Transistor Preamp that sounds like a Tube Preamp?

Tvad, exactly my point. Tube-like is a meaningless term, more likely used as a marketing term to capture the attention of the gullible. I wouldn't likely consider an amp so described by its designer because I'd think that he's chasing something other than accuracy, transparency and musical production.

Dave

While the Pass XA30.5 doesn't "bloom" like my tube amps, it doesn't mean it isn't a great sounding amp, it is
Pubul57 (System | Threads | Answers)

Agreed.

The XA-60.5 (and the XA-30.5 I auditioned) do not sound like tube amps in that they do not project in the same three dimensional fashion. Frankly, I wish they did. I miss that sound.

However, they have a grain free top end and liquid midrange that's similar to the best tube amps I have heard, and the bass is beyond comparison in my system and with my speakers (tough to drive accurately for a tube amp).

Well, the tube emulation outputs on my cheap, old Carver pre-amp does a lot of this on my system, save the "bloom" part, I'd say.

Is "bloom" necessarily an attribute of better tube equipment?

With the best tube system I've heard recently in terms of $$$$s by a longshot (VTL and VAC), I did not hear an overt amount of tube warmth or "bloom", just a touch of warmth and overall smoothness and flow that resulted in a very natural sound on Magico minis (no sub). It was not that much different from a good SS system I thought.

Another much less expensive but certainly no slouch system (AR + Rogue) had a lot of "bloom". It was very pleasant and musical but I did not think it necessarily as natural or realistic sounding. This was with USher monitors and a Rel sub. Maybe it was the Rel sub that added some of the "bloom" I heard in the low end.

I don't associate warmth with bloom. This is another area where definition is key. To me, bloom is a holographic projection of the sound field into the room. It has nothing to do with warmth.

Others may define bloom differently. I don't believe it's an audiophile term.