Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.

Convenience, cost, etc. are valid reasons for choosing anything over something else - I do it all the time myself -but have no validity when discusing absolute quality, or rather, the closest to absolute than we can presently percieve and/or replicate.

I am not biased to one arrangement of matter versus another - and that is the bottom-line difference between one technology and another. If SS sound is more "real" - more like sound-sounds-like as I sit and think about it - or causes me to become more involved in the music at a greater, deeper, more progressive rate than tubes, then I would certainly go that way.

However, I see no need to sauve people's ideas by backing away from the obvious: there exists and has existed a discernable progression that occurs as one becomes adept at listening and more knowledgeable about what is available in technology, and that is: people in their progression move from SS at one end to tube at the other.

Every five years, we say that SS is closer to tube, the implicit assumption to that continuing discussion being that SS is not as good as tube. This is still the same case and it continues to be that case because it is true. No one who has gone over a long progression of evolution in stereo ever says that SS is better than tube because its not true. Isn't that an empiric pattern worthy of contemplation?

Now, what are the problems?

Here we go...SS does not produce space that is pressurized, that is congruent to the space that you exist in in a deep existential way; does not replicate the phenomena of sound as it moves through space that the deep, intuitive structures of the perceptive mind discern; does not offer a continuous simulcrum of the intra-relationship of how source and space are both separate and integral at the same time; does not replicate the "event horizon" of sound projection and surrounding space as a delineation to the the identifying part of the listening mind, and, simultaneously, impart a perception of no-boundary between sound and space to the receptive parts of the listening mind; does not impart an intuitive sense that depth progresses back infinitely, rather than in planes defined by the players on them with a rear plane that, by its existence, defines rear space; does not infuse the deep harmonic fabric of the core note with air, so that sound is seen as integral with space (as it is in "reality"); does not infuse the transient attack with air, nor lend a sense of infinite dissipation to the decay of sound, etc.

Yes, SS has worked to surround players with a greater sense of space immediately around them and gathered within the planes that they occupy; and, yes, mechanical artifacts of distortion have been reduced, but this hardly should cause anyone to be tempted to claim that SS is approaching tube sound in quality of the listenting experience as a whole. By and large, SS has merely improved in the areas that it already excelled at, but reducing sterility in source distortion hardly makes up for the still existing - and I would argue, terminally flawed - rendition of space on: 1) space's integral relationship to sound as it moves within space 3) the sound projection's harmonic structure as it relates to space, and 4) the relationship of how differing sound sources intra-act in space simultaneously as they move out from and towards the listener.

This is what is meant by "congruency" and "continuity".

I do not want to say the SS can not be enjoyable and that it is not worthwhile, but that is a relative statement - and should not be altered just to make some more comfortable.

I have recommended systems composed of SS components, but that does not alter the present state of SS vs. tube, nor does setting up a "euphonic" strawman to push over when you are pushed, nor in, at the end, retreating in trailing arguments regarding price, convenience, etc.

Ahhhh, that felt goood.....

Damn Asa, you did it again! Great post.

Unsound, virtually any PA system anyone in this country would have heard a live event amplified through in the last 30+ years would be solid state (this, BTW, has almost nothing to do with sound per se, and everything to do with lightweight, cool-running, durable, and inexpensive high-power capability). I have owned many tubed guitar and bass amps, but if this is what you're referring to, the analogy is inherently flawed. Such amps are to be considered part of the instrument, and as such participate intimately in the creation of the sound - not the reproduction of it. (I do think, however, that being a player who has used both tubed and SS instrument amplifiers extensively will give one a valuable insight into how these technologies can respond differently to the music's touch.)

Asa, with all due respect some individuals "who after a long progression of evolution in stereo" say that solid state is better than tube because it's true to them. Often they say that while they were enamoured with tubes they felt the need to return to fidelity. There sure seems to be a lot of folks here on Audiogon who have gone from tubes to Pass. While I disagree that your evidence is empirical. The fact that so many people agree with your origianl statement is worthy of contemplation. The satisfaction that you recieve from tubes seems to be echoed from many others as well. The fact that solid state ususally measures better than tubes either indicates that tubes offer a euphonic colorization or that we haven't the unbiased equipment to measure solid states shortcomings or that we have different priorities when it comes to sonic short comings. IMHO it's the latter. I look forward to an update of this discussion when there are more digital amps available.

Zaikesman, yes I was referring to instrument amplification and your point is well taken.