Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.


I never thought transistor amps could hold a candle to tube amps. They just never seem to get the "wholeness of the sound of an instrument" quite right. SS doesn't allow an instrument (brass, especially) to "bloom" out in the air, forming a real body of an instrument. Rather, it sounds like a facsimile; a somewhat truncated, stripped version of the real thing. Kind of like taking 3D down to 2-1/2D.

I also hear differences in the actual space the instruments are playing in. With tubes, the space appears continuous, with each instrument occupying a believable part in that space. With SS, the space seems segmented, darker, and less continuous, with instruments somewhat disconnected from each other, almost as if they were panned in with a mixer. I won't claim this to be an accurate description, but I find it hard to describe these phenomena.

There is also the issue of interest -- SS doesn't excite me or maintain my interest. It sounds boring. Something is missing.

Yet, a tube friend of mine recently heard a Pass X-350 amp and thought it sounded great, and better in many ways than his Mac MC-2000 on his Nautilus 800 Signatures. I was shocked to hear this from him. I wasn't present for this comparison, and the Pass is now back at the dealer.

Tubes vs. SS is an endless debate, as has been seen in these forums. I haven't had any of the top solid state choices in my system, so I can't say how they fare compared to tubes. The best SS amp I had was a McCormack DNA-1 Rev. A, but it still didn't sound like my tube amps, VT-100 Mk II & Cary V-12.

Have any of you have tried SS amps that provided these qualities I describe in tubes? Or, did you also find that you couldn't get these qualities from a SS amp?
kevziek
Well, Asa, I guess there's no denying that some of our brains 'Do It' more than others...

(Geez, this is beginning to resemble a Nike ad!)

To paraphrase the late Dr. Bronner (one of the only lunatic philosophers I actually have a *practical* use for, if you know what I mean - no need, I'm sure, to remind audiophiles what cleanliness is next to), Mind-Brain = All-One!

(No, this doesn't mean I don't think that there's actually an objective reality out there [or in here]; if I believe anything, I believe that. It's just that we can't know but an infitesimal fraction of it.)

Oh, and FWIW, I always do my level best to have no God(s) at all.
I don't want to get too deep into this...The the point of science is the endeavor to understand nature empericaly. The very nature of science requires one to let go of the whole in order to grasp the particulars. The mystical appraoach requires one to let go of the particulars in order to grasp the whole. I think both approaches lead to the understanding that the more we learn the more we learn how little we have learned. A balanced appraoach using both approaches will probably serve us best. This ever so elusive philosphy is called common sense.
The fool in the last card of the Tarot, 6chac,is another image for this. Got nothing to do with God or mysticism, Zaike, it is just one who does not let science devour nature empireously always and all the time, to paraphrase Unsound...hence he's a fool of course, like tubelovers..and ASA speaking in the wilderness....
Detlof, this Tarrot card character appears analogus to the foolish child who said "the Emperor has no clothes".
Zaike, yes, kill the Buddha if you see him on the road, to Damascus or anywhere else, so to speak. Objectively, with the active mind, you can only know a fraction of it, one fraction at a time (or through putting the fractions back together). Subjectively, the very filtering lens of subjectivity ensures that you only see partially at any given time. But, seeing trans-objectively, trans-subjectively, both at once, neither separate, you can "know" the All.

Unsound: yes, science up til this point has been reductionist - break it into parts, watch the parts - but empiric method does not mean that integral conclusions can not be drawn. It depends on your orientation; the method is nuetral and discloses truth through breaking up or putting back together. I disagree on your definition of "mystical": it is not only concerned with the whole, because seeing the parts is also seeing the whole. You can look and see parts (reductionist-orientated scientist), you can look to see the whole (going up to a mountain and not coming down), or you can come down from the mountain, realize that the only "Zen" up there is the "Zen" you brought with you, that "it" is everywhere, and see parts and the whole at the same time - they are not exclusive perceptions. Transcending that belief is part of their integration.

My main point was that an active mind directed at sound/music only discloses certain truths, albeit important ones; to "see" more musical meaning, you must let go of that active urge/instinct and become receptive to the music. And, that these perceptions exist on a deepening contiuum of perception and that a belief in one over the other is a function of egoic attachment to an "idea", not what the experience/experiment itself discloses. The active mind is characterized by objectifying external reality as a series of "things-out-there" and derives from our predatory evolution, that has served us quite well. This mental faculty, because of its focus, focuses the experience of music through that cognitive lens, producing a mind that seeks to control the soundfield through the imposition of "accuracy". But there are deeper levels to listen from, and which require a receptive orientation to the external music. We can call this state "receptive" only to give it a label opposite from "active", but, in fact, it is not opposite from the thinking mind, but before it. The place where receptivity occurs is the ground of thinking, and is prior to it. Denial of the ground of receptivity is a denial of the source of thinking; the thinking mind denying its source, which is not separate from itself. That is irrationality, and the causal source of alienation, from a deeper experience of music, and the Music.