There has been a definite trend over the last few years for audiophiles to design hybrid systems, using the technological strengths of both tubes and semiconductors to result in what should be ultimate audio. Is this really necessary? Is this maybe just a ploy to keep thermionic tubes alive in this digitised age?  I don't think so.

I recently had the pleasure of listening to a high end audio system costing 3000U$, NAD amp and Mission speakers. When I left the showroom I felt that there was something lacking in the audio. Make no bones about it, the sound was incredible but it did not give me that tingly feeling which should have if I was to part with 3000U$.  Paying out a few thousand more would not have done the trick either - I was looking for something different. I don't always think that money, lots of it, buys you the best in audio. Good audio is all around your own listening pleasure, not necessarily something which can obtianed through the advertised high specification sheet in front of you. An audio amplifier, actually most types of amplifier should faithfully reproduce an output exactly the same as it's input, the magnitude been the only difference. The best sounding system I ever heard was an Akai 30W+30W driving a set of Technics and playing Alanis Morisette. Or was it a home brewed EL84 15W+15W into Akai speakers playing Cat Stevens. Or maybe the 150W+150W commercial MOSFET amplifier into Wharfedales and playing "Nutbush City Limits"? The list goes on and on. One needs to listen to quite a few permutations of amplifiers, speakers, music and input sources before calling it a day. Rushing out to buy a system based on price is as dangerous as buying a car based on price.  There are audiophiles that spend upwards of a 100 000U$ for a system and are still not satisfied. My quest would be to have a sound system that can reproduce Dire Straits Alchemy as it was played live in the 80s. And here we have it: Multi-speaker systems and many many tracks of indvidual instruments. Each speaker and amplifier would have to be the same as the original. And sadly, same with the room accoustics.  Reproducing the same sound as the original live performance is going to be difficult BUT we are getting there. I am just waiting for Blu-Ray to bring out a digitally remastered multitrack version of  "Dark Side of the Moon" and I'll build the sound system around it. 24 tracks of bliss, each having it's own amplifier and speaker setup. Theroretically feasible? Yes. Costs? Frightening. Bipolar transistors are once again competing with MOS devices. I find MOS amplifiers almost clinical in their reproduction of a good quality recording. So much so that I compared this same recording on a good quality bipolar amp. I found the bipolar amplifier sounded better playing Alanis. I found the MOS amplifier sounded better playing 80's disco. I then used the Bipolar amplifier preamp to drive the MOS amplifier. Bingo! This was it. But a friend said it sounded crap. (both amplifiers drove a set of Bose speakers). His wife liked the Bipolar. He liked the MOS. I liked the combination. So if you like the sound of a system, buy it. Not what other people say. And you'll be surpirsed to find that it's not always the expensive systems that come out tops. My system at home costs about 1500U$. It's cheap and it's adequate. I use it for music AND theatre. I say adequate because for music it's crap. For theatre it's good.

As mentioned before, many years ago I heard a song by Cat Stevens playing through a valve amp. With modern semiconductor equipment I have not heard anything that remotely sounded the same or as good. The valve amplifier had soul, it had character, it had warmth. Experts warn that valve sound is actually bad because of  second order harmonic distortion but it sounds good to the ear.  Maybe that's it. We don't like pure sound. Cat Stevens singing "Lady Darbanville"", rich in vocal content may be the reason why the valve amplifier cinched it for me. But take that same valve amplifier and play something with a bit of punch - it sounded awful. Disco goes with transistors. And now play "Smoke on the Water" on a valve amplifier. Fantastic. On a bipolar amplifier the guitar work sounds harsh.  MOSFET amplifier? I don't know - I preferred the valve sound. Do you see where this is taking us? What I like may not necessarily be someone else's cup of tea.

For those born post 80s it may be an eye-opener, or ear popper, to listen to a proper valve amplifier (that is one with a valve preamplifier as well).  Prices on valve amplifiers are astronomical - valves are very expensive, transformers are very expensive and a valve amplifier has three:  Mains, filter-choke and audio output. The output transformer has to be the highest quality one can afford. Valve amplifiers are always capactively coupled with the loudspeaker coupled to a matching transformer - the output transformer. Some circuits do not use an output transformer, coupling the loudspeaker through the low impedance cathode circuit. My advice is to look for an old stereo tape deck and remove the amplifiers. Some, like the Akai M8 had two separate amplifiers - class A, 6W per channel. I'd go there. Trash the transport mechanism - by today's standard they're not that good. 

Which brings me to the end of this article. Audiophiles argue about the merits of different amplifier systems but it all comes down to one thing:  Your own listening pleasure, not theirs. You will always need a good set of speakers and in most cases an amplifier which is spec'ced according to the FTC protocol will sound good. And there's hundreds of them floating about. Listen to them and buy the one that you like - expensive systems don't always make up the best sounding system. To you.