[old tech]

The thing is, a well designed tube amp can be as transparent and neutral as a good solid state amp.  The problem here though is the virtue equation, the tube amp will be more expensive, consume far more power and the sound degrades over the life of the tubes.  The virtue equation doesn't matter much though because those that typically get into tube amps do not want a neutral, transparent sound and most high end tube amps have intentional colourisation for that audience.
 
Likewise, a solid state amplifier can be made to sound the same as any tube amplifier.  However in this case, people who buy solid state amps are not after a tube sound.
 
I remember the Carver challenge that he could make a cheap solid state amp to sound exactly the same as any high end amp, tube or solid state.  The challenge was taken up by both Stereophile and The Audio Critic and both lost.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

 

[Argyris]

  The thing is, a well designed tube amp can be as transparent and neutral as a good solid state amp.  The problem here though is the virtue equation, the tube amp will be more expensive, consume far more power and the sound degrades over the life of the tubes.  The virtue equation doesn't matter much though because those that typically get into tube amps do not want a neutral, transparent sound and most high end tube amps have intentional colourisation for that audience.
 
Likewise, a solid state amplifier can be made to sound the same as any tube amplifier.  However in this case, people who buy solid state amps are not after a tube sound.
 
I remember the Carver challenge that he could make a cheap solid state amp to sound exactly the same as any high end amp, tube or solid state.  The challenge was taken up by both Stereophile and The Audio Critic and both lost.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

 
I remember reading about that. I recall back when I was first getting into audio, well before I started with headphones, older (likely subjectivist) enthusiasts occasionally grumbled about Carver and subtly badmouthed his gear, shunting it off into a niche. I later came to understand that this was most likely because of the Carver Challenge. Decades later, their tootsies must still have been smarting from where he stamped his foot on them. But whatever they said about him, none of them could deny the results, nor his prowess. Being a skilled engineer lets you go beyond pointing to theory and measurements and actually produce working demonstrations of what you're arguing, which makes it a lot harder for naysayers to argue with you.

 

[Ancipital]

I remember the Carver challenge that he could make a cheap solid state amp to sound exactly the same as any high end amp, tube or solid state.  The challenge was taken up by both Stereophile and The Audio Critic and both lost.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Carver

 
That is beautiful, thanks for mentioning it!

 

[StanD]

The real heartless monsters are the lying marketing pukes that sell snake oil to naive unsuspecting and sometimes innocent audiophiles. The next level down is the audiophile that spreads fables to make themselves more important before the forum mob when they have been fooled and don't even know it.

 

[old tech]

   
I remember reading about that. I recall back when I was first getting into audio, well before I started with headphones, older (likely subjectivist) enthusiasts occasionally grumbled about Carver and subtly badmouthed his gear, shunting it off into a niche. I later came to understand that this was most likely because of the Carver Challenge. Decades later, their tootsies must still have been smarting from where he stamped his foot on them. But whatever they said about him, none of them could deny the results, nor his prowess. Being a skilled engineer lets you go beyond pointing to theory and measurements and actually produce working demonstrations of what you're arguing, which makes it a lot harder for naysayers to argue with you.

That part that is really telling regarding the deception in the consumer high end audio industry is why after that challenge (and many others similar to it) do publications such as Stereophile and the absolute sound still champion $30k plus amps when a good $2k amp already exceeds human hearing abilities as far as reproducing a clean, neutral undistorted sound?  Remember the Carver challenge was 30 years ago and technological advances since then have brought the prices of making clean and neutral amps down.
 
I like the thinking of Roger Sanders in the interview below.  He is a musician and engineer who designs and builds what is arguably one of the best electrostatic speaker and amplifier combinations.  He refuses to call himself an audiophile and is ashamed of the industry he has to sell his products into.
 
If you compare high end home audio with high end pro audio, the divergence has never been larger than what it is today.  For example active speakers are almost universally used in recording studios, movie theatres and concert halls because dollar for dollar they are technically and audibly superior to amp/passive speaker combinations.  Yet they are rarely given any prominence in these publications because the ability to charge high margins for separates and the lack of hobbyist tinkering (and spending) is limited. 
 
Same with digital, it is a superior medium to analog media and devices but less susceptible to high end pricing (though DACs are heading in that audiophoolery direction).  I agree that some just prefer the sound of vinyl playback, and some albums are mastered better on vinyl, but the myths and downwright deception being used by some in the industry is pure quackery.  It is hardly surprising they don't compare analog measurements (as a $400 CD player playing a CD would trounce a $10k turntable and cart playing an LP).  Yet these same measurements were always used prior to digital, usually to bash around people that preferred cassette decks.
 
http://www.monoandstereo.com/2013/11/interview-with-roger-sanders.html

 

