Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert
From: seifert@ihuxl.UUCP (D.A. Seifert)
Newsgroups: net.audio
Subject: Re: Tubes/bipolar/FETs
Message-ID: <1203@ihuxl.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 28-Jun-84 09:18:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxl.1203
Posted: Thu Jun 28 09:18:31 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 30-Jun-84 02:46:31 EDT
References: <494@drutx.UUCP> <2887@rabbit.UUCP> <515@drutx.UUCP> <566@opus.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 25

Since we seem to be discussing tubes vs solid state, how about
tubes vs bipolar vs FETs?

power-FETs are supposed to have some of the 'good' qualities
of tubes. One of these is 'soft-clipping'.  My theory is get
a big enough amp or more efficient speakers and don't worry
about clipping.

Another spec that came out about the time power-FETs did is
TIM (and its siblings).  FETs tend to be fast and have good
bandwidth/low TIM.

Are there any other theories of why FETs sound better than
bipolars?  Anyone think bipolars sound better than FETs?

For FET amps, I'm thinking of the Sony 5650 and the Hafler.
(power amp, not pre-amp!  Everyone I know who had the Hafler
preamp has replaced it. Something about the bass not being flat.)

-- 
	_____
       /_____\		Hey, Woodstock, have you seen my sunscreen?
      /_______\	
	|___|			    Snoopy
    ____|___|_____	       ihnp4!ihuxl!seifert