The simple fact is that both transistors and valves work on the same principles. Expel the electrons of a power source, pass them through a positively charged grid, end up with a greater negative voltage than the source. The difference being that transistors can do that with a positive or negative polarity. Valves can only do that with a negative polarity. Thats why all valves are cathode to anode. Transistors can be Pos/Neg/Pos or Neg/Pos/Neg, or NPN & PNP as you'll undoubtedly see them labeled.

Sympathetic vibration??? Keep up with that talk and soon someone will demand that valves be made of tonewood. Then amplifiers will have to come with their own automated fire extinguisher systems. And then where will we be regarding sonic interference. No amount of shielding will protect us from the buzz caused by that foam.

Fact both valves and transistors can operate on a varying voltage depending on how hard or soft the input source of what they are amplifying is.

_________________
No no and no

I'm a researcher and discovered the phenomena. I'm not an engineer. Somebody else has to develop the sensor! Meanwhile, it's all tube for me -- done...until SS incorporates a tube type sensor to simulate the *feel* of a tube amp!

I solved the play-back aspect of it: ASR Emitter (MOS-FET amp, battery powered input stage)
http://www.stereophile.com/integratedamps/1006asr

On the recording side, there can't be enough tubes involved. Odd vs. even harmonics, very different.

Cheers

David

_________________
"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

Yeah, but...that don't effect the playing field where the liquidity is. Good SS only has an effect on processing the sound, not creating the sound...

Until somebody designs and manufactures a SS tube vibration simulator sensor -- SS TuViSi Sensor, ftw, lol, that works (they still have to figure the whole thing out) I'm sticking with tube amps and tube effects (now I know why the Zoom G9.2tt sounds so good, it's got tubes at both the entry and exit stages -- tube in, tube out, to tube, total liquidity)!!!

Good luck to you then. One thing I can say is this. You better start stocking up on as many NOS tubes as you can. Because the difference between the quality of NOS vs. Modern is quite a bit. And once that stock runs out, it's gone for good.

If you're in a band that plays a lot of shows, that can still be a pricey venture. Tube amps are more fragile and take a beating at outdoor gigs in harsher elements. And does the crowd really feel the same liquid sound you produce somewhere in the mix of all of the other instruments and vocals going on?

From what I understand, older Fender amps were originally designed to have GE tubes installed. If you all of the sudden plug in a modern GT, you might just be plugging in the difference between drinking liquid, and murky swamp liquid. If you happen to be one of those tone chasers who reveres the older models to still be the best ever made, you might want to take that in serious consideration.

If you happen to have that killer amp that has say 11 tubes in it, and one starts to fail, leak, or be at the end of it's lifespan, you have a nice daunting task of finding out which one it is, and finding a replacement that's within the specs of your matched quad (power tube section). But hey, it's all about having the drinkable liquid isn't it?

What's that you say? Your $100 Mullard NOS preamp tube went microphonic in 2-months? Sorry to hear that. You should start looking for another one right away. Might take a few days or a week to get it though, depending on who you get them from.

It's all about the ideal of having the best of the best isn't it? Because that's what matters most right? Having the purest liquid to work with? If you're so Hell bent on having nothing but tube amps to work with, and the feeling of tube euphoria, then why stop there? Why not take it all the way to the ultimate liquid sound?

I'm reading that you won't play ANY SS amp until it has that pure "liquid" sound. But you are still saying that you want a SS amp. Now ask yourself why that is.

_________________

Isn't it just the old quality vs. cheap manufacturing? Modern TAD tubes aren't bad at all. I also had very good EH, JJ and Tung Sol tubes.


Cheers

David

_________________
"Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

In my opinion, there's no comparison. There are no modern tubes that I know of that have the purity and complexities of top tier NOS tubes. In the days of GE, RCA, Mullard, Tesla, Sylvania, Amperex, etc, tubes were used for much more than just guitar amps. Nowadays, it's not economically feasible for modern tube manufacturers to build tubes the way they were built in the old days.

_________________

Thank you! "Luck is preparation crossing the path of opportunity." I've already seen a video about how to make a tube.



