Tubes? Transistors? Which are better?

I am in total agreement with tubegroover and kevziek. Tubes are just more musical. I used to own a Classe 70 amp, then upgraded to my current Aronov. Wow, what a difference. Definitely feels like a performer is in the room singing just for me. Yippeee!! I can immerse myself for a while and enjoy the musical moment. For me, that's what this is all about. Helps relieve stress and all that. Of course, its not as accurate as SS, bass not as tight. But, my speakers don't have much base anyway. Although, a few years ago I listened to a dealer demo system with a pair of Levinson No.33 monoblocks, Levinson CDT/DAC, Wilson Grand Slamms, and Transparent cables and boy, that was REAL good, an event for me really. It was CD too! Reminds me of the tube 'presence' and much more. I guess the top-level SS might have everything you could ever want. (haven't hear a top-flight tube system yet though)

In my experience, solid state does not sound as musical as tubes. On a very basic level, tubes sound more like the instruments sound. SS is thinner, flatter, less fleshed out, less dimensional, less body, less harmonic structure.

I don't care anymore about damping factor, the tightest and most powerful bass, the last shred of detail, the lowest distortion, etc., ad nauseum. All I care about is what gives me the most pleasure and sounds more REAL. To be honest, I have found that tubes actually give the MOST detail; they are better able to sort out the instrumental lines than any solid state amp does. Yes, there might be some tiny detailing that is more evident on SS, but SS still does not keep the instrumental lines as separated and does not give you the organic "whole" of the entire musical ensemble. It's hard to explain, but when you hear the things tubes do so much better, you don't want to listen to SS anymore. I'm a musician, so my ear is quite atuned to knowing what sounds most like the musical experience, and tubes are that.

I find the highs made by SS repro to be a bit harsh on my ears, but other than that it is the same as far as distortion comfort goes. I prefere SET but own and enjoy most types of analog, keeping my digital to just my disc player.

Red: first try upgrading your internal speaker wiring & the crossover too. Refer to the Klipsch site forums & look up the ALK crossover, or email me directly for info.

The impression I'm getting is that the ss amps have great detail and bass, but tubes create a soft, pleasing image for mids and highs. Why not take advantage of both in an active biamp pattern? I'm presently using a Mark Leninson 334 to drive my K-horns and LaScalas. The bass doesn't get any better than this, but the mids and highs are a bit harsh at times. I'm thinking about trying a Rane AC22 active crossover to split the signal to the ML334 for the bass, and a Conrad Johnson Premier 12 to handle the mids and highs. Any comments on this idea?

All roads lead to Rome... Good gear is good gear, transistor gear is just much harder to design. Very few transistor designs truly please me, but some do.
Tubes can run in much simpler (therefore easier to design, analyse and voice) circuits.
If I had to choose only one, it would be tubes, but my system is a mixture of both.....

You are always on point Garfish. I agree with everything you just said. I think the reason people like Fremer is that he pushes analog over digital. Otherwise, he makes more neophyte reviewer(even for us amateurs here) mistakes than should be accepted. He should really issue an apology for the things he said in that Muse 160 review. The biggest beef I have with Stereophile is that the best reviewers(DO, RH, SS, CG, WP, RJR, MC, RD, TJN) have either left, or ceded space to MF, JS(HORRIBLE!!!), KR, CS, etc. leaving a TREMENDOUS downturn in the quality of reviews. And JA seems to only review non-serious stuff now. The reason I bought my Jadis was that it could the things I loved best about the OTL/SET, yet still kick butt. And I don't have to worry about what speakers I am driving(for the most part). I truly feel that the main thing of this hobby is to do whatever you like, as that is all that matters. Happy listening.

