I don't hear any rosy tinted, "romantic" or euphonic inclinations here, but rather an aliveness and sense of "ignition" that far exceeds most SS amps coupled to lesser (indeed low to moderate) efficient speakers. Add to that a very natural tonality, and a wonderfully uninhibited presence.

Perhaps we're many to be right on this, again, depending on the context. Maybe the sonic descriptions often aimed at SET's on their "romantic" and "charming" imprinting, at least as something that departs from a more authentic feel, holds merit insofar they're paired with direct radiating speakers no more than 90dB's or so sensitive, added to challenging impedance/phase behavior - generally speaking. Depending on the output tubes SET's span from a couple of watts to some 20 of them (typically in the lower end), and to make best use of their qualities and low, even-order distortion characteristics are said to be run no more than some 10-15% of their max. output power, above which they start distorting more heavily. I guess more power hungry speakers that are oftentimes no more than ~85dB sensitive (sensitivity accuracy sometimes is way off as an indicator in light of difficult speaker load) would make us hear largely what sits outside of SET's comfort zone, so to speak; hence the romantic, euphonic impressions. And so on - sorry I'm rambling (if I am).

Hafler's case is compelling. So jumping ahead to the logical conclusion, it seems much of the reproduction chain - even back to DACs and preamps - could be replaced with a generic device having options for various plugin modules and DSP's etc. Knowing that the "big" markets don't care about audiophile quality, who does that leave overseeing the audiophile community with these generic boxes? The endgame would seem to be a consolidation of manufacturers. Would that be a good thing? Consolidation of any industry that prides itself on a "higher set of principles" seems to always result in a loss of those higher principles.

BTW, I'm not arguing against the Straight Wire with Gain idea, just wondering if anyone has thought this through.

"... my earlier post.
Yes, it is indeed that simple.
This is no more than the "pleasant" versus "accurate" debate that David Hafler introduced over thirty years ago:
https://www.stereophile.com/content/manufacturers-comment-0"

Ortofan --

What if an SET sounded "accurate" with the right (or a selection of) speakers as opposed to with no speakers at all? Which I believe SET's certainly can.

Or, maybe we need to look into the terminology and frame of reference applied here, and put into question whether "accuracy" is a reference to a live, acoustic sound - i.e.: whether our reference to accuracy/neutrality/whatever is really based similarly? My contention tends to be "accuracy" is less of a telling term musically than "natural," "organic" or "authentic," being a potential giveaway on the reference used here. Sometimes what is described "romantic" is more telling of the addressor than the sound; much if not most of the current hifi-mantra, I feel, is assessing sound in a fragmented in-the-head kind of way rather than one of synthesis or wholeness, the latter of which may have a more emotionel constituent at its core. This way what is deemed "romantic," "charming" or "beguiling" could also, to some people, be in conflict with an analytical approach, and as such fall outside what to their head/ears is "accurate"/true-ish, while in reality it may be more in line with an actual, live acoustic musical event. Provocative stance or just pure B.S.?

P.S. I'll give the Hafler article a read..

Some components use both SS and tubes .......... Some people use different types of components like tube pre-amp and SS power-amp for example ............ Which device you are asking about? ........

Ok ...... I understand now ...... I was talking about diodes and 300B in general ..........