tube watts not equal to transistor watts?

[Mark]

I keep seeing this statement like on this review:

http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0701/heil.htm
(see the paragraph just below the 2nd picture of the
speaker):

"The manufacturer claims that the overall sensitivity of the Kithara is 94
dB/w/m, which means that it does not demand a lot to drive it. On the other
hand, the manufacturer also says the required amplifier is 50 to 200 watts.
I asked Vince about this, mentioning my 3o watt Audiomat Arpège, a tube
amp. "No problem - that's what we suggest for transistor watts. Thirty tube
watts are lots to drive this with," "

What's this mean that "tube watts are not the same as transistor watts"?
I thought that a watt was 1 volt*amp, so a watt would be
objectively the same as any other watt?
Is this kind of a odd ball pro-tube hype thing or is there a
valid reason why a 30 watt tube amp is louder than a 30 watt
transistor amp? Maybe it's about dynamic headroom..

Mark

[Robert Rowton]

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 19:03:53 -0400, Mark > wrote:

>
>I keep seeing this statement like on this review:
>
>http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0701/heil.htm
>(see the paragraph just below the 2nd picture of the
>speaker):
>
>"The manufacturer claims that the overall sensitivity of the Kithara is 94
>dB/w/m, which means that it does not demand a lot to drive it. On the other
>hand, the manufacturer also says the required amplifier is 50 to 200 watts.
>I asked Vince about this, mentioning my 3o watt Audiomat Arpège, a tube
>amp. "No problem - that's what we suggest for transistor watts. Thirty tube
>watts are lots to drive this with," "
>
>What's this mean that "tube watts are not the same as transistor watts"?
>I thought that a watt was 1 volt*amp, so a watt would be
>objectively the same as any other watt?
>Is this kind of a odd ball pro-tube hype thing or is there a
>valid reason why a 30 watt tube amp is louder than a 30 watt
>transistor amp? Maybe it's about dynamic headroom..
>
>Mark

Hello,
They may be referring to the differences in the way solid-state and
tube amplifiers overload (clip), or the fact that, because of the
output transformers, a tube amplifier sees no difference between a 4
or 8 ohm load. But a watt is a measurement of power, whether produced
by electrical, thermal, mechanical, or any other means, and a watt is
a watt.

[Todd H.]

Mark > writes:

> What's this mean that "tube watts are not the same as transistor
> watts"? I thought that a watt was 1 volt*amp, so a watt would be
> objectively the same as any other watt? Is this kind of a odd ball
> pro-tube hype thing or is there a valid reason why a 30 watt tube
> amp is louder than a 30 watt transistor amp? Maybe it's about
> dynamic headroom..

Yes it is....and apparent loudness.

You are correct, mathematically and theoretically a Watt is a Watt is
a Watt, but when you put this empircal unit in the context of a
properly accepted rating of amplifier output power, things change.
This by the way is an excellent case study in why specs only get you
so far in comparing gear.

I can endeavor some concepts to wrap your head around though.

For one, tubes aren't terribly linear thingees. They won't look very
impressive in the "Blah watts continuous from 20hz-20khz with no more
than 0.1% total harmonic distortion" category...because they do tend
to distort...transformer coupled outputs don't help, and all the
goodies of tube electronics conspire against linearity too.

But here's the thing--when they near saturation and start distorting
they have a natural compression, and they tend to enter the
neighborhood of distortion very very gracefully, and in a way that we
humans tend to find warm and aurally appealing. Our ears as it turns
out, aren't terribly obsessed with linearity.

This is why the buck stops with a listening test when you are
selecting any audio gear. Specs only get you so far, and can mislead.

This whole tube vs solid state thing, incidentally, is why electric
guitarists are almost unanimous in lauding the benefits of a tube
power amplifier rather than solid state. A tube 30W guitar amp can
cut through a band every bit as well as a 100W or more solid state
amp, and what's more the distortion it creates is going to be a lot
"better" sounding.

Another distinction to be made is that the goal of an instrument
amplifier and a sound reproduction amplifier are fundamentally
different. In the former case, the amplifiers coloraiton becomes part
of the "instrument's sound." In the latter case, the goal is really
to reproduce the original recording as accurately as possible.

