[[email protected]]

That's what Dan Babineau, out technical editor, keeps telling me.
"I'm so glad you finally got out of that SET phase you were in." I'm
currently using a conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier, which has 250 wpc,
by far the most I've ever used. (Dan designed the caps for these, by
the way, so he approves of my choice.)

So I've gone from the "first watt is the most important" crowd to the
"power is your friend" crowd, and I see the point of each group. It's
nice to have an amp that can drive any speaker in the world. Still, I
miss that special sound I enjoyed from my Yamamoto Sound Craft A-08S
45 SET amplifier, which had all of 2 watts per channel.

The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 4:01�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:26 pm, wrote:





That's what Dan Babineau, out technical editor, keeps telling me.
"I'm so glad you finally got out of that SET phase you were in." �I'm
currently using a conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier, which has 250 wpc,
by far the most I've ever used. �(Dan designed the caps for these, by
the way, so he approves of my choice.)

So I've gone from the "first watt is the most important" crowd to the
"power is your friend" crowd, and I see the point of each group. �It's
nice to have an amp that can drive any speaker in the world. �Still, I
miss that special sound I enjoyed from my Yamamoto Sound Craft A-08S
45 SET amplifier, which had all of 2 watts per channel.

The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)

Boon

�Simply put these are ridiculous extremes.

Nope...just two ends of the spectrum. The word "ridiculous" is
totally unecessary.


�SET amplifiers are never adequate in power, and an honest 250 watt
tube amp needs a 30 lb. output transformer.

So because the 250 watt tune amp needs a 30 lb. transformer, it
becomes ridiculous?


�The sweet spots for tube amplifiers are between 10-15 and 100 or so
watts. If very much more power is really needed looking at solid state
amplifiers starts making more sense.

Interesting how the subject of speaker loads isn't mentioned.


�The example of the Ampeg SVT bass amplifier is misleading since the
lowest octave of electric bass from this unit is actually dismal. Its
characteristic sound is all second harmonic in the lowest register.
The low B string, not in use when it came into popularity, �drives it
nuts.

Good thing I don't play the bass.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 6:01*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:26 pm, wrote:

The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)

*Simply put these are ridiculous extremes.

*SET amplifiers are never adequate in power, and an honest 250 watt
tube amp needs a 30 lb. output transformer.

The conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier is not a "tube amp". It does use
two 6922/6DJ8 tubes, but the outputs are solid-state.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 4:33�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:01�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:26 pm, wrote:
The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)
�Simply put these are ridiculous extremes.

�SET amplifiers are never adequate in power, and an honest 250 watt
tube amp needs a 30 lb. output transformer.

The conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier is not a "tube amp". It does use
two 6922/6DJ8 tubes, but the outputs are solid-state.

I was going to mention that, but I don't think I'm on the same
wavelength as this guy. There wasn't a lot to his response that
really addressed my comments.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 6:38Â*pm, wrote:
On Feb 15, 4:33�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Feb 15, 6:01�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

On Feb 15, 4:26 pm, wrote:
The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)
�Simply put these are ridiculous extremes.

�SET amplifiers are never adequate in power, and an honest 250 watt
tube amp needs a 30 lb. output transformer.

The conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier is not a "tube amp". It does use
two 6922/6DJ8 tubes, but the outputs are solid-state.

I was going to mention that, but I don't think I'm on the same
wavelength as this guy. Â*

Not many people are on Bratzi's wavelength... LOL!

There wasn't a lot to his response that
really addressed my comments.

Do you mean to say that you don't think Ampeg tube amplifiers have
much in common with solid-state c-j gear? :-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 7:10*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
*Simply put, the size and weight of amplifiers is limited by market
forces such as freight costs. No one commercially makes a tube amp
that is as well designed as the Altec 260B, or the McIntosh MI200 or
MI350 on the market today. These are serious attempts to build hiogh
power tube amps.

Stick to topics you know, Bratzi, like hatred and racism. ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 5:10�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
�Simply put, the size and weight of amplifiers is limited by market
forces such as freight costs. No one commercially makes a tube amp
that is as well designed as the Altec 260B, or the McIntosh MI200 or
MI350 on the market today. These are serious attempts to build hiogh
power tube amps.

So tell me...how many current models of conrad-johnson or Audio
Research amplifiers do you have in your home right now?

