High Fidelity vs Digital

Perhaps listening to classical music (especially cello, violin and piano) on a good electrostatic loudspeaker system will have your mind changed.

My preference goes to QUAD electrostats with little inertia and full range membrane.

(Not e.g. a Jensen with regular bass loudspeakers)

Regular speakers have their impedance increased with higher frequencies. (Z=ωL)

Something I will never forget because sweeping our sound system with extreme low frequencies made us replace 40 300Watts loudspeakers, 2 hours before the live concert because all the coils were gone. (Klipsch sub woofers)

Perhaps I have read you wrong.

I also disagree with your theory that a vacuum tube amp is "current" driven.

and the same goes for transistor amps as being "voltage" driven, unless you mention FET applications.

Regular speakers have acceleration and deceleration problems, to mention, besides lots of other imperfections.

Speaker systems manufacturers try their best to make it sound more "agreeable" and "better" than it actually is.

Some extra punch in the bass and highs make the systems sell easier.

However, once you have played the violin under your chin, most speakers go astray, due to how a speaker: the coil, the spider, the suspension, the material and weight of the cone is behaving, together with the acoustic damping in the enclosure.

Phase incoherence: causes cancellation and distortion at certain frequencies. This was found to be a correctable problem by using speaker cables and interconnect cables designed to reduce the cause of this distortion.

I reckon I'm not the only one who would benefit from a further explanation of this statement. I can understand phase incoherence occurring in a poor quality interconnect, but what is the problem with using a simple large copper wire (e.g. mains cable) for loudspeaker connections?

This was found to be a correctable problem by using speaker cables and interconnect cables designed to reduce the cause of this distortion.Total BS. Its snake oil.

For speaker cables: Zip cord (mains cord), (which many people to connect their speakers to the power amp) for example consists of wire which is twisted giving it enough inductance in long runs to reduce the high frequency content and shift it in phase resulting in blurring or smearing the attack edges of the signal waveform; for short runs , 3 feet, this may be negligible, but the longer the run, the greater the degradation.

Also at much higher frequencies, where the information for attack and transients is conveyed, skin effect starts to become a factor. Skin effect is where the magnetic field surrounding the wires pushes the electrons away from the center of the conductor towards the outer surface thus increasing the impedance as there is less effective Cross sectional area available.

For low frequency information (below 1khz) Copper wire of sufficiently large enough diameter (say at least #10 or larger) will provide low enough impedance to ensure a good power amplifiers High damping factor will be able to control the tendency for the speakers mass to cause overshooting.

For Sub Woofers, mains cord of sufficient diameter will work just fine.

One of the better solutions has been to build the power amplifiers into the speaker cabinet thus minimizing potential problems of phase distortion and loss of damping. Powered speakers are now very common in many systems. Acoustat was one of the early companies integrating their large (6ft by 2ft by 3 in thick as I recall) Electostatic speakers and their power amps.

Did I answer your question sufficiently?

Dan

"Zip cord" "blurring or smearing the attack edges of the signal waveform"

I experienced this first hand many years ago when starting a band. Big room required separation of loudspeakers and all we had that long was zip cord.

Lots of volume to get over the crowd noise and it sounded like we had covered the speakers with a piece of carpeting. I called a friend who had pro cables and all was well. (well, all was better)

Hi Lyn,

We had similar experiences with Zip cord, prompting us to spend a year looking into wire and cabling factors that produced sound degradation. We found many factors involved and worked with several manufactures such as ISOLA cable from Switzerland, Fischer High current single line connector sets, Lemo connectors for the coaxial interconnects, Hatachi who developed a very low capacity, non inductive coaxial cable for long runs in studios we designed and built. This and many other incremental changes wound up in very clear and natural sound reproduction in all our studios and auditorium installation.

We often would compare Live sound to our reproduced recordings to guide us in our improvements. This was done over a period of many years. We would bring random people off the streets to be our evaluators; not a group of "golden ears". Even people of advanced age, could discern which of our changes, done one change at a time, were most clearly improving the duplication of the live source material.

