valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

[Luke Duke]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

So, in 35 years, why has no SS amp ever sounded as good as the great tube amps, which, by all accounts from electronics savvy guys are under-engineered?
:feedback:

A good thing to point out is that many guitarists feel that the less there is between the guitar/FX and the speaker the more pure the tone.

Luke

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Yeah, shorter singal path is best, so as not to degrade the tone from the pickups. In a solid state, that means no output tranny, but the rub is that transistors still don't sound as good to most ears...99.99990% of them, give or take.

 

[ginormous]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

You can buy them all day off online stores such as MF for 99 dollars.

From my retail experience, I can tell you this much: Whether online or local, prices are affected by so many things, like consumer demand, raw material availability, product marketing and endorsement, season, etc.

What does being obsolete have to do with QC?

Quality control is as dependent on SOTA technology as anything else in the process.

Though I know the first part is true I'm not sure where you are going with it. I'm simply saying that new production prices are constant and not ever increasing like NOS tubes.

Prices are subject to market forces, and the manufacturers will only make a product if there's a profit. If the price is too high for the customer, either in money or convenience (replacing them often because of lousy quality), demand drops off, and they'll stop making them.

 

[wahwah]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Don't forget CAD/CAM, wave-soldering, robotic assembly... as to whether the tone is improved, I'll grant that the mass-market is dedicated to profit rather than aesthetic qualities like "does it sound good?" But I say again, tone is so subjective, that guitarists can't even agree what tube amp sounds superior.

This is exactly why I continue to speak only for myself. My own equipment sorting process is my only point of reference. The fact that so many others have a shared or similar experience makes for an interesting observation. However, I am yet to hear anyone say that the most popular SS or digital modeling amps sound better to them than the most popular tube amps. How should we interpret this fact? Mass hypnosis? Collective delusion? Global lack of objectivity?

Wahwah, with your open mind, you can't deny that there is a level of technophobia among some who've fallen prey to the placebo effect: tubes=tone, and damm the man who says otherwise. Even if it has only one tube, they'll still prefer it to a SS unit. Surprising that often, they can't tell if that tube is even in the signal chain!

There may well be those who can't really hear the difference. My 11 year old son, for example, is perfectly happy with his SS Marshall 15w with all the effects built in. He can't play the guitar yet, but he has a fantastic time making noises with it. I would love to take the same approach, but I have certain professional standards to meet, including my own sense of satisfaction with what I produce as a musician. I can't speak for others, but I can say without doubt that fear of modern technology has nothing to do with my choices. I love what technology has offered in the field of DAW recording and music production. If only the amp manufacturers would rise to the same standards.

What we need are some boutique solid state amp manufacturers. Where are those guys when we need 'em? Why aren't there more boutique SS amps rising up above the mass market?


Cheers....................wahwah

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

There will come a time when there are no more tubes being manufactured, and the remaining stock & NOS will be aggressively hoarded by those few unwilling to part with them for less than a king's ramsom. We need to understand that this time is coming, and will not be denied.

If we acknowledge this, then we can prepare for it, and someone can design and build an actual, real, good-sounding SS amp of reasonable cost, durability and quality.

Time for some Econ 101. This time will be denied as long as there is a demand for real tubes and real tube amps. And that demand will remain until SS amps sound as good or better than tube amps -- or are at least perceived so by the market.

So you have it kind of backwards -- makers of tubes and tube amps aren't going to suddenly fold up shop and walk away from a lucrative business because some guy on an internet BB says "that time is coming". Such wonder-SS amps have to appear in the market first and force them out, just like the makers of horse carriages didn't go out of business because someone in a newspaper said their days are numbered. It took the actual appearance in the marketplace of a viable, reliable and affordable car.

Only a better mousetrap reduces the demand for the existing model, in which case, all we have to "prepare for" on the death of tube amps is a better, cheaper amp.

 

[King_Juan]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

...Okay, I know I haven’t posted anything in a long time, and really haven’t posted much at all to be honest, but this is getting interesting so I'll chime in.

I, being a bass player, and therefore more open to the whole SS thing, will say this much, SS is good for clean tones as long as you don’t push the amp very hard. As we are all aware when you push a SS amp it produces odd order harmonics that sound like S*** falling out of a cows arse & hitting the ground, not cool if you are trying to impress your friends, or get that chick in the 3rd row to take her top off, sorry I digress.

