"It's the Multichannel, Stupid"

[E-Stat]

I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up. That is not what I call accurate audio.

You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others.

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

[Florian]

You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others.

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

Not to mention the colorisation introduced by the cone drivers, cabinets, room etc... The coloration of the tubes (which is a false stereotype and a design fault rather then the tubes) is much less then all the other ones.

-Flo

[E-Stat]

Not to mention the colorisation introduced by the cone drivers, cabinets, room etc... The coloration of the tubes (which is a false stereotype and a design fault rather then the tubes) is much less then all the other ones.

I think what TtT was referring to is that most tube amps having a relatively high source impedance vary their frequency response when confronted with the roller coaster impedance curves presented by most conventional speakers. Many speakers, however, like mine do not have that problem.

Tubes are inherently more linear and require less (problematic) feedback. Their sins sit right smack in the middle of the human auditory blind spot unlike the typical high order distortion components of most SS designs.

For me the question has never been the superiority of multi channel done right, but rather the decided sonic compromises required with a given budget to exploit the profound minority of such recordings available. I am far more of a music lover.

rw

[Florian]

I think what TtT was referring to is that most tube amps having a relatively high source impedance vary their frequency response when confronted with the roller coaster impedance curves presented by most conventional speakers. Many speakers, however, like mine do not have that problem.

Same here, stable from 2.7 to 4.2 across the whole range.

For me the question has never been the superiority of multi channel done right, but rather the decided sonic compromises required with a given budget to exploit the profound minority of such recordings available. I am far more of a music lover.

rw

I am much more of a music lover too instead of the latest buzz words in the digital realm with 5 or more speakers which people place with complete disregard to the very little amount of music truly recorded with multiple microphones (and mixed). Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. 99.999% of all my music is recorded on 2 channel and 75% on Vinyl.

-Flo

[E-Stat]

Same here, stable from 2.7 to 4.2 across the whole range.

Well my Sound Lab U-1s are pretty linear for about eight octaves. The impedance rises at the bottom octave and drops at the top octave, but for the most part is more linear than typical multi-way speakers.

Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. 99.999% of all my music is recorded on 2 channel and 75% on Vinyl.

Don't discount the ultimate potential of a well done multichannel system. I would likely be quite happy with Ralph Glasgal's vision of multi-channel. What's better than using two of the lowest distortion transducers on the planet? Using twenty four!



http://www.ambiophonics.org/PhotoPage.htm

rw

[Florian]

Now while i certainly am a fan of 2channel i am willing to accept that a over the top system like the one you mentioned with the right recording will be mighty impressive the problem remains is this. Most people on here are below a Onkyo 989 with lets say 7 B&W 800D's and some subwoofers. And that is a system neither of us would touch and listen to music too instead of our Soundlabs, Apogees or ART's. And the argumment about this 2 channel vs. MC is meaningless since Bernd, You and I come from systems past the 20K border and argue with members comming from 5K or below MC systems that have never heard and personally experience a higher end realm of 2 channel reproduction.

-The above is not meant as a downcutting, and i would gladly choose a 5K MC over a 5K Stereo systems simply because true high fidelity and the full exploitation cant be heard in that budget area-

[E-Stat]

Most people on here are below a Onkyo 989 with lets say 7 B&W 800D's and some subwoofers.

The irony is that the real advantages of multichannel will be lost on 99% of the market (as determined by classical music sales). They are likely as much concerned with the inherent tradeoffs to resolution and timbre found on less capable MC systems.

Effects driven movies and pop recordings will survive.

rw

[Florian]

The irony is that the real advantages of multichannel will be lost on 99% of the market (as determined by classical music sales). They are likely as much concerned with the inherent tradeoffs to resolution and timbre found on less capable MC systems.

Effects driven movies and pop recordings will survive.

rw

Exactly! And for the Entire Lord of the Rings series i love a good MC Home Theater! But for nothing else

[Feanor]

...
I am much more of a music lover too instead of the latest buzz words in the digital realm with 5 or more speakers which people place with complete disregard to the very little amount of music truly recorded with multiple microphones (and mixed). Not to mention like i said before the interaction fo 5 speakers in a room, subwoofer time delay errors, phase issues of 5 speakers and completely whack frequency responce. ...
-Flo

I guess we are entitled to our own choice of buzzwords. Yours associated with tubes and vinyl, mine are something are a different set. But pull-ezz don't don't give us the line that all and only because you're a music lover, (implying that those who disagree with your equipment choice are not). On the contrary, the point of my post was all about what conveys the most realistic sound.