Trelja; a lot of the music I listen to depends on good rhythmic drive, ie blues, rock, some pop, some new agey stuff etc, and the DNA2 does this very well. I think the two music parameters that are most important to me (assuming good tonal balance of course) are timbral richness of vocals, and PRT. Yes, I've read both the M. Fremer STPH reviews you refer to, and interestingly had exactly the same reaction as you. At one time I had the Muse 160 on my short list-- Fremer was really arrogant and conceited on that one, and re: the ARC amp review, he was actually going to use some old cables that had been growing hair in his closet for ten years-- could'nt believe it. Yeah, I know Steve McCormack likes tubes, and he's pleased when someone tells him his SS amps sound tubey--- and I do think his DNA amps have some tubelike qualities in the mids and low treble (smooth, sweet, and non-fatiguing), but they also have great control in the bass and mid-bass region. They're quick, tight, deep, and very rhythmic. I think I've just explained why I like the DNA amps :>). Cheers. Craig.

Tubegroover, your excellent post is probably the best explanation of why, despite having heard many solid-state and tube hybrid amps in my system "outperform" my Jadis JA80s in most respects, I still prefer to listen to my music (primarily classical, folk and jazz) through the Jadis amps. I very well might feel differently if I listened to rock more frequently; in that case, I think Garfish has the right idea. We all listen to music to be moved; for my music, tubes just seem to do the trick better.

Garfish, I am not sure what type of sound you are into, but that goes a long way towards knowing what type of tube amp to search out. By the way, did you happen to read the Michael Fremer review of the AR amp? He gets my vote for the biggest(next to J10) fraud in audio. He has never reviewed an Audio Research amp before(a feat in itself), and was surprised by its brightness(lack of tube warmth)??? That's like an automotive reviewer not knowing Porsches have a small back seat. I can never forget his review of a Muse 160 amp. He was on the soapbox delineating the differences between an experienced and a seasoned audio reviewer(category which he included himself in). I do understand your plight in being far from the easy to get to places. Makes auditioning a bear. It's easy to see why the McCormack works for you. They are great products. I don't share most people's fondness for VTL(maybe I am just crazy). I feel that trying to coordinate all those tubes tends to make the music coming out of their amp lack a certain coherence. And the cost involved in retubing... Must be like the ENIAC or UNIVAC computer we have here in Philadelphia(at the University of Pennsylvania). That thing has an absolutely STAGGERING amount of tubes. I once read how many tubes are replaced daily, and I almost fainted. I tend to focus on quality, rather than brute force of sound, and I am sure that plays into my VTL feelings. But in the end, if you have found satisfying sound, that is all that matters. Everything else is irrelevant.

hey craig,

why stop at vtl's mb450? why not the mb750's or wotans? ;~)

regards, doug

On this one, I keep coming back to moderate price tube pre-amps and also moderate price SS amps. I think Doug states the case for this position very well regarding the cost of excellent components-- that's an interesting observation, ie that excellent tube pre-amps can be made inexpensively (but not solid state), and vice versa with amps. I listen to a lot of rhythmic music that is driven by mid-bass, and my big McCormack amp is excellent at this-- yet it also does low volume and low level detail very well, eg better than the Power 2. It's been my experience that tube amps just don't do this part of music as well as SS. But, I've wanted to listen to VTLs 450 also. OTOH, I'm not willing to give up my tube pre-amp either-- it adds richness, body, and an improved sense of naturalness and holographics. Personal taste? that's right on too, and I think I've found were I fit in equipment wise. Cheers. Craig.

tubegroover, ewe could be right - for *me*, while i *do* love what tubes do, i *also* can't give up the accuracy of ss at the frequency extremes, or the dynamics of ss. as far as preamps go, there seems to be lotsa tube-gear that really makes no sacrafices in these areas. but tube amps, on the other hand, seem to require large sums of money to make that tube "magic" w/o sacrificing what reasonably-priced solid-state does. so, i guess, if ewe *have* to sacrifice, due to budgetary constraints, then yure right - lower-cost tube amps will be a better solution if ya can manage w/out full-range frequency response & dynamics. as far as someone lending ewe a pair of levinson/boulder/etc, amps - i tink that's going in the wrong direction - if i could *borrow* amps in *that* price-range, i'd be looking at mebbe some manley/aronov/vtl amps... ;~) meantime, as i'm on a budget, i'm happy w/my electrocompaniet amps getting a signal from my melos pre... :>)

