I don't think and I do NOT know. However, what difference does this make to y'all.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO Y'ALL IS I WILL DEFINITELY PURCHASE A DIGITAL MICROPHONE IN CASE THERE IS A MASS PRODUCED ONE AND IS FOR MUSIC (NOT FOR SKYPE).
I WILL STILL NOT THINK AND I WILL STILL NOT KNOW AND Y'ALL WILL GET MONEY!
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO Y'ALL IS I WILL DEFINITELY PURCHASE A DIGITAL MICROPHONE IN CASE THERE IS A MASS PRODUCED ONE AND IS FOR MUSIC (NOT FOR SKYPE).
I WILL STILL NOT THINK AND I WILL STILL NOT KNOW AND Y'ALL WILL GET MONEY!
I think if something like this was done in a 24bit 96Khz format would be so Awesome!!!
First Act Music Creator LE USB Guitar Cable and ... : Target
jer
Can y'all make a lot of noise (noise can be good sometimes ... as long as not analogue: "Stlll, the Earth turns.").
The reason to ask you to make noise is only because I want this quality digital microphone mass produced. I believe many people do want so too. Those who like analogue microphones, don't you worry: No one will take them away!
The reason to ask you to make noise is only because I want this quality digital microphone mass produced. I believe many people do want so too. Those who like analogue microphones, don't you worry: No one will take them away!
As you can see, I have not published anything technical on ths topic. Just general talk. Pub talk. I do NOT want to become famous with this topic. BUT I do want to walk in the general purpose store ("Best Buy" for example) and purchase a quality digital microphone for s reasonable price.
Nothing technical, still general discussion: I think a Data Acquisition System IC may not be app[ropriate for the purpose. I would think the best is to keep the ADC as simple as possible with the most bitness and sufficient sampling speed and low error.
There is a problem with the USB/network IC and drivers though. They are for PC which means lousy. They will introduce so much noise, the speakers would sound like a fart even when the microphone is turned off (or disconnected). No one will try to manufacture high quality USB/network IC's because the audio industry is a tiny consumer of PC industry products. However, there are low power/micropower communication (network/USB) IC's (I hope) because of the handhelds. These may be less noisy.
On one hand, the higher the frequecy of the noise, the easier to filter. On the other hand, the transients on the supply will be higher. I would prefer communication frequency as low as possible although most would prefer as high as possible.
Can anyone suggest a good communication way? The ADC would be under control. The USB/network IC's would introduce some problems.
Nothing technical, still general discussion: I think a Data Acquisition System IC may not be app[ropriate for the purpose. I would think the best is to keep the ADC as simple as possible with the most bitness and sufficient sampling speed and low error.
There is a problem with the USB/network IC and drivers though. They are for PC which means lousy. They will introduce so much noise, the speakers would sound like a fart even when the microphone is turned off (or disconnected). No one will try to manufacture high quality USB/network IC's because the audio industry is a tiny consumer of PC industry products. However, there are low power/micropower communication (network/USB) IC's (I hope) because of the handhelds. These may be less noisy.
On one hand, the higher the frequecy of the noise, the easier to filter. On the other hand, the transients on the supply will be higher. I would prefer communication frequency as low as possible although most would prefer as high as possible.
Can anyone suggest a good communication way? The ADC would be under control. The USB/network IC's would introduce some problems.
Sorry - I don't see your point?.
USB is simply a serial data transfer system, it's purely digital and won't introduce any noise.
I'm also pretty baffled by the entire thread? - why would you want a USB microphone apart from plugging in a PC? - which are already freely available anyway, as are many different USB sound 'cards' including specific guitar ones.
USB is simply a serial data transfer system, it's purely digital and won't introduce any noise.
I'm also pretty baffled by the entire thread? - why would you want a USB microphone apart from plugging in a PC? - which are already freely available anyway, as are many different USB sound 'cards' including specific guitar ones.
I am unable to manufacture a professional microphone. For one, I can't put the printed board inside the microphone. I am unable to find a professional quality digital microphone in the general purpose stores, whereas there are almost professional analogue microphones all over the place.
I will be happy in case anyone of you all can.
I will be happy in case anyone of you all can.
I didn't actually read most of your posts, but if you're looking for a good digital microphone, Neumann has released a series of digital microphones that are very high quality for example the TLM103D and a few others in the "solution D" series. most of the USB mics out there are really not very good sound quality and not useful for recording multiple sources like a whole band with a drumkit (24 usb ports anyone?)