Thank you for your comments.

Dan

Wow. I am sorry, but almost all of that is highly overrated myths about wire and audio.

Skin effect is essentially non-existant for anything but 100s or 1,000s of feet or wire and even at that it is such a high frequency that it is not important. If you think otherwise, lets see the math. I think you find that there is no significant impact for home use or even professional sound systems on a stage.

Inductance is no different can also be ignored for typical home instillations. People buy into this because the don't understand the math or don't want to do the math and just throw money at the problem.

Professional sound systems may be different, but a typical 10' 16-2 zip cable is essentially transparent to audio.

You are talking about less than a 1/4 µH per foot for zip cord and into an 8Ω load at 10' you might see a 1/4 dB drop at 20,000 Hz. That's not even audible at that frequency as the best change in SPL the human ear can detect is about 1 dB @ 1 to 5 kHz.

Thank you, but your answer fails to note that the skin effect is negligible at audio frequencies. It also fails to note that audiophile loudspeaker cable invariably consists of multi-strand cable twisted to provide the inductance you despise. There has to be some other explanation for paying 5-10 GBP per meter for audio-pseud speaker cable as opposed to solid 2.5 mm2 mains cable at 0.4 GBP per meter.

Dan,

Some observations:

The weakest link in a playback system is the speakers and by a wide margin. I can't control what the studio does as far as recording, only select the best recorded and mastered material I can find.

Cable phase incoherence has got me confused. The only issues with cables I have ever had to keep an eye on is cable capacitance for input lines and wire gauge for cables that run between the amp and loudspeaker.

Generally, those are as short as possible to avoid frequency attenuation in the former and loss of power due to impedance of the wire in the latter.

Phase distortion is more of a pshycho-acoustic problem. It is easy to measure the response on a system, but its effect is not well understood from the listener's perspective.

Dr. Geddes has done some useful research on the subject.

First of all, I fully agree with your comments above concerning the play back side of the acoustic chain. We were designing the entire audio chain from the recorders thru to the speaker systems. I understand the limitations in trying to get the best from prerecorded materials you had no control over.

In the late 60's speaker manufactures started paying a lot of attention in multiple speaker systems, to locating the radiating surfaces of the different speakers into exactly the same plane. They had found out that at frequency bands where more than one speaker, in a multi-speaker system was active, that they were getting some addition and cancellation from the speaker signals being out of phase with each other. "Phase alignment " then became a factor in building speaker systems/enclosures.

There are a number of papers published by the Acoustical Engineering society (AES) starting in the late 60's, regarding phase distortion issues. One area that I found of interest was the subject of the HAAS effect. This concern an aspect of the human ear that was not previously well known or understood.

The Ear is also a phase detector, which is used to pinpoint the direction from which a sound originates. One interesting experiment you can try: Plug up and cover one ear to sound proof it as much as possible; the sit in a chair in the middle of a room with open space all around you with your eyes closed. Then have some walk around you and randomly talk to you. You should be able to point to the speakers location fairly accurately, with only one ear operating. The delay time of the sound , also affected by the shape of the outer ear gives the brain sufficient data for sound direction location. Please look up the Haas effect for a more complete discussion of the subject.

Thank you for your comments and the reference link.

Dan

Very lucid comments. Years ago, I researched the market fo available speakers which suited my hearing and taste (bearing in mind that what you hear is a product of the amplifier) and not the speakers. Anyhow, my conclusion was that Bose was more suitable for Jazz/ Rock, and nothing came close to B&W Linton for classical reproduction. I do not recall whether the same amp was used in these cases, as it was a sound-room set-up with several amps connected and ready-to-go.

I assume your "electrostatic " speakers are the same as what I learned to know as "planar" speakers, which are wall-mounted? I have nothing bad to say about the reproduction of these, except that they tend to 'soften the punch' of Jazz/Rock somewhat, which I didn't like.