Further, contrary to equipment elitists like yourself and E-Stat, (yes, you are alike in that: only the particular choice of equipment varies), a modest MC configuration, reasonably well setup, with appropriate software is quite capbable of illustrating the strengths of MC. Better is better of course, but modest will prove the point.

[E-Stat]

Exactly! And for the Entire Lord of the Rings series i love a good MC Home Theater! But for nothing else

Well, I won't say nothing else, but for me the price to achieve such is not affordable. Converting my two channel system to five channel (since the mains do 24 hz, I'll pass on the sub) would cost me around $40k. Given the dearth of recordings in my collection that would benefit from such, I'll pass.

I have a separate 5.1 HT system that works fine for movies. Having helicopters fly around my head is cool when I'm watching a Clancy novel.

With my budget, I can never imagine having a multi-channel system that I would ever use for both music and movies. If, however, I had around $100k to spend...

rw

[E-Stat]

IFurther, contrary to equipment elitists like yourself and E-Stat, (yes, you are alike in that: only the particular choice of equipment varies), a modest MC configuration, reasonably well setup, with appropriate software is quite capbable of illustrating the strengths of MC. Better is better of course, but modest will prove the point.

It is a matter of individual priorities. I have a modest MC system (around $4k) and have heard Harry Pearson's Super Maggie system ($100k or so). I greatly prefer his and my separate two channel system for playing music.

Playing movies on HP's system, however, (with a Barco 8" projector and 100" screen) is quite impressive though!

rw

[shokhead]

Well, I won't say nothing else, but for me the price to achieve such is not affordable. Converting my two channel system to five channel (since the mains do 24 hz, I'll pass on the sub) would cost me around $40k. Given the dearth of recordings in my collection that would benefit from such, I'll pass.

I have a separate 5.1 HT system that works fine for movies. Having helicopters fly around my head is cool when I'm watching a Clancy novel.

With my budget, I can never imagine having a multi-channel system that I would ever use for both music and movies. If, however, I had around $100k to spend...

rw

Really? That doesnt make any sence to me at all. I cant imagine having 2 seperate systems as you can have a fine 2ch/5.1 system for less the the 2 cost,easy.

[E-Stat]

Really? That doesnt make any sence to me at all. I cant imagine having 2 seperate systems as you can have a fine 2ch/5.1 system for less the the 2 cost,easy.

I was exposed to the world of really nice stuff by a couple of reviewer friends about thirty years ago. For example, I use Sound Lab U-1 speakers:

http://soundlab-speakers.com/u1.htm

My wife summed up their performance quite succinctly: they're simply not there. Sonically if not visually. They can hang a voice in mid air in a way you just don't hear that often.



The MC system is quite modest using Polk speakers and a NAD T763 receiver to match the 61" Samsung HD monitor:



rw

[Bernd]

Thanks Flo and E-Stat for putting what I wanted to find out so elegantly. I have used my ears only, for the last 30 years, to build my system.So your input was very welcome.
That over the top HT/MC will no doubt sound very fine, and what E-Stat has done, with his second system, is what I try to accomplish with this experiement. But so far have not found what I was looking for.
I went to listen to my next set up last night. Wasn't bad, but wasn't good either.

