"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om
"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Cal Cerise" wrote in message
om

I'm sorry, but I'm very skeptical of people who trash the Hamm
paper.

Of course, and that's because you're a tubie. That's what tubies do
- deny reality.

It's 2004, and it is a solid-state world.

As I write this I'm listening to a home built _solid state_ amp-one
of Nelson Pass' early Audio Amateur designs. It's the best sounding
amp I own, although I do think a lot of tube amps sound better than a
lot of solid state ones.

Shows that you lack discernement and think that good solid state amplifiers
as a rule sound distinctly different.

If you will pick up a current Full Compass or Swee****er catalog you
will find it chock full of TUBE, PRO mics, mic pres, compressors, EQ,
fx boxes, et al.

No they aren't chock full of tube equipment. They have a few tubed items,
but the tubed products are vastly outnumbered by SS items.

Shows that you are so full of tube bigotry that you can't count.

Furhtermore, tubed equipment is provided for audio production purposes as FX
boxes. Think of a tubed whatever as a whatever with a built in EFX feature,
and you've got the correct idea.

You will also find plenty-probably not a majority,

LOL! It's a minority and often a small minority. If you look at sales
volume in many of these product categories, its a tiny minority.

but more than a few-of tube amps for monitoring and mixdown in those
few facilities genuinely considered professional that home studios
with Pro Tools and NS10's nearfield on the bridge haven't killed. Plus
of those houses still mastering vinyl, that is driving cutter heads,
probably half are tube driven to this day.

I seriously doubt that as well, but now we're talking tiny niches within
tiny niches.

So AES has a big interest in this.

No they don't. I suggest you chart articles related to tube technology by
year from 1946 through today and get back to us with the results.

Tell me-and them-just what is it about the Hamm paper that is no
longer relevant because of what new devices, techniques, circuits, or
laws of physics?

The Hamm article understated the performance of SS equipment that was in
wide use on the day it was first published.

I'll concede there are better devices, particularly FET's today. I'll
concede that modern passives, and their materials, are better. I'll
concede there has been some refinement in 30+ years in circuit
topologies....but the laws of physics haven't changed.

Agreed, but you clearly underestimate SS technology 30 years ago, as did
Hamms article.

The people who
matter-the really serious listeners and the artiss, producers, and
engineers that are doing the work that matters-no one gives a royal
roger about Shania Twain and N'Sync-are using a lot of tubes and not
just in guitars.

Thanks Cal for showing yet another way that you don't think you live in the
modern world, and have no clue about current market trends.

I'm not exactly a N'Synch fan, but I know what sells and what my childern
(who are all legally adults to say the least, all highly educated, all
professionals) like to listen to. I suggest you look outside your figurative
door on occasion.