Oh wow, can of worms! Solid state amps, valve amps, to speakers, to digital sampling. I too get annoyed by the audiophile followers who buy into using opamps with 100Mhz of bandwidth for audio signals (conveniently ignoring the fact the opamps other specs are awful for audio). But to get back on track, I usually think solid state for accuaracy, valve for vintage/novelty. Trying to seperate the 'engineering' and 'how they sound' of each one is like analyzing the colour spectrum of paint, and then asking people to name their favourite colour
[rant]
I totally agree with Mr RB about 'other factors' being far more detrimental to sound reproduction than the amplifier itself. Speakers, room size/shape/material, and the most dynamic of all - the human perception of audio. Listen to bass-heavy music for 10 minutes, then listen to your favourite track - it'll sound different. Similarly, listen to something loud, then your favourite track at the original volume - it'll sound different. As incredibly detailed models of the physical human ear are, the psycho-acoustic model, whilst well documented (being the corner stone of almost all lossless compression techniques) still has wide variation among people - as well as variation within the individual based on time of day, what they've heard previously, and even what they see/smell/taste.
From an engineering point of view, I think there will always be a battle between those with scopes, trying to maintain 'consistancy' in reproduction, and those with $2400 systems trying to justify their purchase to their spouse. Then there's those who walk the line inbetween, designing 'audiophile' circuits/products and selling them at high prices - because poeple will pay it purely for the sake of owning a brand name. And of course, all manner of shades in between.
As a guitarist, I really do want a valve amp - or at least I did up until a few years ago when digital technology started to blur the line between 'true valve' and all its poor reliablity, low efficiency, weight, and digital processing (with many claiming it 'sounds' digital, even though they are obviously hearing in analogue). That said, again going back to Mr RB's statement - speakers can compeltely change a system, for better, or worse, thats up to the persons perception. I've used headphones for everything (even piano) for years, and I'm afraid its spoiled me to the point where I really shun the idea of speakers, unless I need things to be heard by more than one person, or it needs to be loud.
'Sound scape' is all well and good for films, but it'll never be accurate because the dynamic range is so compressed - and rightly so, otherwise explosions would deafen us, or rupture internal organs, and we wouldn't hear the cheesy lines whispered in romantic comedies. Also, films sets in rooms, are rarely in an actual 'room', but a two wall set - so do they post process the audio to add in the reflection fom the two missing walls? Just to please someone who watches films with their eyes closed? Unless a system can detect where exactly the listener is in a room, and adjust the pbhase characteristics of a 7.1 system, as well as analyze the room specs - it quickly gets to the point of diminishing returns as more of a way of making money rather than pracitcal and 'useful'. Of course I'm bound to be proven wrong in the next few years :/
[/rant]
BT