REF 3 In My System?

I agree , if your going to built tube amps , why not build them to sound like tube amps . Is the lessoning of tube sound partially do to the never ending search for neutrality and perfect balance ?

Onhwy61/Tmsorosk...I am not sure there is a uniform definition of what "tube sound" is. My sense is traditional, old-style tube amps were all about the midrange, with rolled off highs and flabby bass. If that is the sound you like, you can certainly buy vintage Marantz, Dynaco, Scott, etc...tube amps and get that sound. Certainly older ARC, Conrad Johnson, Cary etc... designs also had some of those limitations. But also, the traditional tube sound had 3D holographic soundstaging and fleshed out images within that soundstage. Traditional tubes also excelled at displaying notes' full measure, from attack to sustain to decay, resulting in a smooth and liquid presentation. I would argue that modern tube designs strive for a full-bandwidth presentation, with extended highs and more controlled/articulated bass response, and a tonally neutral presentation (in this respect tubes and SS are converging), but what they retain is the 3D holographic soundstaging, imaging, and that liquid natural presentation. And the Ref 3 has these attributes in full measure. Just my 2c.

Cmalak, good explanation, but I wasn't thinking about old style tubey sound. I'm thinking along the line of something Tim da Paravinici may have said about how he could get tubes to sound like solid state and vice versa. My perception is that tubes, even in preamps, require more attention from a user than equivalent solid state designs. When designers try to remove the added maintenance of tubes they end up with complex designs that defeats one of the main advantages, at least in my eyes, of tubes which is circuit simplicity. Added complexity leads to increased costs. Here I'm thinking of the recent ARC or VTL designs.

In the back of my mind I'm wondering whether some tube manufacturers really want to make solid state designs, but customer resistance limits their flexibility. With electric guitarist, who as a group never abandoned tubes and are more responsible for the continuance of tube production than audiophiles, they want to "hear" the tube. The tube is an effect processor that they purposely use to create a "sound". Tubes are also very common on the pro audio engineering side. There too the users want to hear the tube effect of added spaciousness, smooth highs and a nice breakup characteristic when driven hard. I also would place audiophiles in that group of people who want to hear the tube. I see it in the extensive tube rolling activity and the advocacy of specific tubes as sounding better than others.

Although I'm a little suspicious, I'm not convinced it's purely a marketing driven thing and I'm just wondering what engineering reasons a manufacturer would pick tubes over equivalent solid state designs if in the end they both sound the same.

We have talked about evolution and convergence of tube and solid state designs and there effect on tubes , but what about the effect this has had on solid state . Let me start by explaining why I traded my beloved ARC REF 3 preamp for the Ayre MX-R . Although the Ayre may never be called liquid it has many tube qualities , fleshed out images , 3D holographic sound stage , and the transparent ability to bring musicians closer to the listener than anything else that I have experienced regardless of technology or cost . I won't go on and on about it's abilities but I think I'm safe in saying it was the most important and thought provoking addition to my music maker .
It's not fair to compare these two fine units because of the doubling of cost , but in that sense the REF3 is likely a better bang for the buck .