Michael Koster said:
i don't think these are so hard to deal with.
ex: "this popular musician stated: .... about his tube-based amp" or "such and such percent of all guitar amps sold have tubes.
or "this company's product advertisement/designer states... about exploiting 'euphonic' distortion"
or find something about it in a textbook. surely there is one..
finally, i know that results of double-blind & abx tests are debated endlessly here, but they are still valid for wikipedia as data points. I'm not sure how many are published, so that's something to find out
I guess if I was putting my devils advocate hat on, I would look at how the recent edits have changed the article and it would appear to me that it says the following:
-Softness in hifi tube amps is a historical furphy arising purely as a fault of substandard coupling caps or output trannies used back in the day.
-Audiophiles or people with hifi pretensions are never deliberately adding distortions to the sound through the addition of tubes.
-The only people exploiting the distortions of tubes are muso's with guitar amps.
I realise it's far more complex than that, but to the uninformed that is the way it could be read, especially if some of the more technical content goes over your head.
As I've said, given that there are a number of standout products from the last couple of decades alone that I can rattle off that have deliberately used "tubeyness" to overcome "digitalitis" (and by this I mean purely as output stages, not cases such as the recent non oversampling and digital filtering Audionote DAC's where the valve output stage is an inherent part of the filter system) we can hardly say that it doesn't happen.
The problem with wikipedia is that instead of 5 articles by knowledgeable people on a topic expressing differing viewpoints that can be read with the knowledge of "where the author is coming from", you end up with one mishmash article that is what ends up after the arguing and edits are finished and which probably expresses no viewpoints coherently enough to be informative.
-Softness in hifi tube amps is a historical furphy arising purely as a fault of substandard coupling caps or output trannies used back in the day.
-Audiophiles or people with hifi pretensions are never deliberately adding distortions to the sound through the addition of tubes.
-The only people exploiting the distortions of tubes are muso's with guitar amps.
I realise it's far more complex than that, but to the uninformed that is the way it could be read, especially if some of the more technical content goes over your head.
As I've said, given that there are a number of standout products from the last couple of decades alone that I can rattle off that have deliberately used "tubeyness" to overcome "digitalitis" (and by this I mean purely as output stages, not cases such as the recent non oversampling and digital filtering Audionote DAC's where the valve output stage is an inherent part of the filter system) we can hardly say that it doesn't happen.
The problem with wikipedia is that instead of 5 articles by knowledgeable people on a topic expressing differing viewpoints that can be read with the knowledge of "where the author is coming from", you end up with one mishmash article that is what ends up after the arguing and edits are finished and which probably expresses no viewpoints coherently enough to be informative.
I think I see a lot of good arguments for the removal of an article that
tries to objectively discuss a subjective phenomenon (sound).
The recent edits don't help because the base concept is flawed. It's
really just more opinion (sorry Anatoliy) when it comes to sound.
What happens if you add the terms "tubeyness" and "digitalitis" to the
article ? ;-) It's "tubeyness" that the article fails to define in the first place.
I don't think the concept of "tube sound" i.e. that vacuum tubes alone
are responsible for a particular sound, will hold up to scientific scrutiny.
At best I think the article can be changed to a discussion of the technical
factors differentiating tube devices *and tube circuits with "typical"
components e.g. transformers* from BJT and MOSFET devices with
their typical circuits, discussing the potential influence on the sound,
without trying to characterize the "sound" in subjective terms such
as "soft" or "rounded", and showing some real world measurements.
Additionally, some of the psychoacoustic research can be cited, as well
as the Russell Hamm article and others that try to explain the difference
in sound tube vs transistor.
"ex: "this popular musician stated: .... about his tube-based amp" or
"such and such percent of all guitar amps sold have tubes.
or "this company's product advertisement/designer states...
about exploiting 'euphonic' distortion"
or find something about it in a textbook. surely there is one..
finally, i know that results of double-blind & abx tests are debated
endlessly here, but they are still valid for wikipedia as data points.