I have heard about optical microphones but never seen one. they are used in MRI machines where the magnetic field is too strong to use any kind of conventional mic. my understanding is the sound quality is roughly equivalent to 1950's era telephones.
a digital guitar is an interesting idea. Peavy just announced a guitar with auto-tune built in, but that's probably not quite what you're talking about (Peavey.com: News - Peavey & Antares Announce the Peavey AT-200 Guitar Featuring Auto-Tune For Guitar Technology)
I have heard about optical microphones but never seen one. they are used in MRI machines where the magnetic field is too strong to use any kind of conventional mic. my understanding is the sound quality is roughly equivalent to 1950's era telephones.
a digital guitar is an interesting idea. Peavy just announced a guitar with auto-tune built in, but that's probably not quite what you're talking about (Peavey.com: News - Peavey & Antares Announce the Peavey AT-200 Guitar Featuring Auto-Tune For Guitar Technology)
In case there are some enthusiasts who have the ability to manufacture a good quality digital microphone, I would like to bring to the attention of them this:
1. The standard and well known approach is to sample as fast as possible in order to reduce the error of digitisation (one may hit up another down) which, in case of 24 bit ADC is: 100 * 1/(2^24) % =0.000006% The error is so negligible, so compensation is not necessary.
However:
2. The fact there is such a tiny step of digitisation does not necessarily mean the accuracy of the ADC will be within 1 step. Would you trust the company manufacturer? Which of them? Any?
3. The analogue electronics must be precise with extremely low output impedance and powerfull enough to ensure the sample and hold is fully charged/discharged between the samples.
4. On one hand, the closer the amplification to the input, the lower the noise (picked thereafter) influence. On the other hand, the closer the amplification to the input, more amplifiers (in case any at all) would work with high signals, hence more nonlinearity when signal close to power supply. Hence, I would suggest a compromise: some gain at the beginning, some after in case there are more than one stages. Hopefully, one operational amplifier would do the job rather than buffer amplifier buffer "system". I would suggest maximum power to the operational amplifier as well as the ADC. Expected is the maximum power supply of the operational amplifier would be 36V and the maximum reference foltage of the ADC is below 5V.
I am not aware of any ADC which can take reference voltage of more than 5V which is the maximum power supply of the ADC. Signal in the range of 0 to, say, 4V, digitised with a 24 bit ADC will have a step of: 4/(2^24)=0.24 MICROVOLTS.
Even in case of 100% perfect ADC and analogue electronics, perfect linearity, assuming the noise is the only problem, whoever can reach this accuracy, I will get a T shirt with the name of this person and the sentence "[Name] is a genius!" and will shout out loud on the street this slogan!
I ain't joking. I would accept this person as the greatest cowboy of them all.
I, personally, cannot even imagine such a thing!
5. Filter as much as you can the unaudible part of the signal not to fill up the ADC with noise only but, at these levels, every resistor makes and picks up noise, every turn of every path on the PCB makes noise, every amplifier brings noise and nonlinearity. So, use as fewer components as possible.
6. Look for a company which, these days, may manufacture the whole system in an IC. Hopefully, Analog Devices does this. Obviously, these IC's are not available in the local electronics shop. Whoever has a company and is registered with the big shots may have access to these. Otherwise, a regilar person would get booted out.
7. I know USB/network communication is standard. Are there low noise IC's for this?
8. I would suggest the analogue system and the ADC to be powered from different sources in case this is possible and desirable (obviously, full galvanic disconnection of the ADC from analogue is impossible!) BUT I would definitely be happy when the USB/Network is, in turn, separately powered from ADC and Analogue and 100% galvanically disconnected by the digital output of the ADC by optocouplers. This should reduce the noise, expected to be introduced by USB/Network.
9. I look at this project as a project which has got nothing to do with electronics engineering but, rather, with an electrical engineer, fighter against electromagnetic noise.
10. I am not sure whether 2 or a few systems alike with averaging of the output would help or screw up even more. Placing these away from each other and averaging the output should help in theory but each of them introduces more noise, so I am not sure what the resul would be.
I think I am very week to continue. I realise I talk well known things. I would like to push more people to manufacture digital microphones.
I have spent a grat deal of typing effort and I do NOT want to continue. In case you have anything constructive, please say so. Otherwise, I'd try to be off.
1. The standard and well known approach is to sample as fast as possible in order to reduce the error of digitisation (one may hit up another down) which, in case of 24 bit ADC is: 100 * 1/(2^24) % =0.000006% The error is so negligible, so compensation is not necessary.
However:
2. The fact there is such a tiny step of digitisation does not necessarily mean the accuracy of the ADC will be within 1 step. Would you trust the company manufacturer? Which of them? Any?
3. The analogue electronics must be precise with extremely low output impedance and powerfull enough to ensure the sample and hold is fully charged/discharged between the samples.
