is getting a tube pre a valid option with ss amp?

Larryi,

I could try other brands of tubes for sure, but I'm resonably happy for now.

I found Cary's Chinese 6SN7's were better than Electro Harmanix in the DJH preamp in my system.
I found the Svetlana EL34 excellent in the Jolida 302 w/ RCA front end tubes.

I how have Cary's AES Superamp MkII with a full complimant of EL tubes. I don't care for EL tubes with music, but they really shine for movies. Someware down the road I will install Sveltana EL34s and another brand (maybe Cary's own brand) of 6SN7s.

I can understand the Less-is-more approach, but, that could mean trying to do more with less options and leeway. One tube would mean less gain (generally not a problem), but it would also mean very high output impedance (no cathode follower). Also, simplicity could limit the choice of tube; for example, one may have to use the 6h30 because of its high transconductance and low output impedance for such a "simple" circuit. Some people like the sound of this tube, others, as noted above, don't.

Every design choice means some kind of tradeoff. Conrad Johnson, avoids a cathode follower by having many tubes in parallel. It is still a simple circuit, but, it does mean many tubes.

I have a linestage (Emotive Audio Epifania), whose topology I have no understanding, which uses one tube (twin section tube) per channel, supposedly with no cathode follower needed to lower impedance. I suppose this qualifies as few tubes "in the signal path," but it has a LOT of tubes in the power supply. It uses tube rectification and six gas regulator tubes. The designer himself thinks that the power supply is "in the signal path," hence the great care in getting good power.

Mjcmt, if you like the tubes you have, then, just sit back and enjoy the sound. But, if you would like to chase something else, you do have the opportunity to radically change the sound of those amps just by changing tubes. To some, that is part of the fun, to others, that is what is frustrating (some people may like the sound they are getting but hate the idea that "better" may be lurking out there somewhere). If you want to look at alternatives, just be aware that, particularly with 6SN7s, results are NOT necessarily related to price or reputation; it depends on your taste, system and synergy with your other equipment. This can get very expensive and the results can be erratic. In my system, very expensive Tungsol roundplates are the best, but, very expensive metal-based GE's were very lean and unpleasant.

>>The individual who chooses to make a 10 component design isn't as good a designer. Complexity does not in any way prove an engineer is good<<

You should contact Ralph Karsten (Atma-Sphere), Jim White (Aesthetix), etc. and share your expertise.

I'm sure they could learn a lot from you.

OK- Component limitations are getting confused with engineering concepts. Ganged tubes can produce lower impedance outputs and high power levels. Same with transistors. We all know that. It has nothing to do with what I said. The condensed version of my last statement is, "If something can be made with fewer components yet remain as effective or better than a design with more components, then the conservative design approach should be taken." There are no negatives or limitations to that design philosophy economically, statistically or performance-wise.