Audio advancement - why?


I was reading a thread in which the OP asked when SS lost to tubes. I completely understand that the OP's question was in good faith and what he/she wanted to know was when SS was a commercial success. I am not at all into tubes. But this does not mean I hate tubes. It is my choice not to go for tubes.Another poster in the same thread pointed out correctly that 99% electronic devices use SS.
What I always failed to understand is - how did humans achieve so many things is other fields except audio? I mean the original "computers" used tubes and were the size of a town house. Over the years science made progress and we now have "notebooks" and "netbooks". And these machines are more reliable and better than their tube counterparts. So what makes tubes better in mid-range and "other areas" that SS cannot achieve, when it comes to audio? Is it because people like the tube distortions over SS? Is it because companies want people to buy gear that have wear/tear and the maintenance keeps these companies going? I am sure there are some answers there. Please DO NOT misunderstand this thread as a SS VS Tubes. Please share your thoughts on this area.
128x128milpai

Showing 1 response by markphd

You state: "Is it because people like the tube distortions over SS?". Yes, that's probably it. The characteristics of tubes are pleasing to the ear. However, I would suggest that it is only some people who like tubes over solid state, or else everybody would use tubes. Aromatic hydrocarbons are pleasing to the nose, but I don't suggest you sniff gasoline. Fat is pleasing to taste, but I don't suggest you live only on jelly filled donuts. Tubes sound good, but I wouldn't suggest you listen only to tubes. It won't kill you like the gas or the fat, but like the gas or the fat, it has disadvantages as well as advantages. So choose the one you like and enjoy the music.