4. On one hand, the closer the amplification to the input, the lower the noise (picked thereafter) influence. On the other hand, the closer the amplification to the input, more amplifiers (in case any at all) would work with high signals, hence more nonlinearity when signal close to power supply. Hence, I would suggest a compromise: some gain at the beginning, some after in case there are more than one stages. Hopefully, one operational amplifier would do the job rather than buffer amplifier buffer "system". I would suggest maximum power to the operational amplifier as well as the ADC. Expected is the maximum power supply of the operational amplifier would be 36V and the maximum reference foltage of the ADC is below 5V.
I am not aware of any ADC which can take reference voltage of more than 5V which is the maximum power supply of the ADC. Signal in the range of 0 to, say, 4V, digitised with a 24 bit ADC will have a step of: 4/(2^24)=0.24 MICROVOLTS.
Even in case of 100% perfect ADC and analogue electronics, perfect linearity, assuming the noise is the only problem, whoever can reach this accuracy, I will get a T shirt with the name of this person and the sentence "[Name] is a genius!" and will shout out loud on the street this slogan!
I ain't joking. I would accept this person as the greatest cowboy of them all.
I, personally, cannot even imagine such a thing!
5. Filter as much as you can the unaudible part of the signal not to fill up the ADC with noise only but, at these levels, every resistor makes and picks up noise, every turn of every path on the PCB makes noise, every amplifier brings noise and nonlinearity. So, use as fewer components as possible.
6. Look for a company which, these days, may manufacture the whole system in an IC. Hopefully, Analog Devices does this. Obviously, these IC's are not available in the local electronics shop. Whoever has a company and is registered with the big shots may have access to these. Otherwise, a regilar person would get booted out.
7. I know USB/network communication is standard. Are there low noise IC's for this?
8. I would suggest the analogue system and the ADC to be powered from different sources in case this is possible and desirable (obviously, full galvanic disconnection of the ADC from analogue is impossible!) BUT I would definitely be happy when the USB/Network is, in turn, separately powered from ADC and Analogue and 100% galvanically disconnected by the digital output of the ADC by optocouplers. This should reduce the noise, expected to be introduced by USB/Network.
9. I look at this project as a project which has got nothing to do with electronics engineering but, rather, with an electrical engineer, fighter against electromagnetic noise.
10. I am not sure whether 2 or a few systems alike with averaging of the output would help or screw up even more. Placing these away from each other and averaging the output should help in theory but each of them introduces more noise, so I am not sure what the resul would be.
I think I am very week to continue. I realise I talk well known things. I would like to push more people to manufacture digital microphones.
I have spent a grat deal of typing effort and I do NOT want to continue. In case you have anything constructive, please say so. Otherwise, I'd try to be off.
"why would you want a USB microphone apart from plugging in a PC?"
I would like to plug these in PC's, digital recorders, digital studio recording equipment and I think I've heard somewhere there are "digital amplifiers" which would take the numbers, put them in a DAC and amplify the analogue output of the DAC. Thus, in a concert, everything is digital until the moment where there is no other way but to convert to analogue.
I would be happy to see a modern "Bethoven" who can read numbers and get the music. Thus I can get rid of the last of the amplifiers.
I would like to plug these in PC's, digital recorders, digital studio recording equipment and I think I've heard somewhere there are "digital amplifiers" which would take the numbers, put them in a DAC and amplify the analogue output of the DAC. Thus, in a concert, everything is digital until the moment where there is no other way but to convert to analogue.
I would be happy to see a modern "Bethoven" who can read numbers and get the music. Thus I can get rid of the last of the amplifiers.
Thanks. I saw them. I have been trying to alocate some prices but I was unsuccessful.
However, I saw Celine Dion uses them and, being a French woman from Quebec, these microphone should be quite inexpensive since French women from Quebec are not happy to pay... taxes!
I've heard of the self tunning guitar from somewhere. So, the guitar has a self measurement and self adjustment capabilities. Do they sell them with a blond tall woman as a pack?
Jokes aside, I am quite happy to be made aware of these products. Looks like I have to wait for a few more decades to be able to get one. Hopefully, the affordable ones are not so bad quality!
However, I saw Celine Dion uses them and, being a French woman from Quebec, these microphone should be quite inexpensive since French women from Quebec are not happy to pay... taxes!
I've heard of the self tunning guitar from somewhere. So, the guitar has a self measurement and self adjustment capabilities. Do they sell them with a blond tall woman as a pack?
Jokes aside, I am quite happy to be made aware of these products. Looks like I have to wait for a few more decades to be able to get one. Hopefully, the affordable ones are not so bad quality!
Gibson tried it six years ago, building and selling guitars with onboard A/D conversion that used Ethernet (cat 5) cable for connectivity.
Nobody bought the guitars, and they died stillborn.