The electrostatic speaker I mentioned does not perform against a wall. The membrane is producing sound in front, but also from the back. It is mounted in a perforated steel plate flat box (also for safety because this speaker works with peaks of tens of thousands of volts) It should also not be placed in corners.

Experimenting with the position nears auditorium results and generates never ending battles with madame, because the speakers can end up several feet away from walls to strategic places in e.g. the living room. And these are big. more than 4 Ft high by 3 Ft Wide and 4 inch thick.

I still have my set of Quad ESL here for 25 Years now.

Sound studios had introduced a monitor system called East Lake. The acoustics in the sound engineer room was reproduced as a standard for music recording.

Behind the glass, you could find the same sound system - quasi everywhere and also the same bricks at the same spots and positions.

JBL had a good foot in this with their 2 way monitors. However for pop music, the final mix was made frequently on small speaker systems to represent - how a radio - sounded.

Music was my first love and....

I have mixed some albums together in studios like Matrix, Strawberry, Abbey Road (UK)

Dieter Dierckx (DE) Madeleine, and more. Sometimes we traveled with the tapes to various studios because of special features or studio musicians. That was all analog these days: from 2 channel stereo in one shot up to 48 sound channels in the worst scenario.

While not mixing, we developed speakers (mostly high power) and fabricated special coils for wedge monitors. Our dead room still exists I heard.

We did repairs for JBL, Altec, Electrovoice, B&W, Kef, and some others. If I look back at it - shiploads. Same for the then Pro Amps AMCRON, Phase Linear etc..

I never liked Bose as professional sound amplification system. You are right about the jazz and brass. The Bose systems had several small speakers in one box and missed the essentials: the bass was not really impressive and the high tones very synthetic. The marketing was unique and they introduced the first composite housing and also coils with very low impedances (some less than 1 ohms- because they were in series in the boxes and some 2 X 4 in series)

With the small light cones and loose suspension they were very fast and could follow trumpet divertimentos easily.

I had the opportunity to tour one season with James Last, and Bose was the best choice for his music. Bose uses a lot of equalizing to reach an acceptable sound spectrum for its price.

When I lived in Europe, I enjoyed classical live concerts, operas as well as open air live concerts.

In my euforia I forgot part of your question:

Electrostatic loudspeakers may have a problem with dynamics in low frequencies.

They are condensors and the membrane moves in an electrostatic field. Low tones are even sudden pressure fields and need large membrane surface or you feel "empty", floppy etc..

The pointer sisters at very high level don't sound well because of the dynamic(s) in the music. (I'm so excited)

JBL deals with that perfectly, but my Quads dare saturate if the basic volume is too high

100 Watts is only good enough for 120 dB which may not lead to an eargasm.

OK I am mistaken..they are not what I thought they were, at all! I have never listened to this type of speaker before.

I always took it as being the opposite, that tube amps are voltage driven and solid state are current driven....(The third link below says exactly the same by the way!)

Do you have any links to support your ideas?

I looked around and found the following:-

http://thehub.musiciansfriend.com/tech-tips/difference-between-tube-and-solid-state-guitar-amps

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7SR_xL9Byg

http://www.gmarts.org/index.php?go=214

http://guitargopher.hubpages.com/hub/Tube-Amp-vs-Solid-State-Which-Best-Guitar-Amp-You

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_amplifier

In this last link, you can find the following:-

Power valves typically operate at higher voltages and lower currents than transistors - although solid state operating voltages have steadily increased with modern device technologies. High RF power radio transmitters in use today operate in the kilovolt range, where there is still no other comparable technology available. (Power = volts x amps so high power requires high volts, high amps or both)

Many power valves have good linearity but modest gain or transconductance. Signal amplifiers using tubes are capable of very high frequency response ranges - up to radio frequency. Indeed, many of the directly heated single-ended triode (DH-SET) audio amplifiers are in fact radio transmitting tubes designed to operate in the megahertz range. In practice, however, tube amplifier designs typically "couple" stages either capacitively, limiting bandwidth at the low end, or inductively with transformers, limiting the bandwidth at both ends.