You know Doug I think maybe it comes down more to taste and what’s important to the individual listener. I remember back when I owned my last ss amp, a Threshold S300. Within 2 years of purchasing that amp, I bought a used pair of McIntosh MC-60's which stock were OK but still notably more palpable in the midrange than the Threshold. The Threshold revealed more of the detail at the frequency extremes and probably even in the midrange but it didn't have the tube magic. My wife heard it as well, right away most notably on vocal recordings. I was using a CJ all tube pre-amp at the time. Then I had some quite extensive mods done to the Macs including new filter caps, wiring, star grounding, changed a few resistor values to improve the highs and the sound improved another few notches notably in the bass and highs. Less classic tube colorations yet no loss of midrange magic. I have listened over the years to many different ss amps and everytime I listen regardless of make or model or what they do well, they have less of a "thereness" or "palpable presence" as Sam Tellig likes to say. This effect may be more or less important to some. I equate it to more real. Whether it be a coloration or rounding of the sound is not important to me. I am less analytical when listening to music and go with what makes the music more involving. Tube amps as well as pre-amps makes music come alive to a greater extent than the detailed sound I hear with ss. I feel quite certain I could live with a ss amp for a while. I further suspect after a period of time if I put a tube amp back in the system I would end up in the same place I am now. Anyone want to lend me their Levinson or Boulder to prove my theory? What is better, vanilla or chocolate?

i think there's an inneresting dichotomy here - w/tubed amps, ya gotta spend a *lot* of money to get a total sound as good as reasonably-priced solid-state amps. (craig, mebbe the s-f power three wooda done it for ya). and, i tink yust the opposite is true w/preamps - ya gotta spend a *lot* of money to get a solid state preamp w/a total sound as good as a more reasonably-priced tob preamp.

one person's opinion... doug

Hi Trelja; I appreciate and understand your advice and really would like to try different tube amps, but as I live out in the boondocks, trying different equipment in my system can be an expensive hassle. And then too, I really do like S. McCormacks amps-- they have terrific bass, not deep and boomy, but quick, tight, rhythmic, and natural. I did see S. McCormacks comments about tubes and was a bit surprised. Cheers. Craig.

Garfish, perhaps you should investigate different tube amps. The various brands all have different sonic signatures. From solid state sounding, to as warm and sweet as honey. And EVERYTHING in between. Have you read the Sam Tellig review of a McCormack amp in Stereophile last month? Even Steve McCormack prefers the sounds of tubes(Ray Charles could read between those lines). But he designs solid state products because he likes the fact that the sound does not change over the long term. In my opinion, a solid state amp does degrade, just not as noticeable or as fast as with a tube amp. My father's Lafayette receiver(yes, it is in his number one system) needs to be completely gone through(dried out caps, etc.). And, in my opinion a well made tube amp can last a lifetime(witness Marantz, McIntosh, Leak, etc.). But, if your McCormack is the key to your listening bliss, God bless you.

Hi Will; First, I really enjoyed my time with the SF Power 2, and I now know that I could be happy with a good tube amp long term. The mid-range was great, and for a tube amp the bass was good, but after 3 wks. when I changed back to the DNA2, the differences just really jumped out at me. As I have some HF hearing loss (where tubes also excel), I think that makes bass more important to me. I also was surprised that the DNA2 did low volume listening better-- I do think this is an exceptional SS amp, just too bad it wasn't reviewed by STPH to get it more exposure. I use a SF Line 2 pre-amp, and really believe strongly in tube pre-amps. But for amps, I seem to have come down squarely and happily in the solid state camp-- so much so that I'm going to have my DNA-2DXs converted to monos-- Steve McCormack told me the monos would do low level detail even better. Cheers. Craig.

