Can tube preamps be as 'detailed' sounding as ss?

Zaikesman, I agree that topology has much to do with performance- that it is not just tubes/ss. There is a bit of a strawman going on in your post though, as I was commenting on the fact that audiophiles often interpret brightness as detail (although they don't always like it, thus the term 'clinical').

I admire Nelson Pass's designs as an example of the sort of work that is actually advancing semiconductor-based amplifier technology, and I've been watching the class D stuff evolve for several years too. I am also a big believer in price perfomance curves and their significance.

The bottom line is that I believe what I preach and I try to practice it to the best of my ability. In this way I stand behind my word. I hope you are not taking me to task for that, but if so I have no worries -its not as if I've been trying to hide anything- after all my moniker is atmasphere :)

Bob_reynolds, yes, my feathers were ruffled, but after a good preening, everything is smooth now :-)

As has been mentioned and implied by others, tech measurements don't always relate to actual listening experiences. Further, tonal balances can play tricks on your ears. I once tried a different isolation device on my CD player. Excellent bass improvement was my initial impression. After further listening, I realized why the bass sounded "so much better"...all the "air" of the high frequencies had been sucked out, tilting the tonal balance toward the bass end. Back went the original device, and the tonal balance returned to the proper presentation.

I have been to 3 CES shows. Other than on a VERY few occasions, I can walk into a room, not look at the preamp/amp and can tell whether it is a tube system or SS. I like a quote that I once heard, "Tubes are amplification devices while transistors are switching devices that can be configured for amplification."

Atmasphere wrote:

"There is a bit of a strawman going on in your post though, as I was commenting on the fact that audiophiles often interpret brightness as detail (although they don't always like it, thus the term 'clinical')."

Strawman? I must beg to differ. The uncontroversial sentiment about the danger of mistaking brightness for detail wasn't all you said in your first post:

"...transistor preamps might sound more detailed at first blush due to the presence of odd-ordered harmonic content (at low level) which serves as a loudness cue in the mids and highs. This causes them to seem more detailed, but a good tube preamp will have actually more detail yet be laid-back at the same time."

That's clear and unequivocal, and it's what I responded to. Taking for granted that we're talking about good SS preamps, I personally doubt anyone has solid empirical evidence correlating measured performance with psychoacoustic listener response to demonstrate that this alleged phenomenon is actually the case.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that it can't be your honestly held opinion. But then we must acknowledge the flipside of the coin, which is that many audiophiles (and doubtless designers as well) are of the opinion that tube gear might sound 'pleasing' because it allegedly deviates in such a way as to help obscure some possibly 'unmusical' elements of a transduced recording -- a position I assume you don't agree with.

In my mind, I often find an analogy to this debate in the world of reproduced moving visual images, as transmitted to my eyes via the miracle of television. Neither film nor video presentations can be mistaken for seeing real life. But although high-quality video usually seems objectively more accurate in many ways, subjectively I'd rather watch high-quality filmed material from the 'golden age' (roughly from the late 30's to the mid 60's) every time given the choice. In fact, this often 'feels' more like real life to me watching it, even if strictly speaking it doesn't really look it. However, this sensation is primarily a function of the 'original recording' -- not the transmission or reproduction gear, and again I find an analogy here with the recorded audio sound that I like best, from a 'golden age' which pretty much coincides with the filmed one.

These kinds of questions just frustrate the hell out of me. There are great tube preamps and lousy ones. There are great solid state preamps and lousy ones. Some tube preamps are detailed. Others are smooth and lush. The same can be said of solid state preamps. There are tube preamps with great extension in the low end and ones which push the midrange forward. The same can be said of solid state. Why do people always want to take the most elemental aspect of design and, with little or no research or experimentation, turn it into THE most significant aspect of achieving one sound or another. It doesn't work that way and manufacturers take advantage of this and YOU in order to make you think that there is only one way to get great sound and that is to buy their product which was designed to have tubes or solid state or Vishay resistors or XYZ capacitors or some propietary circuit or whatever. Among the thousand of design decisions involved in bringing any product to market, I guarantee you that there are many reasons why a product sounds the way that it does and the most important is to achieve synergy of design which will not come by focusing on one aspect of the design.

Those who say that they cannot enjoy ANY solid state preamp because third harmonic distortion overwhelms their senses have bought all the hype - hook, line and sinker - or they are a manufacturer just trying to sell product.

There are many ways to get to the promised land and without discussing effects of other equipment, cables, room musical and sonic preferences, but simply tubes or solid state in the preamp, we aren't really discussing anything at all.

Those of us who are not engineers, but consumers of this medium should realize that there is plenty of art, not just science in the design of this equipment and we shouldn't pretend to be engineers. Relax and enjoy the music.

You make good points, Rayhall.