Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site opus.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!zehntel!tektronix!hplabs!hao!cires!nbires!opus!rcd From: rcd@opus.UUCP (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: net.audio Subject: Re: Tubes/solid state, ob/sub jectivity Message-ID: <566@opus.UUCP> Date: Mon, 2-Jul-84 02:46:13 EDT Article-I.D.: opus.566 Posted: Mon Jul 2 02:46:13 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 06:25:18 EDT References: <494@drutx.UUCP> <2887@rabbit.UUCP> <515@drutx.UUCP> Organization: NBI, Boulder Lines: 44 Various comments from Phil Rastocny - on the alleged superiority of tube gear over transistor: >Some people have mailed messages to me stating that I should prove my >assertion that tubes extract more low-level signal information than >transistors... I'll paraphrase their one line defenses: >"I don't believe they do." > >In reply to these overwhelmingly technical defenses, I assert that >they're wrong. I base my claims on my own and others subjectivity. But this is all too easy to answer: I assert that Phil is wrong. I base my claims on my own and others' subjectivity. Stalemate! That's why we measure, dammit! If you think that ALL the people who can really hear fine differences among top-end audio products prefer tube gear, I'd like to know what you've been smoking (and where I can get some). Seriously, there's nothing close to agreement that tube gear is all that fine. Some of the more technically-oriented postings taking the SS side of the subject explain the objective and subjective reasons. >For example, when solid state (SS) amps first hit the market they >quickly made their way into the professional arena... Phil goes on to explain that he held the SS position for a while, then went back toward advocating tube gear - but in a fashion that sounds very much like someone who's gone to hedonism and then been "born again". I don't mean to ridicule Phil, but I can't see from what he's written that there is a convincing substantive advantage to tubes. >Exactly why does a $300 Conrad >Johnson tube preamp kit sound better than a $300 Hafler preamp kit? >The Hafler has the spec advantage (0.01% THD, IM, FM, AC, PhD, MOS, BS), >but the Hafler sounds flat, dry, unrevealing, and uninterresting... Does the CJ really sound better? I've had "flat" beer, but not flat sound... I've had "dry" wine, but not dry sound... ... What do these mean? I have a very strong suspicion that the terms that Phil is using here are part of audio snobbery terminology. I won't play that game. To convince me that it's not just snobbery, someone's going to have to give me some definitions that are at least workable for exchanging information. -- Dick Dunn {hao,ucbvax,allegra}!nbires!rcd (303)444-5710 x3086 ...Relax...don't worry...have a homebrew.