Boy Craig you sure are a tough nut to crack! What's it gone to take with you? The things that tubes definitively do better IMveryHO MUCH better,is lower volume listening, that is preserve the natural ambient detail, air and dynamics of the music yet retain the bloom. With ss I have to crank it up. This is most apparent on acoustical and vocal music. I throw my hands up. You are a ss guy and that's all there is to it. BTW what pre-amp are you using?

good for ewe, eldragon! same experience i had replacing my linn kairn pre w/an melos music director! :>)

happy listening, doug

Interesting findings by Craig! I recently replaced my Linn Majik (ss), with Sonic Frontiers Control-1 (not an integrated, but amplifier with tone and balance control, just like CJ CAV-50)and i found SFC-1 to be more, much more detailed and more musical than Majik. I was realy surprised to find four EL34's(Svetlana's) to sound so open, and without any faults associated with tubes!

After 3 weeks of listening to a SF Power 2 (tubes), I switched back to McCormack DNA-2DX (SS), and the improvement in rhythmic drive and bass was dramatic, and also the 2DX does low volume and low level detail much better. I sold the Power 2 and bought another DNA-2DX to make a pair of mono-blocs with them:>). Cheers. Craig.

Tubes have so much more soul, right

It's a matter of personal taste but that even order distortion makes me smile every time.

Another issue which is underplayed is maintenance. Tube amps require a lot more know-how. For example, I only recently found out (the hard way), that you need to always have speakers hooked up to your tube amp. It is a hobby, albeit one with an excellent return (great sound).

Yes i did post on the Rogue

hey, leafs, i finally got to hear my brother-in-law's res-audio cd-50 yesterday, & it *is* excellent - but that's when run thru his a-r ls-16 tube preamp. he said he can't listen to it run straight into his amp for more than a half-hour, cuz then the sound is way too etched, harsh & grainy. his a-r 100.2 amp, while solid-state, has a *like tubes* characteristic. interesting to me, tho, was listening to the buena-vista social club on his cd set-up. while it was wery nice, i much preferred my vinyl copy on my turntable. les depth, on the cd, and, surprising to me, also less detail... doug

Leafs, didn't you post the short review about Rogue amp, on the Audioasylum?

One of the reasons I bought my current amp was the fact that it had tone controls. I think it was a bold step for the company. Jadis felt that they were beneficial to enough people in enough cases to try it out. This model has served as an "evaluation of the market", to test the waters in seeing customer reaction/feedback/long term opinion on them. The preamp section is passive and, I have to say it is a nice combination indeed. They have definitely added to my enjoyment of the music in many cases, so long as one does not go overboard. I hope other manufacturers follow suit in the future. I think we all do not have to follow in lockstep with the establishment in the universal condemnation of tone controls.

I had a solid state Int for 20 years.When it came time to upgrade I went to audition a Sim I5.I liked the unit and was ready to go solid state.The sales guy was hooking up a tube Int and i sat and listened.Boyh amps where in the 2k range.I was floored by the sound comming from the Cary CAD 75I.I became feom that moment on a tube junkie.If you get the chance listen side by side.they not for everyone.If maint and cost and not sound are your main driving forces.Go solid state.If sonics are what drives you,tubes will deliver the goods.

Carl the only thing your cd 50 can wipe ip is the barf from listining to Solid state amps for more than 5 minutes.Krell one of the worst offenders.Krell can even make the best analoge source sound harsh.

Sedond, sorry it took so long to respond: I'm going digital. I'm panning to get the TACT room correction system, add a DA module and feed the amp directly. Cheers.

