Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend (Read 7445 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

I've noticed a handful of valve-based docks and amplifiers for iPods over the past year, and I'm struggling to understand what all the fuss is about. If I'm not mistaken, a correctly executed valve amp sounds exactly the same as a solid state one. And should it not, wouldn't that imply that distortion is being added to the signal, which is a bad thing? Why, then, would anybody go out of their way to purchase an iPod dock with tubes in it?

Would slapping a bunch of tubes to an op-amp really make your iPod sound different? Or are these companies banking on audiophiles seeing their iPod nestled between a bunch of glowing tubes and "thinking" that the sound is better?

EDIT: Here's one such example, the Fatman "iTube"

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #1 –
Have you ever HEARD a valve amp.  Most don't sound much like solidstate.  Even the ones that try to do sound different.  For example I own the Anthem amp 1.  Except for the bass, you could mistake it for solid state at first.  But there is an air that is there that you rarely find in solidstate, even warmer ones like my Pass Labs.  It is toned down on the Anthem but it is there.  It just has a realism that is hard to find in solidstate.  Most tube amps are very euphonic.  SOme people like that.

But I am not a tube freak by any stretch and I think that they can be very veiled in relation to a solidstate amp.    That is why I primarily use the pass... you get some of the euphony but all the accuracy.

Anyhow, my ipod sounds like crap and is unlistenable even with the Apple lossless files I have in there.  If I wanted to add it to my hifi rig, I would definitley muck it up with the sweetness of a tube dock.  The highs on the thing are horrible, and most tube circuits tend to roll off the extremes, which would be welcomed on my iPod.

The other thing is that tubes DO sound different.  Meaning you can take one brand of the same tube and substitute the same type of tube in another brand and significantly change the sound.  I bet a tube expert could find some examples that would be easy to spot in a DBT.  So you can tailor the sound with some different tubes.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #2 –
I'm sorry, but if I wanted a piece to sound different from the way that was recorded then there are much better ways to achieve that than to try various different vacuum tubes and listen to how they sound.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #3 –
Quote from: Cygnus X1 on
Would slapping a bunch of tubes to an op-amp really make your iPod sound different? Or are these companies banking on audiophiles seeing their iPod nestled between a bunch of glowing tubes and "thinking" that the sound is better?


Some people like glowing tubes, but that's up to them

I suspect it would be better to use a dock that bypasses the internal D/A on the iPod and outputs over SPDIF, such things exist but cost audiofool amounts of money.

The most cost efficient thing would be to not use an iPod at all but use an Airport Express. You'd then play ALAC in iTunes which would get streamed over WiFi to the Airport Express which would decompress it and output it over TOSLINK into the D/A converter and amp of your choice.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #4 –
Quote from: chelgrian on
Quote from: Cygnus X1 on

Would slapping a bunch of tubes to an op-amp really make your iPod sound different? Or are these companies banking on audiophiles seeing their iPod nestled between a bunch of glowing tubes and "thinking" that the sound is better?


Some people like glowing tubes, but that's up to them

I suspect it would be better to use a dock that bypasses the internal D/A on the iPod and outputs over SPDIF, such things exist but cost audiofool amounts of money.

The most cost efficient thing would be to not use an iPod at all but use an Airport Express. You'd then play ALAC in iTunes which would get streamed over WiFi to the Airport Express which would decompress it and output it over TOSLINK into the D/A converter and amp of your choice.


That's actually what I do, coincidentally enough - ALAC -> airport express -> toslink cable ->receiver. At no point is my signal subjected to valves, though 

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #5 –
Quote from: pdq on
I'm sorry, but if I wanted a piece to sound different from the way that was recorded then there are much better ways to achieve that than to try various different vacuum tubes and listen to how they sound.



Hey, I'll be the first one to agree with you. 

But the assumption that an iPod can sound as good as a cdp in a good system and that it is true to the recording is not an assumption I would be inclined to believe. YMMV.

