Re: Not entirely BS.
The problem would seem to be that when anyone who is informed on the topic attempts to correct it or and add more facts, it gets reverted to being largely the opinion piece again.
By wikipedia rules requiring proper references for all claims made the original article should never have been allowed at all.
Fine tuning a wikipedia reference should be about just that "fine tuning" and adding even more precise info to an already well written, coherent and factual piece of information.
At present with this article people are trying to undo a train wreck.
Nikolas Ojala said:
The problem would seem to be that when anyone who is informed on the topic attempts to correct it or and add more facts, it gets reverted to being largely the opinion piece again.
By wikipedia rules requiring proper references for all claims made the original article should never have been allowed at all.
Fine tuning a wikipedia reference should be about just that "fine tuning" and adding even more precise info to an already well written, coherent and factual piece of information.
At present with this article people are trying to undo a train wreck.
Learn to do it right
But if you add anything (even a small sentence) and you know it is true, then you should know the source and refer to it. Then deletionists can do nothing to it.
What there is BS (and yes there is) it can be deleted. Deleting some BS is not vandalism. It is just cleaning, removal of some unsourced BS. The deletionists know this rule and they are especially harsh following it.DrewP said:
But if you add anything (even a small sentence) and you know it is true, then you should know the source and refer to it. Then deletionists can do nothing to it.
Must have a good attitude before editing
Being informed is not enough. The trick is to edit the article better than the deletionists do. (Those creatures think that they are heroes saving the Wikipedia from inclusionists and other freaks.)
It happened anyway and now the article exists. But there is a great possibility that the article evolves to some other direction than the original writer thought.
DrewP said:
Being informed is not enough. The trick is to edit the article better than the deletionists do. (Those creatures think that they are heroes saving the Wikipedia from inclusionists and other freaks.)
DrewP said:
It happened anyway and now the article exists. But there is a great possibility that the article evolves to some other direction than the original writer thought.
Evolution or revolution?
Anyway the article seems to have been improved/evolved a bit by bit.
I have been told that camels are favorite animals in dry deserts.
Anyway the article seems to have been improved/evolved a bit by bit.
I don't think the Wikipedia entry on tube sound makes an adequate distinction regarding the differences between why audiophiles prefer tube sound (lack of solid state nonlinearities) and why musicians prefer tubes (euphonic clipping and distortion, power supply characteristics).
The result makes the reader tend to believe everybody who prefers tubes does so for their presumed distortions.
The result makes the reader tend to believe everybody who prefers tubes does so for their presumed distortions.
Last edited:
Not protecting
I don't protect the article: I'd like to see improvement. Protecting means "hands off" – not development. Also I do not defend the (annoying) editing style of Binksternet or other deletionists. But their existence and "contributions" (which means they delete what others write) in Wikipedia are reality. I have noticed that the only way to beat them is by superior quality in facts, references and grammar.
Suppose that the article did not exist. So someone could write it. It could become anything. But anyway that happened in 2006. After that there were two possible ways: Either traverse the meaning of tube sound and purge the whole article or improve what there is.
I don't protect the article: I'd like to see improvement. Protecting means "hands off" – not development. Also I do not defend the (annoying) editing style of Binksternet or other deletionists. But their existence and "contributions" (which means they delete what others write) in Wikipedia are reality. I have noticed that the only way to beat them is by superior quality in facts, references and grammar.
Ive noticed a lot of sources for references on wikipedia aren't all that great either. So, someone just throw together a couple of websites stating what you think, then edit the wiki article, and reference your websites.
That begun on 2001
Things to do in the designing of an amplifier:
1) Avoid the worst kinds of distortions and interferences.
2) Accept the fact that your gadget will not be perfect.
Make such amplifier with tubes. There you have it: Tube sound.
Maybe he got an inspiration from the events that happened on previous month.
Things to do in the designing of an amplifier:
1) Avoid the worst kinds of distortions and interferences.
2) Accept the fact that your gadget will not be perfect.
Make such amplifier with tubes. There you have it: Tube sound.
It is mostly fair. I would object if the article were filled with subjective descriptions of the sound. IT is not.
One thing I'd do is make an even larger distinction between tube instrument amplifiers and tube HiFi amps. With HiFi the difference is sound is subtle at best. But a tube amp used with a guitar is obvious even in my 20 year old truck's stock factory radio.
The reason is that all HiFi amps are designed with the goal of very low distortion so the differences between ANY two good HiFi amps is small. However guitar amps can run at well over 100% THD. Even a jazz player who has a clean sound might be running at 15% or so THD, if you were to measure it.
THis distinction between music production and music reproduction would be a minor point if it were not for the fact that the overwhelming majority of all tube amps made as musical instrument amplifiers that depend on driving tubes into distortion.
The article is significantly improved on the original tripe that was there, but it is still trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear.
The original tripe should never have been allowed to stand, it was little more than subjective opinion, and largely ill informed at that.
Heck, a Nelson Pass Zen amp with zero feedback doesn't sound like most SS amps either. Frankly it's a stupid article penned by someone who was of the opinion that tubes sounded wooly due to distortion...
The original tripe should never have been allowed to stand, it was little more than subjective opinion, and largely ill informed at that.
Heck, a Nelson Pass Zen amp with zero feedback doesn't sound like most SS amps either. Frankly it's a stupid article penned by someone who was of the opinion that tubes sounded wooly due to distortion...
Got a link? You can't really modify the Wiki without a good solid source to reference.
BTW, I'm skeptical because a guitar has no sound below about 80Hz (this would be the low open E string) A few amps might have overloadable transformers but I bet many would clip the signal before overloading the OPT.
If you have a link I'll read it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.