I think you are misunderstanding.

A typical solid state amp may be rated at 100 Watts into 8 Ω. That same amp will rate the output at 200 Watts into 4 Ω.

That's a voltage-drive amp. The lower the impedance, the higher the output power.

A current-drive amp just does the reverse. Typically, valve amp architecture functions in this way. The lower the impedance, the less power (in Watts) is delivered into the load.

These are not my ideas, but a valuable link can be found here at Lenard Audio that does a good job at explaining it.

Once you understand that, take a look at the graphs for loudspeaker impedance. Here is an example I designed a number of years back:

Knowing how a voltage-drive amp (typical solid state amp) works with respect to output power versus load, what does that tell you about the expected SPL level when compared to a current-drive amp?

Now, here is the same system theoretical SPL when the power to the loudspeaker is adjust and held at a constant 1 Watt output over the sweep range (note, amplifiers do not normally behave this way with a variable impedance load).

While the on-axis theoretical plot is fairly flat, the real-world response is not. It is subject variation due to changing load conditions (and room interactions) that depend on the type of amplifier driving it.

Note that none of this has anything to do with distortion. This is simply SPL versus signal input at the amp (assuming signal in is held constant over frequency).

Let's sum this up.
• Amplifier power output varies with respect to impedance of the load.
• The actual power delivered to the load versus impedance depends on the topology of the amp.
• As a general rule, solid state amps behave as voltage-drive amps.
• As a general rule, valve amps behave as current-drive amps.

A current-drive amp just does the reverse. Typically, valve amp architecture functions in this way. The lower the impedance, the less power (in Watts) is delivered into the load.

This is due to a completely different Ra - i.e. the load impedance that defines the set point of the amplification factor in a valve.

Most valve amplifiers have a end transformer (= impedance transformer)

Mismatching the load from, say 4 to 8 Ω (or vice versa) also translates in a completely different end valve working condition.

The graphs you are showing is not for a speaker, but for the complete speaker box.

The impedance measurements are the measurement of:

An array that has a passive crossover filter in it:

For that JBL: in the low part, a coil in series with the speaker and a capacitor in parallel with the woofer (some version of the 2236 had also a resistor in series with the capacitor)

I replaced many burned out filters of these. JBL used iron core coils that saturated easily and turned out to become heaters that burned the shellack isolation of the copper wires. Of course when than happened in the woofer section, it was still performing.

Only totally different.

The high filter has a capacitor in series, and a coil parallel with the tweeter.

The graphs are the measurement of the total setup, loaded with the speakers.

The newest developments have no passive filters but have amplifiers, one for each speaker with the frequency curve determined before the amp with active band filters

(electronics)

You wrote, "The graphs you are showing is not for a speaker, but for the complete speaker box."

Quite! That is why I called them loudspeakers.

It is what the amplifier sees as its load.

As I illustrated, the impedance seen by the amp changes over frequency, so will the power supplied to the loudspeaker.

Bi-amping and tri-amping is a better way to manage the loudspeaker by eliminating the phase shift changes brought on by passive filter networks and take advantage of the amp's damping factor. It still doesn't address impedance changes by the loudspeaker, which should use a Zobel network.

Most home HiFi systems are not bi-amped or ti-amped, so it is kind of a mute point.

Most professional sound reinforcement systems do not use valve amplifiers, either, which is also a mute point.

However, home HiFi systems that use both a valve amp and a solid state amp to drive the same loudspeakers (not at the same time, obviously) will sound different because each amp manages the changes in impedances differently.

My whole point in the discussion was because of the different ways the impedance is handled by the different amps it will yield a different sound. This is what people mistakenly call the tube sound, but it really has nothing to do with the tube, just the architecture of the amp.

The above does not hold true for musical instrument amps because they are typically driven to some degree of desirable distortion and we all know that the distortion characteristics are different between valves and solid state.

One final exception, just so no one jumps on my back, is the SET valve amp. These are a single output tube and introduce audible distortion at the output by design. There is a whole subculture that are into this kind of distortion for HiFi. It's not my cup of tea as it seems senseless to add distortion to the final product.