If you have a good system and add your iPod and it is shrill and has digititsis but you want all the convenience of the iPod, those docks the OP is talking about are a nice way to get decent sound.

Hey, some chicks need makeup. 

Now if you have a receiver and some sattellite speakers the ipod probably sounds great (ironically for the same reasons tubes can sound great), but if you have a better system you aren't going to dig the ipod as much.

And don't believe that people necessarily resort to tubes to change the recording.  Often the problem is in their system or room.  Adding tubes is a way to address the shortcomings of a poorly matched system.  A bandaid approach, but some people like it better with tubes and stay with them.  And really good tubes can be very realistic.

As an example, I have maggies and hang out at the planar forum.  There is always some newbie complaining that his maggies are bright and hard to listen to.  Invariably they are powering them with some receiver  or underpowered amp (even if it SAYS it is 300 watts) and have them 2 ft from the wall.  OF COURSE they'll sound bright in that situation.    A bandaid approach is to add a tube pre-amp.  It changes the balance enough to make things bearable and tame the brightness. 

Would they be better of with a good amp and better placement...of course, but often coloring the sound in a pleasing way is easier and cheaper than dealing with room placements and the dollars needed to buy a real amp or convince the wife that the 6ft tall 3ft wide speakers really do need to be 5ft into the room.

Finally, there is a magic to tubes.  Go to a local dealer who carries them and have a listen, particulary if you listen to a lot of live music.  There is a realism that you don't always get with solidstate.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #6 –
Quote from: Dawnrazor-age on
There is a realism....

you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I was under the impression HA was a forum for objectivists.  Everything you claim to like about tubes is, by definition, artificial - and not accurate to the recording as delivered to us by the artist(s).

If you like the sound - that's fine - that's opinion.  The sound of a tube amplifier is not more realistic than that of a solid-state amp.

Quote from: Dawnrazor-age on
But the assumption that an iPod can sound as good as a cdp in a good system and that it is true to the recording is not an assumption I would be inclined to believe. YMMV.

This is something which can be quite easily tested.  It would neither be hard to RMAA the line-out of an iPod vs the line-out of a CD Player (that is what you mean by "cdp" is it not?), nor would it be hard to record the line-out of a CD Player and record the line-out of an iPod, and ABX the results.

I think you will find such objective tests will show the line-out of an iPod is quite good, and definitely isn't as confused in the high frequencies as you state.


PS - I will post links to RMAA tests of iPods if that is what is required of me to stay within the TOS.  I assume they have been seen on this forum enough to make their status accepted fact?
Creature of habit.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #7 –
Hey Soap.

Quote from: Soap on
you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I was under the impression HA was a forum for objectivists.  Everything you claim to like about tubes is, by definition, artificial - and not accurate to the recording as delivered to us by the artist(s).

If you like the sound - that's fine - that's opinion.  The sound of a tube amplifier is not more realistic than that of a solid-state amp.


Point taken.  I think though I am not being clear.  Sorry for that.  Even the staunchest objectivist will agree that speakers sound different.  That is right right???  Sure, amps and digital sources all sound the same right, but certainly you are not saying that speakers sound the same??  Rooms sound different too! (?).

OK so my point is that in the <b>context of a system</b>, it is possible to end up with a system that is more accurate to the recording using a piece of equipment that might not be as accurate  as aonther similiar piece.

Say you have a speaker that due to set up or associated components is very bright or bass shy.  It does happen.  A tube amp can fatten up the bass (not extension but imprecision) and roll of the highs abit so that it sounds better balanced then an with an accurate solidstate amp that just shows of the bad set up or room acoustics.

It is kind of like the probowl or all star game.  The individual players are the best at their positions, but they don't necessarily form the best team.

ANyhow, i get your point about the accuracy if taken alone.  Across the spectrum, solid state is much more accurate.  Yet I think there are a couple areas that tubes do better.  Imaging for instance.  To my ears, they can produce a more realistic soundstage than soldistate.  How do you measure that??  Or abx that? I'll certainly see if I could pull off a test if you give me an idea of how to accomplsh it.

