Re: Re: Burden of evidence
There are plenty of rules in Wikipedia and here is one of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
When ever you find a suspicious and unsourced claim in a Wiki article, you may demand sources. Add a tag and that's enough for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify
Wavebourn said:
There are plenty of rules in Wikipedia and here is one of them:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
When ever you find a suspicious and unsourced claim in a Wiki article, you may demand sources. Add a tag and that's enough for a while:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Fact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_clarify
Re: Re: Burden of evidence
The trouble is that there are a lot of lazy engineers who have learned that musicians like valves for the distortion they produce when overdriven, so they assume that Hi-Fi people like them for the same reason. Trying to tell such people that valves are linear is just bashing your head against a wall. Been there, done that.
Wavebourn said:
The trouble is that there are a lot of lazy engineers who have learned that musicians like valves for the distortion they produce when overdriven, so they assume that Hi-Fi people like them for the same reason. Trying to tell such people that valves are linear is just bashing your head against a wall. Been there, done that.
Re: Re: Re: Burden of evidence
Yesterday in SS forum RocketScientist advertised LM4562 as the best solution for audio, and tried to make a fun of me telling that he respect people who love tubes because they add euphonic distortions, but he himself prefers a clean sound that's why he does not try tubes, but he knows that they are not clean.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1889883#post1889883
EC8010 said:
Yesterday in SS forum RocketScientist advertised LM4562 as the best solution for audio, and tried to make a fun of me telling that he respect people who love tubes because they add euphonic distortions, but he himself prefers a clean sound that's why he does not try tubes, but he knows that they are not clean.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1889883#post1889883
Would be worth another edit to tweak the Harmonic Content and Distortion section where it is stated that push pull apmplifiers produce no second harmonic distortion. Certainly a characteristic of the output stage is that it cancels second harmonic distortion being produced there, however no output stage can remove second harmonics produced earlier in the circuit in either gain stages or phase splitters.
I'm not versed with wiki editing so I'll leave it to those of you dablling in this one if you choose fit to do so.
I'm not versed with wiki editing so I'll leave it to those of you dablling in this one if you choose fit to do so.
The deletionists are out there
Look, I am not one of the deletionists of Wikipedia, but I friendly warned you that they exist.
Wavebourn said:
I can do that, but I'm afraid I will be asked again to provide references to support my point of view. Like, "Give me a reference to prove that a water feels wet!"
Look, I am not one of the deletionists of Wikipedia, but I friendly warned you that they exist.
I recommend this
I disagree and I have a better idea. I'll explain:
Wavebourn said:
I disagree and I have a better idea. I'll explain:
- Find paragraphs or sentences that are nonsense, outright lies or dubious.
- See if they are without sources, like they usually are.
- Tag those dubious sentences with appropriate tags.
- Give the original contributors some time (like month or two) to find the asked sources. Probably they won't find, but it is nice to give them some time.
- What was left without sources, delete or otherwise correct them.
- See if someone is not happy. Discuss about changes.
[/list=1] That is the way of contributing I recommend.
Re: Re: Would you?
This is the cue; a famous grammy award engineer/designer made fame from producing studio consoles which used transformers for both in and out. quote " they rounded the sound off". So it would seem equal competition for either tube/valve or solid state HiFi amp design on the conditions that a signal or output transformer is used in the design. Unfortunately several decades of solid state amp design avoided iron and in most cases their distortion signature is often lower than a valve/tube amp but somehow the sound, sounds different.
Eh ? true. It's all in that silicon iron.
2nd harmonic thd isn't objectionable, below 100Hz it gives more artifical bass for smaller speakers.
richy
45 said:
This is the cue; a famous grammy award engineer/designer made fame from producing studio consoles which used transformers for both in and out. quote " they rounded the sound off". So it would seem equal competition for either tube/valve or solid state HiFi amp design on the conditions that a signal or output transformer is used in the design. Unfortunately several decades of solid state amp design avoided iron and in most cases their distortion signature is often lower than a valve/tube amp but somehow the sound, sounds different.