I'm not sure how many are published, so that's something to find out"
None of these examples are verifiable facts about "tube sound".
"Advertizer states" is about as far from fact as you can get. Percent
of amps sold says nothing about the sound. There is apparently
nothing in any textbook; why is that, do you suppose? I don't
consider these "data points". Opinion is not data (even in audio)
Cheers!!!
Michael
tries to objectively discuss a subjective phenomenon (sound).
The recent edits don't help because the base concept is flawed. It's
really just more opinion (sorry Anatoliy) when it comes to sound.
What happens if you add the terms "tubeyness" and "digitalitis" to the
article ? ;-) It's "tubeyness" that the article fails to define in the first place.
I don't think the concept of "tube sound" i.e. that vacuum tubes alone
are responsible for a particular sound, will hold up to scientific scrutiny.
At best I think the article can be changed to a discussion of the technical
factors differentiating tube devices *and tube circuits with "typical"
components e.g. transformers* from BJT and MOSFET devices with
their typical circuits, discussing the potential influence on the sound,
without trying to characterize the "sound" in subjective terms such
as "soft" or "rounded", and showing some real world measurements.
Additionally, some of the psychoacoustic research can be cited, as well
as the Russell Hamm article and others that try to explain the difference
in sound tube vs transistor.
"ex: "this popular musician stated: .... about his tube-based amp" or
"such and such percent of all guitar amps sold have tubes.
or "this company's product advertisement/designer states...
about exploiting 'euphonic' distortion"
or find something about it in a textbook. surely there is one..
finally, i know that results of double-blind & abx tests are debated
endlessly here, but they are still valid for wikipedia as data points.
I'm not sure how many are published, so that's something to find out"
None of these examples are verifiable facts about "tube sound".
"Advertizer states" is about as far from fact as you can get. Percent
of amps sold says nothing about the sound. There is apparently
nothing in any textbook; why is that, do you suppose? I don't
consider these "data points". Opinion is not data (even in audio)
Cheers!!!
Michael
"finally, i know that results of double-blind & abx tests are debated endlessly here, but they are still valid for wikipedia as data points. I'm not sure how many are published, so that's something to find out"
I heard that Bob Carver made a little box that fooled a number of
audio reviewers into thinking a transistor amp was a tube amp.
The box went between the amp's output terminals and the speaker
and simulated the output impedance of a tube amp.
If this experiment is documented, or others like it, there may be
some evidence to explain some differences in sound between
"typical" tube amps and "typical" transistor amps.
I guess what it comes down to is "tube sound" does exist at least
in the minds of people, so a factual article may be useful. It may
end up being more of a debunking of tube sound per se, at the same
time providing some clues as to why such a concept emerged. Facts
could be presented to explain why tube substitution could impact
sound, why some musicians may prefer tube guitar amps (myself
included), etc. and why the typical tube amplifier might sound different
from the typical transistor amp.
What people think is also relevant, it just needs to be clearly presented
as opinion. Sould we write an article on capacitor sound and state
that auricaps are tizzy? ;-) We could use posts on AA as references ;-) ;-)
Would the deletionists still delete if concrete examples and good
references are presented? If it's clear that the changes make the
article more objective and factual?
I heard that Bob Carver made a little box that fooled a number of
audio reviewers into thinking a transistor amp was a tube amp.
The box went between the amp's output terminals and the speaker
and simulated the output impedance of a tube amp.
If this experiment is documented, or others like it, there may be
some evidence to explain some differences in sound between
"typical" tube amps and "typical" transistor amps.
I guess what it comes down to is "tube sound" does exist at least
in the minds of people, so a factual article may be useful. It may
end up being more of a debunking of tube sound per se, at the same
time providing some clues as to why such a concept emerged. Facts
could be presented to explain why tube substitution could impact
sound, why some musicians may prefer tube guitar amps (myself
included), etc. and why the typical tube amplifier might sound different
from the typical transistor amp.
