[songforyou]

Okay, I admit that was an attention grabber.  But to my ears tubes have it all over solid state.
 
I've been following a number of threads with interest here.  One is the vintage receiver thread, another is the A/B thread, and I've also read all of the LCD-2 related stuff (yes, every page of phone and amp comments).
 
I purchased a pair of LCD-2s based on comments here and love the bloody things.  They are perfect for me.  Previously I had (and just sold) a pair of HD600s and a Musical Fidelity v2 amp (a lovely combination).  
 
I'm in the process of trying to determine the best amp to drive the LCD-2s with and the best reasonably priced DAC to use.  To this end, while I was waiting for a CEntrance DACmini to be available, I purchased a DACport.  Surprisingly, the DACport does a very respectable job.
 
So lately I've been doing a bit of comparing to what I have in the house.  I've compared the DACport as a DAC/amp driving the LCD-2s to a 'vintage' Pioneer SX-780 that I've owned since I bought it in 1978 (using the DACport as a DAC only), to a Glowamp1 (1st generation...again using the DACport as a DAC).  I've also used my vinyl system to compare the Pioneer to the Glow.  Vinyl system consists of a KAB Technics SL-1200 with a Zu-103 cartridge and an Au23 step up feeding a Graham Slee Era Gold V.
 
Here's what I've found:
 
Pioneer sounds clear and drives the LCD-2s very well.  Sound (to my ears) is typical solid state, which means linear,  flat, and dry.  Voices are emphasized and music is slightly recessed in comparison.
 
DACport on its own: fuller, involving, rhythmical...more like music.  Follows the flow better and gets the foot tapping more than the Pioneer.  Not the last word in resolution, but definitely more engaging than the Pioneer.
 
Glow Amp1: More realistic than both.  Oodles of power to drive the LCD-2s (if volume starts at 6 o'clock, 7 to 8 is more than enough).  There is a sense of air around the instruments and the voices and everything is more detailed and natural.  There is a sense of life the this Pioneer lacks entirely and that the DACport (as an amp) only suggests.
 
I'm not trying to criticize anything here.  THe DACport is a GREAT product (I like it better than the HRT Streamer+ that I had) and I will be buying at least one more (DAC version only) for another system in the house.
 
I guess what I'm trying to determine is whether anything solid state will satisfy me or whether tubes is the only way to go.  I'm wondering if using a DACport DAC and getting a tube head amp that can drive the LCD-2s is better for me than getting something like the DACmini.
 
Thanks for listening and any help would be appreciated!

 

[Skylab]

Sounds like you are one of those people, like me, who finds something more lifelike about music reproduced by tubes, in general.  Best to just go with that!  I always like to have tubes somewhere in the signal chain.  Even with my vintage receivers, I am using a tube DAC

 

[JoetheArachnid]

Comparing a fairly modern mid-hi end tube amp to a near 30 year old receiver that likely hasn't been serviced lately and the internal amp of a DAC powered only by USB seems a little fishy to me. I don't wish to comment on any of the products mentioned in particular as I've never heard any of them myself (though I have seen a DACport in person

), but I'd consider trying a modern design solid-state in the same price range as the Glow Amp One before writing it off completely.
Just a suggestion.

 

[songforyou]

No fishiness intended.  I was comparing them because I happen to own them all.  I bought the Pioneer when I was a 17 year old knucklehead and it has worked admirably ever since.  I gave it to my father and he uses it regularly.  Since then I've had all kinds of solid state equipment (McCormack, Simaudio, B&K, Musical Fidelity to name a few) and some tube stuff as well (a beautifully refurbished Dynaco ST-70, a Blue Circle preamp, the little Glow, and a Mapleshade modded Scott 222c).
 
I became interested in the LCD-2 and ordered a pair.  I needed a DAC as well and I became intrigued with the CEntrance DACmini based on positive reviews here.  It was out of stock for a while and I ordered the DACport in the meantime.  I love the DACport.  It is my understanding that they are coming out with a DAC only version very soon and if I don't get the DACmini, I will definitely buy one (you can quote me on that).  I have 3 (modest) systems in the house (computer and 2 speaker based ones) and I need DACs in all locations.
 
