Ethan Winer said:
But when someone says that Brand X's tube preamp is better than Brand Y's solid state preamp, the focus then must be on accuracy of amplification. Put another way, a preamp should not be thought of as a sound shaper. At least not to me anyway. A compressor may be considered as a sound shaper, but generally (though not always) you want a device that controls the levels for you as transparently as possible.
So is the argument against vintage gear vs. modern, or solid state vs. tubes? Certainly certain tube designs can be extraordinarily transparent, just as certain solid state designs can have a very colored sound (e.g. Neve, API, Distressor). That has nothing to do with vintage vs. modern. And a preamp can very much be used to shape sound. The most transparent preamp and microphone may not be one's first choice on a lead vocal - rather it's the preamp/mic combo that sounds the best.
The extension of your argument for accuracy would have to apply to mics as well. Does that mean you would always chose an Earthworks QTC or some other small diaphragm "measurement-style" mic regardless of the situation? And you would never use a U47 or an Elam or a C12 or an RCA ribbon? I doubt it. So why is your criteria for a preamp any different? If the preamp has to be accurate, the whole signal chain should be as well.
Ethan Winer said:
...having a cool Telefunken logo on your vocal mike might impress the client singing into it, but the listener on the radio has no idea and surely doesn't care either.
While Chessrock may have alluded to buying gear to impress clients, that is not part of my argument. You are right - the listener on the radio, assuming they can get past the additional broadcast compression, is only concerned with one thing - does the music sound great? That's why the engineers, hopefully, chose their tracking and mixing gear - to make the best possible sounding product. That involves artistic decisions that are not always the same as making the "most accurate" sounding product.
Ethan Winer said:
...lots of folks buy expensive diamonds that are indistinguishable from a piece of glass, or a brand name dish detergent that's exactly the same as the store brand. In fact, I'll go so far as to say it's pretty pathetic if a professional audio engineer can't make a good recording without some particular piece of gear.
This is an unworthy argument, Ethan. I doubt even you can say with a straight face that the only difference between a Mackie and a Rupert Neve designed desk is the brand name? And it is a given that a great engineer will be able to make a decent product even on a mini-disk recorder. But it certainly won't be the tool of choice for most situations.
Here's what it boils down to, and correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying, it doesn't matter what one's ears tell you - if the gear specs out as "accurate" then it is more useful than a "less accurate" piece that adds color/distortion. And the corallary is that if you have an $800 mixer that specs out as "accurate", using a mixer that costs 10x or 100x as much is purely a waste of money.
Let's also insert the fact that even "specs" are not always objective (the testing methodology can be manipulated, and specs are, after all, just another form of raw data that still has to be interpreted, and like statistics, can be slanted in their presentation).
But it still comes down to sound and ears. If you want to insist that you would be perfectly happy with your Mackie for every situation, and would prefer not to have the choice of an API, Universal Audio, Helios, Neve, Joe Meek, Summit, Focusrite, Vipre, etc.... well, it's your right and your decision.
But it seems to me it's kind of like trying to paint a rainbow with only black paint. If you are a really great artist you may be able to pull it off, but even that artist might really prefer a palette of colors, given the choice. There is no question that choosing a particular mic and preamp combination on a particular voice and/or instrument is very much a part of the skill and art of engineering. Otherwise, we'd all just have the same mic and same preamp and use it on everything.
Even in my own small studio, the choice of preamps makes a huge difference in the ultimate product. And it doesn't even matter what my "brand prejudices" are - I always let the artist make the final choice in a blind listening test. And they notice drastic differences - often they can pick out their particular favorite combination repeatedly over a large number of trials. And you know, I think if you were also choosing based on blind listening - YOU WOULDN'T ALWAYS GO FOR ACCURACY EITHER!!!
The bottom line is I'm guessing you would be hard pressed to find any top engineers that would agree with your position. Admittedly, nobody should care about brand names, but nobody should care about specs either. If you can get a great sound on an instrument using two Dixie Cups and a string, then that's what you should use. Since it's all about sound, why not just use the gear that gets you the sound you are looking for?
Anyway, some of the greatest artists/geniuses have been iconoclasts. The whole world may think you are being silly, but maybe you'll prove us all wrong. Or then again, maybe you're just being silly... I guess we'll never know which until someone drags you over to do some blind listening and we see what your preferences are in an objective test.
As always, I enjoy the exchange of ideas with you, Ethan!
"if tubes were introduced in the 1970s, they would have been most likely rejected as being too grainy, too distorted, and imparting too much of their own personalities into the tone." 
