I've heard tubed players that sound wonderful, and SS players that do as well. A tube(s) in the output stage of a CD player, does not, by any means, to my ears, make anywhere near as profound a distinction as does implementation/comparison of tubes in the amp and or pre-amp stages of a system. Perhaps I have just not heard enough tubed players(?). I don't think I'd be able to blindly identify a high-end CD player implementing a tubed output stage and consistently distinguish it from a high-end player with an SS output stage. I do, however, think I could blindly tell the differences between a thoughtfully assembled SET tube system and any comparable SS system where it comes to tubes in the amplification stage. I think what is being implied by Zosima, if I may be so bold, is that the lower priced CD players are more often prone to digital glare or harshness simply because of the economy of their circuitry and transport. A tubed output stage has the ability to take the hard edges off the output signal and therefore would occur to some as making a fairly significant contribution in that case. The more expensive SS players which tend to have a no-holds-barred design do not have the same problems with digititis as cheaper players, and in fact have many strengths to offer that are unique to their SS roots. In the case of the latter those strengths may actually be compromised by implementation of a tubed output stage. In any case the differences in implementing a tubed output in the case of the latter, would occur to me to be less profound. I don't think it is necessarily a matter of the quality of the tubed output being "diminished", but rather a case of those qualities no longer having as great an advantage. In many cases the advantages of the no-holds-barred SS may win out over tubes. I don't think it is as apples/oranges as in the case of amplification.
Marco
Marco