The fact of the matter is that the best-sounding and most valued guitar amps are all ancient analogue designs based on vacuum tubes. With many types of electric guitar playing, the amp is actually more important than the guitar itself.
These old tube guitar amp designs certainly don't interface with Ethernet signals. And to date no modern solid-state guitar amp sounds as good as amps built around this ancient and primitive electronics technology, so guitarists are not about to give up their tube amps.
I very much appreciate the benefits of digital audio recording and processing over the analogue technologies that preceded it. It's allowed us to get rid of wow, flutter, surface noise, pops, clicks and scratches; it let us push the noise floor below audibility; it gave us a flat frequency response out to 20 kHz. And it gives anyone with $400 to spend today access to better recording capabilities than anything the Beatles had in their $100,000 professional studios of the time.
But I see no benefit at all to digitising the signal from a guitar pickup, only to turn it back into analog form at the other end of a ten-foot cat 5 cable, so that you can put it through an analogue amplifier. What's the point?
Gibson did tried to create reasons for their digital guitar to exist, including the ability to separately transmit signals from each of the six guitar strings. Good if you want to fool around with a guitar synthesiser - but that's another technology that has had no takers for thirty years now. Simply put, guitar synths lack the expressiveness of the raw guitar, and a keyboard is a much better interface to synth electronics than vibrating strings suspended above a fretboard.
Digital microphones? Sound is analogue. It starts as analogue pressure fluctuations in the air in front of the object creating the sound. It ends as analogue pressure fluctuations in the air at the listeners ear. Digital is useful in the middle when it is necessary to store, process, or duplicate the signal. Why does it matter whether the A/D converter is inside the microphone, or ten feet away at the other end of the cable? Ten feet of good shielded cable carrying a differential audio signal introduces virtually no adverse effects to the signal.
The worst thing about most USB microphones is that most (all?) of them lack the ability to monitor and control the analogue signal level entering the A/D converter. By nature mic's have to deal with big variations in signal strength, and the mic designer has to keep the A/D converter from clipping until the audio in front of the mic gets very loud - 110 or 120 dB is not unusual. That means if you record some quiet conversation at 60 dB, the A/D converter is operating 50 or 60 dB below its optimum signal to noise ratio. Is anyone unwise enough to think it's a good idea to record a signal that's 60 dB below the 0 dB clipping point?
That's why most USB mics are a short road to poor signal to noise ratio and possibly audible digital artifacts. You'll usually get much better quality with an analogue mic feeding a preamp with level monitoring and adjustable gain, set to feed an A/D converter with the optimal signal level.
-Flieslikeabeagle
Thanks for the reply. You are the firs one to send a long reply. I like long replies no difference what oppinion is expressed.
However, I am unable to post a long reply now. I may try in a while.
Gibson guitar was not purchased in large amounts because of a price tag of $4000 which is a very good V6 or even V8 car and truck price.
Tubes are great and I like them alot but there isn't any advantage of them these days. Used to be known with huge output at almost no noise as opposed to the self noise transistors. Not so much these days or not at all. Tubes are slow even for slow audio (25KHz). Give good bass, though.
One can get digital, DAC the signal and send the analogue to a tube amplifier.
Cables and analogue connectors are extremely noisy regardless of whether these are coax or not. Stage cables can exceed 100'.
Digital is not for storage only. Digital eliminates the noise (not in full, though) and is better for everything, mainly for signal processing and filtration. Puts a possibility for a lot of cheating out, though but this is not a technical point.
No need to make new effects or electronica out of a guitar. Digital distortion is nice to have, though as well as the old effects just digital. I, personally, would be happy to have these with voice activation but this oppinion is probably not shared around.
Sound is not analogue. Sound is digital. Just we, humans, can't make this.
You can have level control (automatic and manual) at the microphone level. I think, automatic control is cheating but this is not a technical point.
Most USB microphones available around are just for chatting on Skype. Even so, these are not sold everywhere in the general purpose shops.
Microphones are not only for sound but for recording. Mouth to CD in digital. Whenever available.
However, I am unable to post a long reply now. I may try in a while.
Gibson guitar was not purchased in large amounts because of a price tag of $4000 which is a very good V6 or even V8 car and truck price.
Tubes are great and I like them alot but there isn't any advantage of them these days. Used to be known with huge output at almost no noise as opposed to the self noise transistors. Not so much these days or not at all. Tubes are slow even for slow audio (25KHz). Give good bass, though.
One can get digital, DAC the signal and send the analogue to a tube amplifier.
Cables and analogue connectors are extremely noisy regardless of whether these are coax or not. Stage cables can exceed 100'.
Digital is not for storage only. Digital eliminates the noise (not in full, though) and is better for everything, mainly for signal processing and filtration. Puts a possibility for a lot of cheating out, though but this is not a technical point.