What people think is also relevant, it just needs to be clearly presented
as opinion. Sould we write an article on capacitor sound and state
that auricaps are tizzy? ;-) We could use posts on AA as references ;-) ;-)
Would the deletionists still delete if concrete examples and good
references are presented? If it's clear that the changes make the
article more objective and factual?
I'm not trying to steer the thread in another direction, but I'm wondering why this statement keeps popping up from time to time. The best material for audio transformers is still Mu-Metal which was formulated in the 1930s. The most common material used for audio transformers today is grain-oriented silicon steel which was also developed in the 1930s. If anyone wants to discuss this further, maybe a new thread is in order.
John
Generally speaking, amorphous cores are considered a more economical substitute for Permalloy and Mu Metal, not necessarily better performing. Lundahl was offering them as a low cost alternative to their Mu Metal pro-audio transformers long before the amorphous output transformer craze came along. Certainly they outperform GOSS, but I'm not so sure about the Permalloys.
John
About quadratic transconductance of tubes
Although the AES paper by Geddes & Lee is very interesting and otherwise notable, I could not find how it speaks for this claim (from Wikipedia): "Some audiophiles have argued that the quadratic transconductance of tubes compared with the exponential transconductance of transistors is an important factor. This has been proven..." That paper is about Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion, as you see: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_II.pdf It is not about comparing tubes vs. transistors.
I refer to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tube_sound&diff=304963121&oldid=304529998
Wavebourn said:
My corrections were called "vandalism" and were deleted, including a reference of AES paper.
Although the AES paper by Geddes & Lee is very interesting and otherwise notable, I could not find how it speaks for this claim (from Wikipedia): "Some audiophiles have argued that the quadratic transconductance of tubes compared with the exponential transconductance of transistors is an important factor. This has been proven..." That paper is about Auditory Perception of Nonlinear Distortion, as you see: http://www.gedlee.com/downloads/Distortion_AES_II.pdf It is not about comparing tubes vs. transistors.
I refer to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tube_sound&diff=304963121&oldid=304529998
Re: About quadratic transconductance of tubes
Sue, it has nothing in common with my words that meant that the point is not in additional errors, but in absence of more audible errors, and in order to prove that some errors are more audible, some are less audible, I posted the link on that AES paper.
Anyway, I am out. The article is wildly biased and incompetent; it tries to convince people as if there is some tube sound that means some additional distortions that some people prefer to have, while non-tube sound means absence of such tube-specific distortions, that is the total b$%^&*t, and I don't want to participate in it anymore. I tried, but instead of saying "Thank you for your valuable contribution" I got called Vandal.
Nikolas Ojala said:
Sue, it has nothing in common with my words that meant that the point is not in additional errors, but in absence of more audible errors, and in order to prove that some errors are more audible, some are less audible, I posted the link on that AES paper.
Anyway, I am out. The article is wildly biased and incompetent; it tries to convince people as if there is some tube sound that means some additional distortions that some people prefer to have, while non-tube sound means absence of such tube-specific distortions, that is the total b$%^&*t, and I don't want to participate in it anymore. I tried, but instead of saying "Thank you for your valuable contribution" I got called Vandal.
BTW, can Russell O. Hamm's article even be considered a valid reference?
Even when published the article received a lot of controversial critique and I think many issues presented within it got debunked. I think statements based on this particular reference should be removed from the Wikipedia article - or at least there should be a note pointing out the obvious errors and shortcomings of Hamm's paper.
Even when published the article received a lot of controversial critique and I think many issues presented within it got debunked. I think statements based on this particular reference should be removed from the Wikipedia article - or at least there should be a note pointing out the obvious errors and shortcomings of Hamm's paper.
teemuk said:
I see even more evidence that the entire article should be deleted.
Not trying to vouch for the Hamm paper, but your quote above has no attribution :-( which is another indicator... that...