SETs were the original product of late 19th and early 20th Century technology and cheap radios where parts cost was an important consideration. They were abandoned in the 40s and early 50s by HiFi enthusiasts when the push-pull circuit became popular and designs like the Williamson and Mullard circuits. These improvements vastly reduced distortion and increased power.

The graphs you provided are very important when considering the type of amplifier (solid state vs tube). Back in college, we had a class on solid state components (and amplifier design). We discussed the difference between tube and solid state amplifiers and how the load impedance affects the amplifier. Follow this logic for a second.

1. The top graph shows the impedance at different frequencies - makes sense due to the speaker coils and crossover impedance being frequency dependent.

2. Tube amplifiers produce more power with a high impedance - think about the big no-no with a tube amp; running it with no load - you'll burn it out.

3. If a tube amp pushes out more power with higher impedance, then based on the top graph, the output will be higher at certain frequencies.

4. Solid state amplifiers produce more power with a low impedance - think about what you're never suppose to do; short the load.

5. Solid state amps push out more power at low impedance, so based on the top graph, the output will be higher at certain frequencies.

6. Solid state amps will accentuate low impedance, while tube amps will accentuate high impedance - exactly the opposite and the reason for a difference in sound.

I hope this helps.

GA. I'd never seen the source impedance argument before. It makes sense.

For some reason it is completely overlooked.

People dwell on distortion, but any HiFi amp worth its salt will have distortion figures well below the threshold of hearing. Loudspeakers produce far more distortion than amps.

HiFi audio, for most people, appears to have more in common with voodoo than science.

I'll give you a maybe, but not in the context of music reproduction using analog/Hi fi vs digital. JBL makes high end sound equipment. I've toured their Northridge facility.

The subtile difference between the two signals would not be dectable when played through the same transducers, regardless of the type.

I tried to say that in post #2.

Oh, you used too many big words.

Over the years, I've had a few stereo systems. Currently, I have one system in the bedroom and the "main" system downstairs. I did notice a difference in sound quality when I switched components. For instance:

1. A few years ago, my Sony CD player (one of their better ones) died, so I bought a Marantz (recommended by a friend). The frequency response was probably no different and the dynamic range was high, but the Marantz has an "openness" of the music was much better. The sound stage is wider and I could pick out instruments much better (placement and separation).

2. In our bedroom, I have a nice sounding set of Genesis 66 speakers and a pair of JMlab surrounds. I was running them off a 50WPC Sony receiver ($200 receiver) and they sounded good - good enough for our bedroom. When I moved my Sony ES receiver to the bedroom (STR-DA 1000) I said "Wow, what a difference!" Granted, the output power is at least double, but even at low volume, the sound is much "fuller" and the sound stage is more 3D.

3. I had the Sony ES receiver (1000) hooked up to our main system downstairs and it sounded great. When I upgraded to a new "digital" Sony ES receiver (STR-DA 4300), I didn't expect much difference in sound since it was just a newer version with more Home Theater features. I have "nice" speakers and they're set-up right: Polk Tower's (RTi10) up front with Energy Classic 5.1's for surround (less the sub, which is upstairs) and a Carver SW-150p powered subwoofer. The difference in the receivers can be heard in the music reproduction - "brighter" and when watching movies - more "punch" with the 4300. I like the 1000 more when I'm listening to music, but since it's our home entertainment system, the 4300 performs better. Both have the same output 100 X 7 at 0.09% 20-20K 8 ohm, but the amplifier design is different. The 1000 does not have the Direct Drive "digital" amplifier, while the 4300 does, so that may be the difference - I'm just guessing at this point, since they're both from the same "family" of receivers.

So, even though the stereo components shouldn't make a discernable difference in sound, it actually does. From a CD player with better D/A converters to a "digital" vs "non-digital" amplifier - there is a difference. Was I happy with the old Sony CD player and "non-digital" amplifier? Yes! Am I happier with the Marantz CD player and the "digital" amplifier? Yes!

