It is a very good point that opinions should be weighed against one's experience. My experience with SS has been limited to mostly very expensive boutique systems using the likes of ML and Krell amplification, thoughtfully assembled with good wires in decent listening rooms. To some of those systems I've had pretty extensive exposure. I have minimal experience listening to more esoteric SS gear though. My impressions of the better SS systems I have heard have suitably impressed me enough to keep my mind open, in spite of my recent humorous rant to the contrary (which was intended purely for entertainment). The more extensive experience I've had with an all ML system as well as a bi-amped Krell system has left me suitably impressed, but ultimately I found myself not nearly as engaged as with some of the better tube sytems I've heard and owned. I find my modest SET tube system at home more engaging than my friend's $50K Levinson system (which is no slouch by any means and has some really impressive merits). He also is more impressed by my far less expensive tube system and may switch over to tubes in the near future. His system is a master of detail and impact, but lacks the air, holgraphy and gentle grace of the SET system I prefer. I did not find his system fatiguing after prolonged listening and I have listened to it many times extensively. I've also recently owned a Pass Labs Aleph 5 which I enjoyed very much, but again, the qualities I did like about it are better expressed by tube gear. That said, in spite of being in this hobby over 20 years, I'd have to say that, considering all that is out there, my listening experiences have been quite limited in the range of possibilities. Therefore I hesitate to pass judgement so readily. Ultimately I still maintain, to each his own.
As far as film vs. digital I'll make sure to ask the next "good photographer" I meet to enlighten me on the subject.
Marco