If the answer is none, you are not qualified to make these comments.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" wrote in message

On Feb 15, 8:35 pm, wrote:
On Feb 15, 5:10?pm, Bret Ludwig
wrote:

?Simply put, the size and weight of amplifiers is
limited by market forces such as freight costs. No one
commercially makes a tube amp that is as well designed
as the Altec 260B, or the McIntosh MI200 or MI350 on
the market today. These are serious attempts to build
hiogh power tube amps.

So tell me...how many current models of conrad-johnson
or Audio Research amplifiers do you have in your home
right now?

If the answer is none, you are not qualified to make
these comments.

Boon

Phooey phooey phooey. That's like saying the designers of
nuclear weapons are ignorant of nuclear weapons because
they don't have any in their house. I've never heard such
a dumb statement in my life.

Actually Bret, you and Marc are quite the pair. Much of what either of you
says is hysterically wrong. I must admit you guys typically pick vastly
different ways to be hysterically wrong. Actually, entertaining in a
depressing sort of way. :-)

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 15, 8:38Â*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:35 pm, wrote:

On Feb 15, 5:10�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

�Simply put, the size and weight of amplifiers is limited by market
forces such as freight costs. No one commercially makes a tube amp
that is as well designed as the Altec 260B, or the McIntosh MI200 or
MI350 on the market today. These are serious attempts to build hiogh
power tube amps.

So tell me...how many current models of conrad-johnson or Audio
Research amplifiers do you have in your home right now?

If the answer is none, you are not qualified to make these comments.

Phooey phooey phooey. That's like saying the designers of nuclear
weapons are ignorant of nuclear weapons because they don't have any in
their house. I've never heard such a dumb statement in my life.

That's not only a bad analogy, it's faulty logic. A better analogy
would be a discussion on the factors that caused the military to buy
one nuclear weapon over a different one, which is also something else
you are obviously not qualified to discuss.

Even assuming that your statement that there are no well-designed tube
amplifiers currently offered is correct, your conclusion as to why
(e.g. "they're too heavy to ship") is out-to-lunch.Somebody who wants
to pay for top performance will not balk at a few additional dollars
to ship a product.

If that was true, all the would be offered would be bookshelf
speakers, for example. Larger ones would be too expensive to ship.
That clearly is not the case.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 6:38Â*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:
On Feb 15, 8:35 pm, wrote:

On Feb 15, 5:10�pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

�Simply put, the size and weight of amplifiers is limited by market
forces such as freight costs. No one commercially makes a tube amp
that is as well designed as the Altec 260B, or the McIntosh MI200 or
MI350 on the market today. These are serious attempts to build hiogh
power tube amps.

So tell me...how many current models of conrad-johnson or Audio
Research amplifiers do you have in your home right now?

If the answer is none, you are not qualified to make these comments.

Boon

Phooey phooey phooey. That's like saying the designers of nuclear
weapons are ignorant of nuclear weapons because they don't have any in
their house. I've never heard such a dumb statement in my life.

Nope. It's like saying that designers of nuclear weapons need to have
hands-on experience with the devices in order to be qualified to make
comments about them. Home stereo components need to be used in the
home in order to be evaluated properly.

I used to think you were an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. Now I realize that you don't
know anything about audio, either.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 2:34*pm, Bret Ludwig wrote:

*The vast majority of commercial speakers are UPS-able. That's no
coincidence: having to truck freight them would dampen the ardor of
high end dealers considerably. And considering that many _just_ meet
UPS targets in their packaging, it is obvious that's why.

That's truly incorrect. Most factories truck items to their dealers
anyway. Most dealers, after all, tend not to buy just one pair of
speakers. The dealer doesn't care how it comes in. Once the order is
placed, the factory sets up the shipping. There are plenty of LTL
shippers, including Yellow Freight, who are reasonably-priced.

What you say *may* hold true for mail-order-only dealers. But since
many, if not most, factories choose not to sell to such outfits
(particularly in the high-end market) it is typically not an issue.
The real issue is whether or not the end customer is willing to pay
for shipping. As I said, that is probably less of an issue for high-
end customers seeking their ultimate than regular consumer electronics
customers.

BTW, UPS will accept items over their maximum weight guideline. You
just have to pay extra. And I suppose you envision lines of UPS trucks
pulling up to the docks at Best Buy warehouses to unload speakers one-
by-one? ;-)

LOL! Stick to stuff you know about, Bratzi, like whacking off to
Marilyn Monroe or Ann Coulter photos.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 12:52*pm, wrote:

I used to think [Bratzi was] an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. *Now I realize that [Bratzi doesn't]
know anything about audio, either.

