Tubes? Transistors? Which are better?

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

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.

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.

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

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.