The same way you can recreate the exact, mathematically perfect representation of a "natural" film effect with digitally recorded video it should be fairly easy to create a digital filter to perfectly mimic any one particular tube amplifier...
Tube amps *typically* colour the sound and have more distortion than solid state amps. Now, that audio distortion is also hardly if at all audible, but audio purists will tell you solid state amps are technically cleaner audio. That can be especially true for low impedance headphones like IEMs. The sound colouring from the tubes can vary from tube to tube, and depending on the amp you buy there can be many tube choices for you to swap in and out. Then again, if you want to colour sound, you can also just download an equalizer.
I’m a musician and love my gear, but the tubes are largely just fun to swap and to look at. Audio folks will argue like mad over minutiae that 99.5% of people won’t notice. Tubes and solid state headphone amps of equal quality will generally produce equally enjoyable sounds. So it’s down to preference, imo.
My friend and I have the same headphones and external dacs, so we once did an A B test of our headphones through a solid state amp and tube amp within the same price range. We both preferred my tube amp, but it wasn’t a giant leap in sound quality or anything. Just.. felt cozy. Wasn’t blind A B test, just for fun.
I’m not super knowledgeable about the topic and might have it totally wrong but tube amps for guitars are considered superior as they still use them in high end amps, although I’m not sure if it’s a mix of both as most amps have a lot of digital components built into them now as well
>I’m not super knowledgeable about the topic and might have it totally wrong but tube amps for guitars are considered superior as they still use them in high end amps, although I’m not sure if it’s a mix of both as most amps have a lot of digital components built into them now as well
Audio is like ... subjective AF and high end stuff is usually tailored to tastemakers who already have a bunch of biases.
I'm not sure I would use the -end-edness (whether high or low) of what gets used in audio gear to measure the merits of certain technologies.
I once got a $100 USB interface from a pro brand that had a headphone output that was nigh on indistinguishable as the $400 dac/amp stack from an audiophile brand I'd used previously. Stopped looking at online suggestions real quick after that lol.
Solid state amps are getting better each year and they're arguably the future of audiophile amplification.
A lot of why guitar players WANT tube amps is that they have a certain distortion profile that they've learned to like. In theory this could be emulated through DSP.
Solid state amps are far more accurate and low distortion and have been for decades at this point. There is no reason to use tubes unless you specifically want the kind of distortion they introduce.
No, no, you don’t understand!! You see, I can feel that the algorithm isn’t the real thing! Until that algorithm can simulate the whole universe just to transform the audio to include the distortion made by tubes, I’ll never use that fake crap! /s
> certain distortion profile that they've learned to like.
Much like people confusing the "better" sound of vinyl with CDs being mastered differently for a lot of release. Simply because vinyl had physical limits on it.
Superior is perhaps not the correct term.
They are less accurate. Which is what makes some people like them more. As they have their own "personality" as that is the type of sound profile they are looking for.
But it is the same as with vinyl. It is technically a less accurate/worse medium. But people like the imperfect reproduction better than the more faithful one, which may be less "charming."
Kind of how some people prefer a fuzzier picture, where there is a lot more haze and color distortion happening. Than the sharper and more "true" to reality portrait where you get to see all the in grown hairs and zits. ;-)
Yes, tube amps are still superior in ways despite the comments below.
Tube amps mainly have a way better response with lots of distortion and fuzz pedals as well as have an undeniable advantage in how they feel live. Digital products are getting better at sounding like tube amps but they are also not fully there yet.
Personally I've been disappointed in digital emulation and am gearing up to hand build my own tube amp.
Around the same time General Electric was running full page ads in Scientific American with titles such as "Must you pay the high cost of miniaturization?"
Also, around the same time, the photo lithographic techniques for fabricating transistors being developed were soon to have a revolutionary impact. Silicon transistors gained dramatic benefits:
\- much cheaper to manufacture
\- better high frequency response
\- lower leakage currents
\- more repeatable characteristics and better reliability
Moreover, the same technology was soon extended to manufacture integrated circuits.
It's mostly a psychological issue. Humans are afraid of change, for a number of reasons.
I recently read a book about Blackberry's downfall (Losing the Signal) and the sentiments there were surprisingly the same. The top brass was apparently convinced that iPhone was just a fad. And I don't think I've to link that infanous Steve Ballmer clip!
Same can be said about film cameras, Polaroids, VHS tapes, audio cassettes, heck even dial phones, if this 'ancient' infomercial from the year 1940 is any indicator:
[The Dial Comes to Town.](https://youtu.be/p45T7U5oi9Q)
Imagine if you show these old folks a modern day smartphone that's basically a dozens of devices squeezed into a glass slab that (barely) fits into a pocket.
Desk computer in 1975: *non-functional because it can't connect to a mainframe that actually does all the computing.*
The current shift to doing everything in the cloud is simply the return to the industry's roots, in a way. Except the server and thin client don't have to be in the same building anymore.
It is interesting seeing how far solid state electronics had come across. That 66 page report showed a photo of a transistor production line that was testing 1,600 transistors per hour.
The first commercial transistors were actually less reliable than vacuum tubes, which is a huge issue if you're depending on a lot of tubes/transistors. But of course they quickly eclipsed the tubes.
Also the picture shows a nixie tube, which is actually not a vacuum tube since it is filled with neon gas.
I wonder if in 30 years the robots will be looking at all the articles about how humans are still superior to AI.
37 Comments
REV2939@reddit
III-V@reddit
Jeep-Eep@reddit
Tasty_Toast_Son@reddit
Ycx48raQk59F@reddit
luciddrummer@reddit
illhaveubent@reddit
cp5184@reddit
luciddrummer@reddit
COMPUTER1313@reddit (OP)
milkstrike@reddit
keller112@reddit
famih58563@reddit
MrMaxMaster@reddit
ramblinginternetgeek@reddit
jaaval@reddit
StuartBaker159@reddit
0xe1e10d68@reddit
Waste-Temperature626@reddit
GomaEspumaRegional@reddit
Forsaken-throwaway@reddit
gvargh@reddit
DonTaddeo@reddit
iLangoor@reddit
TetsuoS2@reddit
COMPUTER1313@reddit (OP)
Vitosi4ek@reddit
Ragas@reddit
Skreamweaver@reddit
PineappleProstate@reddit
BlueDawggo@reddit
COMPUTER1313@reddit (OP)
RollingTater@reddit
Skreamweaver@reddit
takinaboutnuthin@reddit
COMPUTER1313@reddit (OP)
takinaboutnuthin@reddit