You need to re-read what I wrote. It's not the "sound" that we're discussing, it's the *feel* and effect of sympathetic tube vibrations that creates a heightened (fluid and creative), liquid playing state throughout the playing and recording areas, sympathetic tube vibration, which enhances; sustain, over-tones, and feedback. I stated I want a SS amp with a SS device that simulates a tube sensing and reacting upon sympathetic vibrations to create a true tube effect -- the now unallusive missing link between creating true tube sound via SS and digital technologies, and not.

In other words, SS will always be sterile and lackluster until there is a devise within the SS device that senses and feeds back sympathetic vibrations to the playing area like a tube does.

If you're real sensitive to sound, you can hear the effect while playing an unplugged guitar next to a tube amp and, or speakers, headphones, drums...it's exactly like playing an amp cranked next to vacant drums.

And, about tubes breaking...I'll pay somebody the $$$ to make killer tubes if I have to until the SS tube sensing sympathetic vibration technology is fully developed, is usable, and is taking playing to new heights!

Amerigo I gotta agree with Jah on this one. Modern valves just dont compare to old Mullards. I chase the old early 60s yellow label ones. I had a couple of the 50s long plate square getters. Made to never go micro phonic so they could be used in A-bombs. Not enough difference to justify the cost though. And I do like valves to be a bit micro phonic.
I'd be interested to know which amp has a lot of liquid and feel.

_________________
No no and no

I have several tube and SS amps, and I really believe this....if you want the most improvement in your sound, improve your playing. The difference in your equipment is minimal, or put another way, a matter of personal preference that can change with the time of day, your mood, or the acoustics of the room. Two people can argue all day about the sound of an amp. when the difference in sound is due to the room the equipment is in.

In all sincerity, I honestly don't need to re-read it. I understood it just fine. I just believe it to be a shot in the dark of a theory with very little to back it up. If we're not discussing sound, then are you also saying that a deaf person would be able to feel the liquid? Or does it require sensitive ears?




If I'm playing an unplugged guitar next to a tube amp, then the tubes are pretty much out of the picture aren't they? Or will the unplugged sound bounce off the exterior of the glass and be reflected back into my ears creating the same liquid euphoria? I'm pretty sure if I play an unplugged guitar while placing a set of headphones next to it, the tubes will be WAY out of the picture. Especially if the amp is in the other room right?

_________________

I gig with vintage Fender tube amps all the time,the only failure I've had onstage was with the last one I bought,a 1967 Fender Vibrolux Reverb,I replaced the electrolytics but left the late '60s CTS speakers in it,I usually don't leave old speakers in the amps...they blew halfway through the first song,I changed to my back up amp a '66 Deluxe Reverb and was ready for the next song.
Granted I'm not on the road but I would take them out,I know pros who do.
As far as NOS tubes,they're what I prefer...you don't have to stick with GE tubes,RCA,or any special brand,all tubes have certain sonic characteristics,I love Mullards also,Nick,possibly my favorites,especially the GZ34....you can mix and match preamp tubes and color your sound quite differently,and I also carry a full set of spares in a small roadworthy case.
As new production tubes go there are some good ones out there,and a cheaper alternative to NOS tubes,I keep them on hand too.
Are tube amps inferior to gig with compared to SS amps...not in my world,I can get a tube amp going back to making music alot easier than an SS amp,which might not be repairable.
And yes,I have owned SS amps in the past.
ymmv of course.

What is the mechanism behind tubes "sympathetic vibration"? Is the "energy field" sonic or EM? How does the "energy field" enhance the various parameters you mention and therefore allow the finger muscles to relax?

Could you distinguish between various circuit device architectures in a double blind test?

_________________
In my opinion Leo Fender had essentially perfected the guitar amplifier by 1964.

_________________
Cheers
Steve

By sample size are you referring to the number of test they ran? Wouldn't "small variance" have some significance?

Not sure how a statistical analysis would add to the significance to such a limited test. But I'm not a scientist and I'm certainly not a statistician.

If there is any accuracy in this report then doesn't it at least tell us that most folks can't aurally distinguish tube from SS.

If you had the resources how would you conduct such a test? <- That could be a huge question so don't feel obligated to answer.

_________________
In my opinion Leo Fender had essentially perfected the guitar amplifier by 1964.