Audio advancement - why?

In case it was not clear, the point of my prior post is the fact that tubes happen to obey the rules of human hearing to a much greater degree than transistors do, hence the reason why it is so much easier to make a musical sounding tube amplifier than it is to do the same with solid state.

If you look at it from the perspective of rules of human hearing vs the use of global negative feedback, it becomes much clearer. See

http://www.atma-sphere.com/papers/paradigm_paper2.html
for more information.

At it's most basic, the answer to you question is that audio deals with music, and music is art. Comparisons to things like computers, which are devices that are required to perform functions that have nothing to do with emotional content are, for the most part, irrelevant. There is a great deal of art that goes into the design of a truly great audio component. That is why many feel that as audio design "advanced", in many cases something was lost. As designers (and sound engineers) rely more and more on test measurements, and less on their ears, more and more of the human element gets lost: less art The trick is to use these "advances" in technology to serve the art, not to define it.

Frogman hit it. The reproduction of music is an art and not quite a science. (Science can serve the progress of the art, but science alone cannot create art IMO)
So plenty of fairly good stuff made to hit measurements, sound ok, the stuff that has that special musical sound takes finess: (ie artfulness) in addition to science.
I think that is why some love a few products that 'measure' terribley. They have the art, if not enough science. Plenty of mid-fi have the science, but no artfulness.
So tubes still rule, sometimes.

Not sure anyone answered the original question, which in other words is why can't the SS technology progress enough to rival that of tubes (that is, rival SS for those qualities most admire in tube design).

It seems there's a large number, if not majority, that prefer tubes despite their fussiness and maintenance. Then again, this is not the same demand that is there for faster computers, better cell phones, etc. Small market demand versus global need (and thus less money to be made by those with the capital to back the advancement of the technology). Most people that pay $ for music are ok with a cheap $500 receiver that plays music (or an IPod even...).

Sort of on the subject of this - Steve Nugent and Gordon Rankin were involved in a thread somewhere before (perhaps computeraudiophile.com) where I remember Gordon saying that tube design is inherently simple compared to solid state (less parts, less areas for address). In other words, tube equipment affords a simpler design and signal path, linearity, etc. Solid state has yet to match this. I'm too lazy to go find the thread, but it was interesting to hear the two debate the use of tubes versus solid state in equipment design.

Thanks you everyone for your informative posts.
Frogman/Elizabeth, I get your point about music as art. But I guess I will have to do some reading before I digest the fact that human progress could not achieve in audio, what they achieved in other fields. Interesting indeed!!