Tube Equipment: Gimmick?

JAX2: You are absolutely wrong about 8X10 vs 35mm:the 8x10 will give higher resolution, more pixels per square inch. You can blow up an 8X10 much,much larger than the best of the best 35mm. That is not true of pricing either, a Zone VII 8x10, costs much less than a premium Canon or Nikon. 35mm is a journalist's camera, an 8x10 is an artist's camera. The Nikon F received its kudos from the Vietnam War more than any other camera, and took off from there. Take an 8X10 picture, then take a 35mm picture, then blow it up to 8X10, absolutely no comparison, all things being equal.

As far as tubes vs ss are concerned(and I have both): in less than 2 weeks time I can tell that the tubes are less than perfect, they have changed the sound, and the sound is not getting better. So do you all change tubes every two weeks, I think not! So after two weeks what do you all do? And to boot not all the tubes degrade at the same rate, which is even more a problem. So how often do you change them, once ever 6 months or a year. I change mine
every 90 days. the difference between new and 90 days is very striking!

Shubert, while going deep into the technical aspects of each camera format and missing Marco's point entirely, you actually justified his analogy in a round about manner, heheh.

And, what kind of tube equipment are you using that loses tubes in two weeks? Maybe you live close to the event horizon of a black hole and therefore have 17,520 hours each day?

Again, what's this whole issue of perfect and accurate?

This is like arguing who's hotter, Salma Hayek, Roselyn Sanchez or Monica Belluche. They're all incredibly beautiful women but in different ways.

You could fight about this all day until you're green in the nutsack, but what's the point? I work with a guy that thinks Martha Stewart is hotter than them all!

We're not robots and THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SOUND!

"I have seen the "guts" of tube equipment. It does not look extremely complicated or intricate (especially amplifiers). However, solid state equipment seems to be much more complicated. For instance, the FPB-300 has numerous massive circuit-boards, containing motorola processor chips. Why is highend tube gear priced comparably to solid state gear, if there isn't the research and development or the "stuff" going into it?"

Jiwitn, have you ever seen the inside of a Berning Zh270? At a strapping 10 lbs it ain't gonna meet your criteria of "massive circuit boards", I mean how many layers of circuit boards can you fit into a 12x15x4.5 high tube amp that also has 10 tubes. I realize I have become obnoxious in always talking about the Berning but frankly I believe people should be aware of how special it really is. I will continue to do so because in its price range I haven't heard a better performer. I like it cause it involves me in the music, not ONE area where it isn't totally involving. This dynamic little demon will probably lay to rest your impressions concerning tube amps. Since you seem to be into "complicated". I doubt there are too many amps tube or ss that might be considered more complicated than this one. Radical technology, no iron core transformer but a high frequency impedance converter. It also has a high speed switching power supply specially designed for the amp. Not some off the shelf power supply. This amp is as quiet as a dead church mouse but for the atoms slamming against each other inside the tubes which you can clearly hear through the speakers when you put your ear right up to the driver, but you won't hear a transformer, power or output except for the pre-amp if it has one. You get the picture.

Ok Jitwn, it doesn't have 600 watts like your beloved Krell, remember, not everyone requires 600 watts. What it does do is provide FULL POWER within it frequency range depending on the feedback used. Full power to 2hz with no more than 1% distortion. It operates in a very linear manner like tubes do contrary to popular belief. The problem with tube gear is that damn transformer. In some of the newer more exclusive gear it has been improved dramatically from the good ole days. The point is that tube technology is not stagnant. The zh is one example and these other guys Lamm, BAT, ARC, Conrad Johnson etc aren't exactly resting on their past laurels either. I would love you to hear this one, you might be pleasantly surprised in how much power this little beast can project without running out of gas. My only beef is that unwieldy cables tend to manhandle the amp and it doesn't want to stay put, it can be a pain in the ass. I think the manufacturer should consider beefing it up with some lead weights or something so people feel they're getting their money's worth and they can use python sized cable it they want. Price per pound value is not too good on this one, after all we're talking about prime fillet not sirloin.

I'll lay it to rest for now but suggest you check out this link for more information http://www.davidberning.com/zh270.htm

Schubertmaniac - let me assure you that I need no lessons in what each
of the two cameras are mostly used for. As Gunbei pointed out, you are
just illustrating my point. They are two entirely different tools used to
accomplish a similar task (making photographic images). Each has it's
own strengths and weaknesses. They can both make photographic
images but the (technical) results will be entirely different. Period. End
of story. Any judgements you care to impose on the two different tools
are entirely your own.

