Wikipedia article: Tube sound - Page 7 - 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 9th August 2009, 04:52 PM   #61
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Come on... Gems in BS... Who need them?
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2009, 09:32 PM   #62
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canberra, Australia
Default Re: Not entirely BS.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nikolas Ojala

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.
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.
  Reply With Quote
Old 9th August 2009, 10:00 PM   #63
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Thumbs up Learn to do it right

Quote:
Originally posted by DrewP


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.

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.

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.
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2009, 01:15 AM   #64
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Arrow Must have a good attitude before editing

Quote:
Originally posted by DrewP

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.
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.)

Quote:
Originally posted by DrewP

By wikipedia rules requiring proper references for all claims made the original article should never have been allowed at all.

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.
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 13th August 2009, 02:12 AM   #65
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
Default Re: Must have a good attitude before editing

Quote:
Originally posted by Nikolas Ojala


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.
There is an old Russian saying, "A camel is actually a horse designed by a big collectivity".
__________________
The Devil is not so terrible as his math model is!
  Reply With Quote
Old 24th August 2009, 12:59 AM   #66
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Arrow Evolution or revolution?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wavebourn View Post
There is an old Russian saying, "A camel is actually a horse designed by a big collectivity".
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.
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 27th August 2009, 02:31 PM   #67
diyAudio Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: flyover country
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.

Last edited by thoriated; 27th August 2009 at 02:33 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 28th August 2009, 04:03 AM   #68
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Thumbs up So much to do

Quote:
Originally Posted by thoriated View Post
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.
I agree. There are many reasons to improve the article.
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 5th September 2009, 10:48 PM   #69
diyAudio Member
 
Nikolas Ojala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
I think that the greatest effort is needed for finding some mostly old and also few new (scientific) articles that justify your claims. Knowing things is not enough. You must also show the citation and where the article is.
__________________
High-order harmonics are more offensive than low.
  Reply With Quote
Old 6th September 2009, 12:13 AM   #70
diyAudio Member
 
Wavebourn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Pleasant Hill, CA
Send a message via Skype™ to Wavebourn
A first, some proof is needed to justify that b**t called "Tube Sound Article" in Wikipedia you are trying to protect and promote.
  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 09:34 PM.


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