And don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that people should get those docks.  I would just put it on a pc and do it right.  I was merely trying to explain why someone MIGHT do that.

Quote from: Soap on
This is something which can be quite easily tested.  It would neither be hard to RMAA the line-out of an iPod vs the line-out of a CD Player (that is what you mean by "cdp" is it not?), nor would it be hard to record the line-out of a CD Player and record the line-out of an iPod, and ABX the results.

I think you will find such objective tests will show the line-out of an iPod is quite good, and definitely isn't as confused in the high frequencies as you state.


PS - I will post links to RMAA tests of iPods if that is what is required of me to stay within the TOS.  I assume they have been seen on this forum enough to make their status accepted fact?


That is a great idea.  I can probably do that pretty easily.  Well, I don't have a way of getting anything but the head phone out of the ipod.  Maybe that is the disconnect.  My comments about it being bright and unlistenable are from the headphone out. 

WOuld it be a fair test if I record the ipod and then the cdp and abx both files in foobar?  Would it be ok if the CDP I am talking about is my PC?  i could play the same ALAC file that is on the ipod. 

As for fact, i suppose it is. My ipod sounds bright and no matter what I do it is pretty unlistenable. 

Also you can't always believe what you read. I have heard that 192 vbr mp3s are transparent and seen many tests supporting that contention.  I have posted my abx tests to the contrary on this forum (do a search), and will post my test files if someone can tell me how to shorten the mp3s to the 30 second intervals required by the upload site ( i can do the .wav but don't mess with mp3s because well you know).  I have even seen a test by one of the winamp developers abxing 320k mp3s.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #8 –
Quote from: Dawnrazor-age on
air...realism...veiled

It seems to me that you've used three terms to describe tube amplifiers that all have no real meaning (at least to me -- others may be able to more easily 'define' them).

Quote from: Soap on
PS - I will post links to RMAA tests of iPods if that is what is required of me to stay within the TOS.  I assume they have been seen on this forum enough to make their status accepted fact?

I haven't seen them myself. Links would be appreciated

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #10 –
In relation to speaker amps, the primary variable that makes tube amps sound different is an output transformer with a high output impedance. This high output impedance causes a reactive effect with the swinging impedance of a loudspeaker, thus causing frequency response alterations. Most solid state amplifies have a low output impedance which does not allow variance of the frequency response in this manner. Some tube amps are also neutral in the regard, but apparently not as many. One could use a high power resistor of a 2 or 3 ohms in value in series with a solid state amplifier output and replicate the 'tube' sound in this regard. Or use a precision DSP equalizer to replicate the curve(which you can determine by measurement). Usually, distortion is under the audibility threshold on tube amplifiers; except on SET designs - which usually have THD in the range of 4 to 6 percent during normal use. 

I have never measured a tube based headphone amplifier - neither have I seen credible 3rd party measurements of sufficient detail; there for I am not sure if the same factor(s) is(are) in play. A very high output impedance(at least in the tens of ohms range; often over one hundred ohms) is required to appreciably affect the frequency response of most headphones.

-Chris

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #11 –
Sorry for breaking in ...

Quote
If I'm not mistaken, a correctly executed valve amp sounds exactly the same as a solid state one.


Not quite correct in reality, only correct in theory.

Assume both of them works at best condition they should sound the same, but due to physical limit both of them never sound the same.

You can say tube changed the nature of the original sound, but solid state did the same thing!

Most of the tube amp. was tuned to please someone, usually "slow and warm", solid state sound "quick and harsh".

Theoretically using ALAC you should be able to enjoy best sound, but you need to count the quality loss during ripping and D/A conversion (with iPod)

Also if you use CD as a media, the CD already loss much quality during A/D and mastering, making the mold ... except a few carefully made audiophile CD, most of them was not good enough, they don't even have full 16bit dynamic range.

And lot of people just use MP3 or AAC format, that's already lossy, much more serious.