Now to all the missguided lines from Sir TT. I asked myself if I not waste my time replying to his rantings, but here goes. First off. Have you ever heard my Tube amp with my speakers and TT in my room? If not, what are you talking about then? You're not generalising are you?
Second. When I auditioned my amp there where a handful of people at the same dealer for a blind listening (the electronics were in another room) to this amp, a Pathos hybrid pre-power and one of Naims higher offerings. Guess what happened. All of us picked the Unison Research every time. It has PRAT to compete with Naims best, but with the added audio performance we so requiere and without any of the SS harshness. So do yourself a favour and get an audition with the Performance or listen to some Art Audio, VTL or Manleys before you come out with that nonsense about tubes. Poor design and poor tubes will sound poor. And one final word to the "tubes can't time brigade".Actually,two words, the second one being ".... off".
I would also like to know please what high end TT,cartridge,Phonostage and RCM you used and grew tired off.
The score I posted was purely for fun, but maybe I have hit a raw nerve. Sorry if it upset you and I will not do so again. I am sad that this thread turned into this, but I can't stand by any longer and read your ill informed lines. At least I tried to find out for myself. And as for your saying you came from 2ch to mc. All I see in your list is mainly below average standard equipment. Just did a quick search and the sum total of your electronics do not even cover the cost of my Cartridge.I am not usually into comparing equipment cost issues, but this is so blatantly unbalanced that I couldn't help myself. I mean please.
Not sure if you have ever experienced real high quality performance.If you have then it surely was lost on you, because usualy it leaves a lasting impression and drives music lovers to attain a higher level of performance. I have no doubt that many people are very happy with their choice, be that 2CH or HT/MC or a hybrid and I completely understand Kex's point and how he put it. He can see both sides and he did even shake hands with Ludwig.
So Sir TT (TT ironic really isn't it) take yourself down to NYC, 1221 Lexington Avenue into Lyrics Hi-Fi and take a listen to a similar set up as there is at Sea Cliff. Maybe then you will understand.
I met a guy in January who has been to Sea cliff and listend to HPs system.I asked him about it and he said that it's very hard to describe. I understood. Try and explain what a Passion fruit tastes like to somebody who has never sampled it.
So wishing you all a peaceful day.

Bernd

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

You would most certainly find disagreement with your assertion by Bill Johnson, Luke Manley, Jud Barber, Ralph Karsten, Victor Khomenko, Lewis Johnson, Henry Wolcott, among others.

If you require cone subs, then use some SS pro amp to control them.

rw

I could throw an equal amount of reputiable names that agree with me. So name dropping doesn't really solidify a point.

Most speakers including high end ones do not allow for tube amps to control one set of drivers, and SS to control others. If you find those that can, this makes installation unecessarily complex.

[E-Stat]

I could throw an equal amount of reputiable names that agree with me.

That all tube amps are highly colored? C'mon!

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

That all tube amps are highly colored? C'mon!

rw

Be careful that you do not put words in my mouth that I didn't say. My point is that tubes are not perfect, as SS aren't either. A good SS design well implemented can sound as good or better than tubes, are alot more reliable, cost less to maintain, and can have measureably less distortion. Just because it includes tubes doesn't make it better that SS.

[E-Stat]

Be careful that you do not put words in my mouth that I didn't say.

Let's take a look at your earlier comment.

I know that tube based electronics are nothing more than fancy tone controls. They are designed to color the signal to "warm" it up.

My earlier point is that ZERO of the designers I mentioned would agree with your assertion (insult really) that their intention is to color the sound.

My point is that tubes are not perfect, as SS aren't either.

Absolutely! Choose your set of compromises.

A good SS design well implemented can sound as good or better than tubes...

Back to the preference question. Yes, but precious few in my experience.

...are alot more reliable

Not in my experience, either. If that were the case rock bands would not use them universally.

cost less to maintain...

Most definitely! Retubing on a regular basis is a must.

and can have measureably less distortion.

Lumped THD is irrelevant to the human auditory system. Listen to an ultra low distortion Crown some day if you don't believe me!

Just because it includes tubes doesn't make it better that SS.

Did anyone say that?

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks Flo and E-Stat for putting what I wanted to find out so elegantly. I have used my ears only, for the last 30 years, to build my system.So your input was very welcome.

We all use our ears, or hearing would be very difficult.

That over the top HT/MC will no doubt sound very fine, and what E-Stat has done, with his second system, is what I try to accomplish with this experiement. But so far have not found what I was looking for.

Some of us have taken our hometheater much past what E-stat has done(no offense to E-stat). Some people have HT system that reproduce film soundtracks AND music at a high level. No need for two systems when one works just excellent for both. Anyone who believes it is not possible is floating in a river called de-nile.

Now to all the missguided lines from Sir TT. I asked myself if I not waste my time replying to his rantings, but here goes. First off. Have you ever heard my Tube amp with my speakers and TT in my room? If not, what are you talking about then? You're not generalising are you?

Calling my opinion rantings doesn't make it less legitimate. Just like calling your opinion biased doesn't make yours less legitimate. I don't really care about your system, that is not the emphasis of this thread or post. What is the point is dealing with all of your biases and strange misconceptions regarding MC.

