As an audiophile of many years I can only say, oh, well.

Tube stuff does sound better, especially with digital signals.  At the high
end of the high end the tubes and solid state stuff gets closer to each
other, and given that a set of matched '88's or 66's can run close on $100
and you may need 4 sets per side on a big power amp, the energy costs really
aren't the issue.

Aside from advertising and a couple of musicians I know and some I've heard
about most pro's have really crappy home systems.  They know what the music
should sound like and don't much care how close the recorded version comes
to reality.  Given that the best reproduction really isn't very much like
live I think they're right, for them at least.

Given all that I prefer the sound of vinyl records and tube electronics, I'm
just not willing to deal with the hassles involved most of the time.

JMO,

Mike

 On 8/12/04 9:20 PM, "Firstname Lastname" <Vonpinky@AOL.COM> wrote:

> In a message dated 8/12/04 4:35:46 AM, gipsyflies@COMCAST.NET writes:
>
> << I wouldn't use a
> tube amp even at home this day and age given the price of energy. >>
>
> Dear Vince,
>
> I truly hope that the audiophiles out there do not ***bury*** you under their
> descriptions of the sweet, mellifluous, unclipped sounds emanating from their
> Bozaks.  The cost of the energy consumed by those beautifully crafted space
> heaters (AKA, tube power amplifiers) ***pales*** in comparison to the cost of
> the tubes.  And, the most avid aficionados of vacuum tube audio seem to
> replace
> tubes more often than I change my undies!!!
>
> On the other hand, a rather droll paradox I have witnessed more than once is
> to be in the company of an accomplished musician listening to a scratchy
> recording on some nameless, low quality audio system and the whole while the
> musician is raving about how great the music is.  Music must be in the ears of
> the
> beholder.
>
> Pinky
>
>