I was using the DACport at the computer thinking "this thing sounds way better than it should."  I also read here and in Stereophile that the DACport could be used as a DAC to feed an amp directly so I decided to experiment.  I wouldn't have even thought of trying the Pioneer except for the praise it received in the vintage receiver thread.
 
As stated above, my comments weren't criticisms.  Everything sounded good with the LCD-2s, but what surprised me was that there was an added dimensionality with the Glow that I didn't anticipate.  I wasn't looking for this because I had made up my mind to order a DACmini when they became available again.  For me, the discovery was not a good one because I'm now thinking that a tube amp might be the best way to go.
 
Perhaps I should have added "or is it me" to the title of the thread.  I think Skylab hit the nail on the head.  My impressions are no doubt based on my listening priorities and how I hear music.
 
I would be interested in hearing comments about or comparisons with the Glow and the LCD-2s.  It's a 5 watt SEP amp based around a pair of EL84s.  It has gobs of power for the LCDs (I'm not sure how much of the 5 watts the headphone jack sees though).  The headphone jack is funky (a common problem with 1st generation Glows).  My work around is simple and cheap: I use one of those circular rubber bands from my daughter's braces on the jack of the LCDs.  Wait a minute...make that simple but not cheap!
 
 

 

[Frank I]

 
Quote:

Okay, I admit that was an attention grabber.  But to my ears tubes have it all over solid state.
 
I've been following a number of threads with interest here.  One is the vintage receiver thread, another is the A/B thread, and I've also read all of the LCD-2 related stuff (yes, every page of phone and amp comments).
 
I purchased a pair of LCD-2s based on comments here and love the bloody things.  They are perfect for me.  Previously I had (and just sold) a pair of HD600s and a Musical Fidelity v2 amp (a lovely combination).  
 
I'm in the process of trying to determine the best amp to drive the LCD-2s with and the best reasonably priced DAC to use.  To this end, while I was waiting for a CEntrance DACmini to be available, I purchased a DACport.  Surprisingly, the DACport does a very respectable job.
 
So lately I've been doing a bit of comparing to what I have in the house.  I've compared the DACport as a DAC/amp driving the LCD-2s to a 'vintage' Pioneer SX-780 that I've owned since I bought it in 1978 (using the DACport as a DAC only), to a Glowamp1 (1st generation...again using the DACport as a DAC).  I've also used my vinyl system to compare the Pioneer to the Glow.  Vinyl system consists of a KAB Technics SL-1200 with a Zu-103 cartridge and an Au23 step up feeding a Graham Slee Era Gold V.
 
Here's what I've found:
 
Pioneer sounds clear and drives the LCD-2s very well.  Sound (to my ears) is typical solid state, which means linear,  flat, and dry.  Voices are emphasized and music is slightly recessed in comparison.
 
DACport on its own: fuller, involving, rhythmical...more like music.  Follows the flow better and gets the foot tapping more than the Pioneer.  Not the last word in resolution, but definitely more engaging than the Pioneer.
 
Glow Amp1: More realistic than both.  Oodles of power to drive the LCD-2s (if volume starts at 6 o'clock, 7 to 8 is more than enough).  There is a sense of air around the instruments and the voices and everything is more detailed and natural.  There is a sense of life the this Pioneer lacks entirely and that the DACport (as an amp) only suggests.
 
I'm not trying to criticize anything here.  THe DACport is a GREAT product (I like it better than the HRT Streamer+ that I had) and I will be buying at least one more (DAC version only) for another system in the house.
 
I guess what I'm trying to determine is whether anything solid state will satisfy me or whether tubes is the only way to go.  I'm wondering if using a DACport DAC and getting a tube head amp that can drive the LCD-2s is better for me than getting something like the DACmini.
 
Thanks for listening and any help would be appreciated!

My Decare Tube amps are more transparent and more live sounding but my SX980 is also very very good with the HE6 and D7000 but the Decware is clearly better but it. I have always felt tube amps were more musical but the Pioneer SX980 has no edge nor SS glare and has gobs of detail and power but as good as it is I still prefer my Decware EL84 amps. But I do enjoy the Receivers better than the 4 SS headamps i owned.
 