Eh ? true. It's all in that silicon iron.
2nd harmonic thd isn't objectionable, below 100Hz it gives more artifical bass for smaller speakers.
richy
They really do.
I see. That's what deletionists usually do.
Birds fly, fish swim, horses run, scorpions sting and deletionists delete.
Wavebourn said:Heh-heh...
Binksternet (talk | contribs) m (31,905 bytes) (Reverted 9 edits by 76.239.177.86 identified as vandalism to last revision by Uikku.
As you may see, the article again is concentrated on "specific distortions added by tubes".
I see. That's what deletionists usually do.
Birds fly, fish swim, horses run, scorpions sting and deletionists delete.
Is it possible to delete the entire article as it is based on an unproven
and unprovable premise, i.e. that vacuum tubes have "a sound"?
Then we can write an article on "transistor sound" full of citations of
what "some people say" ;-)
Really it should just be deleted... It's an editorial, in other words it's
an opinion piece!
PS I have another idea. I can set up a microphone in a quiet room and
record thwacking an Eimac 4-65A, making a nice hollow ringing sound.
We can then replace the entire article with an example of a real tube sound.
and unprovable premise, i.e. that vacuum tubes have "a sound"?
Then we can write an article on "transistor sound" full of citations of
what "some people say" ;-)
Really it should just be deleted... It's an editorial, in other words it's
an opinion piece!
PS I have another idea. I can set up a microphone in a quiet room and
record thwacking an Eimac 4-65A, making a nice hollow ringing sound.
We can then replace the entire article with an example of a real tube sound.
The other thing worth consideration is that in a number of cases, the euphony of "tube sound" has been deliberately exploited in order to modify the behavior of hifi equipment (the main cases I can think of being to warm the sound of digital hardware).
Examples include the Luxman mid fi CD players of the early 1990's (I think there were three in the series) the Musical Fidelity CDT "Frog" CD player, I think the California Audio Labs Tempest CD would also qualify.
Much as we'd like to claim it ain't so, some audio products use specific aspects of the non accurate behaviour of tubes used in a certain configuration to add "tube sound".
Heck, anyone who has spent time tube rolling between brands or swapping similar based output tubes to balance the sound of an amp to their particular tastes is using "tube sound". If we're purely tube rolling, we can't claim that the audible changes come as a result of the circuit topology, because that's one thing we aren't changing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement that the original article was a travesty of half informed opinion masquerading as fact and is probably better off in the bin as it adds little to nothing to the global knowledge pool, but there are a few nuggets of truth about "tube sound" (egads, even the term sounds deeply flawed!) in there.
Examples include the Luxman mid fi CD players of the early 1990's (I think there were three in the series) the Musical Fidelity CDT "Frog" CD player, I think the California Audio Labs Tempest CD would also qualify.
Much as we'd like to claim it ain't so, some audio products use specific aspects of the non accurate behaviour of tubes used in a certain configuration to add "tube sound".
Heck, anyone who has spent time tube rolling between brands or swapping similar based output tubes to balance the sound of an amp to their particular tastes is using "tube sound". If we're purely tube rolling, we can't claim that the audible changes come as a result of the circuit topology, because that's one thing we aren't changing.
Don't get me wrong, I'm in agreement that the original article was a travesty of half informed opinion masquerading as fact and is probably better off in the bin as it adds little to nothing to the global knowledge pool, but there are a few nuggets of truth about "tube sound" (egads, even the term sounds deeply flawed!) in there.
DrewP said:
I don't think the truth nuggets can be separated from the moose nuggets; even if one were successful there would not be much of an
article left to stand on it's own.
"Some guitarists prefer the sound of tube amps and they describe it
as follows:"
"some designers have used tubes to add obvious sound coloration to
their products"
"In some circuits, some tubes sound different from others"
Very similar assertions may be made about transistors.
I thought Wikipedia was supposed to contain helpful facts.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.