Power output of tube amps compared to solid states

I also absolutely agree and even sure that larger drivers are easier to control since they don't need to be moved excessively by the voice coil to have the same SPL, but would they 'dive down' to its designed lowest frequency with 30W is a pure question of speaker design and type of driver.
My friend received Wyred4Sound ST1000 instead of traded-in Quicksilver M60 and the lower end difference, overall control and sound delivery is 100% towards Wyred4Sound driving Aerial 10T. This 'gentle giant' really pushes the air from Aerials!
If anybody wants to challenge S30 next to Wyred4Sound on the true full range speaker such as Aerial 10t drop me a note. I'll be more than happy to A/B it with anybody local or currently local to NYC.

Arthur (Aball), I'd like to both thank and congratulate you on one of the most enlightening and informative posts I've encountered in my 10+ years here.

!!!! *** BRAVO *** !!!!

Perhaps Bud Fried's (a man who claimed he was born 25 years too early - I believe the true number was far higher) favorite anecdote was the one about the ship's captain who set both sail and his watch (at promptly 12PM) by the clock tower in the town square, and let everyone know the clock tower was the ultimate reference. One day the keeper of the clock tower was asked what method he used to keep the clock in time, only to answer, "Well, every day, day in and day out, precisely at noon, there's a ship whose captain sets sail at that very moment..." and I'm sure you can figure out the rest of the story.

Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the mantra "watts is watts" represented a most (among, if not, the most in audio) fundamentally flawed proposition. Though I've not invested the requisite time, effort, or thought into why, the fact that music is nothing like the steady state test tones that measurements are should make obvious how far off the path the numbers can lead us. It's simply the difference separating arithmetic/algebra from calculus, and I believe we're missing that point.

Most everyone in this field can (and does) measure the things that conflict with the ear, then go on to regurgitate what they read or were taught (yet do not understand) why we are mistaken because the numbers say so. Very few prove the ability to transcend all of that, as you have here, and can as I like to say, "question the answers and answer the questions" en route to actually UNDERSTANDING the topic at hand. That is the difference between a technician and a scientist/enginneer. Regardless of the job title, in my life, I've met precious few scientists/engineers.

Thank you again!

Hey Joe - thanks! I knew only a few would care but I wasn't expecting a full realization. I could have gone on for 10 pages. Your anecdotes and thoughts are right on! It really is the difference between algebra and calculus.

Arthur

Arthur are you trying to say that at certain moment of time tube can throw let's say 1kw of transient power into the load??
Do you have any source that would graphically show measurements of the tube output transient response?
I have an access to the oscilloscope equipment and would be glad to be directed to test family of a transient responses of let's say popular EL34 tube.

Oh Marakanetz. I'm not sure I can help. Believe it or not, I have several oscilloscopes. I also have impedance analyzers, spectrum analyzers and electronic loads. I work in a state-of-the-art electronics laboratory. The reason I said what I did is because I realize these measurement devices are so we can observe simplifications of the real thing. I know it all too well.

To think that a human can build something that would have the capability of human hearing is an ego trip that no one should succumb to. In my opinion. The day measurements can beat the human brain, our demise, and our goal, will have been reached.

1kW of power from a tube as you imagine it, has no physical foundations. Heat generation alone would preclude that possibility. I was talking about what are called "time scales." We have many scales, as much in engineering as in philosophy, ultimately, but all of them fall short of truly representing what we can witness because time effects extend ad infinitum in both directions and thus there is no end to splitting them up into comprehensible slices. Algebraic formulas and measurements occupy only a small part, but calculus covers them all. This was the point Joe so succinctly and eloquently outlined above. One of the tools available to see the remaining parts is called "frequency domain analysis;" the repercussions of which are called "harmonics," which also extend ad infinitum. There is no end to the formulas in the frequency domain. The day I realized all this was mentally liberating.

Classical formulas exist so that we can comprehend what is going on. This is done by throwing out all variables that we deem "unnescessary" because we would otherwise be overwhelmed. The Taylor Series Expansion in calculus points it out very clearly. But are those variables we throw out truly unnecessary? Would they exist if they weren't? Of course not. That is the crux between art and science.

You are free to believe as you like. If your definition of power has no total derivative, then you win. Otherwise, consider power as subject to time scales and you will know what I am talking about. If you would like to understand the mechanisms I speak of in lots more detail, I very-highly recommend Papoulis' book, aptly called "Signal Analysis."

Arthur