 

[Uncle Erik]

I'm a confirmed tubehead, but some amps like the Beta22 are awfully good. I have a great deal of respect for quality solid state, though I like gear the glows in the dark.

 

[jenneth]

While tube amps are a lot more popular now, there are still some very good SS amps. A well built B22 is awefully good, SS amps from Headamp are also good, and there are a few other good ones too.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Exactly. Tubes are beautiful and very trendy today. But solid state done right is also excellent. Solid state won't start conversations or wow the unconverted, but it can sound incredible. A lot of people are wasting money on poor tube designs when a less expensive solid state design will deliver better sound.

 

[TwoEars]

Quote:

I'm a confirmed tubehead, but some amps like the Beta22 are awfully good. I have a great deal of respect for quality solid state, though I like gear the glows in the dark.

I prefer SS just for the ease of maintenance, not having to worry about "not getting the optimal sound" because a tube is getting worn makes me feel more at ease... but I do agree that seeing a big ass rectifier glow in the dark is pretty kick-ass. Someone should make a big-ass glow in the dark MOSFET.... now that'd be something!

 

[High_Q]

Only problem is efficiency should definately drop.  MOSFET provide amplification at low power loss to heat.
 
I'm really curious how tube sounds so different from SS.  My tube amps are very laid back and smooth, but SS are so aggressive and forward.  My ears prefer tube more, even for IEMs as I have transformers on the output of my tube amps to lower the gain for low impedance phones.
 
Quote:

I prefer SS just for the ease of maintenance, not having to worry about "not getting the optimal sound" because a tube is getting worn makes me feel more at ease... but I do agree that seeing a big ass rectifier glow in the dark is pretty kick-ass. Someone should make a big-ass glow in the dark MOSFET.... now that'd be something!

 
 

 

[Shike]

When tubes and SS are both done right they should be interchangeable.
 
Personally, I think affordable properly made tube designs are far and few between myself.

 

[nigeljames]

Quote:

When tubes and SS are both done right they should be interchangeable.
 
 

Totally agree with that statement.
 
I remember when I decided to get a tube amp to sit alongside my Solo SRG. Never heard a tube amp so had no idea what to expect but was worried I may lose the speed,detail,clarity and tight bass that I was used to.
I purchased a Woo6se and it totally spanked the Solo in EVERY WAY including speed,detail and clarity. Bass was at least as tight but a lot deeper,more powerful and fuller.
It was simply a no contest so I then decided that I needed a better SS amp. Fancied trying balanced so went for the Audio-gd Roc.
Again,even single ended, this was in a different class to the Solo but sounded alot more like the Woo. Both have a fuller more 3 dimensional sound that the Solo only hinted at.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

When tubes and SS are both done right they should be interchangeable.

Exactly.  The Carver Challenge, anyone?
 
If you're too lazy to read the article, here's the brief:  In 48 hours, electric engineering wizard Bob Carver made one of his $700 production solid state amplifiers sound (and perform) absolutely indistinguishable from a $3000 Conrad-Johnson Premier Four tube amplifier.  He then explained that he could make his amplifiers sound like whatever he wanted them to sound like, and that the way he tuned them was how he liked it.

 

[Skylab]

Note, however, that Carver himself has designed and sold some very nice tube amps.  So he was not of the opinion that tube amps are not good sounding.
 
While I have the utmost respect for Uncle Erik, I differ with his opinion on this.  I think that many affordable tube headphone amps offer a glimpse of higher end musical performance than many of their similarly-priced counterparts do.  I personally prefer, for example, the WooAudio WA6 over the Meier Concerto.  Both are excellent, but for my $600-700, the Woo is the better sounding amp.

 

[BlackbeardBen]

Quote:

Note, however, that Carver himself has designed and sold some very nice tube amps.  So he was not of the opinion that tube amps are not good sounding.

No, my - and Bob's - point was that if you are skilled enough, you can more or less get whatever sound you want out of either - so long as you don't start running the amplifier out of its parameters (i.e. clipping) - and when you do that, tubes certainly have the advantage with natural soft clipping.  There are certainly plenty of other advantages in topology, parts availability, stability/robustness, size, efficiency, etc. to choose one over the other.