"The Truth in Audio" -- according to www.commonsenseaudio.com

[woodman]

To these ears, they are able to reproduce the harmonic content and transient envelope of unamplified music more faithfully than most SS amps. There are exceptions.

That sir, places them into the realm of a preference as I already pointed out to Mr. musicoverall. The very idea that tubes are somehow able to do a "better job" at recreating sound has been proven to be nothing beyond a myth. That is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any professional audio equipment using vacuum tubes being employed in any recording studios, radio and TV broadcasting, commercial post-production houses, movie studios, or anywhere else where sound reproduction is dealt with "professionally".

That is true when one limits the discussion to a set of nearly useless specifications. May you enjoy your musical experience by viewing THD graphs.

I don't enjoy music by viewing THD graphs ... or, by "listening to" vacuum tubes, or by "listening to" solid state devices either. I enjoy listening to MUSIC that emanates from whatever equipment is doing the reproduction of it, if said gear is doing a reasonable job of recreating it.

Well designed tube gear is completely reliable. You confuse reliability with wear. Most tires are quite reliable after tens of thousands of miles of use, yet they do wear out. The same can be said of modern tube designs.

Pure, unadulterated hogwash! The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves. They are inherently unreliable critters. They are prone to idiosyncrasies and all sorts of undesirable behaviors that their solid state counterparts are simply not inclined to exhibit ... ever. I confuse reliability with "wear"? Not hardly do I confuse any such thing. I was faced with the challenges presented to me by vacuum tubes, day in and day out for more than 30 years. Those challenges were not something caused by the tubes "wearing out" - not at all. They were often a case of a given tube simply not being capable of performing the job it was being asked to do. These tubes were not "worn out" or even performing poorly because of usage ... they were simply not up to the task. On the other hand, there were tubes that were functionally "usable", but didn't perform their jobs as well as they could have or should have, due to a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the most glaring difference between tubes and SS devices is the fact that from the day that it is put into service, a solid state device will perform its assigned task at an optimum and unvarying level until it finally dies, while a vacuum tube can (and will) exhibit a wide range of efficiency in dealing with the task it's asked to perform.

I can understand that sentiment from the viewpoint of a repairman.

I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman". I was an electronic servicing technician, who also saw duty as an electronic design engineer (without the qualifying "credentials"). The term repairman in this context is tantamount to calling an automobile mechanic a "grease monkey".

[musicoverall]

Woodman, first of all excuse me for not being aware of how to set off each of your quotations (those I'll be referring to) in order to make my response easier to follow. I'll be happy to clarify if necessary.

You stated that you listen to music from a system that does a "reasonable" job of recreating the music. Solid state, IMHO, does that reasonable job. But after several years of listening to music through SS, I decided I preferred something that did the job much better than just reasonably. I upgraded to tubes and have never looked (or listened!) back.

A given tube not being able to perform its assignment might well have been normal back when you were working with tubes. Now such a thing is called an amp "design flaw". Only very rarely have I encountered tubed amps that used tubes not up to the task and in a few of those situations, the problem was fixed by using a different set of tubes. Certainly there are tubed amps that are unsuitable for certain speakers due to limited power or impedance issues or what have you. But when you find the proper amp to drive your speakers, you will no longer use the term "reasonable" in describing the music reproduction you're hearing, assuming your ancillary gear is well mated and performing optimally. My only complaint about tubed gear is that it tends to be expensive in many cases. On the other hand, there are many expensive solid state amps as well.

[E-Stat]

The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves.

I guess I have lived a charmed life having used various tube products since 1981.

I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman".

My apologies. Although I now work in a sales capacity, I am a computer programmer. Does that make me a Software Design Engineer ?

rw

[thepogue]

Mr Service techno wennie...

roflmao....

sorry could help meself brudda...lmao

whew...lol

sorry

Peace, Pogue (Fire-weenie) lol

That sir, places them into the realm of a preference as I already pointed out to Mr. musicoverall. The very idea that tubes are somehow able to do a "better job" at recreating sound has been proven to be nothing beyond a myth. That is why you'd be hard-pressed to find any professional audio equipment using vacuum tubes being employed in any recording studios, radio and TV broadcasting, commercial post-production houses, movie studios, or anywhere else where sound reproduction is dealt with "professionally".



I don't enjoy music by viewing THD graphs ... or, by "listening to" vacuum tubes, or by "listening to" solid state devices either. I enjoy listening to MUSIC that emanates from whatever equipment is doing the reproduction of it, if said gear is doing a reasonable job of recreating it.



Pure, unadulterated hogwash! The only thing that you can rely upon with any degree of certainty with tubed gear is the unreliability of the vacuum tubes themselves. They are inherently unreliable critters. They are prone to idiosyncrasies and all sorts of undesirable behaviors that their solid state counterparts are simply not inclined to exhibit ... ever. I confuse reliability with "wear"? Not hardly do I confuse any such thing. I was faced with the challenges presented to me by vacuum tubes, day in and day out for more than 30 years. Those challenges were not something caused by the tubes "wearing out" - not at all. They were often a case of a given tube simply not being capable of performing the job it was being asked to do. These tubes were not "worn out" or even performing poorly because of usage ... they were simply not up to the task. On the other hand, there were tubes that were functionally "usable", but didn't perform their jobs as well as they could have or should have, due to a plethora of reasons. Perhaps the most glaring difference between tubes and SS devices is the fact that from the day that it is put into service, a solid state device will perform its assigned task at an optimum and unvarying level until it finally dies, while a vacuum tube can (and will) exhibit a wide range of efficiency in dealing with the task it's asked to perform.



I'll thank you to not refer to me as a "repairman". I was an electronic servicing technician, who also saw duty as an electronic design engineer (without the qualifying "credentials"). The term repairman in this context is tantamount to calling an automobile mechanic a "grease monkey".