Tubes Do It -- Transistors Don't.

"Cleanest", "silky clean", qualities of space to be measured "technically" only in terms of diminishing distortion...yes, if these are the values you adhere to, or your bias in seeing sound, then follow Muralman and get a SS amp...

But, I believe there is more to stereo spatial performance than measuring the technical aspects of distortion. I don't think its radically subjective at all.

And, yes, if you are married to a speaker whose impedance drops to 1 ohm (the Scintillas) then, yes, you will not like a tube amp - because that would be incompetance to marry the two - and will, by necessity, need high powered, current dumping SS amps...and perhaps, to perfect that choice, perfect an argument biased towards the SS amps that you must have...

I've reviewed for TAS, UA, been in the hobby for 25 years etc. and, trust me, I've given Pass a fair shake.

As for hearing acuity, and your implied reccomendation of your own hearing, let me remind: there are many people with great acuity in technical terms who still can not hear what "musical" is. The mind in primary and causal to the ears (mind precedes material). I know many people who are older and have lost some upper frequency acuity who, nevertheless, have exceedingly musical systems. People who claim that the "technical" aspects of frequency acuity are determitive of the ability to hear what is "musical" - and use that argument to bolster their claims - are the same materially biased people who believe that space should be as "clean" as possible. Again, this is not a coincidence.

Muralman, I think you are right: SS is the right choice for you, and , admittedly, I don't think Jadis would match well with Apogees. Then again, I don't know anyone who would actually consider it.

Hello Asa,
I have nothing to say! Tubes are good! SS is not? Or vice versa? Things that you guy discuss on the subject was discussed long time ago? No need for me to resurrect a dead subject.
About Zen, what do you know about Zen? I know "nothing" about Zen. All I know is if I drink the "water", I know how is it "taste" like. Do you?
"You can look and see parts (reductionist-orientated scientist), you can look to see the whole (going up to a mountain and not coming down), or you can come down from the mountain, realize that the only "Zen" up there is the "Zen" you brought with you, that "it" is everywhere, and see parts and the whole at the same time - they are not exclusive perceptions. Transcending that belief is part of their integration."
Is there such a thing call Zen up or Zen down? Or part or whole? Musical or not! Even if it does, so what. Dinosaurs extinct! Budda is also dead! I know "where" I came from, "where" will I go! Again, you do not drink the same "water" that I drink. You don't know! The moment one try to think to define Zen, one is already wrong! Look it up! :-)
Earlier post that I quote Detlof about my system. Did I say it is a good or bad thing. NO! Musical or not, I don't know! Do I like the sound of it ? Heck, yes!!! The question is can any system replicate "that"? Or do we care? Tubes or SS!
Do I care if my amps is tubes or SS ? NO! Do I care if my amps are musical or not, YES. Like I've said, one only see the finger, but not the moon.
I've seen tons of "good" men like you, and none "good and bad" like me. See how rare am I? Man, I am building up my own sand castle. :-)
Unsound, lookup your post, you arrived at the door!!! :-)
Z man, you are the lion. :-)

Regards

Do you guys really like the Ten Bulls quote? I like it, too.:-)

Hello Detlof, I did not mean to forget about you, but here it is: I like your wording!!!

"Perhaps it is the ambient noise of a life event , which I miss in classical CDs. Instead of blackness, I expect to hear those subtle cues, which tell me of the size of the hall, those reverbs from the side-, or backwalls, which simply are not there".

I have look for something like that in A'Gon, for a while, but yours are the best.

Thanks

Can quote you some where, else ? :-)

6chac:

1.Where one can not say, it is best to remain silent. That seems to have escaped your long response, all the while you claim that one can not say. That is delusiuonal, or if volitional, inauthentic.

2. There is a difference between claiming that you are encompassing the Truth in its entirety in words, versus using words to point at the Truth. Granted, pointing at the moon is not the moon, but Jesus and Buddha talked about the "what is" - or Zen, or God, or a higher level of organization, or whatever row you want to hoe - all the time, so I'll go with them, if you don't mind.

2. If someone claims they are enlightened, they usually aren't. I'm not, I know that.

3. I never heard the Buddha say that "I am right and you are wrong" with such judgemental force. Hmmm...

4. What does it mean when someone goes on and on decrying others going on and on?

5. If one has to look it up from someone else, or decry thinking and dialogue, itself part of the "what is", then he probably doesn't know.

Too far afield even for me. 6chac, if you want to continue, contact me directly and I will talk to you there.

No fun, The fire are out!!! :-)