Pleasure, or Accuracy?

Quote of the day:
"I like grit, I like love and death, I'm tired of irony. ... A lot of good fiction is sentimental. ... The novelist who refuses sentiment refuses the full spectrum of human behavior, and then he just dries up. ... I would rather give full vent to all human loves and disappointments, and take a chance on being corny, than die a smartass."
--Jim Harrison

As I have confessed in a previous post, I am an audiophile. I don’t think of myself as a fanatic (but then, what fanatic does?), but I am aware of sometimes-huge variations in sound quality among recordings and sound systems.

One of the most-persistent debates among audiophiles is the desirability of amplifiers designed with vacuum tubes as opposed to those with chips and transistors. If you are outside of this debate, you likely think it’s rather silly, and that no one can hear the difference anyway.

Even if you couldn’t care less about sound quality beyond what’s on sale at Best Buy, this debate is fascinating as a study in essential choice.

Generally, it is agreed that the best solid-state (“chips and transistors”) amplifiers are more accurate than tubes. They don’t add or take anything from the music, they just pass it on through.

In spite of this, many (if not most) audiophiles prefer tube technology. When asked why, they have a hard time explaining. They talk about things like “warmth,” “listenability,” “soundstage,” “imaging” and “live-ness.” When you listen to such a system, you can begin to understand what they’re talking about.

To bring this idea home, an interesting study was done in Europe a few years ago. More about that tomorrow.