Why do tubed preamps image better than SS?

I don't think the question in the original post makes any sense. The best imaging preamp I have ever heard far and away is the H-Cat which is ss. The second best is the tubed Exemplar Audio. H-Cat does not talk about phase but rather doppler shift. Exemplar talks about the noise level of the ac power supply. The Exemplar does not sound like any other tube preamp I have ever heard and indeed does not sound like tubes at all until you compare it with the H-Cat.

The question doesn't make any sense? Funny, I've read a lot about how tubed pre's have more lifelike imaging than ss. If fact, it's almost cliche. Next someone will say that tubes produce tighter bass than ss. And yes, there are certainly exceptions to every rule. And yes, there's more variability is speakers than other component's. Thanks to those of your who took your cranky med's before logging on.

Tubes are more laid back, softer so to speak, the C2200 is one fine preamp, the C45 comes in second, the C200 is much more money and worth it if you have a LP collection and an outstanding Turntable. The Phono on the C200 is just great. But $8,000 is a lot of money for small improvements.

My 30 years of experience as an audiophile leads me to conclude that imaging, like any other sonic attribute, is a product of many circuit design decisions, not just whether tubes or transistors are used. I've heard tube electronics yield the razor sharp images often attributed to transistors, and transistor electronics display the softly rounded images that tubes are famous for. This is especially true of the most current designs. I think we could easily dispense with such generalizations, but I doubt that this will happen anytime soon.