Want to raise hackles with an audiophile? Mention double-blind tests. Most audiophiles can't tell the difference between a $300 SS amp and a $50,000 tube amp in a blind test.
There are differences in sound between amps, but whether they are better or worse is subjective. I can buy a new preamp that makes my system sound different - and if I paid $10,000 for it, I'm likely to think it sounds better, not the same or worse.
But I believe that people like to hear distortion - hence the affinity for tubes. Adding "warmth" to a signal means you are adding something to the signal, and that, technically speaking, is distortion.
Back in the late Sixties and early Seventies, the newfangled solid-state components provided clear, unadulterated reproduction of recordings. Gone was the "warmth" of tubes. Then - surprise! - solid state was criticized for being "cold", when, in fact, it was just being more transparent than tubes. And to make it worse, solid state clipping is notoriously painful, compared to the smooth clip that tubes provide.
Since then, solid state hasn't done well in reproducing the pleasant distortion characteristics of tubes. But now digital amps can provide the clarity of solid state and some semblance of that tube sound - AND - with soft clipping. There's rumblings already of digital being the end of tubes and the beginning of high fidelity for everyone. Chips are cheap.
The established audiophile industry would NEVER admit that a cheap chip amp sounds great. That would be like Exxon and Mobile producing a car that gets 200mpg. The best they will do is say such an amp "sounds alright for the money," translated: "It will never sound as good as an expensive amp." Which is why price is so important to audiophiles when determining the performance of a component. Many people believe that if you haven't yet spent over $1,000 then you aren't an audiophile. This is a verbatim question posed of my Heresys: "Did you pay over a thousand dollars for them?" The implication is clear: if it wasn't a grand, they're not worth listening to.
Even the granddaddy of tubes abandoned valves for solid state. McIntosh stopped making tube equipment for what is it 30 years? - only to start making them again for the nostalgic trend. Why would they forsake their beloved valve disciples for the inferiority of transistors? Well, they didn't. They progressed with the better technology. But that won't make valve believers follow them, just as there will always be people who prefer carburetors to fuel injection.
And that's the subjectivity factor that no argument can overcome. Take away the blind tests and objective performance data, replace them with glowing tubes, and the eyes glaze over. Objectivity gets left out with the cat. And like it was stated above, the objectivists are likely to be more satisfied with their systems than the subjectivists.
Romantics and realists. Impressionists and realists. Optimists and realists. Who's happier? Who's more likely to cut his ear off than listen to another tube vs. solid state argument?