Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.

Asa, your last post took the words right out of my fingers.

For your information, I only mentioned "other sources" because I am humble enough to know my word is as only good as the distance between my mouth and my ears when it comes to forum readers. It wasn't the sound of the Pass I made my pitch to outside sources for anyway, it was the fact it is technically the cleanest of all ss amps. Hearing, as you and I know, is subjective, as you and I demonstrate ad nauseum.

We will always disagree on the subject of noise floor, otherwise known as component distortion. Everything I want to hear is encoded in the medium. I don't want my circuitry second guessing my preferences. I'll do that at the record store.

After I exchanged my tube setup for the Pass, one long time friend exclaimed how much more extended my system sounded. I have off the chart hearing, and I notice the difference between the two is substantial. The music is more alive, to me.

I'm afraid I'll have to agree with Greg as well over the need to spend major bucks for a musical ss amp. I will trump Greg and announce the same goes for tube amps. I didn't get the sound right in my system until I had shelled out a hundred bucks for retubing my cd player. It costs exponentially greater for pre amps and amps. Just take a look at a Jadis. It is true that a budding listener will do much better on a limited budget buying a new sweet Jolida or older CJ and SF.

Kevziek, not so. I don't think Asa has given his Pass a fair shake yet. He doesn't believe me, but I know for a fact one can have the best of both worlds by initiating your best sounding tube signal through and amplified by a silky clean ss amp. Of course if you want the same noise floor/air imparted on the signal before speakers that Asa values then just ignore my advice.

I feel I need to remind everyone that my Holy Grail I am striving for was the product of ss mono blocks doing the work for what I consider the best speaker ever made, the Apogee Scintilla. In the same listening room I heard a fifty grand tube Jadis powering a plethora of 5k dynamic driver units and that never produced any magic for me.

"Cleanest", "silky clean", qualities of space to be measured "technically" only in terms of diminishing distortion...yes, if these are the values you adhere to, or your bias in seeing sound, then follow Muralman and get a SS amp...

But, I believe there is more to stereo spatial performance than measuring the technical aspects of distortion. I don't think its radically subjective at all.

And, yes, if you are married to a speaker whose impedance drops to 1 ohm (the Scintillas) then, yes, you will not like a tube amp - because that would be incompetance to marry the two - and will, by necessity, need high powered, current dumping SS amps...and perhaps, to perfect that choice, perfect an argument biased towards the SS amps that you must have...

I've reviewed for TAS, UA, been in the hobby for 25 years etc. and, trust me, I've given Pass a fair shake.

As for hearing acuity, and your implied reccomendation of your own hearing, let me remind: there are many people with great acuity in technical terms who still can not hear what "musical" is. The mind in primary and causal to the ears (mind precedes material). I know many people who are older and have lost some upper frequency acuity who, nevertheless, have exceedingly musical systems. People who claim that the "technical" aspects of frequency acuity are determitive of the ability to hear what is "musical" - and use that argument to bolster their claims - are the same materially biased people who believe that space should be as "clean" as possible. Again, this is not a coincidence.

Muralman, I think you are right: SS is the right choice for you, and , admittedly, I don't think Jadis would match well with Apogees. Then again, I don't know anyone who would actually consider it.

Hello Asa,
I have nothing to say! Tubes are good! SS is not? Or vice versa? Things that you guy discuss on the subject was discussed long time ago? No need for me to resurrect a dead subject.
About Zen, what do you know about Zen? I know "nothing" about Zen. All I know is if I drink the "water", I know how is it "taste" like. Do you?
"You can look and see parts (reductionist-orientated scientist), you can look to see the whole (going up to a mountain and not coming down), or you can come down from the mountain, realize that the only "Zen" up there is the "Zen" you brought with you, that "it" is everywhere, and see parts and the whole at the same time - they are not exclusive perceptions. Transcending that belief is part of their integration."
Is there such a thing call Zen up or Zen down? Or part or whole? Musical or not! Even if it does, so what. Dinosaurs extinct! Budda is also dead! I know "where" I came from, "where" will I go! Again, you do not drink the same "water" that I drink. You don't know! The moment one try to think to define Zen, one is already wrong! Look it up! :-)
Earlier post that I quote Detlof about my system. Did I say it is a good or bad thing. NO! Musical or not, I don't know! Do I like the sound of it ? Heck, yes!!! The question is can any system replicate "that"? Or do we care? Tubes or SS!
Do I care if my amps is tubes or SS ? NO! Do I care if my amps are musical or not, YES. Like I've said, one only see the finger, but not the moon.
I've seen tons of "good" men like you, and none "good and bad" like me. See how rare am I? Man, I am building up my own sand castle. :-)
Unsound, lookup your post, you arrived at the door!!! :-)
Z man, you are the lion. :-)

Regards

Do you guys really like the Ten Bulls quote? I like it, too.:-)

Hello Detlof, I did not mean to forget about you, but here it is: I like your wording!!!

"Perhaps it is the ambient noise of a life event , which I miss in classical CDs. Instead of blackness, I expect to hear those subtle cues, which tell me of the size of the hall, those reverbs from the side-, or backwalls, which simply are not there".

I have look for something like that in A'Gon, for a while, but yours are the best.

Thanks

Can quote you some where, else ? :-)

6chac:

1.Where one can not say, it is best to remain silent. That seems to have escaped your long response, all the while you claim that one can not say. That is delusiuonal, or if volitional, inauthentic.

2. There is a difference between claiming that you are encompassing the Truth in its entirety in words, versus using words to point at the Truth. Granted, pointing at the moon is not the moon, but Jesus and Buddha talked about the "what is" - or Zen, or God, or a higher level of organization, or whatever row you want to hoe - all the time, so I'll go with them, if you don't mind.

2. If someone claims they are enlightened, they usually aren't. I'm not, I know that.

3. I never heard the Buddha say that "I am right and you are wrong" with such judgemental force. Hmmm...

4. What does it mean when someone goes on and on decrying others going on and on?

5. If one has to look it up from someone else, or decry thinking and dialogue, itself part of the "what is", then he probably doesn't know.

Too far afield even for me. 6chac, if you want to continue, contact me directly and I will talk to you there.