What do you see as the downside of tubes?

In defense of Dave_b here, I understand what he has written. As a tube diehard here, I have owned many tube preamps (ARC SP-10, LS5, BAT P10/31SE, Aesthetix Io/Callisto Sig) in the last 25 years that did indeed have a layer of grain and haze compared to the ultimately transparent solid state models that I have heard: Krell, Mark Levinson, klyne, Spectral. But these solid state products tend to be dimensionally flat compared to the tube products I have listed. But the above tube products had a level of musical realism that the sterile solid state products could not match.

No matter how "transparent" the sound may be, if the notes are instantly truncated and the harmonic overtones die rather quickly as well, I am not interested. Every time I have tried another preamp (line stage) in my system, I go for piano music. And then I run upstairs to hit a few keys on the piano. It's amazing and quite sad at how many line stages, tube products included, fail this test. But a few tube products nail it unlike any solid state line stage I have tried. And this is why I still have no tolerance for a solid state preamp. Surely there must be one that stands out from the crowd, but I have not heard it.

As for the issue of getting a preamp that excells in the 3D and clarity departments, my quest is over with the Aria WV. The other products I owned are quite a ways back from this performance. And with a little effort with trying various tubes in the line and phono stages and the PS, this product can be taken to a whole new level or performance than its stock EH/Sovtek tubes.

With tube products, and a lot of effort and patience, I can tune the system to my priorities and to the room to achieve a great balance of tonal coherency, dynamic contrasts and 3D. With solid state products I am stuck with the sound of the base product. At best I can move the speakers around or use cables as tonal bandaids to integrate the system to the room. But I have little to no control of the dynamics or dimensionally.

Knowing what I found out about tube variety, I will not buy amps, and preamps. The cost is just too high.

This is total nonsense. Trying a budget product and giving up on tubes because of a few problems is hardly a valid reason to dismiss tubes wholeheartedly. I have discovered a number of small signal tubes in the $30-50 per pair that quite easily destroy tubes selling these days at $500 or more. But it takes a well built product to show the strengths and differences.

Audiofiel follows me around, like a rabid dog. I take his criticisms as a badge of honor. It shows my cage rattling is being heard. I loudly profess nearly all commercial grade cables are a sham. For a dealer, like audiofiel, those are fighting words. Also, the amps and preamp I am using can only be bought direct sale.

If not this year, next year, at an audio show, I will demonstrate the truth behind my assertions.

I have tubes only in my DAC. All the layering, spatial clues, and tonality of the tubes are expressed,

I have tubes only in my DAC. All the layering, spatial clues, and tonality of the tubes are expressed,

You just keep on convincing yourself of this.

I tried the H20 amp in my system a few years ago and the one thing that the old and lowly backup Counterpoint NPS400 amp did was to significantly outperform the H20 amp in the context of portrayal of space and decays. And this is a hybrid amp with small-signal tubes on the input. The main amps I use, CAT JL-3 are of course in a completely different league than this. But a JL-2 or the Atmasphere MA1's would be fine to show what tube amps would do to take this to the next level. So one can be convinced that all they need is tubes in their DAC to achieve the strengths of tubes, but my experience paints quite a different picture.

And if you need an amp to drive 1-ohm loads, the CATs can be tweaked to accommodate this and not blink an eye.

Jafox-I think that one reached the upper deck and stayed fair.

Jayfox, Re: "In defense of Dave b". I too understand what he means but more importantly I understand why he arrives at his conclusions. That I think his reasoning is flawed, and certainly not in accord with mine (or yours) but what pleases his ears is all that counts in his house. However, anyone who considers his observation as any form of 'truth' certainly risks great disappointment.

BTW Jafox I agree with your views, especially those suggesting that signal decay is more often than not a signal truncated prematurely by most SS (and some tubed stuff as well) which makes their sound initially sound more "transparent", "detailed", etc, when in fact it is really inaccurate and creates a sterile, fatiguing sound, even though the frequency response is relatively flat. But some folks like this sound. I'm sure they would find 'my sound' thick, bloated, dense, slow, etc.

Dave b, A question - regarding your analogy involving the sound of music in a jazz club as reproduced by your system. Are you referring to performances you actually attended and that you have heard unamplfied performances, or that you have actually heard the events live that you are now listening to in a recorded form and that you are confident that you are in fact hearing something that occurred in the performance, not in the mixing booth (etc)? FWIW, I always find the assertion that someone finds any recording played over any equipment ever sounds like a live performance. It typically suggests to me that the person doesn't know the clues to listen to or doesn't get out much.

For example, consider that most live jazz club performances are not played with out amplification for each instrument and their sound is blended in with the sound of the acoustic (room) that may be overly resonant or damped, or that the amplyfing equipment itself, or speaker placement, produce an overly dense source, isn't it then possible that a SS system which truncates the signal length only makes the recording/your system sound move like a real live and unamplified one? Just a thought...........I don't understand how you can sort out all of these varibles. I always think that the best we can hope for is that we own the equipment envisioned by the recording engineer and that his efforts to make it sound 'live' are successful.

Hey Bill, Keep stiring the pot! But, why not share with us your underlying reasons for arriving at and making your terse observations. That way we could see some meaningful mud slinging! :-)