It's all a bunch of opinion, folks! There is not even any commonly-
agreed-upon theory
Michael
Transistor sound
The first and original version of the article said simply:
That was on October 2001.
Isn't the term "transistor sound" older than "tube sound", the former meaning a characteristic sound of early Class B and Class AB transistor amplifiers with annoying crossover distortion and transient intermodulation distortion?
The first and original version of the article said simply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tube_sound&oldid=293691
That was on October 2001.
Isn't the term "transistor sound" older than "tube sound", the former meaning a characteristic sound of early Class B and Class AB transistor amplifiers with annoying crossover distortion and transient intermodulation distortion?
Re: Transistor sound
That was on October 2001.
That was the first act of vandalism ;-)
I guess before there was transistor sound there was either live sound
or amplified sound.
OK, I'll come clean with my bias. "Tube sound" is a concept that was
invented to sell transistors in one case and sell tube guitar amps in
another. It's a marketing concept. (Transformers are also bashed as
inferior, distortion-producing components.)
However...
A quick scan of the most recent posts on this board has 2 articles
right at the top where the OP wants desireable distortion from tubes...
Michael
Nikolas Ojala said:
That was on October 2001.
That was the first act of vandalism ;-)
I guess before there was transistor sound there was either live sound
or amplified sound.
OK, I'll come clean with my bias. "Tube sound" is a concept that was
invented to sell transistors in one case and sell tube guitar amps in
another. It's a marketing concept. (Transformers are also bashed as
inferior, distortion-producing components.)
However...
A quick scan of the most recent posts on this board has 2 articles
right at the top where the OP wants desireable distortion from tubes...
Michael
Found some truth in a past revision
"However, today, valve amplifiers (at least for Hi-Fi applications) are mostly the preserve of extremists and consequently the subject is hotly debated among its enthusiasts, sometimes on the level of religious schisms."
;-)
Going through the revision history is interesting. Some folks clearly have a lot
of investment in this (not a hint of irony in his voice...)
BTW, vandalism examples are like when in 2008 someone went in and
changed occurrences of the word "audiophile" to "retard"
Much of the current content was created in Jan-March 2006 by a contributor
who has since been banned for sockpuppet abuse
Looks to me like a lot of folks are trying to put in a bunch of design
information and specs, etc. but no one has yet tied any of it to a
characteristic sound of tubes. Yet everyone knows...
The first line can not be shown to be true:
"Tube sound (or valve sound) is the characteristic sound associated with a vacuum tube-based audio amplifiers."
The rest is a futile attempt to polish the opening turd.
Who needs an encyclopedia article about what some people think.
"However, today, valve amplifiers (at least for Hi-Fi applications) are mostly the preserve of extremists and consequently the subject is hotly debated among its enthusiasts, sometimes on the level of religious schisms."
;-)
Going through the revision history is interesting. Some folks clearly have a lot
of investment in this (not a hint of irony in his voice...)
BTW, vandalism examples are like when in 2008 someone went in and
changed occurrences of the word "audiophile" to "retard"
Much of the current content was created in Jan-March 2006 by a contributor
who has since been banned for sockpuppet abuse
Looks to me like a lot of folks are trying to put in a bunch of design
information and specs, etc. but no one has yet tied any of it to a
characteristic sound of tubes. Yet everyone knows...
The first line can not be shown to be true:
"Tube sound (or valve sound) is the characteristic sound associated with a vacuum tube-based audio amplifiers."
The rest is a futile attempt to polish the opening turd.
Who needs an encyclopedia article about what some people think.
Not entirely BS.
True. I don't know is it more sad than hilarious.DrewP said:
No it is not entirely BS. Read it through and you will find some gems, although not many. I would not mind if all the unsourced BS was deleted, but as well the good parts should be saved. If the good parts are not enough to form a Tube sound article, then they could be transferred to other articles, thus improving them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.