2. amps-preamps
  3. 1219862190

Anyone permanently convert from tubes to SS?

I often hear about those that "discover" tubes and never look back, but has anyone here gone from being a "tube guy" to finding a SS amp that satisfied you equally or more? I don't intend on starting another tube vs. SS debate, I'd just like to see how many have left tubes behind. If you are a convert, which SS amp convinced you to leave tubes?
128x128jtnicolosi
guidocorona
4,298 posts
 
Rwwear, you bring up a good point. . . seems though that, in the common lore, SS has ended up denoting almost any circuit with no major moving mechanical, electronecanical, electromagnetic, optomagnetic, parts, no vacuum tubes, and no old style ferrite core memory. So, where do we place switching amps in the taxonomy?
Guido
pubul57
3,712 posts
 
I can live with the Class A Pass Aleph and XA.5 series of amps - they are the best SS I've heard, though I suspect I would also like the Ayre gear as well. I own an Aleph J, but will always keep a tube amp as my primary amplifier. Having both is good, but if I could only have one, it would still be tubes.
tigerwoodkhorns
130 posts
 
I did the tubes and Klipsch thing, then I heard B&W's and switched to SS. Musical Fidelity preamp with Bryston and Classe amps. No tubes needed.
dob
577 posts
 
"If it has no moving parts it is a solid state device. A tube amp moves electrons though a vacuum"

....I think I will move my electrons thru air to the nearest bar there they will became static and unmovable for receipt of a vodka-tonic with flashy positrons on the side, dragged by the dranken bartender with very sold and state credentials.
pubul57
3,712 posts
 
Not sure about "no tubes needed", but I would say with B&W SS is needed. Some speakers B&W, Thiel, Vandersteen seems to need what SS can do and don't thrive with tubes because of their need for high current and drive into the low frequencies. The speakers you own has a lot to do with whether you get better perfomance for tubes of SS.
More to discover