I have played with guys using all different kinds of amps, from lil SS jobs to boutique tube amps, and I all I can tell you is what I play & what I like to hear. I play a mesa bass head that has a tube preamp, and a MOSFET power section. I actually prefer the outright tone of an all tube amp, but I feel that bass tube amps do not respond as quickly as SS amps do, and there my great compromise.

I hands down prefer the sound of tube guitar amps.

Now what made me want to chime in is this statement right here,

Quality control is as dependent on SOTA technology as anything else in the process.



.

I work in a manufacturing facility that uses many old machines, now when I say old I mean 75 – 100 years old. The reason is, well there are many reasons, but the main one is that one of our rebuilt old machines can control process variation better than a brand new machine SOTA does not necessarily produce better products, especially when aesthetics are involved, sometimes SOTA machines cannot even hold the tolerances as well as the older machines. All modernizing equipment does is generally make the process cheaper through increased throughput, not necessarily quality.

 

[ginormous]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

(W)ell there are many reasons, but the main one is that one of our rebuilt old machines can control process variation better than a brand new machine...

(emphasis added)
King_Juan, wouldn't you agree to say that your older machines control process variation only as well as (a) the skill and training of those who operate them, and (b) the quality of their rebuilds, from the ones who recondition them?

Manufacturing isn't about craftsmanship, it's about stamping out widgets as consistently and cheaply as possible. The tube amp guys started small, then as their products became more popular, they had to adapt a mass-market attitude to stay in business.

 

[Gr8Scott]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

There should be another category. SS/Modeller with tubes.

Best of both worlds friends. The vox valvetronix amps work well at almost any volume and feel like a real tube amp. You really would have a hard time telling it from a normal tube amp if you played one.

 

[The Golden Boy]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

I vote nuclear reactor powered amps. Tubes and transistors are for chumps.

 

[ginormous]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

I vote nuclear reactor powered amps. Tubes and transistors are for chumps.

How about clean green? Get that soybean biodiesel in there!:drive:

 

[King_Juan]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Yes, but this is true with new machines as well.

The main point I was trying to make is that controlling the process is what determines quality, not the age of the machines. There are also economic considerations, once your operation reaches a certain size it doesn’t matter how well you make a product, if it takes too much time to hold a process within certain limits you risk pricing your product out of out of your target demographic, and that will cause a paradigm shift, which are messy things. This is why small established firms can almost always produce higher quality products than larger ones, but their products cost more.


I guess the thing is, that the reason that no one has yet to make a SS amp that sounds killer, is that nobody believes that there is a market for a high-end SS amp.

 

[MikeS]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

I’m a fan of anything that sounds good, and great tone can be had from tubes, solid state, and modeling amps just as easily as bad tone can come from the same. To corral all solid state and modeling amps under the labels of “lifeless” and “toneless” only shows a complete ignorance towards the technology, IMO. If you really feel like that’s the case then I suggest you spend a little more time with amplifiers that do not come in groove packs.

For my next amp I’m looking at the possibility of going with a modeling amp for one very simple reason: I can have a multitude of tones available and I can do it with a hell of a lot less money and a hell of a lot less gear to tote around. In the grand scheme of things is that difference between the real thing and the copy really worth the cash and chiropractic bills? IMO no… especially when no one listening (aside from the owner of the gear) can tell a lick of difference.

Quality of parts is a difficult discussion to have, too. A large part of the tube amp market is filled with high end amplifiers. There’s even a large market for boutique, hand-wired tube amps. The market for solid state amplifiers is geared towards younger guitar players. Much of the equipment is supposed to be affordable. If you want to make fair comparisons, take a look at the higher end modeling amplifiers. Compare a Vetta II to a comparably priced tube amp. The tones of each is 100% subjective, but you cannot argue that the tube amp is a more versatile amplifier. It simply hasn’t got the multitude of tones, and certainly doesn’t afford the ability to perform at all volumes.