No need to make new effects or electronica out of a guitar. Digital distortion is nice to have, though as well as the old effects just digital. I, personally, would be happy to have these with voice activation but this oppinion is probably not shared around.
Sound is not analogue. Sound is digital. Just we, humans, can't make this.
You can have level control (automatic and manual) at the microphone level. I think, automatic control is cheating but this is not a technical point.
Most USB microphones available around are just for chatting on Skype. Even so, these are not sold everywhere in the general purpose shops.
Microphones are not only for sound but for recording. Mouth to CD in digital. Whenever available.
Well, there's your answer. You're asking, "Why don't people like black pepper on ice cream? I think it tastes fine."
In other words, if you think the sound of a Line 6 amp is acceptable, then you won't understand why the vast majority of musicians find the idea of digital parts in their guitars abhorrent.
Also, if you think the Gibson Cat 5 guitar didn't sell because of price you need to explain why the more expensive Historics are so popular.
And finally, if you want longer replies you should try discussing the factual observations presented to you rather than dismissing them with personal opinions.
Indeed, Keriwena. Well, I gave it a try, and got nowhere.
Solid state guitar amps? I am one of the unfortunate suckers who was taken in by the buzz around Line 6 products some years ago. With my wallet nearly five hundred dollars lighter, I now had a guitar amp (Spider Jam) that could, at the push of a few buttons, sound like any one of fifty different kinds of kazoo.
I now have a hybrid guitar amp, the Super Champ XD, which has a tube power amp section. It sounds so much better than the Line 6 products that words fail me when I try to express the difference. It sounds best when you keep the solid-state digital modelling front half out of the way, and let the sound of the tubes come through.
I'll add that the engineering side of my brain is dismayed by the gross inefficiency of vacuum tubes. Using four watts of filament / heater power to process a few milliwatts of audio signal is rather like hiring an elephant to carry a peanut six inches. The manual of my fifteen-watt Super Champ XD (hybrid, with a tube power amp following a DSP modelling front end) says that it draws up to 180 watts from the AC outlet, presumably at the point when it is putting out 15 W to the loudspeaker. That translates to an overall electrical efficiency of roughly 8.3% from AC outlet to loudspeaker.
But, inefficient or not, the simple fact of the matter is that the only way to get really good rock and blues sounds out of an electric guitar is to use this ancient and relatively primitive - but glorious sounding - vacuum tube technology. As of 2012, it seems that several million MOSFET's and tens of thousands of lines of DSP software still can't come close to sounding as good as a primitive 12AX7 followed by an equally primitive 6V6 in a Fender Champ.
-Flieslikeabeagle
Vacuum tubes never seemed primitive to me, rather more magical. I used to sit behind the radio and watch them glow brighter as the Lone Ranger's theme got louder.
The thing about tubes is, all amplification produces heat. For hifi, having really big amps that are barely working is fine, as audiophiles have the common sense not to blow up their ears. For rock and roll however, where everything is going to be dimed by the end of the night, tubes have the distinct advantage of working better when they're hot.
The thing about tubes is, all amplification produces heat. For hifi, having really big amps that are barely working is fine, as audiophiles have the common sense not to blow up their ears. For rock and roll however, where everything is going to be dimed by the end of the night, tubes have the distinct advantage of working better when they're hot.
I have been dreaming to design a tube amplifier. One day, I, probably will.
I was born in 1965 and the tubes weren't so much around. We had a tube black and white TV which had been working perfectly since the 50's or 40's and continued to work in the 70's. Than we had a colour TV with tubes (either fully or hybrid). This was in the 70's. Than transistors and IC's.
We also have a mono radio from the 30'3, 40's or 50's. The radio has been working perfectly and continues to do so. I used the radio as a guitar and bass guitar amplifier. Good.
Professionals used tube Marshals in the 80's.
I have never studied tubes. They were tabu. I doubt any university teaches those these days.
I read some old books from the 50's thereafter.
Here is what I know. I am not sure whether right. The only engineering disadvantage of the tubes is the inability to reach high frequencies. They are slow. The only engineering super advantage, as far as I can think of: ALMOST ZERO NOISE AT HUGE POWER. Tubes have been replaced by power CMOS which does not have the disadvantage but doesn't fully have the advantage either but, as they say, pretty close. However, the tubes as well as the CMOS went a long way. Tubes were to be much better in case of a lack of CMOS and transistors. Tubes have been neglected. They shouldn't have. Even only because they MIGHT be used largely in the future.
This idea is very strange from business point of view: cannot be done in the countries with private economy. Can be done in countries with state economy. But these were strong to reject them as dinasaurs of electronics.