I bought a Pioneer receiver last year, chosen on the basis that it claimed 75wRMS per channel. Hahaha... I have prevented friends making that mistake several times before.

It's adequate though, for movies and since the room is long (8mtrs) the 6.2 format suits it well enough, but beware, I think almost all the manufacturers are bullsh*tters!

There's a receiver currently in our local shop, claiming 2500watts Rms !

The proof the merchant offered of the o/put power were the speakers...huge, and horrible......I just left quite abruptly, to hear him tell another prospective customer that I was 'quite rude'....still, the set seems to have been sold now!

Are you saying your receiver did not produce 75 WPC RMS?

How did you determine this?

Definitely not at all the channels. If I use only the front L & R channels, then yes. When connecting the other channels, it seems to actually draw down the front L&R, as well as providing less in the surrounds.

I didn't have measuring equipment available, but my ears told me so. Don't laugh, been doing this for years, and am familiar with Pioneer sound equipment , and have previously owned a 100w RMS audio amp which I ran with the same speakers I currently run (Pioneer, Rogers and Tannoy). I would estimate I get about 50wrms/channel at max push.

Well i once had to explain to a BIG BOX sales person that the claimed watts output was greater than the power input. Unless there was a tiny nuclear reactor in the amp it can not be.

So, I notice that you neglected to tell us what is poor and what is good!

My take is probably nothing to do with the style of the amp, eg. valve against solid state!

Am I right?

Correct. What JBL did was prove that even people with less than perfect or even good hearing were able to discriminate between audio systems of different fidelity reproduction.

I can't find the actual link to that study.

If you can't tell the difference in any really significant way then any improvement efforts are moot.

Impaired hearing most probably due to excessive loud music and machines.

My main confusion regarding sound quality is why the PA system's sound quality in a modern aircraft does not seem to have progressed at all. Still sounds shiite.

Navigation systems as well ?? I know of two possible failures in one year...

I recall that railway station PAs were impossible to understand once and that got fixed a long time ago.

Why do aircraft lag behind?

Probably because no one wants to hear what the crew has to say anyway.

In an evolution from crystal sets, drive-in movie speakers, my first 6 transistor AM radio, through my sisters portable Silvertone stereo hooked up to an aviation headset converted to stereo, on to "high end" equipment. Full circle, back to what sounds like a drive-in speaker.

Not exactly what you asked but I think some of the tube vs. solid state myth/argument comes from overdriving the equipment. The tube amplifiers will overdrive in a "softer" manner and may even produce a desirable sound when overdriven. Solid state will typically remain pretty linear up to the point of rather harsh clipping. Thus, you would probably be very unhappy with the sound of an overdriven solid state amplifier.

There are, of course, solid state amplifiers designed to act like a tube amplifier. I don't know how well they work.

I've never done any overdriving but over the years I have worked with several people in bands. They all seem to say the same thing.

I purchased a set of Bose bookshelf speakers at an estate sale.When I play CDs they sound flat and sterile. When I listen to ancient recordings on a radio show they sound great.

I am one of the unbelievers about Tubes/valves being generally better than solid state amps....

The sound of valves may be "richer", but for me that is distortion.....of a type that many like....

Cleaner, I do not believe.....because I still believe that valves distort!!! So really "Dirty" to my mind....

I have always been of the opinion that valves "color" the sound, in a way that many like, far more dramatically than any quality solid state Transistor or IC amp I have used.....

They also "age" over quite short periods and really need to be properly set up (if so designed to allow this) about once a year for someone who uses it a lot!!! But I could easily believe that this is not generally possible with modern units....

The valve Mark 44 gun amps that I used in the RN, needed and hour switched on to stabilise, and also needed setting up on a very regular basis, just so that the guns could hit the target! Before every shoot!! When set up properly (newly) they could cut the tow wire for the target easily....

Quality and cost were of a "money no object" type, but ll valves age....then the guns would miss......enough to put me off valves for life for accurate sound reproduction.....

