Is solid state on the brink of extinction?


I am curious how many out there, like me, that have come to the conclusion the age of solid state, and perhaps tube gear, is closing.

In freeing needed cash from my high end audio recently, I was forced to look for a less expensive alternative. To my surprise, the alternative turned out to be an unexpected bonus.

I have notoriously inefficient speakers. I was sure I would have to sell them once I sold off my large solid state blocks.

Going on a tip from another amp killer speaker owner, I bought an Acoustic Reality eAR 2 MKII Class D amp. This tiny amp caused a revolution in sound benefits over my ss mono blocks.

My speakers gained in speed, depth, control, detail, range, clarity, and dynamics.

It didn't stop there. I also sold my front end, and bought a very cheap programmable digital DVD. It also proved to be better that my old disc player. My playback gained in detail, separation, depth, bass control, bass extension, and treble extension. The mids are just plain natural. Reverberation decay occurs evenly and naturally.

Has anyone else had a similar experience of moving from solid state or tubes to digital? What do you see as the future for solid state component producers? What of tube amps?
muralman1
Bigkidz and others, it pains me to diss my good old Pass buddies. I'm just a crass consumer after all..

Yes, synergy is important. I am not totally surprised the Spectron took a back seat to the Pass and others. There is room for improvement. The fact is that improvement is happening with great speed.

The eAR has an analogue power supply, while all the "digitals" I can think of are using a switched power supply. The ICE module was built to surpass earlier module designs. Acoustic Reality goes further and improves ICE. All I know for sure is the eAR sounds analogue to these ears.
I can't speak to the eAR 2, but my stock "digitally-enhanced/controlled" HCA-2 (with skookum power cord) is far more detailed, emotionally involving, natural-sounding, and MUSICAL than any conventional tubed or ss amp I've heard. (Well.. the Bryston 3B SST was fairly decent also!)

The HCA makes music - listening fatigue is non-existent. I'm staying up far too late into the night these days, cuz I can't shut the damn thing off. Those who claim these amps have no "soul" could not possibly have heard them critically in decent systems. I think the "old school" is biased against the term "digital" - perhaps a better term would be "the new analog".

Played Patricia Barber the other day and was amazed at the reproduction of bass lines: superb resolution and vibrancy, the oft-vaunted "truth of timbre" in spades.

If these amps can sound this truthful and involving this early in the game, just imagine the results when this technology matures...
My final comment is that the best is only relative to what we each have heard in a given system. Excitement over a new design/technology, could well be superceded by current technology. Muralman, <1 ohm Apogee Scintillas may be best matched with the digital amp in question and in your system. But what you have done here based on your speakers which admittedly are probably the MOST difficult in the history of this hobby to drive, have asked a question that maybe in your situation may be the best solution but certainly not in many others. The title of your thread seems more an excitement of finding something that works much better than your Pass amp in your system but might sound like sh** in another. I don't mean to come across as sounding crass but as I stated in my first post, synergy is MUCH more important in realizing what each of us is attempting to achieve in realizing long term listening pleasure from our individual systems.

I have heard a few digital amps, none have impressed me thus far. Detail, dynamics are only part of the equation, musical involvement LONG TERM, "I can't wait to hear my favorite music tonight" is. I am no pessimist, but more a realist. Maybe digital has its advantages in a given system but my guess is that on an absolute level, current technology (SS and tubes) at their best would be preferable in more systems. Of course digital may eventually turn out to be the turning point in getting us closer to reality but to date I doubt very much if it has "arrived", time will tell.
Slappy, I guess you're just pretending not knowing about digital amps.

Class "D" is pulse operated amplifier. Pulse generator with pulse freequency F is usually placed before the output stage that is nothing else as transistors connected as complementary pairs like in class "B" operation i.e. the amplifier is actually solid state. This dictates high efficiency of the output stage, less demand on quality of the output devices, less sophisticated power supplies(theoretically no clipping!)

The downsides are:
very high distortions at low volume levels; some of the models are highly affected with radio freequencies.
Marakanetz, I have heard those criticisms before concerning some digital modular designs. The field is in it's infancy, and will grow unevenly.

Tubegroover, I understand. My eAR has not been around much. On some Martin logans, it was matched against Sonic Fidelity. The eAR equaled the SF in musicality and involvement, but went further in uncovering the real thing, and expressing bass passages.

I think you might be on to something about my speaker's synergy with the eAR. The Scinnies are notorious amp benders. The eAR seems to ignore impedances. Although it was a revelation on my system, the SF/Martin Logan are quite enjoyable.

That same ML owner went tubes, after I demonstrated valves on his solid state system. I really thing tube components are going to survive.