> I was thinking of exactly the same thing. I have a colleague who
> is a bit of an audiophile. Tube amplifiers from Britain etc. A
> quite nice home stereo that he fully admits isn't the best on
> market, but still good. Receiver, pre-amplifiers, amplifier and
> speakers for one room = $45,000. He wishes he could afford "the
> real thing". And it works for a solid 1000 hours between
> replacements of groups of tubes that go for minimum $500-1000 each.
But that's an audio-fool thing. I've also got an antique tube stereo setup
... but it uses commonly available tubes like a generic 12AX7 at about $12
each instead of the ultra-low noise, premium Mullard 10M equivalent at about
$300 each. And tube life is more like 10,000 hours than 1,000.
My favorite audiophile story is still the test one of the magazines ran
years ago ... got a panel of 'experts' who swore tubes sounded better than
solid state. Put them in front of the best solid-state amplifiers and
eliminated most of them. The few that were left could successfully identify
tube vs solid state ... until the testers analyzed the tube system and
deliberately added hum and distortion to the solid state system. Then, the
listeners couldn't tell the difference !
So much for "sonic accuracy".
Tubes are kind of like restoring a Triumph using only NOS parts ...
expensive and relatively pointless. Practicality is not a consideration.
> I'm saving for a sailboat. It's much harder to make wind obsolete.
Just wait until you have to have a sail custom-made ... a boat is defined as
a hole in the water that you throw money into.
Randall
|