[castleofargh]

once something is accepted, rebuttals usually have very little impact. how many people tried the crap that was mp3 when it first came out and still to this day claim on every occasions that mp3 sucks bad and isn't even close to audible transparency? despite the changes applied to the format and all the failed abx, the idea sticks like crazy glue.  same with usb, it started with a lot of problems, I would have sworn at the beginning that any solution was superior to usb because of how often I had troubles with audio over USB. nowadays USB usually works fine and I get pretty reassuring measurements in a loop where both the DAC and the ADC are over USB. but just look at all the magic boxes and expensive usb cables, and you'll know that people still worry like it was the first year of usb over audio.
IMO it's the same thing with vinyls, tube amps, speakers and most debates really. vinyls came as being the audiophile tool. why? to this day I don't have a clue.  pros kept using tapes to store recordings even though they knew the clear loss in SNR anytime they'd have to make a copy, and knew they'd have to made copies over time. then they jumped onto digital storage for obvious reasons. that's how great vinyl is, it wasn't considered as a professional medium. but when I talk to my non audiophile friends about vinyl vs digital, they often tell me that vinyl is superior because it has better dynamic and is analog, which is "real sound".  those stuff have been accepted as real and survive from mouth to mouth even outside of the elitist hobby. to people this is "common knowledge", false but common and accepted still. while all the rebuttals showing better solutions stay mostly ignored.
we have seen SS amp techs consistently surpass the limits of tubes in fidelity measurements, we have seen as you say CDs trounce turntable measurements(and by such crazy magnitudes), but does that stop people from saying "tubes + vinyl = real hifi"? nope. because nobody cares about something proved to be false. such concepts get no traction and people who enjoy tubes and vinyls will still try to justify some objective superiority instead of just saying "I got them because I like them". then someone will believe those justifications and will start repeating them, later on ignoring the rebuttals if any are made... ouroboros.

 

[Ancipital]

   
IMO it's the same thing with vinyls, tube amps, speakers and most debates really. vinyls came as being the audiophile tool. why? to this day I don't have a clue.  pros kept using tapes to store recordings even though they knew the clear loss in SNR anytime they'd have to make a copy, and knew they'd have to made copies over time. then they jumped onto digital storage for obvious reasons. that's how great vinyl is, it wasn't considered as a professional medium. but when I talk to my non audiophile friends about vinyl vs digital, they often tell me that vinyl is superior because it has better dynamic and is analog, which is "real sound".  those stuff have been accepted as real and survive from mouth to mouth even outside of the elitist hobby. to people this is "common knowledge", false but common and accepted still. while all the rebuttals showing better solutions stay mostly ignored.

 
..though of course, in the professional space, it wasn't tape then digital.. digital tape storage was a transitional tech- DAT, ADAT, and in video, things like D1, D2, D3. Hell, people are still finishing up transferring their D3 archives in archival quality onto LTO and/or near-line archives. They'd never have made the leap if Sony didn't stop making the heads (which wear out quite fast). In the professional space, people don't always move on until they have no way to stick with the status quo.
 
Now we're in the era of nearly standardised file delivery, gone are the days of having to send a bike with a bunch of tapes, thank goodness. The standardisation is still is transition, mind. We'll see how long the newer standards last.

 

[castleofargh]

digital on tape is digital or tape? well it's not vinyl. ^_^
but you're right I could have been clearer.  the first time I got to use DAT I was mind blown by the amount of data one tape could store. times sure have changed .

 

[Ancipital]

  digital on tape is digital or tape? well it's not vinyl. ^_^
but you're right I could have been clearer.  the first time I got to use DAT I was mind blown by the amount of data one tape could store. times sure have changed .

 
Oh, it's even weirder than that. Some of the digital video tape formats effectively sampled analogue composite video, so "analogue" video came back out at the other end!
 
The only upside of that is that era, in the UK, new transform PAL decoders were built, which allowed higher quality results to be produced than on brand-new equipment at the time of recording!
 
</threadjack>

 

[StanD]

  digital on tape is digital or tape? well it's not vinyl. ^_^
but you're right I could have been clearer.  the first time I got to use DAT I was mind blown by the amount of data one tape could store. times sure have changed .

I'm just waiting for some audiophile to start a rant about how 8 Track Tape Cartridges are the best. Maybe we can start the ball rolling and see how far it rolls. Which forum is best for this one?

 

[spruce music]

  I'm just waiting for some audiophile to start a rant about how 8 Track Tape Cartridges are the best. Maybe we can start the ball rolling and see how far it rolls. Which forum is best for this one?

Clearly 8 track tape was indeed the best.  No other musical format could simply replay once it reached the end with no input from the listener.  LP's have to be flipped.  Cassette tapes had to be flipped.  CDs just stop playing.  Sure eventually we got auto-reverse cassette, and one had auto replay CD.  8 track had this baked into the design of the 8 track tape itself.

 

[Argyris]

Hey, they made a musical instrument using 8-track tapes. Well, almost made one, if you consider the way the whole thing fell apart. C'mon, people, if musicians were willing to use it, it had to be superior.

 

[RRod]

 
Clearly 8 track tape was indeed the best.  No other musical format could simply replay once it reached the end with no input from the listener.  LP's have to be flipped.  Cassette tapes had to be flipped.  CDs just stop playing.  Sure eventually we got auto-reverse cassette, and one had auto replay CD.  8 track had this baked into the design of the 8 track tape itself.

 
The best formats are the ones that can tell me to worship Satan, thx.

 

[StanD]

 
Clearly 8 track tape was indeed the best.  No other musical format could simply replay once it reached the end with no input from the listener.  LP's have to be flipped.  Cassette tapes had to be flipped.  CDs just stop playing.  Sure eventually we got auto-reverse cassette, and one had auto replay CD.  8 track had this baked into the design of the 8 track tape itself.

Now we have software based players that let you mark the beginning and ending of a loop. And if you want a retro low fi, you can always resample to a lowrez mp3.

 

[StanD]

  Hey, they made a musical instrument using 8-track tapes. Well, almost made one, if you consider the way the whole thing fell apart. C'mon, people, if musicians were willing to use it, it had to be superior.

You have a Mellotron at home? That wasn't an 8 track, it used spring loaded strips of 1/4 inch recording tape that were on racks so you could change the instrument. Now that was one crazy idea.