As far as which camera is "better", your illustration regarding
one yielding a finer, tighter grained sharper image, vs the other having a
grainier result.....well using that as a basis of saying one tool is better
than the other is just as stinky a pile of horse shit as the assertion that
tube gear is better than solid state. For my ears, and the way I like to
hear my music, I prefer tubes. But for me to say one is
"better" than the other is as ridiculous as the assertion that
an 8X10 camera is "better" than a 35mm. By the way, I've
seen astounding "artful" images done in 35mm format, and
even pinhole camera format, and I've also seen remarkable journalistic
images that were made when there was no 35mm available, on much
larger and more awkward cameras. Again, if your judgement is that
tighter grain and sharper images are superior than those that exhibit
grain that is simply one persons opinion which may or may not be
shared by others. Just as this tube vs SS debate may yield a similar split
in opinions, there is no one single solution that is
"better"....they're just different. "Better" exists
only in the individuals mind.

Marco

PS I think you must have meant Zone VI camera and not Zone VII as I
know of no such thing as a Zone VII camera. Indeed a wooden field
camera may be less expensive than a 35mm. I don't use field cameras
so am not familiar with their pricing, but I can tell you that a good studio
camera like a Sinar will equal or exceed the price of most 35mm
cameras. The Sinar is just as stone simple as I described, while the
35mm is packed with modern technology. That was the parrallell I was
trying to illustrate. Also, an 8X10 will not yield any "pixels per square
inch" nor will any film camera determine how many pixels per square
inch that you may record the image that it produces in. I'm assuming
you were referring to a tighter grain structure when you said that since
PPI is strictly a digital term and refers to digital image files.

Damn it! After reading Shubert's post I thought there was some new technology that somehow yielded digital information directly from an 8 x 10 film camera without having to scan a chrome or neg. Thanks for bursting my bubble Marco!

I'll try to draw another ANALogy. For the last eight years I've been a digital retoucher at a major motion picture studio in Los Angeles. My job is to fix tits, asses and wrinkles on hot chicks that have their own TV shows, and composite them into goofy scenrios that might not exist in real life. Basically, I make hot chicks and not so hot chicks...look hotter. Yeah, I'm a Photoshop Fag. The files I work with can sometimes get close to four gigabytes big. Lot's of information and lot's of resolution. For my kind of work and what the files will be ultimately used for high resolution is almost always important.

A few years ago when I decided to start experimenting with photography as an extension of my "art" outside of work, I sought the advice of a Dallas based photographer who specializes in the female form.

After long discussions he convinced me that I might enjoy my initial foray into photography more if I went the digital [solid state?] route. After twenty or so years as a pro shooter he dumped his dark room in favor of Photoshop and an Epson inkjet printer, and now shoots only digitally. I know Marco must be yelling "blasphemy!" right now, heheh. This photographer thought that in my case just getting a digital camera and a good printer was all I needed to start since I'm already an image manipulator by trade. Sounds a bit like a novice audiophile starting off with a solid state integrated amp, huh?

On the other hand, when discussing megapixels he made an interesting remark that I never forgot. He said, "more pixels or a sharper image isn't necessarily better..." Without him explaining, I knew exactly what he meant. Over the years, I've seen some incredibly beautiful images created with simple no-frills film [tubes?] cameras. Higher resolution or more information wouldn't enhance their beauty one iota. And I'd be hard pressed to duplicate some of the effects in these film images through digital means. Conversely, I know that I can do many things much easier in Photoshop than can be achieved in a darkroom.

I approach listening to music in a similar manner to creating fine art. While there are technical aspects in achieving both, the goal isn't technical. Whether I am moved by analog, digital, solid state or tubes doesn't matter one bit, as long as I am fulfilled by the result.

I realize what I may love about tubes is their distortion. I also prefer curvy, earthy Latin, Mediterranean women over squeeky clean blondes [some of 'em look like black and white film negatives to me]. Am I saying one is better? No. I just happen to prefer one more than other.

Likewise, it's useless to argue over which approach to amplification is better, especially based on "accuracy". One might as well start a discussion thread entitled "Clean Shaven, Trim or Hairy Momma Bush".