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

I've worked in various capacities in the audio industry from floor
retail to the factory. I think that would surprise them ("them" being
everybody from the floor salesperson to the rep or two-step
distributor to the factory). He's probably not aware that even in the
mass market many products are sold in master cartons of 4-6 pieces. If
you have four pieces of an amp weighing 60 pounds in a carton, guess
what? You're over UPS's weight limit. LOL!

So you are correct: Bratzi is an 'expert' at whacking off over photos
of Marilyn Monroe, and he's an 'expert' in simple-minded, hate-filled
world-views. There's not much else to him.

[George M. Middius]

Witless said:

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

Why did you "particularly like" that claim, Scooter? Other than the
obvious stupidity and ignorance underlying it, of course.

BTW, Bratzi is fantasizing about "straightening Jenn out". Except it's a
proxy fantasy because he apparently wants the Krooborg to do the honors.
Do you picture Mr. **** as a rapist? Maybe Bratzi meant Turdy would be
convincing as a woman if he got a nice drag outfit. Are you envious of
people who are able to fantasize?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 7:27*pm, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .
net wrote:
Witless said:

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

Why did you "particularly like" that claim, Scooter? Other than the
obvious stupidity and ignorance underlying it, of course.

Let me apologize for 2pid. He hasn't figured out how to configure his
browser to show quotes yet.

I said "I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not
build something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it"."
referring to a comment by Bratzi, who had made that claim originally.
I agree with you that it's stupid and ignorant, but that's why Bratzi,
2pid and GOIA are virtually interchangeable.

2pid responded with a link to the UPS site. He noted that "It had been
around a while now" referring, I would guess, to either UPS or its
corporate website. The link to the website would in no way prove a
claim that "audio designers will not build something that "isn't
UPSable" because "dealers won't like it" although knowing 2pid as I do
he very well could have meant that too.

I'm sure 2pid had some 'point', but as is his norm he could not
communicate it, so we are left to guessing what it was.

BTW, Bratzi is fantasizing about "straightening Jenn out". Except it's a
proxy fantasy because he apparently wants the Krooborg to do the honors.
Do you picture Mr. **** as a rapist? Maybe Bratzi meant Turdy would be
convincing as a woman if he got a nice drag outfit. Are you envious of
people who are able to fantasize?

You're trying to break up a love triangle here. I do not approve. ;-(

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 6:53*pm, "ScottW" wrote:
"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" wrote in ...
On Feb 16, 12:52 pm, wrote:

I used to think [Bratzi was] an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. Now I realize that [Bratzi doesn't]
know anything about audio, either.

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

http://ltl.upsfreight.com/shipping/index.aspx

It's been around a while now.

Oh, I think I've divined 2pid's meaning he that UPS offers LTL
service.

Unless they've come down, they tend to be priced higher than many,
many other sources. Their wieght and size limitations for freight are
not what "UPSable" (Bratzi's term) means when sending parcels. LTL is
not specific to UPS. In fact, they were a late addition to the game.

Compare this:

http://ltl.upsfreight.com/shipping/i...ex.aspx?p=pack

to this:

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/res...limit+ ground

to see why Bratzi is out-to-lunch...again.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 2:36�pm, "Soundhaspriority" wrote:
wrote in message

...





That's what Dan Babineau, out technical editor, keeps telling me.
"I'm so glad you finally got out of that SET phase you were in." �I'm
currently using a conrad-johnson ET250s amplifier, which has 250 wpc,
by far the most I've ever used. �(Dan designed the caps for these, by
the way, so he approves of my choice.)

So I've gone from the "first watt is the most important" crowd to the
"power is your friend" crowd, and I see the point of each group. �It's
nice to have an amp that can drive any speaker in the world. �Still, I
miss that special sound I enjoyed from my Yamamoto Sound Craft A-08S
45 SET amplifier, which had all of 2 watts per channel.

The cj amp is probably by far the finest amplifier I have ever used in
my home. (For the record, I'm still a tube bigot...I'm also using the
Nagra PL-L line stage.)

Boon

I have a friend who, after hifi boredom set in, went "tubey", providing the
opportunity of many hours of auditioning equipment that he would turn over
at three month intervals. I can't remember all the names in the parade, but
it was a good sample. New high efficiency speakers replaced his Paradigms,
Snells, Infinitys, et al.

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.

Bob Morein
(310) 237-6511-

Well, it isn't just Australia and New Zealand, but I know you mention
this because you own a Plinius.

