[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 18, 1:39*pm, Oliver Costich wrote:
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 15:20:27 -0800 (PST), Bret Ludwig





wrote:

I really wanted to like the stuff. I'm not immune to the romance of
equipment that needs babying, tuning, and "tube rolling", while providing
all the glamour of candle light without the mess of melted wax. But I never
heard anything I really liked. At best, I heard one tube amp that when
driven at moderate volume, sounded like a good solid state amp. The bass was
inferior in the way that William Sommerwick would explain as the consequence
of an underdamped design. And the tweeters were inevitably rolled off, so as
to disguise the lack of deep bass. But most disturbing was the treble sheen,
an extra, double image of lower treble that might be useful to individuals
in the very early stages of presbycussis. The single ended amplifiers also
had obvious harmonic distortion that was explicitly audible in the midrange,
so obvious that one would have to call it a frequency-doubling circuit. I
suppose that, if one has to listen to bad digital recordings of strings,
this could give a "phat" sound, but I don't want it. I'd rather just hear
what's on the disk.

I understand why tubes can be preferable to bad solid state, but the
Australians and New Zealanders have brought solid state design to a
remarkable level that, in my opinion, obviates whatever advantageous niche
tubes might have once occupied.

Twaddle. Really good tube equipment sounds as near to perfect from an
audible standpoint no one need consider abandoning it.

Until you get the re-tubing bill :-)

That's not really a significant cost anymore unless you demand NOS
tubes.

You can retube a typical ARC 6550-powered amp, for example, for under
$150, and the tubes will still last for years. The Russians are making
some good stuff these days.