Two countries strongly opposed the transistors when they appeared: US was the strongest opposer followed by the Soviet Union. The country which embraced the transistors the most strongly was Japan. Sony made the first transistor radio which was a tabu in the US. At the beginning, transistor radios were used mainly because they can be put in a pocket or a brief case. I assume the first users of transistor radios were sports fans who would listen to the speaker while watching a match. Then, they started to use them in cars and thus they became highly desirable.
The US abandoned the tubes first while the Soviet Union continued to use them for a very short time thereafter mainly in hybrids. Then the Soviet Union abandoned them with some in use in the military. Then the Soviet Union fully abandoned them while they were used in the US mainly for guitar and concert music amplifiers.
I wouldn't call military engineering engineering but the tubes have another super advantage which I would not but most would call an engineering advantage: tubes are imune not only to electromagnetic noise but to nuclear radiation too. Hence the use in the old Soviet military industry.
The immunity to radiation is because of physics, which, I think, says: a wave travels better as the density of the media is higher, hence a wave would travel better through the high density solid state transistor rather than the vaccuum. The same, nuclear radiation (I think beta) would hit the high density atoms in a solid state as opposed to vaccuum.
As a consequence of this, magic has been done in the Soviet Union with tubes. I have been told there has been a computer (simple) done fully in tiny tubes (tiny because of digital use). I am not sure whether true or not. These have been made small enough to be put in an airplane. The idea is obvious: a nuclear bomb carrier airplane would rather have tubes and thus be able to drop the load more accurately from a low altitude while the electronics will still work after the drop.
Obviously, there have been a lot of jokes with tubes, as for example, the Soviet rockets were built by tubes, etcetera. I would assume the strongest opposers to the tubes were the space engineers because of mechanical instability and high power (at least high voltage). The first rocket to carry a human flew after the invention and the use of the transistors became possible.
Another use of tubes (not exactly vaccuum) is in measurement devices, most of them for nuclear purposes, where a tube would be filled with air or a gas (gas analysers) and the current would change as depends on the chemical/nuclear components of the air/gas. The sensor would be made out of tube(s) with the rest of the electronics in IC's (or tubes for heavy nuclear). Even in these cases, the CMOS are heavy competitors: they would dope the gate of the CMOS with a reactant which would generate voltage upon exposure to a reactor.
Another advantage of the tubes would be they are not affected so much by temperature and this is kinda good even for sound.
In the 80's and 90's tubes were not longer in use in the Soviet Union (not in general, at least) and the only place with a bit larger use would be the US where the tubes were popular for hum radios because the power CMOS was extremely expensive.
Nowadays, Soviet Union derived countries do not use tubes, people in the US and UK use them for sound (high performance sound enthusiasts) and, of coarse, good ol' guitar players. Tubes are almost "banned" in Eastern Europe and have been like this for a long while. (Do not take "banned" literally.) Exception: some Marshalls in the 80's.
I, personally, have seen many tube Marshals but never played on one. A friend was a base guitar player and had one which broke and the girl of this friend fixed the Marshall which had a "cold" soldering point. A "cold" soldering point is a soldering point which looks perfectly OK but is rather hollow inside and makes a bad contact. Anyways, I ain't much too sure, but this girl was very sexy which was most important and I didn't listen very carefully to the provided explanation.
Another interesting think is I had a business idea which I wrote to a friend in the repoutable UK and got ***** back. The idea was to manufacture a tube amplifier and sell this to sound enthusiasts at a fraction of the current price. The device was supposed to be manufactured "privatelly" which stands for in a garage or a basement. (Aticks are used for rooms in the UK.) Because of the "private" manufacturing the device was to be extremely inexpensive, yet strongly advertised as the ultimate sound, much better than the transistors and was to be partly based on the invaluable knowledge I have acquired by reading the book on tubes.
Tubes are known as valves in the UK and were invented by a Brit at the end of the 1800's. This was the diode valve/tube. I do not recall but I believe an American invented the triode tube/valve at the beginning of the 1900's. Some sources give a lot or all the credit to Thomas Alva Edison who observed some kinds current while trying to invent the light bulb and wrote this as a side effect in the notebooks. What a preposterous irony. Credit is given to the same person who imposed AC in the mains to use transformers and rotate agricultural business mOchines (ABM).
Other than this, I believe the sound of the tubes can be simulated by a simple DSP as well as ASP (Analogue Signal Processing). Obviously, not always at the same power.
