Wikipedia article: Tube sound - Page 5 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Amplifiers > Tubes / Valves

Tubes / Valves All about our sweet vacuum tubes :) Threads about Musical Instrument Amps of all kinds should be in the Instruments & Amps forum

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 31st July 2009, 05:02 PM   #41
Evaas is offline Evaas  Canada
diyAudio Member
 
Evaas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Montreal QC
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Koster



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.

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
__________________
-roomatthebottom
  Reply With Quote
Old 31st July 2009, 09:46 PM   #42
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 04:08 PM   #43
diyAudio Member
 
Michael Koster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Eureka, CA
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
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 05:46 PM   #44
diyAudio Member
 
Michael Koster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Eureka, CA
"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?
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 09:11 PM   #45
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Quote:
Originally posted by Michael Koster

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?
My corrections were called "vandalism" and were deleted, including a reference of AES paper.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 09:35 PM   #46
jlsem is offline jlsem  United States
diyAudio Member
 
jlsem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas,TX
Quote:
It is true that the quality of magnetic materials for transformers was not good as today but this was not a problem at all.
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
__________________
When an LP gets scratched it still makes sense; when CDs crack up they go completely senile and gibber incontinently. - Hugo Williams
  Reply With Quote
Old 1st August 2009, 10:05 PM   #47
KSTR is offline KSTR  Germany
diyAudio Member
 
KSTR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Central Berlin, Germany
Never heard of amorphous cores?
  Reply With Quote
Old 2nd August 2009, 01:45 AM   #48
jlsem is offline jlsem  United States
diyAudio Member
 
jlsem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dallas,TX
Quote:
Never heard of amorphous cores?
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
__________________
When an LP gets scratched it still makes sense; when CDs crack up they go completely senile and gibber incontinently. - Hugo Williams
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2009, 07:01 PM   #49
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Arrow About quadratic transconductance of tubes

Quote:
Originally posted by Wavebourn


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?...ldid=304529998
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 7th August 2009, 07:07 PM   #50
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Default Re: About quadratic transconductance of tubes

Quote:
Originally posted by Nikolas Ojala


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?...ldid=304529998
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.
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wikipedia Article on "Tube Sound" sardonx Everything Else 6 19th August 2013 02:28 PM
Tube microphonics (article) tomchr Tubes / Valves 5 23rd August 2009 05:03 PM
Tube article in EDN FrankDIY Tubes / Valves 5 15th April 2003 09:58 PM
Old article on Stereophile and The Absolutr Sound A'af Swap Meet 0 23rd August 2002 01:17 PM
Tube article HarryHaller Tubes / Valves 13 5th April 2002 04:41 PM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2