My final word on modeling technology, and IMO, all that really matters: Is great tone possible from solid state modeling amplifiers? Absolutely. Does it sound exactly like those which is intended to emulate? No. Does that make it sound any less great? No, so who cares? Get over that hump and you might actually find yourself liking an amplifier that doesn’t cost you $100 to retube once a year.

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Manufacturing isn't about craftsmanship, it's about stamping out widgets as consistently and cheaply as possible. The tube amp guys started small, then as their products became more popular, they had to adapt a mass-market attitude to stay in business.

I disagree, and I think you're getting the cart before the horse.

Originally tube amp guys started small because the market was small. In the earliest days of guitar amplification you got an amp from your guitar company. (Ric amps anyone?) Those amps were straight out of telephone amp books they weren't optimized for their use. Their only job was to "make louder". Leo was the guy who had a vision of an amplifier being a tool for sculpting tone like a guitar does.

You're older than me, you know that the number of instruments produced before 1964 is dwarfed by the number also. That seems to coincide with the cost cutting as well.

The cost cutting really didn't start until CBS took over Fender in the 60s. Leo was a penny pincher make no bones about it. Thing is he wanted a GOOD product with a reasonable amount of craftsmanship because his name was on it. Look at how sleek and clean his amps looked. The tweeds in particular took a lot of crafstmanship for covering.

Luke

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

In the grand scheme of things is that difference between the real thing and the copy really worth the cash and chiropractic bills? IMO no… especially when no one listening (aside from the owner of the gear) can tell a lick of difference.

Brother, when I'm on stage, and I'm the only one that can tell the difference, then that's more than enough reason for me. I don't play for the crowd before myself. I have to be satisfied before it even gets to them. In a pro situation, cost is not the biggest issue, and $100 a year for tubes is nothing compared to the tonal rewards.:32:

 

[King_Juan]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

To be perfectly honest, when dealing with sound reproduction, SS components can still not give a lifelike reproduction, this is why high-end audio stuff is tube powered; If SS could do the same job, and do it cheaper why would a company spend the time & money to build tube components?

I don’t think all SS amps sound bad, nor do I think modeling amps sound bad, but when pushed they clip & produce odd order harmonics, that is what those circuits do, you cannot fix that, even modeling amps will do it, its called digital clip & unlike analog clip aka natural tube distortion, it sounds bad to the human ear.

They have their place, but IMO SS/ modeling stuff are mostly toys for folks that like flashing lights & buttons, not those in search of tone...

 

[guitfiddle]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

The cost cutting really didn't start until CBS took over Fender in the 60s. Leo was a penny pincher make no bones about it. Thing is he wanted a GOOD product with a reasonable amount of craftsmanship because his name was on it. Look at how sleek and clean his amps looked. The tweeds in particular took a lot of crafstmanship for covering.

Luke

Leo wanted the amp to be a functional thing that sounded good, and didn't come back for repairs, without so much regard for looks. That's why they were popular...they were simple, sounded GREAT and didn't break.

 

[ginormous]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Seriously--

Guitarists as a group are a hard bunch to please, as we've seen here. There are some who might castigate me for gigging with a transistor amp. My choice was dictated by financial and practical terms, and has nothing against anyone else. However, I see things in times ahead that others may not be willing to admit.

If we agree that SS guitar amps have a long way to go, then we must also admit that tube technology has come a long way from its' beginnings in radio communications. We also have to acknowledge that although previous reports of its' demise may have been exaggerated, keeping tube technology alive for the sake of guitarists and audiophiles may not be enough motivation for the industry.

Keep in mind also that before Fender, Ricky, Gibson etc., that there was no electric guitar/amp industry to speak of. One powerful factor in the popularity of electric instruments and equipment was the early endorsers of those instruments in making music (Charlie Christian, Les Paul et al). The music got louder, and the musicians asked for louder amps, so the amps got better.

And yes, there most certainly were QC problems with early Fender models. The slide guitars, the amps and the Esquires in particular had electric and finish work hassles, that were conquered by a liberal exchange policy -- Leo signed off on the returns himself. (Look it up in the book Fender: The Sound Heard 'Round The World, by Richard R. Smith.)

 

[Luke Duke]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

Seriously--

Guitarists as a group are a hard bunch to please, as we've seen here. There are some who might castigate me for gigging with a transistor amp. My choice was dictated by financial and practical terms, and has nothing against anyone else. However, I see things in times ahead that others may not be willing to admit.