Tube amp. was a way to "smooth" the harsh CD sound, I don't believe they'll construct a tube amp. with "solid state like sound", this is POSSIBLE but you have to spend more money on the tube and component, not good for a commercial product.
Hong Kong - International Joke Center (after 1997-06-30)

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #12 –
Quote from: johnsonlam on
Theoretically using ALAC you should be able to enjoy best sound, but you need to count the quality loss during ripping and D/A conversion (with iPod)



When using an iPod dock rather than the headphone socket, does the iPod do the D/A or is it done by a DAC in the amp?

(eg this type of amp linky)

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #13 –
.
johnsonlam

You really need to review Terms Of Service point number 8.  Your statements are way over the top / deep into the foggy fields of the audiofool...

"Slow" sound!?

"Quick" sound!?

"CD already loss much quality"!?

 

If someone out there has a newer model iPod and a middle-of-the-road CD or DVD player (or combo' unit), and wants to playback / rip & level-match a couple of .wav files, I'll host them on my server and we can get to the bottom of this.  Feel free to contact me via this forum or my site and we can get some .wav's posted for A/B/X'n, ASAP.  I don't own an iPod or I would offer to do this myself.  30-seconds of your favorite 'audiophile' CD recording will do fine.

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com


.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #14 –
"Quality loss during ripping?" 
daefeatures.co.uk

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #15 –
Quote from: retro83 on
When using an iPod dock rather than the headphone socket, does the iPod do the D/A or is it done by a DAC in the amp?


In almost all cases the iPod is still doing the D/A, the D/A in (at least a 5th generation) iPod is a high quality Wolfson device, the "quality loss" would come from the analogue stage inside the iPod and the connection between the iPod and the dock.

There is the iTransport (http://gizmodo.com/340518/itransport-is-worlds-first-purely-digital-ipod-dock) which extracts a digital signal from an iPod it works with quite a lot of iPods but is only fully functional in that you can use the click wheel and the rest of the iPod UI when it is docked with the 5th generation and beyond.

The other problem is that it costs $349. Given that the user almost certainly has iTunes as well as an iPod as I pointed out further up the thread a much cheaper way of getting a digital output is by using an Airport Express which costs $99 and has a TOSLINK output. The downside being that your compute needs to be running to play the music and you have to go and interact with the computer to change tracks etc.

I've no idea if bypassing the iPods DAC and analogue stage is worthwhile. A double blind listening test would need to be done otherwise it's just TOS 8 bate.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #16 –
Quote
I've no idea if bypassing the iPods DAC and analogue stage is worthwhile. A double blind listening test would need to be done otherwise it's just TOS 8 bate.


Seems to me that if one is going to bypass the DAC on the iPod, might as well send the signal to a nice, quiet solid state amp while you're at it - why squander that extra accuracy? It would almost seem that people like tubes precisely because they can be INACCURATE to the source.....or at least that's what some of the subjective terms I've heard on this thread seem to suggest. Why add fuzz and noise to your signal - even if it's coming from an iPod?

In any case, I suppose these docks don't have to make sense at the end of the day - there's obviously some market for them.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #17 –
.

Well boyz' - anyone out there with a newer model iPod and a decent CD player wanna post some identical 30-second / level-matched .wav files and perhaps a waveform for us to check out?  If so, perhaps offer up labeled as well as unlabeled versions of the .wav’s.

Andrew D.
www.cdnav.com

.

Tube Amps for iPods - a Strange Trend

Reply #18 –
Have you gone and listened?  Tubes can sound very different than solid state.  Why do bands use stacks of tube amps?  They run those tubes red hot and they get a soft distortion (third order harmonics if I remember right versus second for solid state) the grunge they are looking for.  In the home you not looking for the grunge but warmth (natural sound).  In the early days of CDs they sounded terrible if you compared them to a decent turntable.  Things have improved. Take something that is well recorded and even at 128kps and listen to it on a tube system or any high end system I think you will be suprised!  But be careful you could become addicted.

Marc