Tubes? Transistors? Which are better?

toobgroover - that dsp-1 was the 1st ambient-surround set-up i heard, & i wanted it *bad*!!! a few years later, s'phile reviewed the jvc-unit i now have, & they said it was in another league from *all* the processors awailable at the time, including the yamaha & the lexicon, which were also highly rated. well, it was yust a matter of time before i knew there'd be one in my system. when i finally had the $$$ & the space for one, it took several years to find one, at *any* price, forget a reasonable price! i'm glad i have it, it's really nice for good 2-channel set-ups, & makes multi-channel recordings superfluous, imho. too bad these yamaha/jvc-type audio processors never really caught on... yure right about it being unobtrusive - if it's set properly, ya don't even know it's on - until ya turn it off! :>) dig that thing out & put it to use! ;~) doug

Bob: It's interesting how respectable tone controls became when they appeared on a six grand Cello pre-amp which didn't even provide for switching them out of the loop. There are many good pre-amps from the past which incorporate tone controls which can be switched out. Since I often listen to older analog recordings, I find the careful application of some tonal modification beneficial at times. This also applies to certain sonically unattractive digital recordings. MacIntosh pre-amps from about c32 have included a 5 band equalizer (not narrow band grafic) from which the Cello pre-amp concept could easily have been derived. These pre-amps are readily available on the used market and are very durable. My approach to the utilization of such a pre-amp is as follows; Since I prefer no preamp, most of my digital listening is with source directly into amp. When I want the benefits of a pre-amp and/or tone controls I shunt the source through a simple switching box to the pre-amp. The pre-amp also of course, provides a means of listening to lps and analog tape. The second option is not exactly purist. But, I don't buy the purported superiority of that approach in every instance and it has worked very well for me. Adendum: Musical Fidelity has made a nice little add-on tone control box in the past. Perhaps it is still available.

tubes vs solid state I think it's a horse apiece.Both do certain things very well.Tubes give you a bit of a midrange bloom that can be pleasing,usually at the expense of controlling the bass. Solid state can be dead accurate and give you massive bass I currently own tube stuff but wouldnt pass up a great solid state piece.It's just whatever trips your trigger.

This thread was resurrected at an interesting time for me. While I've used a McCormack DNA-2DX (300 wpc, 8 Ohm) for the last two years, 3 weeks ago I bought a slightly used Sonic Frontiers Power 2 amp (135 wpc 8 Ohm). Both amps are $5000. MSRP and each is a very good representative of its "type". At first I was sort of disappointed with the Power 2. It was subjectively slower and softer, but with a very relaxing and slightly warm mid-range and treble; but still with very good detail. (but I've been using SS amps for 8-9 years). At first I mistook its warmth for veiling. But after listening for a few weeks, this amp is growing on me. It has an overall character that is very pleasing, even on high NRG R&R. It's true-- while slower, the whole frequency range is slower and so pace, rhythm, and timing do not suffer, and in fact growling slide guitars (slide guitar is distortion by definition) are maybe even more convincing with the Power 2. The DNA2 amp is typical of a very good SS amp with fast, tight, well controlled bass, and excellent detail. This amp has the first 25 watts biased into Class A operation, and it has a sweet, detailed, yet very immediate presentation that is not at all fatiguing. It is a distinctly "livlier" sound, and at first I said also "more involving". But now, I know that I could be happy using either one of these excellent amps indefinitely. The strength of the Power 2 being a relaxed, slightly warm and beautiful mid-range, with good detail. The DNA-2DX strengths being fast, controlled bass and a more lively, but still non-fatiguing presentation. I've come to the conclusion that both are excellent, but I wouldn't want to listen to them both on the same day, or maybe even the same month. In the STPH review, RJR called the Power 2 boring-- not true in my system. He also said part of the mid-range was too forward-- well, not in my system, and he said it had a mid-bass "hump"-- this is only true if it's on the CD, IMO. BTW, my tube pre-amp is a SF Line 2, and I think there is good synergy between it and the Power 2. I could become a total tubehead, but I'm planning on keeping both these amps:>) I suppose the results of this comparison were pretty predictable, but it is my first serious flirtation with tube amps, so, new to me, and I've enjoyed it. Cheers. Craig.

Sedond, sorry it took so long to respond: I'm going digital. I'm panning to get the TACT room correction system, add a DA module and feed the amp directly. Cheers.