SS vs Tube: What do you hear?


Peter Aczel, editor of The Audio Critic, says "Whatever vacuum tubes can do in a piece of audio equipment, solid-state devices can do better, at lower cost, with greater reliability" (issue 26, p5). What do you hear which causes you to select tubes over ss, or vice versa?
128x128cmjones
There's not much I can add to the opinions re: the inherent "rightness" (rightiousness!) of tubes. I can voice my opinion that the Audio Critic is a hack publication with no credibility whatsoever. Just sit down and listen. The differences are quite clear. After that, it comes down to what your huckleberry is -- for me it's tubes, and not just in the pre-amp.
I am using a cj premiere 17 preamp (tube) with mf2500 amp (ss). I traded my premier 11a amp (tube) for the mf2500 (ss) for convienence. Sorry I did, even though the mf2500 has more base I lost detail in the mids and highs. I want my tubes back!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am not sure why we always get so flustered when someone says something that goes against our own philosophies. If Aczel prefers solid state, great. Unfortunately for him, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. That means I can prefer tubes. Him be damned. I know what I hear. They just plain sound more REAL to me. Yes, that is the only word I need to use. REAL. And I am real comfortable with the people on my side. Both, the people on this site, and even designers who make solid state equipment. Yes, solid state designers. If tubes are not superior, then why do then always try(or even HOPE) to categorize the sound of their amps as "tubelike"??? I have now read in the course of two months, two great amp designers(Steve McCormack and Sid Smith) say that tubes sound better. And both have made great solid state amps(Smith being more well known for his tube designs). And even if I was the type who needed people on my side for me to feel secure in my position(which I am most certainly not), I'll take McCormack and Smith over Aczel any day of the week.