Second. When I auditioned my amp there where a handful of people at the same dealer for a blind listening (the electronics were in another room) to this amp, a Pathos hybrid pre-power and one of Naims higher offerings. Guess what happened. All of us picked the Unison Research every time.

This is great. I had one of my good friends who knows more about amps, both tube and SS than many will ever learn in a lifetime customize my amps. You ever heard of John Curl?

It has PRAT to compete with Naims best, but with the added audio performance we so requiere and without any of the SS harshness. So do yourself a favour and get an audition with the Performance or listen to some Art Audio, VTL or Manleys before you come out with that nonsense about tubes.

Not all SS have harshness. just like not all tubes sound perfect. This is the crust of my responses, too many generalizations and emotional opinions, not enough facts or science.

Never assume I have not heard well designed tube amps. I have, alot of them in my system I have large subwoofers in my main L/R speakers, and tube amps have a terrible time controlling them. I cannot trade excellent low bass control for some mysterious magical etherial felling that audiophiles get from tube electronics. If it cannot do both well, then it doesn't belong in my system. Never assume, especially if you are going accuse somebody of doing the same.

Poor design and poor tubes will sound poor. And one final word to the "tubes can't time brigade".Actually,two words, the second one being ".... off".
I would also like to know please what high end TT,cartridge,Phonostage and RCM you used and grew tired off.

This response is the pinnacle of maturity....or not. The answer to the next part of your response is NOYDBKO. Back at ya

The score I posted was purely for fun, but maybe I have hit a raw nerve. Sorry if it upset you and I will not do so again.

No worries, you are just a name on a board. I never get mad at faceless names on any public forum.

I am sad that this thread turned into this, but I can't stand by any longer and read your ill informed lines

So far you have not proved any ill informed lines, however I have shot enough holes in your to double as a lawn sprinkler.

. At least I tried to find out for myself. And as for your saying you came from 2ch to mc. All I see in your list is mainly below average standard equipment. Just did a quick search and the sum total of your electronics do not even cover the cost of my Cartridge.I am not usually into comparing equipment cost issues, but this is so blatantly unbalanced that I couldn't help myself. I mean please.

First it is more than stupid of you to just believe that you can look up my components, and then degrade them without even hearing a signal played through them. If you know anything about me, nothing that starts off in my system ever remains the same. I have had my amps completely upgraded by John Curl who knows much more about amps than you'll learn in a lifetime. Since my speakers are not mass market, but completely customized, you have no idea about these at all. All of my speakers alone probably costs the same or as much as your entire system, but I am not interested in a pissing contest with a faceless wonder. When you actually compare measurements of noise and frequency response of my receiver (used only as a pre pro) it measures as well or better than some so called high end pre-amps. Only a idiot judges a system based on cost alone.
My audio/video processor is a pre-production model I am testing for Thompson Electronics destined for the high end HT crowd. Did you look that up too? Its a $10,000 processor that costs alot more than your little needle does. Since you have no idea of what my system actually costs, save your comments for stroking your own ego. .

You are playing a very stupid game here. If you don't actually have facts instead of your emotions, just either attack the poster, or his system. Sorry, but this is two year old stuff, and boring at best.

Not sure if you have ever experienced real high quality performance.If you have then it surely was lost on you, because usualy it leaves a lasting impression and drives music lovers to attain a higher level of performance.

Lets see, Krell amps, DCS digital conversion and 5 Dunlavy SCV's were my music mastering system before I tore down my recording studio to prepare for a rebuild. Custom Klipschorns, SR-71 surrounds, cinepro amps, and DCS digital conversion were just some of what made up my mixing/screening room. Aerial acoustics HT speaker system, with Krell amps, preamps, and DVD player, and DCS conversion for my 5.1 mutlichannel music reference system. All of these sat in my old post production facility, and will sit in the new one when its completed in early 2008. So I have alot of experience dealing with high end equipment. All of this equipment would be nothing if I didn't spend alot of money dealing with room acoustics, something you so far have not even mentioned yet, but most important of all.

I have no doubt that many people are very happy with their choice, be that 2CH or HT/MC or a hybrid and I completely understand Kex's point and how he put it. He can see both sides and he did even shake hands with Ludwig.
So Sir TT (TT ironic really isn't it) take yourself down to NYC, 1221 Lexington Avenue into Lyrics Hi-Fi and take a listen to a similar set up as there is at Sea Cliff. Maybe then you will understand.

