AR3a's...Tubes or S.S.

[Gerry S]

I believe the "sound" of a solid state amp would be indistingishable from that of a tube amp if both measured about the same regarding the major test parameters (mostly frequency response). As Tom stated above, those brief milli-second peaks is when higher power really is needed. Peaks can be 10 to 20 db higher than the norm. Ten db is ten times higher and 20 db is 100 times higher. So, there isn't much (if any) audible difference between a 50 watt and a 100 watt unit. Thankfully, the bulk of our listening is done using just milli-watts from our amps.

Tube units as a rule tend to sound more "graceful" when pushed beyond it's power rating. Among solid state units, there can be significant differences when amps are overloaded (driven to clipping). The better solid state units overload gracefully.

I believe it would be very expensive and bulky to build tube amps with the power cabilities of even modestly priced solid state units. My vote would be solid state. There is that "cool factor" about those tubes glowing in a dimly-lit listening room though!

[fran604g]

The only way to know for sure is to do an A-B comparison with the two amps with levels adjusted for equal output. This isn't easy, but without doing this, you cannot rely on your memory. The ear's memory is poor. It's nearly impossible to remember subtle differences that happened only seconds apart, let alone days; and this, incidentally, includes your wife. She probably has better hearing than you, but her ears' memory is poor as well. By the way, when you say an amp is "boring and lifeless," this usually means that the amp is not adding to or subtracting from the program material. It is simply reproducing the signal fed to it.

There is likely little difference when an A-B test is done the correct way. I believe the TAD 60 puts out about 50 watts/channel at rated distortion, and this is significantly less than the Adcom GFA-555. Nevertheless, there may be subtle differences, but if both amps are functioning properly and if the tube amp has sufficient power, etc., the differences should be very small, if at all. The big differences come when there are big, high-power peaks in the music, and at this point the Adcom is easily the winner.

--Tom Tyson

I mostly agree Tom. That being said, I'm not new to these amps, nor my entire system. The difference we've perceived is very slight and when my wife said there was no improvement in the sound using the Adcom, I should probably have added that it didn't sound better to our ears. We are both very critical of the way any change in the system sounds. And you're correct; her ears are better than mine. I don't compare my different components in the attempt to like or dislike any of them, I just know what I end up liking overall. In fact, the TAD 60 and my Altec 604's have as yet to be bested by any other combination I own. The TAD with the 3a's are our second favorite combination, followed by the Adcom with the 3a's, my KLH 6's and finally the 4x's. My son and daughter have both expressed their opinions the same as well.

Totally unscientific, but those are the results for us.

The odd thing is; with both amps at the same relative sound level, the TAD just seems "fuller." Also, the imaging seems very slightly better to my ears.

Purely subjective, of course.