Tube Equipment: Gimmick?

In answer to Jitwitn's questions:

1. An 8X10 inch view camera consists of little more than a bellows, a metal (or wood) framework with some manual gears, a ground glass back and a lens. Whereas you break open an Nikon F5 and you will find all the neat little R&D wonderments of technology, jam packed into a state-of-the-art titanium body, sleak, streamlined and extremely ergonomic. Yet the 8X10 view camera costs just as much as the F5...some actually cost several times as much (though these days it is a dying format). Does one camera take "better" photographs???!!! Both are elegant and effective solutions. They are entirely different tools to accomplish a similar task in different ways. Use the tool you are most comfortable with to do the specific job you wish to achieve, just as you might choose a hammer at Home Depot. The hammer you choose may not be the one I prefer, but they'll both get the job done. The "better" part is entirely in the judgement of the beholder. Why does the tube gear cost as much as it does....cause it's all hand-made by elves in the Ukrane who need to support their very expensive cocaine habit. Those little fuckers got a union so solid it'd make Jimmy Hoffa rise from the dead!

2. Whether tube or SS, a SYSTEM should be carefully selected for the synergy between all of the components as well as the expectations of the individual who will be using the system. It all goes back to the original answer to the thread which I so liked....to paraphrase; different strokes for different folks. Presumably you'd change the speakers because you prefered the sound of one set of components over another. Since when does being "reasonable" have anything remotely to do with being an Audiophile?!

Marco

JAX2: You are absolutely wrong about 8X10 vs 35mm:the 8x10 will give higher resolution, more pixels per square inch. You can blow up an 8X10 much,much larger than the best of the best 35mm. That is not true of pricing either, a Zone VII 8x10, costs much less than a premium Canon or Nikon. 35mm is a journalist's camera, an 8x10 is an artist's camera. The Nikon F received its kudos from the Vietnam War more than any other camera, and took off from there. Take an 8X10 picture, then take a 35mm picture, then blow it up to 8X10, absolutely no comparison, all things being equal.

As far as tubes vs ss are concerned(and I have both): in less than 2 weeks time I can tell that the tubes are less than perfect, they have changed the sound, and the sound is not getting better. So do you all change tubes every two weeks, I think not! So after two weeks what do you all do? And to boot not all the tubes degrade at the same rate, which is even more a problem. So how often do you change them, once ever 6 months or a year. I change mine
every 90 days. the difference between new and 90 days is very striking!

Shubert, while going deep into the technical aspects of each camera format and missing Marco's point entirely, you actually justified his analogy in a round about manner, heheh.

And, what kind of tube equipment are you using that loses tubes in two weeks? Maybe you live close to the event horizon of a black hole and therefore have 17,520 hours each day?

Again, what's this whole issue of perfect and accurate?

This is like arguing who's hotter, Salma Hayek, Roselyn Sanchez or Monica Belluche. They're all incredibly beautiful women but in different ways.

You could fight about this all day until you're green in the nutsack, but what's the point? I work with a guy that thinks Martha Stewart is hotter than them all!

We're not robots and THERE IS NO ABSOLUTE SOUND!

"I have seen the "guts" of tube equipment. It does not look extremely complicated or intricate (especially amplifiers). However, solid state equipment seems to be much more complicated. For instance, the FPB-300 has numerous massive circuit-boards, containing motorola processor chips. Why is highend tube gear priced comparably to solid state gear, if there isn't the research and development or the "stuff" going into it?"

Jiwitn, have you ever seen the inside of a Berning Zh270? At a strapping 10 lbs it ain't gonna meet your criteria of "massive circuit boards", I mean how many layers of circuit boards can you fit into a 12x15x4.5 high tube amp that also has 10 tubes. I realize I have become obnoxious in always talking about the Berning but frankly I believe people should be aware of how special it really is. I will continue to do so because in its price range I haven't heard a better performer. I like it cause it involves me in the music, not ONE area where it isn't totally involving. This dynamic little demon will probably lay to rest your impressions concerning tube amps. Since you seem to be into "complicated". I doubt there are too many amps tube or ss that might be considered more complicated than this one. Radical technology, no iron core transformer but a high frequency impedance converter. It also has a high speed switching power supply specially designed for the amp. Not some off the shelf power supply. This amp is as quiet as a dead church mouse but for the atoms slamming against each other inside the tubes which you can clearly hear through the speakers when you put your ear right up to the driver, but you won't hear a transformer, power or output except for the pre-amp if it has one. You get the picture.

Ok Jitwn, it doesn't have 600 watts like your beloved Krell, remember, not everyone requires 600 watts. What it does do is provide FULL POWER within it frequency range depending on the feedback used. Full power to 2hz with no more than 1% distortion. It operates in a very linear manner like tubes do contrary to popular belief. The problem with tube gear is that damn transformer. In some of the newer more exclusive gear it has been improved dramatically from the good ole days. The point is that tube technology is not stagnant. The zh is one example and these other guys Lamm, BAT, ARC, Conrad Johnson etc aren't exactly resting on their past laurels either. I would love you to hear this one, you might be pleasantly surprised in how much power this little beast can project without running out of gas. My only beef is that unwieldy cables tend to manhandle the amp and it doesn't want to stay put, it can be a pain in the ass. I think the manufacturer should consider beefing it up with some lead weights or something so people feel they're getting their money's worth and they can use python sized cable it they want. Price per pound value is not too good on this one, after all we're talking about prime fillet not sirloin.

I'll lay it to rest for now but suggest you check out this link for more information http://www.davidberning.com/zh270.htm

Schubertmaniac - let me assure you that I need no lessons in what each
of the two cameras are mostly used for. As Gunbei pointed out, you are
just illustrating my point. They are two entirely different tools used to
accomplish a similar task (making photographic images). Each has it's
own strengths and weaknesses. They can both make photographic
images but the (technical) results will be entirely different. Period. End
of story. Any judgements you care to impose on the two different tools
are entirely your own.

As far as which camera is "better", your illustration regarding
one yielding a finer, tighter grained sharper image, vs the other having a
grainier result.....well using that as a basis of saying one tool is better
than the other is just as stinky a pile of horse shit as the assertion that
tube gear is better than solid state. For my ears, and the way I like to
hear my music, I prefer tubes. But for me to say one is
"better" than the other is as ridiculous as the assertion that
an 8X10 camera is "better" than a 35mm. By the way, I've
seen astounding "artful" images done in 35mm format, and
even pinhole camera format, and I've also seen remarkable journalistic
images that were made when there was no 35mm available, on much
larger and more awkward cameras. Again, if your judgement is that
tighter grain and sharper images are superior than those that exhibit
grain that is simply one persons opinion which may or may not be
shared by others. Just as this tube vs SS debate may yield a similar split
in opinions, there is no one single solution that is
"better"....they're just different. "Better" exists
only in the individuals mind.

Marco

PS I think you must have meant Zone VI camera and not Zone VII as I
know of no such thing as a Zone VII camera. Indeed a wooden field
camera may be less expensive than a 35mm. I don't use field cameras
so am not familiar with their pricing, but I can tell you that a good studio
camera like a Sinar will equal or exceed the price of most 35mm
cameras. The Sinar is just as stone simple as I described, while the
35mm is packed with modern technology. That was the parrallell I was
trying to illustrate. Also, an 8X10 will not yield any "pixels per square
inch" nor will any film camera determine how many pixels per square
inch that you may record the image that it produces in. I'm assuming
you were referring to a tighter grain structure when you said that since
PPI is strictly a digital term and refers to digital image files.