Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

Few topics will get audiophiles into an argument more readily than a discussion of the relative merits of tubed and solid-state equipment. A <A HREF="http://www.stereophile.com/showvote.cgi?189">poll</A&gt; on the <I>Stereophile</I> website showed 53% of respondents choosing solid-state as their preferred amplifier design, while 38% indicated a preference for tubes&mdash;the remainder choosing "other," which presumably means digital amplifiers. (There has been no corresponding survey regarding preamplifier designs.) Opinions tend toward the dogmatic, with one respondent declaring "solid-state is more accurate," another stating unequivocally that "tubes sound closer to the real thing."

"Preaching to the converted," I sighed to myself as I read the manual for the Stax Omega II Earspeaker headphone system. I fondly recalled my headphone reference for all time&mdash;the Most Fabulous and Seductive Sennheiser Orpheus tubed electrostatics, which Thomas J. Norton reviewed for <I>Stereophile</I> in 1994. I recalled the Orpheus's heady, open, fast, and colorfully wideband sound, and clutched my palpitating heart.

"Preaching to the converted," I sighed to myself as I read the manual for the Stax Omega II Earspeaker headphone system. I fondly recalled my headphone reference for all time&mdash;the Most Fabulous and Seductive Sennheiser Orpheus tubed electrostatics, which Thomas J. Norton reviewed for <I>Stereophile</I> in 1994. I recalled the Orpheus's heady, open, fast, and colorfully wideband sound, and clutched my palpitating heart.

"Preaching to the converted," I sighed to myself as I read the manual for the Stax Omega II Earspeaker headphone system. I fondly recalled my headphone reference for all time&mdash;the Most Fabulous and Seductive Sennheiser Orpheus tubed electrostatics, which Thomas J. Norton reviewed for <I>Stereophile</I> in 1994. I recalled the Orpheus's heady, open, fast, and colorfully wideband sound, and clutched my palpitating heart.

"Preaching to the converted," I sighed to myself as I read the manual for the Stax Omega II Earspeaker headphone system. I fondly recalled my headphone reference for all time&mdash;the Most Fabulous and Seductive Sennheiser Orpheus tubed electrostatics, which Thomas J. Norton reviewed for <I>Stereophile</I> in 1994. I recalled the Orpheus's heady, open, fast, and colorfully wideband sound, and clutched my palpitating heart.