Another important engineering advantage which I forgot was the tubes do NOT have self induced noise. The transistors are noisy because of whatever recombinations and chaotic behaviour the electrons and holes have inside. Ingenius describers of the processes inside of the semi conductor would write a full wall of useless and probably not true in most cases formuli and prove the existance of many types of noise and reasons there for as well as the atom electron levels of Fermi and other famous and useless scientists. CMOS does not have so much self induced noise. I would explain this with the simplicity of the CMOS structure: just a canal which can be "shrunk" or "inflated" by the gate voltage. Just a single material. The purer the less noise, I'd recon. However, you are right to say: No difference what they do with silicon, silicon ain't never gonna be vaccuum.
However, tubes may be affected by the thermo electrical effect, mainly in the copper tin area, this is when the contact is not directly copper copper but copper tin copper. Transistors are soldered the same way but there ain't no so much temperature at the soldering points. The higher the temperature the higher the thermoelectric effect, this is there is voltage when two different metals touch. This voltage is higher with the temperature going higher. This effect is used in the thermocouples. Tru the metals are VERY different BUT every two metals would generate electrical voltage when touching. Obviously, some would have lower. I may be wrong but event different "types" of copper (different impurities) may have some undetectable voltage. Thermovoltage is usually DC (or very slowly changing) and may be filtered for most sound purposes, where a capacitor can be put or there is a low gain or not gain at all (1).
However, tubes are not so noisy at high temperatures whilst the self induced transistor noise is higher with higher temperature.
I wonder what they call emitter follower in tube language: Grid Follower?
Please, discuss more.
Remeber: huge power at almost no noise!
Also, some people claim the tubes need a while to warm up. So do the transistors. In transistors, however, this is called temperating, not warming up. Lower wait. Necessary when to reach a working temperature of the transistors where the parameters get stabilised to their working temperature is necessary. Mainly used in Instrumentation. In sound, I would say in high quality studio recording. One doesn't want to have changes after starting. These would be negligible anyways, though.
I was born in 1965 and the tubes weren't so much around. We had a tube black and white TV which had been working perfectly since the 50's or 40's and continued to work in the 70's. Than we had a colour TV with tubes (either fully or hybrid). This was in the 70's. Than transistors and IC's.
We also have a mono radio from the 30'3, 40's or 50's. The radio has been working perfectly and continues to do so. I used the radio as a guitar and bass guitar amplifier. Good.
Professionals used tube Marshals in the 80's.
I have never studied tubes. They were tabu. I doubt any university teaches those these days.
I read some old books from the 50's thereafter.
Here is what I know. I am not sure whether right. The only engineering disadvantage of the tubes is the inability to reach high frequencies. They are slow. The only engineering super advantage, as far as I can think of: ALMOST ZERO NOISE AT HUGE POWER. Tubes have been replaced by power CMOS which does not have the disadvantage but doesn't fully have the advantage either but, as they say, pretty close. However, the tubes as well as the CMOS went a long way. Tubes were to be much better in case of a lack of CMOS and transistors. Tubes have been neglected. They shouldn't have. Even only because they MIGHT be used largely in the future.
This idea is very strange from business point of view: cannot be done in the countries with private economy. Can be done in countries with state economy. But these were strong to reject them as dinasaurs of electronics.
Two countries strongly opposed the transistors when they appeared: US was the strongest opposer followed by the Soviet Union. The country which embraced the transistors the most strongly was Japan. Sony made the first transistor radio which was a tabu in the US. At the beginning, transistor radios were used mainly because they can be put in a pocket or a brief case. I assume the first users of transistor radios were sports fans who would listen to the speaker while watching a match. Then, they started to use them in cars and thus they became highly desirable.
The US abandoned the tubes first while the Soviet Union continued to use them for a very short time thereafter mainly in hybrids. Then the Soviet Union abandoned them with some in use in the military. Then the Soviet Union fully abandoned them while they were used in the US mainly for guitar and concert music amplifiers.
I wouldn't call military engineering engineering but the tubes have another super advantage which I would not but most would call an engineering advantage: tubes are imune not only to electromagnetic noise but to nuclear radiation too. Hence the use in the old Soviet military industry.
The immunity to radiation is because of physics, which, I think, says: a wave travels better as the density of the media is higher, hence a wave would travel better through the high density solid state transistor rather than the vaccuum. The same, nuclear radiation (I think beta) would hit the high density atoms in a solid state as opposed to vaccuum.
As a consequence of this, magic has been done in the Soviet Union with tubes. I have been told there has been a computer (simple) done fully in tiny tubes (tiny because of digital use). I am not sure whether true or not. These have been made small enough to be put in an airplane. The idea is obvious: a nuclear bomb carrier airplane would rather have tubes and thus be able to drop the load more accurately from a low altitude while the electronics will still work after the drop.
Obviously, there have been a lot of jokes with tubes, as for example, the Soviet rockets were built by tubes, etcetera. I would assume the strongest opposers to the tubes were the space engineers because of mechanical instability and high power (at least high voltage). The first rocket to carry a human flew after the invention and the use of the transistors became possible.