The conrad-johnson Premier 350, for example, is one of the finest amps
I've heard, and it is SS. And perhaps the finest system I've ever
heard was a top of the line system from GamuT. Solid state, and from
a digital source to boot.

Boon

[[email protected]]

On Feb 16, 3:44�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:52�pm, wrote:

I used to think [Bratzi was] an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. �Now I realize that [Bratzi doesn't]
know anything about audio, either.

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

I just heard the Wilson Alexandria X-2s last week, demonstrated by
Dave Wilson himself. I can't imagine he thought about UPS once when
he designed those speakers.

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Feb 16, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:
On Feb 16, 3:44�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:52�pm, wrote:

I used to think [Bratzi was] an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. �Now I realize that [Bratzi doesn't]
know anything about audio, either.

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

I just heard the Wilson Alexandria X-2s last week, demonstrated by
Dave Wilson himself. Â*I can't imagine he thought about UPS once when
he designed those speakers.

Clearly high-end dealers have shunned Wilson speakers since they are
not "UPSable". Wilson has no dount failed as a result. Mr. Wilson
should have made his speakers "UPSable" if he had wanted to succeed.

"The Sophia measures 41"H x 12"W x 18"D and weighs a hefty 160 pounds.
As with the WATT/Puppy 6, each Sophia is protected for shipping with
an outer layer of film, or "frisk," and delivered in its own foam-
lined wooden crate that increases the shipping weight to 200 pounds
each. I suspect that only dropping off a truck and punching with a
forklift will damage the speakers in transit."

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/wilson_sophia.htm

The X-2s are...

€¢ 700 lbs each
€¢ 2,300 lbs. shipping weight

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...6559&read&3&4&

Weight and Size Limits for Packages

UPS has established specific weight and size limits for the packages
that you send with all UPS services. The restrictions below only
pertain to individual packages. There are no limits to the total
weight of your shipment or the total number of packages in your
shipment.

Packages can be up to 150 lbs (70 kg)

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/res...limit+ ground

Please send Mr. Wilson my condolences on the failure of his company.
Maybe next time he can stay within the parameters agreed upon by the
high-end audio industry and UPS, and thereby find a few dealers to
carry his products.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 17, 1:01Â*am, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
On Feb 16, 8:53Â*pm, wrote:

On Feb 16, 3:44�pm, "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
On Feb 16, 12:52�pm, wrote:

I used to think [Bratzi was] an audio guy who was merely obsessed cutting
and pasting off-topic dreck to Usenet. �Now I realize that [Bratzi doesn't]
know anything about audio, either.

I particularly liked his premise that audio designers will not build
something that "isn't UPSable" because "dealers won't like it".

I just heard the Wilson Alexandria X-2s last week, demonstrated by
Dave Wilson himself. Â*I can't imagine he thought about UPS once when
he designed those speakers.

Clearly high-end dealers have shunned Wilson speakers since they are
not "UPSable". Wilson has no dount failed as a result. Mr. Wilson
should have made his speakers "UPSable" if he had wanted to succeed.

"The Sophia measures 41"H x 12"W x 18"D and weighs a hefty 160 pounds.
As with the WATT/Puppy 6, each Sophia is protected for shipping with
an outer layer of film, or "frisk," and delivered in its own foam-
lined wooden crate that increases the shipping weight to 200 pounds
each. I suspect that only dropping off a truck and punching with a
forklift will damage the speakers in transit."

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/wilson_sophia.htm

The X-2s are...

€¢ 700 lbs each
€¢ 2,300 lbs. shipping weight

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr...6559&read&3&4&

Weight and Size Limits for Packages

UPS has established specific weight and size limits for the packages
that you send with all UPS services. The restrictions below only
pertain to individual packages. There are no limits to the total
weight of your shipment or the total number of packages in your
shipment.

Packages can be up to 150 lbs (70 kg)

http://www.ups.com/content/us/en/res...ht_size.html?s...

Please send Mr. Wilson my condolences on the failure of his company.
Maybe next time he can stay within the parameters agreed upon by the
high-end audio industry and UPS, and thereby find a few dealers to
carry his products.

We recently reviewed a $110,000 speaker system. The subwoofers alone
weighed 220 lbs. each. The designer delivered the system himself, in
his own truck. He brought an assistant and set the speakers up
himself.

So it isn't that manufacturers want to design their speakers to
conform to UPS shipping guidelines. It's that if their speakers are
too big for UPS, chances are they are too valuable to trust them with
UPS in the first place.

Boon

[Oliver Costich]

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 :-)

[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.