differences between tube and solid state designs

I agree - mostly I think it's that tubes have become more able to deal with low sensitivity speakers because many of the better tube designers are incorporating their own transformer designs/windings, and using certain materials which were not as readily available in the past. Global market place, blah blah. Also I think factory conversion in eastern Europe has produced some great new tubes like Mullard and Amperex repros, and especially the new JJ Teslas. Much better than any NOS's I have tried which all tend to be microphonic, tired, fiddly or just plain crappy sounding. I also think people have had more time to think about new designs - look at the Manley Stingray, which is probably my pick for most elegant tube design of all time. The complaints I would lodge against SS are at the lower end of the market. However, I do find that the lack of air and harmonic distortion is still sort of a problem, and inherent in the SS designs. The difference between using amps vs. voltage to power a speaker (solid state v. tube), are real, and basically insurmountable. The zen-ish designs like Pass really don't do it for me, and although I like the sound of Levinson or Orpheus, I can also tell that they aren't communicating quite the way I would want. It is nice to have that quiet dark sound and the enigmatic cool box though. Bass and treble can definitely be extended by using some solid state. But it can wear on your brain aka gives me a headache, without tubes. Still, for people afraid of changing lightbulbs, I guess it's a good option... No, seriously though, my favorite SS designs are the 1970's Japanese designs like Kenwood and Yamaha and the old Sony's, which I happily use in my system, they work great and tubes give them some life. Best of both worlds and cheaper than anything you see at a show. Plus, the problem with shows is the rooms suck, so it's hard to tell what things really sound like. The room *is* the thing - a little insulation will change your system more drastically than a new source or a $1000. pair of cables. I always laugh at the guys on here with $100,000. worth of equipment in a room that's got a wood roof sloping down on half the listening area and pillars inbetween the speakers and the couch and to top it off is backed with a brick fireplace. Like, seriously, what were they thinking? Is that really going to sound better than a pair of Paradigms and an integrated Arcam with a decent source in a well-deadened room? No...

Has anyone read the article in one of the hi-fi mags this month that asks: can audio ever really sound "real"? I haven't yet. It seems that the answer is probably that it can sound "true", but based on the fact that it is standing in for another component made differently and physically different, probably no, it can't sound "real" in the same way. This is why I usually aim for a "trueness" in my system.

Do your vocal cords sit in a big square wood box? Are they 6 feet high and made out of eletrified sheets of polymer? Do your speakers posses a full string section? Does a french horn run on magnets? No? How exactly, is it tainted?

Almost sounds like SS... but doesn't. Plinius and Pass? Yuck.

Well said Trelja. There's a reason the VW Beetle worked. Simplicity.

I wish a convergence revolution would happen among speaker manufacturers the way it has with tubes and SS - where quality would go up, and value would go up *not* in direct relation to price. Not that there aren't bad $10,000 speakers. There are. I know it's harder to design them, but why, WHY, must they all pretty much suck? Amps have come so far, and the output devices lag so far behind.

Actually, I think the old tubes sound old and crappy and most likely the "golden glow" people remember is bad reproduction - I have had very bad experiences with NOS even JAN - I won't buy them anymore; microphonic, poor lifespan, inconsistent output. Everything I hate about tubes. The reproductions are much better. And the new Czech tubes like JJ Teslas and Golden Lions are really the real deal - as good as the Mullard EL34's. Not the same sound but as good. I don't want something lush that hides things and then makes fizzy sounds after an hour and tapping sounds as I walk around when I get out of my seat to figure out what the hell is going on. Of course I also don't care for 300B's so much... High tolerances are for the best I think, computer-controlled robotics doing transformer windings, along with rare metal alloys that weren't available before, really have made both SS and tubes function at a higher level. I know many hi-end manufacturers now use silver wire, rhodium, cryo, or whatever to improve the throughpath and power supply.

As far as speakers go, I know: make one aspect of output better means the others get worse. It's just part of the math. But what I'd really like to know is why when a company like Zu or Joseph or Green Mountain comes up with a novel way of making a speaker people can't wait to tear them down.

Any time you have a vacuum, you have a weak link. I think tubes are inherently better to listen to, and replacing every few years and a slightly higher noise floor is a small price to pay for dynamic realism. Considering how noisey the world is these days anyway, it's kind of an academic problem unless you live in the middle of nowehere, and still the hiss is, on my system, unnoticeable except at *very* high volume and with no music playing. So I take the bad with the good.

I know what you mean about high end... it took me a while to see how tubes also, to my mind, handle the low end better. The hard clipping of solid state can really take you out of the music, the movie, whatever. Soft clipping, and a certain "trueness" in the staging of the bass, aka holography in creating a tone to the room the music is in, I think it has to do with sympathetic chord reproduction, is what I appreciate as much now.