This thread was resurrected at an interesting time for me. While I've used a McCormack DNA-2DX (300 wpc, 8 Ohm) for the last two years, 3 weeks ago I bought a slightly used Sonic Frontiers Power 2 amp (135 wpc 8 Ohm). Both amps are $5000. MSRP and each is a very good representative of its "type". At first I was sort of disappointed with the Power 2. It was subjectively slower and softer, but with a very relaxing and slightly warm mid-range and treble; but still with very good detail. (but I've been using SS amps for 8-9 years). At first I mistook its warmth for veiling. But after listening for a few weeks, this amp is growing on me. It has an overall character that is very pleasing, even on high NRG R&R. It's true-- while slower, the whole frequency range is slower and so pace, rhythm, and timing do not suffer, and in fact growling slide guitars (slide guitar is distortion by definition) are maybe even more convincing with the Power 2. The DNA2 amp is typical of a very good SS amp with fast, tight, well controlled bass, and excellent detail. This amp has the first 25 watts biased into Class A operation, and it has a sweet, detailed, yet very immediate presentation that is not at all fatiguing. It is a distinctly "livlier" sound, and at first I said also "more involving". But now, I know that I could be happy using either one of these excellent amps indefinitely. The strength of the Power 2 being a relaxed, slightly warm and beautiful mid-range, with good detail. The DNA-2DX strengths being fast, controlled bass and a more lively, but still non-fatiguing presentation. I've come to the conclusion that both are excellent, but I wouldn't want to listen to them both on the same day, or maybe even the same month. In the STPH review, RJR called the Power 2 boring-- not true in my system. He also said part of the mid-range was too forward-- well, not in my system, and he said it had a mid-bass "hump"-- this is only true if it's on the CD, IMO. BTW, my tube pre-amp is a SF Line 2, and I think there is good synergy between it and the Power 2. I could become a total tubehead, but I'm planning on keeping both these amps:>) I suppose the results of this comparison were pretty predictable, but it is my first serious flirtation with tube amps, so, new to me, and I've enjoyed it. Cheers. Craig.

tubes vs solid state I think it's a horse apiece.Both do certain things very well.Tubes give you a bit of a midrange bloom that can be pleasing,usually at the expense of controlling the bass. Solid state can be dead accurate and give you massive bass I currently own tube stuff but wouldnt pass up a great solid state piece.It's just whatever trips your trigger.

Bob: It's interesting how respectable tone controls became when they appeared on a six grand Cello pre-amp which didn't even provide for switching them out of the loop. There are many good pre-amps from the past which incorporate tone controls which can be switched out. Since I often listen to older analog recordings, I find the careful application of some tonal modification beneficial at times. This also applies to certain sonically unattractive digital recordings. MacIntosh pre-amps from about c32 have included a 5 band equalizer (not narrow band grafic) from which the Cello pre-amp concept could easily have been derived. These pre-amps are readily available on the used market and are very durable. My approach to the utilization of such a pre-amp is as follows; Since I prefer no preamp, most of my digital listening is with source directly into amp. When I want the benefits of a pre-amp and/or tone controls I shunt the source through a simple switching box to the pre-amp. The pre-amp also of course, provides a means of listening to lps and analog tape. The second option is not exactly purist. But, I don't buy the purported superiority of that approach in every instance and it has worked very well for me. Adendum: Musical Fidelity has made a nice little add-on tone control box in the past. Perhaps it is still available.

toobgroover - that dsp-1 was the 1st ambient-surround set-up i heard, & i wanted it *bad*!!! a few years later, s'phile reviewed the jvc-unit i now have, & they said it was in another league from *all* the processors awailable at the time, including the yamaha & the lexicon, which were also highly rated. well, it was yust a matter of time before i knew there'd be one in my system. when i finally had the $$$ & the space for one, it took several years to find one, at *any* price, forget a reasonable price! i'm glad i have it, it's really nice for good 2-channel set-ups, & makes multi-channel recordings superfluous, imho. too bad these yamaha/jvc-type audio processors never really caught on... yure right about it being unobtrusive - if it's set properly, ya don't even know it's on - until ya turn it off! :>) dig that thing out & put it to use! ;~) doug

Doug you just made me remember my Yamaha DSP-1 signal processor with matching M-35 4 channel amp that I used in the same configuration as you are currently using. There are 2 ambient channels for the front and 2 for the rear. Can keep the volume low enough that it never became obtrusive to the sound while offering ambience extraction to dry recordings. I haven't used the thing for 9 years since I moved into my current room but it really improved matters on less than stellar recordings.

