Can tube preamps be as 'detailed' sounding as ss?

Well I obviously had no intention to start a pissing contest. I was merely trying to find out if it is 'theoretically' possible for tube preamps to present all the detail on the recording. It seems that the answer is probably yes, and I will need to audition several of the suggested pres in my system to find the sound that I (and only I) find most enjoyable. It's interesting that people get so worked up about A vs B whether its audio or astronomy equipment (another hobby of mine) and likely other things too. I appreciate the discussion and suggestions for some models to try. I do agree that trying out different components is a fun and interesting way to enjoy this hobby.

Bob_reynolds, yes, my feathers were ruffled, but after a good preening, everything is smooth now :-)

As has been mentioned and implied by others, tech measurements don't always relate to actual listening experiences. Further, tonal balances can play tricks on your ears. I once tried a different isolation device on my CD player. Excellent bass improvement was my initial impression. After further listening, I realized why the bass sounded "so much better"...all the "air" of the high frequencies had been sucked out, tilting the tonal balance toward the bass end. Back went the original device, and the tonal balance returned to the proper presentation.

I have been to 3 CES shows. Other than on a VERY few occasions, I can walk into a room, not look at the preamp/amp and can tell whether it is a tube system or SS. I like a quote that I once heard, "Tubes are amplification devices while transistors are switching devices that can be configured for amplification."

Atmasphere wrote:

"There is a bit of a strawman going on in your post though, as I was commenting on the fact that audiophiles often interpret brightness as detail (although they don't always like it, thus the term 'clinical')."

Strawman? I must beg to differ. The uncontroversial sentiment about the danger of mistaking brightness for detail wasn't all you said in your first post:

"...transistor preamps might sound more detailed at first blush due to the presence of odd-ordered harmonic content (at low level) which serves as a loudness cue in the mids and highs. This causes them to seem more detailed, but a good tube preamp will have actually more detail yet be laid-back at the same time."

That's clear and unequivocal, and it's what I responded to. Taking for granted that we're talking about good SS preamps, I personally doubt anyone has solid empirical evidence correlating measured performance with psychoacoustic listener response to demonstrate that this alleged phenomenon is actually the case.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that it can't be your honestly held opinion. But then we must acknowledge the flipside of the coin, which is that many audiophiles (and doubtless designers as well) are of the opinion that tube gear might sound 'pleasing' because it allegedly deviates in such a way as to help obscure some possibly 'unmusical' elements of a transduced recording -- a position I assume you don't agree with.

In my mind, I often find an analogy to this debate in the world of reproduced moving visual images, as transmitted to my eyes via the miracle of television. Neither film nor video presentations can be mistaken for seeing real life. But although high-quality video usually seems objectively more accurate in many ways, subjectively I'd rather watch high-quality filmed material from the 'golden age' (roughly from the late 30's to the mid 60's) every time given the choice. In fact, this often 'feels' more like real life to me watching it, even if strictly speaking it doesn't really look it. However, this sensation is primarily a function of the 'original recording' -- not the transmission or reproduction gear, and again I find an analogy here with the recorded audio sound that I like best, from a 'golden age' which pretty much coincides with the filmed one.