Also the valves use far more power, give out large amounts of heat, are usually far bulkier and are thought to be more pretty!! Efficient they are not!!

No thanks. I will stay with solid state.....my 10 year old Denon receiver does everything (and well I believe), that I need.....

I actually believe that Tube amps are for the more gullible "believers"......but that's just me.....Friends I have that use Tube/valve amps are all, to a man/woman, non technical......but have deep pockets.....I actually also feel that most are easily lead.....

By the way, all amps were tube/valve when I was much younger, I know well the sound they make....its an OK sound, but I have always felt, far too colored!! But then there was nothing else around....no choice!!

At the end of the day, as the old British saying goes:- "you pays your money and you makes your choice!" = Each to his own!!

Anything below .5% THD is inaudible. It doesn't matter if it is valves, solid state, or unobtanium.

Both of my valve amps that I built and designed myself are well below that distortion threshold. If you didn't see them you wouldn't know that they were not solid state you were listening to.

Any modern HiFi amp (regardless of topology) easily performs that well. It's not magic, it's quantitative measurement.

"you pays your money and you makes your choice!"

Here's the truth friends....the more you pay, the better it will sound , to you.

of the analog sine wave, which has a continuous value,and resulting in turn, in an output looking something like morse code.----- ---- ---, where one can 'hear' the silence between the dots an dashes.

Most of us do not possess hearing of such quality, that we discern minor differences, as has been stated here before.

Fom the outset, I claimed CD's were not of the same quality as as a good pressing vinyl edition. I talked many into it, while playing each over my high-end equipment, and inviting them to compare (anything from Beethoven to Black Sabbath) . The sound reproduction from the CD always left 'something' to be desired. I believe this lack of fullness is the result of the digital square wave, created from the conversion. I listened to a quality tube -amp just last week, and am in no way convinced it was better than a solid-state device.The crackle and hiss of the old Beatles and Stones albums was a nostalgia trip only, and became irritating after a while.

The 'something to be desired' probably had more to do with the equipment than the theory of digitization used to make CDs.

Playback systems are subject to their own set of problems such as transport jitter and timing inconsistencies and their DACs. As with anything, some systems are better than others, just as the recording of the source music varies.

So, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

To answer your question, there is a loss of content when converting from analog to digital and vice versa. To get as true a reproduction as possible (through your loudspeakers), it depends on how much processing has been done and the quality of the processing. To make things less complicated, let's not look at the quality of the processing (make the assumption that it's all top quality, though there are losses) and you're using a receiver, not separate pre-amp and amp.

If the recording is analog, then pressing vinyl is also analog. When playing the record, the pick up on the stylus is analog, so an analog signal is sent to the amp input. If the amp is a tube amp, then the analog signal is amplified and send to the loudspeakers as an analog signal. All the demons with D/A converters and their losses are non-existant - as pure sound as you can get.

Using the same analog recording, if the amplifier is digital, the signal coming into the amp will be analog. The analog signal will be processed into a digital signal, amplified and processed back into an analog signal. Each time the signal is processed, something is lost. The benefit of digital amplification is that it's perfect - no loss. So, there is a loss in the A/D and D/A conversion, but the amplification is better.

If the recording was done digitally, then things are different. To make a vinyl record, the original needs to be changed into an analog signal (can't record a digital signal onto vinyl - at least not efficiently). This adds an extra D/A conversion where losses will occur. If instead of a vinyl record, the recording is left in it's digital state (CD, SACD or DVD-A, then the player can output the digital signal into the receiver, it's processed and amplified digitally and processed into an analog signal then sent to the speakers. One D/A conversion and better amplification.

So, to answer your question, it depends on the recording (digital or analog). For an analog recording, there is less processing in the tube amp, but for a digital recording, the higher quality digital amplification makes the digital system better.

Thanks to all who contributed to this discussion. Truthfully, it was more information than I could comfortably absorb. Audio is a complex topic; subject to many variables. There doesn't appear to be a one answer solution.