Thanks for the invite, made in complete ignorance, and with no idea of my experience in audio. I understood long before you made your first appearance on this board. Thanks, been there done that!

I met a guy in January who has been to Sea cliff and listend to HPs system.I asked him about it and he said that it's very hard to describe. I understood. Try and explain what a Passion fruit tastes like to somebody who has never sampled it.
So wishing you all a peaceful day.

Bernd

Not into passion fruit thanks. I have sampled far more than you know, I just perfer equipment that can do many things well instead of stuff than can only do one thing well. Different strokes for different folks, right?

Let's face the facts. There have been many credible DBT listening test comparing good tube, with good SS amps. VERY experienced listeners could not tell which was which when both were operating comfortable within their design parimeters, not clipping, have identical group delay and frequency response. The even make SS amps that can emulate a tubes sound. John Murphy created one while heading the audio engineering department at Carvin electronics.

Armed with the knowledge of the existance of these DBT test, one can conclude that audiophiles bias towards tubes is nothing more than a personal bias, not a factual scientific based decision. I find myself amused when so called audiophiles (AKA narrow minded, snobby, biased, golden eared chumps) make the broad generalized statement that tubes sound better than SS. With all things being equal, neither has an advantage sonically, and all becomes a subjective choice. When you bring in the cost of maintaince, tube costs, value and availability, then the advantage swings toward well made SS designs.

[Bernd]

"Different Strokes for different folks" is the truest thing you said in this thread. And by you reeling off all that you know,tasted,own or have done it's purely unsubstantiated writings and has nothing to do with me trying to find out about MC. Like the studio is ready in 2008. That's two years, what are you building?
Maybe we just hear differently and if it wasn't raining right now I would attach a garden hose and go sprinkle the Lawn.
You will never convince me that black is white and white is black, I will have to find out for myself. And as for time served on here, what has that got to do with anything?
Have fun with your system and your future studio and a good day to you.

Bernd

[E-Stat]

Some of us have taken our hometheater much past what E-stat has done(no offense to E-stat).

None taken. I have, however, heard some very nice ones.

No need for two systems when one works just excellent for both. Anyone who believes it is not possible is floating in a river called de-nile.

Sure it's possible, limited only by your budget and priorities.

You ever heard of John Curl?

Indeed. I remember vividly when the Mark Levinson JC-2 came out back in '75 or so. Wonderful preamp. Within the past month, I've heard both the Parasound JC-1 monoblocks and Richard Schram's prototype of the (new) JC-2 preamp driving Sound Lab U-1s as well as the new nine foot tall Majestics. The amps represent a great bargain and are very nice sounding with plenty of power, but...

I find it quite interesting that John's goal is to "emulate the best qualities of tube electronics with solid state".

Some more of JC's comments on tubes:

"I now appreciate why so many audiophiles have returned to tube electronics, as it is usually the best way to get to the essence of the musical experience...

Still, I respect tube reproduction, and attempt to get my sold state equipment sounding like the best in tubes...

The problem with FET's and bipolar transistors is that they are NOT as linear as a vacuum tube.

I doubt that we will ever completely replace tubes with solid state, but we can come darn close in most ways..."

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

My earlier point is that ZERO of the designers I mentioned would agree with your assertion (insult really) that their intention is to color the sound.

Just how much of the market do this designers represent? Even amoung the high end?
I am willing to bet it is not very much. From my experience (since that is where you are coming from) there are alot more bad tube designs than good ones. And I know many maufacturers of tube amps that market their product as a product that makes the "sterile" sound of digital more analog. Isn't that a signal enhancement/manipulation device, and not so much a amp? I know of no manufacturer of SS that position their product in the that way on the market. It is widely known that most speakers made today are not designed to work with tube amps. Every designer of amps and speakers I have talked to agree with this.

Absolutely! Choose your set of compromises.

Agreed. But this runs counter to Bernd consistant comments of harshness in SS designs.

Back to the preference question. Yes, but precious few in my experience.

Maybe in your experience, but not in mine. Maybe we are just looking for different things.

Not in my experience, either. If that were the case rock bands would not use them universally.

