Let's forget about being politically correct

Asa, your 4-11 post should be required reading as it defines what is sought by those that are serious about being transported to the recording venue.....This is the tough part and where most systems and components fail be they tube or solid state....Easier and much cheaper to get there with tubes....

To really obtain the "tube glow" people speak of...one really needs classic tube power...such as Conrad Johnson,etc...a tube pre just doesnt add enough "color" in my estimation (if that is what one desires)...also...as far as the "black background" arguement...on paper...since SS has lower distortion figures...they would have the edge...but again...can anyone really hear THD differences...doubtful...however...part of the "rounded" sound of tubes is due to their "soft" distortion...which is why the clip in such a smooth manner...

Thanks, Bob, that was nice of you to say.

Yes, Sean, not far away at all. Wish I could take you up on that cocktail.

Yes, phase corrrect, but what is drawn to paper - cognitive analyzation - can not encompass the experience of dimension. There is not piece of technology that can do that, at least so far. I agree that it is very worthwhile to use tools and conduct empiric experiments to help us see more - to point towards the truth of what is experienced trans-cognitively - but the pointing is not the experience itself, merely an approximation. If you think that the pointing is the experience - in your attachment to scientific means, called scientific materialism, or scientism, in various guises - then you will only see the pointing, only the THD on the paper, and only get the approximation, but many times believe, mistakenly, that it is the whole experience; empirically speaking, it is a performative error in methodology that limits the results of the injunctive itself. Which, interestingly, is "bad" science itself...

I look at the science, but usually in an integrated fashion, ie not just looking at one measure, and factor that in to my experience, but the "paper" is never determitive.

You folks might want to take a look at this thread over at AA. I guess i'm not the only one "stirring the pot" on this specific subject. Sean
>

Asa: You are correct in ascertaining that"science" cannot get us any closer to the music. Measurements like THD only display the electronic charactristics of a piece of electronic equipment, and not necessarily any musical charactistics. There is no correlation between
musicality and specs. Listening to music is an existential experience, in its purest form, like love. How can you descibe the word "love" unless you have been "in love"? No matter how many ways you try to describe "love" (and many poets have tried), unless you have experienced "love", you only have circumscribed the experience. Audio and music are the same.`Unless you have this experience with music, this oneness, and ,btw, who is to judge this oneness except yourself, then`no matter what system you have whether tubes or solid state`does not matter. There is no "correct" experience, only the experience that you have perceived existentially.