Tube Equipment: Gimmick?


I recently had a mechanical engineer (who has no interest in audio equipment or the industry) express amazement when I told him about the high prices of tube gear. His amazement, he said, stemmed from the fact that tubes are antiquated gear, incapable of separating signals the way (what we call "solid state") equipment can.

In essence, he said tubes could never be as accurate as SS gear, even at the height of the technology's maturity. This seems substantiated by the high-dollar tube gear I've heard - many of the things that many here love so much about the "tube sound" are wonderful - but to my ears, not true to the recording, being either too "bloomy" in the vocal range or too "saturated" throughout, if that makes any sense.

I have limited experience with tubes, so my questions are: what is the attraction of tubes, and when we talk about SS gear, do we hit a point where the equipment is so resolving that it makes listening to music no fun? Hmmm..or maybe being *too* accurate is the reason folks turn from SS to tubes?

Thanks in advance for the thoughts!
aggielaw
Jim2, give it up man, seriously.

i never said i was well seasoned with experience of tube gear, however, it did not take me a long time to decide i prefer solid state amplifiers. A friend of mine picked up a Manley Stingray that he had going to a set of thiels. It replaced a Krell that he had running. I think the Krell sounded better. I also heared some Cary tube monoblocks at a dealer about a month back. Diddnt really find them better than solid state either.

why is that so hard for you to grasp?

i NEVER EVER EVER said SS is BETTER than tube. i said that I, Slappy, Me. I preffer solid state.

read my posts and TRY to find me wrong.

i said I PREFER Solid State. PERSONAL PREFERENCE MAN! Why does it bother you SO much that i prefer something different than you?

Get over it dude. seriously. I dont really care if you agree with my preference. I dont sit here and bash you for liking tubes more than SS gear. Get a life
Tastes great!
No! less filling.
Tastes great!!
No you idiot, less filling!!!

I remain,
Slappy, thank you for not cluttering my inbox with more profane emails.

Take care.

Diode-Why not just go for the real Champaign? Everyone knows all
those beers trying to taste like Champaingn are just wannabes! Spring
for the best and get the analog taste of REAL Champaign. Your friends
will admire you and, hey, the chicks really dig the tiny bubbles! I've had
some experience over the years comparing beer to Champaign....done
plenty of A/B/A testing just like Robert Harley suggests. I wouldn't
recommend doing such testing, if you haven't already, as I've discovered
Champaign and beer doesn't really go that well together. But let me tell
you, when it comes to bubbly beveredges, Champaign RULES. The
closest thing I've found is Pabst Blue Ribbon, but in the end Champaign
is still KING. Just my humble opinion, as well as being a bonified FACT.

Marco

...you too could be the proud owner of "the quality goes in before
the name goes on"......... -Tom Waits