hi bob, for tone controls, mark levinson's old company *cello* made some spendy preamps w/tone-controls. but, they're solid-state! ;~) they sometimes appear f/s used, but still wery spendy. never heard 'em myself, except at a show, but they always have garnered excellent press. for less-than-perfect recordings, i have a dbx-3bx in a tape-loop, & a jvc xpa1010 surround-sound ambience processor w/settings for 20 different hall-venues, driving a 4-channel amp & corner-speakers, from a 2nd main out on my preamp. both of these are completely out of the circuit-path when not in use, and the surround-sound is out of the main speakers' signal path, even when in use. these devices are very useful for making less-than-perfect recordings enjoyable. doug

Wald - diverging is OK, I wasn't squaking 'bout that; just getting back to the original point for a bit. Now then: Tone controls? TONE controls you say? Wald you don't know how much I sometimes yearn for the flexibility of my good old Lux (solid state) Ultimate preamp. Not the ultimate in resolution anymore, but it had high & low filters, plus boosts & cuts at 3 different slopes, Plus variable-turnover bass & treble knobs using all stepped-attenuators And a tone-defeat button (which was engaged >95% of the time). But when you needed to futz around with a bad source, man that thing could really clean house! The Minimalist Designs have taken all of that away (but they apparently forgot to adjust prices accordingly). I sometimes used that old Lux, via a tape-loop, for those ugly situations. It's not in the rack right now, but the idea was to have that hi-res. system capability and still be able to musically enjoy some of those borderline sources. All that can be done anymore is to swap around power cords & interconnects when you want to play mediocre-sounding recordings. That is time consuming & hardly convenient; also goes beyond what I am typically willing to do. We could have it both ways, but the only components anymore that I've seen with any kind of tone controls are some bottom-line NAD. But then again there's always Circuit City - arrrgh!

Sedond: Glad we've found some agreement. But I've never considered myself one of the sheeple and I definately am no ewe.

Bob: Meandering divergence from the matter-at-hand contributes to interesting conversation. However, due to the interelatedness of most things, it often returns to course. You have nailed one problem, i.e.,hyper-concern for resolution. Many modern system configurations are simply too microscopically detailed in their rendering. E.g., occasionally during concert performances there are instances of harshness, shrillness, glare etc. which are absorbed into the mass of the audience and hall during a performance, yet are picked up in excruciating detail by very sensitive microphones during the digital recording process. Additionally, even fairly recent digital recordings sometimes sound overloaded. And older analog recordings done with mildly distortive tube electronics... (you can hear it on many of the early Mercury recordings..it wasn't nearly as noticeable when we listened to those pressings in the '60s). All of the previous can be very unattractive when played back on a system which is too revealing.(Have you ever noticed how unappealing the hollywood beauty can be when you're in the first row and her pores are 2"wide and nostrils a foot?) Of course, there have always been plainly bad recordings. For some, the ameliorating effects of tube electronics serve to smooth out many of these distractions. And it's amazing how effective the discreet application of the heretical tone control can be in making a bad recording listenable. Pax

Hi Bob good points. A poor recording will bring more attention to its faults with a high res system rendering it less enjoyable overall. I am finding that out to a greater degree as the resolution of my system improves in the quest for musical enjoyment on the level of the live event. On the other hand the great recordings have more of what I find in real music that the lesser res system veils. How do you balance it, two systems? I still buy poor recordings of music that I like regardless. Got to take the good with the bad in matters of reproduced music, there are no easy solutions. For the reason you stated I'm really not too sure I want much more res than I have although there are areas that can be improved for overall enjoyment. I just wish I could enjoy my system more and analyze less after hearing a good live performance. It takes a few days for things to get back to normal.

Y'all have gone way off the original subject of tube vs. transistors sound. As stated, some (like me) prefer the mosfet sound as a nice in-between tubes & bipolars. Belles 150A Hot Rod amp was just reviewed by Stereophile; they proclaimed this amp's "musicality" in sound over others' "accuracy". Some of the last few posts regarding "how faithfully bad-sounding does your hi-res. rig reproduce a bad recording?" brings up an interesting point. I finally decided that, when my rig was configured for so much high-resolution, then a lot of just-avrage recordings were no longer so enjoyable anymore, and I had taken it too far. I then decided to de-tune my rig's resolution-factor just enough, so that although the best recordings weren't so faithfuly rendered, many more average-sounding sources were much more enjoyable to listen to. Making it sound any better than that was going beyond the point of diminishing returns.