Rock bands use them universally for their reliabity. At least on the PA side. This I know for a fact. However, they do use tube amps for instruments just for the coloration they provide, and because they soft clip in a more elegant way than transistors do.

Most definitely! Retubing on a regular basis is a must.

Pretty expensive and time consuming isn't it. Would rather be enjoying my system instead.

Lumped THD is irrelevant to the human auditory system. Listen to an ultra low distortion Crown some day if you don't believe me!

I wouldn't use a professional amps in a consumer setting. So I wouldn't consider crown amps to be part of the equation.

Did anyone say that?

rw

No one has to say it directly, but they can ellude to it frequently as Bernd has. To him SS amps are inferior to tube amps, which I argue may be his personal taste, but not reality.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

None taken. I have, however, heard some very nice ones.


Sure it's possible, limited only by your budget and priorities.


Indeed. I remember vividly when the Mark Levinson JC-2 came out back in '75 or so. Wonderful preamp. Within the past month, I've heard both the Parasound JC-1 monoblocks and Richard Schram's prototype of the (new) JC-2 preamp driving Sound Lab U-1s as well as the new nine foot tall Majestics. The amps represent a great bargain and are very nice sounding with plenty of power, but...

I find it quite interesting that John's goal is to "emulate the best qualities of tube electronics with solid state".

Some more of JC's comments on tubes:

"I now appreciate why so many audiophiles have returned to tube electronics, as it is usually the best way to get to the essence of the musical experience...

Still, I respect tube reproduction, and attempt to get my sold state equipment sounding like the best in tubes...

The problem with FET's and bipolar transistors is that they are NOT as linear as a vacuum tube.

I doubt that we will ever completely replace tubes with solid state, but we can come darn close in most ways..."

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?...rl&r=&session=

rw

Yes these are his quotes, But talking to JC in person is much different than reading his musing on a audio board. His pride and joy is still SS amps, and that can easily be seen in the fact that is mostly what he designs. He often talks about the virtures of tube amps on the midrange, but is less glowing about their low bass, and extended treble response. I personally would rather have very good wide bandwidth performance, than just a highlight on the midrange.

[Bernd]

Sir TT just a point of correction. I don't think I ever said that Tube amps are universally better than SS. I could easy live with Sugden amps or Pathos Hybrids. To my ears however lots of solid state amps add a hash, glare and brightness to the sound I do not much care for. I am looking for, the best I can put it is "Organic", presentation. It's the midrange where I find my enjoyment with tubes. I am very happy with what I have at present and can't honestly see it changing any time soon.
As for Tube changing the best part of 10 min. Finding great NOS that is the problem. I just have not heard a Solid State amp that plays music more convincing and involving then a Tube amp. Thank God ,or whoever, for choice.

Peace

Bernd

[E-Stat]

Just how much of the market do this designers represent? Even amoung the high end?

Nearly all of it, I would say. The companies I mention are those with twenty or thirty year's experience. I don't disagree that there are some upstarts born of the digital era that have emerged who may peddle that approach.

And I know many maufacturers of tube amps that market their product as a product that makes the "sterile" sound of digital more analog.

Do tell. Would you care to mention one?

Agreed. But this runs counter to Bernd consistant comments of harshness in SS designs.

I don't share that feeling. While some SS designs are harsh at the top and overly lean at the bottom, the best SS does fine at both extremes. It is the critical middle where tubes are superior, IMHO.

Rock bands use them universally for their reliabity.

That was my point. Tubes are not inherently unreliable.

However, they do use tube amps for instruments just for the coloration they provide, and because they soft clip in a more elegant way than transistors do.

There is a vast difference in the way Audio Research and Marshall amps are designed and sound.

I wouldn't use a professional amps in a consumer setting. So I wouldn't consider crown amps to be part of the equation.

I was merely pointing out that your "can have measureably less distortion" observation is meaningless when one is talking about musical reproduction.

To him SS amps are inferior to tube amps, which I argue may be his personal taste, but not reality.

Naturally, such a conclusion can only be determined in light of one's particular budget and priorities. I have not found a $10k solid state amp that I would prefer over my tubes. At $25k to $40k, yes. The ASR Emitters, Edge Signature Reference and Pass Labs XA series amps are superb. But then at that price point, that brings in a new class of tubes. I would love to hear a pair of Pass Labs XA-200s vs VTL Siegfrieds in my system.

rw