Audio advancement - why?


I was reading a thread in which the OP asked when SS lost to tubes. I completely understand that the OP's question was in good faith and what he/she wanted to know was when SS was a commercial success. I am not at all into tubes. But this does not mean I hate tubes. It is my choice not to go for tubes.Another poster in the same thread pointed out correctly that 99% electronic devices use SS.
What I always failed to understand is - how did humans achieve so many things is other fields except audio? I mean the original "computers" used tubes and were the size of a town house. Over the years science made progress and we now have "notebooks" and "netbooks". And these machines are more reliable and better than their tube counterparts. So what makes tubes better in mid-range and "other areas" that SS cannot achieve, when it comes to audio? Is it because people like the tube distortions over SS? Is it because companies want people to buy gear that have wear/tear and the maintenance keeps these companies going? I am sure there are some answers there. Please DO NOT misunderstand this thread as a SS VS Tubes. Please share your thoughts on this area.
128x128milpai
Not sure anyone answered the original question, which in other words is why can't the SS technology progress enough to rival that of tubes (that is, rival SS for those qualities most admire in tube design).

It seems there's a large number, if not majority, that prefer tubes despite their fussiness and maintenance. Then again, this is not the same demand that is there for faster computers, better cell phones, etc. Small market demand versus global need (and thus less money to be made by those with the capital to back the advancement of the technology). Most people that pay $ for music are ok with a cheap $500 receiver that plays music (or an IPod even...).

Sort of on the subject of this - Steve Nugent and Gordon Rankin were involved in a thread somewhere before (perhaps computeraudiophile.com) where I remember Gordon saying that tube design is inherently simple compared to solid state (less parts, less areas for address). In other words, tube equipment affords a simpler design and signal path, linearity, etc. Solid state has yet to match this. I'm too lazy to go find the thread, but it was interesting to hear the two debate the use of tubes versus solid state in equipment design.
Thanks you everyone for your informative posts.
Frogman/Elizabeth, I get your point about music as art. But I guess I will have to do some reading before I digest the fact that human progress could not achieve in audio, what they achieved in other fields. Interesting indeed!!
Because size matters!

Sony can't build a walkman with tubes inside, same goes for 99% of mass market audio gears out there. Imagine if Sony had to build a 5-channel HT receiver with tubes, it will take up quite a bit of floor space.

Same goes for media. Reel-to-reel, LP, cassette, CD, MP3, and who knows what's coming next. Each generation degrades the sound, but 99% of people out there don't care because they can carry more garbage with them everywhere they go.
Let me take a shot.
Music reproduction has to do with your ears and physical feeling in a room with it... Not complex number crunching storage devices, or flying an airplane.

So realistically your ears today or in 1950 would have been the same. Advanced audio today has to do with cheaper, better, faster, more reliable ways to keep it in your house more than anything, along with heat and efficiency, reliability. Not so much to how it sounds. The best guitar amps, pro studio equipment etc... still run on tubes, but there is also excellent or better solid state in some areas of audio depending how much your willing to spend.

This question and hobby unfortunately is totally disconnected from the standard "why has it not advanced" theory. Vinyl is crude and 90% of the time easily the recordings best the BEST sounding IPOD in the world! IPOD is advanced, its solid state, doest that mean it should beat a 10,000 dollar tube preamp and amp? Nope.

Video easily is explain as again video is seen, you can put one next to the other and compare with virtually no question from person to person. Audio is a whole different world and brain function, of course if you have bad eyesight and put on glasses all of a sudden you see things in high definition, of course if you are flying an airplane the best thing is reliability and accuracy not flying with vibration and failure sensitive tube devices.

Again has nothing to do with audio or the reproduction, heat, tubes, and analog period is how your ears work, digital and solid state are simply copies of reproducing it more efficiently but not necessarily better in all cases, faking it and making them as close as possible is all we are doing in home anyway, should a violin, grand piano or drum kit be solid state? Or should it still just create sound based on mechanical vibration? That of course has nothing to do with Tube vs. solid state, however reproducing it can.

Anyway bottom line is your ears work the same either way, what works for you? Natural sound can be had many ways, nobody has an answer to the best for every situation, but for sure the more artificial you make it sound, the less involving it can get, tubes and vinyl for example keep everything in the analog realm with no conversion, so it appeals to some more. But they have not necessarily discounted or realized you can in fact get similar or better results with "Higher" technology.
Solid state technology DOES have an answer to the imperfections of transistors cited by Atmasphere. Digital amps. (You could make a digital amp using tubes, but there would be no point to it). In a digital amp the output devices are full-on or full-off, so their linearity is a non-issue. The analog output is modulated by the duty cycle (ON/OFF timing) of the output devices, and there is no limit to the accuracy achievable, except cost.