Another use of tubes (not exactly vaccuum) is in measurement devices, most of them for nuclear purposes, where a tube would be filled with air or a gas (gas analysers) and the current would change as depends on the chemical/nuclear components of the air/gas. The sensor would be made out of tube(s) with the rest of the electronics in IC's (or tubes for heavy nuclear). Even in these cases, the CMOS are heavy competitors: they would dope the gate of the CMOS with a reactant which would generate voltage upon exposure to a reactor.
Another advantage of the tubes would be they are not affected so much by temperature and this is kinda good even for sound.
In the 80's and 90's tubes were not longer in use in the Soviet Union (not in general, at least) and the only place with a bit larger use would be the US where the tubes were popular for hum radios because the power CMOS was extremely expensive.
Nowadays, Soviet Union derived countries do not use tubes, people in the US and UK use them for sound (high performance sound enthusiasts) and, of coarse, good ol' guitar players. Tubes are almost "banned" in Eastern Europe and have been like this for a long while. (Do not take "banned" literally.) Exception: some Marshalls in the 80's.
I, personally, have seen many tube Marshals but never played on one. A friend was a base guitar player and had one which broke and the girl of this friend fixed the Marshall which had a "cold" soldering point. A "cold" soldering point is a soldering point which looks perfectly OK but is rather hollow inside and makes a bad contact. Anyways, I ain't much too sure, but this girl was very sexy which was most important and I didn't listen very carefully to the provided explanation.
Another interesting think is I had a business idea which I wrote to a friend in the repoutable UK and got ***** back. The idea was to manufacture a tube amplifier and sell this to sound enthusiasts at a fraction of the current price. The device was supposed to be manufactured "privatelly" which stands for in a garage or a basement. (Aticks are used for rooms in the UK.) Because of the "private" manufacturing the device was to be extremely inexpensive, yet strongly advertised as the ultimate sound, much better than the transistors and was to be partly based on the invaluable knowledge I have acquired by reading the book on tubes.
Tubes are known as valves in the UK and were invented by a Brit at the end of the 1800's. This was the diode valve/tube. I do not recall but I believe an American invented the triode tube/valve at the beginning of the 1900's. Some sources give a lot or all the credit to Thomas Alva Edison who observed some kinds current while trying to invent the light bulb and wrote this as a side effect in the notebooks. What a preposterous irony. Credit is given to the same person who imposed AC in the mains to use transformers and rotate agricultural business mOchines (ABM)
.Other than this, I believe the sound of the tubes can be simulated by a simple DSP as well as ASP (Analogue Signal Processing). Obviously, not always at the same power.
Another important engineering advantage which I forgot was the tubes do NOT have self induced noise. The transistors are noisy because of whatever recombinations and chaotic behaviour the electrons and holes have inside. Ingenius describers of the processes inside of the semi conductor would write a full wall of useless and probably not true in most cases formuli and prove the existance of many types of noise and reasons there for as well as the atom electron levels of Fermi and other famous and useless scientists. CMOS does not have so much self induced noise. I would explain this with the simplicity of the CMOS structure: just a canal which can be "shrunk" or "inflated" by the gate voltage. Just a single material. The purer the less noise, I'd recon. However, you are right to say: No difference what they do with silicon, silicon ain't never gonna be vaccuum.
However, tubes may be affected by the thermo electrical effect, mainly in the copper tin area, this is when the contact is not directly copper copper but copper tin copper. Transistors are soldered the same way but there ain't no so much temperature at the soldering points. The higher the temperature the higher the thermoelectric effect, this is there is voltage when two different metals touch. This voltage is higher with the temperature going higher. This effect is used in the thermocouples. Tru the metals are VERY different BUT every two metals would generate electrical voltage when touching. Obviously, some would have lower. I may be wrong but event different "types" of copper (different impurities) may have some undetectable voltage. Thermovoltage is usually DC (or very slowly changing) and may be filtered for most sound purposes, where a capacitor can be put or there is a low gain or not gain at all (1).
However, tubes are not so noisy at high temperatures whilst the self induced transistor noise is higher with higher temperature.
I wonder what they call emitter follower in tube language: Grid Follower?
Please, discuss more.
Remeber: huge power at almost no noise!
Also, some people claim the tubes need a while to warm up. So do the transistors. In transistors, however, this is called temperating, not warming up. Lower wait. Necessary when to reach a working temperature of the transistors where the parameters get stabilised to their working temperature is necessary. Mainly used in Instrumentation. In sound, I would say in high quality studio recording. One doesn't want to have changes after starting. These would be negligible anyways, though.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.