waldhorner, i agree w/ewe. my only point is that there isn't necessarily a *correct* sound. short of extremely elaborate multi-channel ambient-surround-sound processing, ya won't get a *correct* sound in the home. so, when setting up yer home system, yust try to get it to sound musical to ewe. i *do* have a nice ambient-surround processor that i can insert, along w/my main two channels, if i like. it can be very effective in giving venue ambience for some different music. but, i'd be kidding myself if i thought it sounded *live* and, sometimes i've found that it sounds better at home than live, so it's not always a question of which is correct, but which is pleasing. of course, all that said, i do value accurate frequency response in my audio equipment. doug

Sedond: The concert hall, being the acoustical space within which the concert occurs, is an integral part of the aural experience and as such, is an accurate representation of itself (to be redundant). Which of these halls would you consider inaccurate? Symphony Hall in Boston, Carnegie Hall in N.Y., The Musicverien in Vienna, The Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, Severance Hall in Cleveland, etc., etc.. They each have unique acoustical signatures. None of which would be considered as being wrong or inaccurate.

Khrys: I'm reasonably confident that semantic differences are often responsible for misunderstandings in these and most other exchanges. But we continue because it stimulates and informs. Be assured that my priority is the emotional and intellectual enjoyment of music. In fact, I do have many "historic" recordings which I thoroughly enjoy since one of my interests is the western orchestral tradition and its development. And I would certainly agree that the most important component in a playback system is the source material. It definately is for me. If I were to place myself on either side of the obj./subj. discussion, it would be on the objective. Essentially because of consistency. Of course, the final decisions for most of us tend to be subjective. Personal predilections are absolutely valid for each of us. But may have little real meaning to others because of differeces in experience and physiological make-up. As to the search for the "absolute sound". I,m not preoccupied with that seach and I don't read that periodical since someone elses subjective descriptions are completely meaningless to me. I have excellent hardware, but some of it is not state of the art and will probably not be replaced. I don't use micro-dots, CD demagnetizers, green magic-markers, magic blocks, expensive wire, etc..Audio nirvana for me does not lie in some particular circuit topology or early 20th. century technology. The reference standard for me remains the remembered live sound and I subjectively measure audio playback against that standard. Basically, the characteristics I want in a preferred playback system can be simply stated; i.e., it should be quiet, clean, dynamic and most importantly, natural. Objective measurements (specs) do correlate well (but far from perfectly) with those desired characteristics. I'm not optimistic about personal absolution.

I guess I'm too "careful" to even try to answer such convoluted questions.

Well it's you for me and me for euphony. We're probably talking semantics here but at least you have me thinking which is the whole point. For all of you looking for the "absolute sound" some questions: How much enjoyment do you get from hearing bad recordings reproduced accurately? Do you ever judge your system by how bad it sounds with bad recordings? If you're talking accuracy why not? Do you have a list of favorite bad recordings to evaluate the accuracy of the systems badness? If not, don't you think the other half of accuracy is being neglected? Have you ever demonstrated how bad your system can sound with a bad recording? I know, you only listen to "good" recordings. Be careful lest you confuse absolute with absolution

waldhorner, re: your comments about differing concert-hall sounds - my point exactly! yust like w/stereo systems. live, unamplified music can sound way different in different venues. which one is right? who knows - whichever one ya like the best, i guess. that's what i try to do w/my home rig... of course, i want a flute to sound like a flute, & not a saxaphone! ;~) doug

Sedon: The concert hall is part of the total live music system. Each hall is distinctive and as an indispensible part of any given particular concert experience is "accurate". That's not to say that the same hall would be considered good. Some are actually fairly bad (we could discuss "good" or "bad" at another time). Consider the design modifications which have been made to certain major concert halls over the years(at considerable expense). As part of the total sonic event sequence, a hall simply "is". A good recording of a bad concert hall should sound like a bad concert hall.