Personally, I'd never endure the expense and maintainence headache of
tube amplification for home audio reproduction, or pro sound
reinforcement. Yeah, I may like the "warmer" sound of a well executed
tube design marginally more, but that's not a step I'm willing to make
because the incremental cost is so damned high, and I don't need the
maintenance headaches of tube replacement. For bass guitar
amplification, I also think tubes are overkill for power amps because
bas guitar demands a lot of power, and tubes just aren't set up for
reliably delivering a boatload of power in a package that my back ever
wants to carry. If I were buying a guitar amp, however, yeah, I'd
absolutely go tube. The frequencies a guitar produces don't require a
lot of power to amplify, and tonal character is essential in guitar
since it lives in that frequency range where ears are most sensitive
and most picky.

I'm sure there are others who can give you a lot more detailed
explanation of the hows and why's of the (correct) perception that
tube watts are meatier than solid state watts, but I hope what I've
offered gives you some things to think about.

Best Regards,
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign | Todd H
\ / | http://www.toddh.net/
X Promoting good netiquette | http://triplethreatband.com/
/ \ http://www.toddh.net/netiquette/ | "4 lines suffice."

[intendes]

On 14 Sep 2003 18:19:33 -0500, (Todd H.) wrote:

>Mark > writes:
>
>> What's this mean that "tube watts are not the same as transistor
>> watts"? I thought that a watt was 1 volt*amp, so a watt would be
>> objectively the same as any other watt? Is this kind of a odd ball
>> pro-tube hype thing or is there a valid reason why a 30 watt tube
>> amp is louder than a 30 watt transistor amp? Maybe it's about
>> dynamic headroom..
>
>Yes it is....and apparent loudness.
>
>You are correct, mathematically and theoretically a Watt is a Watt is
>a Watt, but when you put this empircal unit in the context of a
>properly accepted rating of amplifier output power, things change.
>This by the way is an excellent case study in why specs only get you
>so far in comparing gear.
>
>I can endeavor some concepts to wrap your head around though.
>
>For one, tubes aren't terribly linear thingees. They won't look very
>impressive in the "Blah watts continuous from 20hz-20khz with no more
>than 0.1% total harmonic distortion" category...because they do tend
>to distort...transformer coupled outputs don't help, and all the
>goodies of tube electronics conspire against linearity too.
>
>But here's the thing--when they near saturation and start distorting
>they have a natural compression, and they tend to enter the
>neighborhood of distortion very very gracefully, and in a way that we
>humans tend to find warm and aurally appealing. Our ears as it turns
>out, aren't terribly obsessed with linearity.
>
>This is why the buck stops with a listening test when you are
>selecting any audio gear. Specs only get you so far, and can mislead.
>
>This whole tube vs solid state thing, incidentally, is why electric
>guitarists are almost unanimous in lauding the benefits of a tube
>power amplifier rather than solid state. A tube 30W guitar amp can
>cut through a band every bit as well as a 100W or more solid state
>amp, and what's more the distortion it creates is going to be a lot
>"better" sounding.
>
>Another distinction to be made is that the goal of an instrument
>amplifier and a sound reproduction amplifier are fundamentally
>different. In the former case, the amplifiers coloraiton becomes part
>of the "instrument's sound." In the latter case, the goal is really
>to reproduce the original recording as accurately as possible.
>
>Personally, I'd never endure the expense and maintainence headache of
>tube amplification for home audio reproduction, or pro sound
>reinforcement. Yeah, I may like the "warmer" sound of a well executed
>tube design marginally more, but that's not a step I'm willing to make
>because the incremental cost is so damned high, and I don't need the
>maintenance headaches of tube replacement. For bass guitar
>amplification, I also think tubes are overkill for power amps because
>bas guitar demands a lot of power, and tubes just aren't set up for
>reliably delivering a boatload of power in a package that my back ever
>wants to carry. If I were buying a guitar amp, however, yeah, I'd
>absolutely go tube. The frequencies a guitar produces don't require a
>lot of power to amplify, and tonal character is essential in guitar
>since it lives in that frequency range where ears are most sensitive
>and most picky.
>
>I'm sure there are others who can give you a lot more detailed
>explanation of the hows and why's of the (correct) perception that
>tube watts are meatier than solid state watts, but I hope what I've
>offered gives you some things to think about.
>
>Best Regards,

I agree. The question is not so much a 3 watt tuber sounds less lousy
than a 30 wpc solid state at clipping, but that you can get 120 wpc of
clean SS amplification from something like a Parasound HCA-1000a for
next to nothing.


__________________________________________________ ____________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - FAST UNLIMITED DOWNLOAD - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>