Two Paths to Musical Truth: The Case for Both Solid-State and Tube Phono Stages

I'm a historical user of SS - Valve Input / Output - Valve Hybrid and have used these as per the design and also used with both SUT and Head Amp.

Additional to this I have undertaken long round trip travels to experience a large variety of Phon's of all the above designs, produced both a Commercial Designs and DIY Builds. Where Models are compared to each other.

I have discovered Phon's that as a result of experiences and subjective evaluation have proved in certain cases to be totally correct for my needs.

Today I own all of the above devices apart from a Head Amp' but can loan a variety of these designs on request.

I don't rest easy with one type of shaping of a End Sound. I am more content to experience variances of an End Sound, the permutations that a selection of Phon's and SUT's can create, are for myself worth the time spent creating and listening.

Phon's and supporting ancillaries for Phon' usage are always an area of interest.

I am still on the bus with this journey, but the stops to alight at, have become lesser. I'm not too sure how much more good impressions are to be found. 

I have the feeling my NuVista Vinyl (MkI) combines the best of both worlds. Gain is handled by FETs, but the triode nuvistors are used in Class A for the output. It sounds like it has a solid state level of detail, but without the sterility of my last solid state phono stage (Ray Samuels Emmeline XR-10B).

The simple response is that I do not switch between valve and solid state designs.  I have never warmed up (pun intended) to the sound of valves).  
 

Within the two general paths to musical truth (valve designs and solid state designs) there are a myriad of other design considerations that impact the truth which are subject of a separate dissertation.   Staying within the two path proposition, I have seen contemporary valve and solid state designs narrow differences in sound quality between them. Contemporary solid state electronics now have removed treble distortion (sibilants and harshness) and are approaching valve imaging and ambient retrieval.  Valve electronics now have fast, controlled bass and higher damping factors to control speaker drivers better.  The treble is not as attenuated as in the past.   Distortion is now lower but not to the level of better solid state designs.  However, I am sensitive to the secondary harmonic distortion and lower damping factors, exacerbated by the fact I have always had low efficiency speakers presenting difficult loads. To me, the difference is like the quality of a photograph taken with a Leica or Hasselblad vs a Nikon or Cannon camera where the detail, clarity, contrast, and color density of the former is far superior to the distortions in the latter, regardless of the midrange bloom and superior imaging valves provide.  Therefore, I have never gone down the valve design path.  Recognize this is only my opinion and in my comparison I am speaking of better contemporary solid state and valve designs.  There is no right or wrong.  Many whose posts and ears I respect have valve based systems.  

I use both, as I find they do different things well. 

Tubes still float my boat in the critical music range.  Your description summed it up well.  I use solid state amps on my woofers for bass below 65hz....they definitely offer more control, better dynamics, and more low frequency extension than my smallish tube amps, but there are always a ton of variables in play, plus synergy and personal preference.  I find that relieving the tubes of low bass duty enhances their clarity and timbre.  

@jsalerno277 - why do so many professional photographers use Nikon and Canon gear? Are they just too cheap to go for far superior/expensive Leica and Hasselblad gear? I've been a photographer since the 1960's, and I sure couldn't tell you the difference in cameras by looking at a photo, but that's just me, so just wondering.