No offense bro but you're starting to sound self-righteous about electronics and an unpredictable future. o

If we agree that SS guitar amps have a long way to go, then we must also admit that tube technology has come a long way from its' beginnings in radio communications. We also have to acknowledge that although previous reports of its' demise may have been exaggerated, keeping tube technology alive for the sake of guitarists and audiophiles may not be enough motivation for the industry.

I can agree with the first half, but not the second half. Matthews brought tubes back from the dead in the 80s. He was a guitarist. JJ (formerly Tesla)was re-opened because of audiophiles.

Luke

 

[wahwah]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

If you want to make fair comparisons, take a look at the higher end modeling amplifiers. Compare a Vetta II to a comparably priced tube amp. The tones of each is 100% subjective, but you cannot argue that the tube amp is a more versatile amplifier. It simply hasn’t got the multitude of tones, and certainly doesn’t afford the ability to perform at all volumes.

Are you talking about using amplifiers as recreation or under professional working conditions? I told the story in an earlier post of being forced into a situation of having to use a Line 6 Vetta whilst playing in the pit band for a nationally televised sports show here in Australia. The amps were in house for that particular TV station and they had restrictions on bringing in outside equipment. I play guitar for a living, and have done so exclusively for the past 26 years. Both myself and the other guitarist were in the same boat. We both agreed that after hours of tweaking in rehearsal and soundchecks and the down time in between that no matter what we tried, we could not coax anything resembling a beautiful tone from those amplifiers.

I am an experienced tweaker of all sorts of musical equipment, I have a strong idea of what I'm doing. At a professional level, those amps were atrocious. I know when I'm dealing with a piece of equipment that is incapable of achieving a certain standard, because I spent 3 years doing equipment reviews for a music magazine, and learnt that the more time you have to spend tweaking without a breakthrough, the less likely it is that the equipment is going to yield great results. Conversely, plugging into a good tube amp delivers instantly pleasing results. What is the point of having versatility when it means many, many examples of mediocrity? "But my modeling amp can produce 1,000 substandard tones!" Yeah, ok, enjoy.

My final word on modeling technology, and IMO, all that really matters: Is great tone possible from solid state modeling amplifiers? Absolutely. Does it sound exactly like those which is intended to emulate? No. Does that make it sound any less great? No, so who cares? Get over that hump and you might actually find yourself liking an amplifier that doesn’t cost you $100 to retube once a year.

Where can I hear this "great tone" from SS or modeling amplifiers? Line 6? Fender? Marshall? Roland JC 120? Absolutely not, at all. Perhaps it is the case that we have different ideas on what "great tone" is. "Does that make it any less great?" Yes, it does. "So who cares?" Well, I do for starters, it's my livelihood. The fact that you don't care may work for you, because it may not affect your income. That's a hump that I have no need to get over, because the answer, for me, lies in not using SS or digital modeling amps. For $100, I can buy enough RCA blackplate 12AX7's and 6V6's to retube one of my amps twice. The 6v6's will last about 3 years, and the 12AX7's will last about 6-8, under constant use. I write that off as a tax deduction.

Obviously, we are all in different situations and with different perspectives about equipment. For some, the degrees of quality are virtually irrelevant except from a point of personal satisfaction, for others they are the tools of trade and are absolutely vital. No-one can speak for all of us in saying that SS or digital modeling amps are good enough. From my perspective, they don't even come close.


Cheers....................wahwah

 

[Zhangliqun]

Re: valve/tube vs. solid state -- the battle continues

However, I see things in times ahead that others may not be willing to admit...

...keeping tube technology alive for the sake of guitarists and audiophiles may not be enough motivation for the industry.

The first quote says you can see the future. The second may be an indication that you have difficulty seeing the present. Guitarists and audiophiles apparently ARE enough motivation for the tube/tube amp industry because no-one but those two groups has had any use for tubes for the last 30 years -- and said industry is showing no signs of slowing down. If anything, it's picking up and it will really ramp up when the NOS supply dwindles and more new tubes have to be made to keep up with demand from tube amp mfrs.

UNLESS/UNTIL...that vaunted Uber-SS amp finally appears...