Tell me if i got it wrong..

This tube vs. solid state sound thing is one of the great misunderstandings in high end audio. The tube "magic" doesn't exist. There are no significant sonic differences between well designed amp circuits using either technology. I place a particular emphasis on the phrase well designed, by which I mean a circuit design that attempts to accurately reproduce an input signal. I'm not denying that it is possible to design a non-accurate tube product that sounds quite musical. Nor am I denying that such euphonic products have a rightful place in the high end audio world. However, if the goal is to faithfully amplify the input signal, then there is a convergence in sound quality between tube and solid state products.

As evidence of my statements I point to those manufacturers who produce both tube and solid state products. I strongly suggest you give a listen to Audio Research, Conrad Johnson, Lamm or EAR products of both type. It would be particularly interesting to find out whether these manufacturers specifically voice their products to play towards the audiophile preconception that tubes should sound different than solid state. I suspect many audiophiles crave the euphonic sound and manufacturers are only too willing to oblige.

I agree with Fatparrot, tube equipment can look wonderful, but otherwise his 10/28 post reinforces a point I made back on 10/25. Simply substitute solid state electronics for Fatparrot's quartz watches.

BTW, good music has soul and bad music doesn't. This fact is readily evident over tube, solid state or mechanical (a cup at the end of a string) type equipment.

Asa, please help me understand some of your above comments.

1. What is musicality as it relates to equipment. Give an example of a accurate, but non- musical piece of equipment. I always thought that if it's accurate, then it also really should be musical.

2. If accuracy and musicality are not mutually exclusive, then are they really in opposition? You seem to imply that they still are. If that's the case, would not a component that was "under-accurate", as opposed to your over-accurate, then qualify as musical?

3. Please define the phrase "objective mind" and explain why a "listening mind" is an objective mind. While you're at it you could also explain what is a "listening mind".

4. Is being highly attached to ones objectifying cognitive faculties a genetic fault or is it a learned behavoir?

I have more question, but I gots to go. I have to go down into the hotel lobby and be seen waiting for my limo.

Asa, thanks for replying to my questions. To the extent that I fully understand your posts, I still don't see where you've established any connection between solid state equipment and any of your various states of listening. Furthermore, interior mental states are essentially opaque to scrutiny. Is it possible that the cognitive-absent mental states you describe are attainable without external audiophile stimuli? Why invest in audiophile equipment when you can just meditate on the idea of music reach a trans-cognitive mental state. It certainly would be cheaper.