I once tried to contribute to the article. My contributions were called "vandalism" and deleted.
Here is one more picture worth the article authors:
Attachments
Wavebourn, you have my deepest sympathy. I've had the same experience and no longer try to help there. It seems to be a mini fiefdom where the main contributors for each subject enjoy the rare ability to be a big fish. But my own view is its just a bunch of tiny little isolated ponds with the biggest of the tiny fish in them getting the rewarding feeling of being a big fish. Something like what Einstein described: dwarfs on stilts.
Whose article?
Well... It is not my article.
If you want to contribute with that picture, upload it to Wikimedia Commons.
Well... It is not my article.
If you want to contribute with that picture, upload it to Wikimedia Commons.
All tube amplifiers?
Who said anything about all tube amplifiers?
Isn't it satisfactory that the so-called transistor sound was coined from the fact that early class B transistor amplifiers produced terrible crossover distortion, although modern transistor amplifiers are not like them?
The term tube sound was coined later, when transistor amplifiers became mainstream.
I think that tube sound is not anything about all tube amplifiers. Instead it is something that ordinary people listened and heard from their ordinary tube amplifiers.
Marketing dudes thought that almost zero output impedance was something that would prove the superiority of transistor amplifiers they were selling, compared to old tube amplifiers with the always heavy and expensive output transformers.
Marketing will use anything they think that is beneficial to their sales. If they think that radium will make your teeth shine, they say it loud and try to sell you radiumized toothpaste.
So, low output impedance and (who ever invented that) high damping factor were the tools in the hands of marketing people.
Then decades later appeared articles and at least one book about how low output impedance is not so desirable. Less audible distortion can be achieved with higher output impedance.
Who said anything about all tube amplifiers?
Isn't it satisfactory that the so-called transistor sound was coined from the fact that early class B transistor amplifiers produced terrible crossover distortion, although modern transistor amplifiers are not like them?
The term tube sound was coined later, when transistor amplifiers became mainstream.
I think that tube sound is not anything about all tube amplifiers. Instead it is something that ordinary people listened and heard from their ordinary tube amplifiers.
Marketing dudes thought that almost zero output impedance was something that would prove the superiority of transistor amplifiers they were selling, compared to old tube amplifiers with the always heavy and expensive output transformers.
Marketing will use anything they think that is beneficial to their sales. If they think that radium will make your teeth shine, they say it loud and try to sell you radiumized toothpaste.
So, low output impedance and (who ever invented that) high damping factor were the tools in the hands of marketing people.
Then decades later appeared articles and at least one book about how low output impedance is not so desirable. Less audible distortion can be achieved with higher output impedance.
Source: Meriläinen, Esa (2010). "5.7 The Secret of Tube Amplifiers". Current-Driving of Loudspeakers. Createspace. pp. 111–112. ISBN 1-4505-4400-2.
Dunno, DF. As you and a handful of others by now know, I tend to write long responses here, sometimes full of potato chips (wrong theory, poor reading skills on my part, etc.), and sometimes full of good stuff. However, I'ven't published a lick in decades.
The “academician's position” is that such unpublished notions are no more respectable than heresay found in the National Enquirer regarding being abducted by space aliens. Yet, were I to fry up the same tripe and get it published, if even in a blogger's "journal" … then I could cite that and get such tripe accepted by the academician's Wikipedia rules for authenticity.
As you say: it seems like a hopelessly harsh measure of authenticity, especially in this world where people can think still, and those that do aren't exactly limited to the vaunted (or flaunted) few that turn up in published journals.
Here's the dunno part: On the other hand, in order to keep Wikipedia from becoming a hugely contested conglomeration of claptrap, opinion, historic revisionism, remixed plagiarism, and downright nicely-canned hatred and misdirection, what exactly might they have as 'rules of engagement'?
Citations seem like a modest, achievable and pretty non-selective barrier-to-entry. Such a hurdle at least nominally requires the author of 'stuff' to find someplace where similar-or-identical 'stuff' is written up. Would us here, garrulous gargoyles of incessant opinionated discourse … qualify as 'citation' material? Or does it always have to be a “Journal of Responsible Sounding Purpose”?
Hard to say.
Worth discussing tho', especially as we're heading to Internet 3.0
GoatGuy
There is a difference, when links are being selected by people who know, VS links selected by ignorant theoreticians who instead of theory are full of myths. If the later one creates own Wiki article he filters out everything that contradicts his misunderstandings requiring the proof that he is ignorant that can never be offered selecting external links. He does not understand basics, so all that is obvious for people who knows is unproven claim for him.
It is exactly the case.
It is exactly the case.
Well, I think the most relevant aspect of how Wikipedia feels like to people with knowledge and intelligence who want to contribute has little to do with the technical requirements for knowledge dissemination. There is that need for citations, but the way it FEELS to most would be contributors, (I'm not talking about people who don't know what they don't know) is that it is now dominated by an artificial social hierarchy. This is about people with the wherewithal to stick out an argument in terms of using their own time to win the argument, regardless of merit. These are people that you remember as a kid that always required the last word regardless of the inanity of the subject. And it's the same mentality.
They are into "power" and it seems to me in most cases, not all, they are being petty in the use of citations to enforce it and use it to make knowledgable contributors feel small. There is no excuse whatsoever to brandish the term "vandalism" in the pursuit of knowledge. That's totally irresponsible 95% of the time they use it. They used it against me also for the most minor of their imagined offenses. Usually the offense is non-beligerently just telling it like it is in the face of someone who has something fundamentally wrong.
They are into "power" and it seems to me in most cases, not all, they are being petty in the use of citations to enforce it and use it to make knowledgable contributors feel small. There is no excuse whatsoever to brandish the term "vandalism" in the pursuit of knowledge. That's totally irresponsible 95% of the time they use it. They used it against me also for the most minor of their imagined offenses. Usually the offense is non-beligerently just telling it like it is in the face of someone who has something fundamentally wrong.
Last edited:
Robots do much of the cleaning
Wavebourn, did you notice that it was a robot that deleted your latest contribution? The robot did not analyse what you actually tried to say. Instead it analysed how you expressed it, did a quick logical decision and reverted your contribution.
See: User talk:ClueBot Commons
Wavebourn, did you notice that it was a robot that deleted your latest contribution? The robot did not analyse what you actually tried to say. Instead it analysed how you expressed it, did a quick logical decision and reverted your contribution.
See: User talk:ClueBot Commons
Who writes this tripe? I do like the picture of the RS242 tubes... Complete with "Iron Eagles" printed on the tubes. That picture alone sums up the competency of the whole article. Note that the picture is under the heading of "Tube sound enthusiasts". Must be a subliminal thing... Funny!
Last edited:
About the article
If you mean the Wikipedia article...
If you mean the Wikipedia article...
- It was created on 2001-10-30.
- There have been 1076 edits.
- The number of editors is unknown but you may try to count.
Divide 1,076 by number of letters in the article and you would get a number of rejected attempts to add some meaning to the "article"
Seems like Wiki P should allow for some form of provisional edits, where differing opinions could be expressed in a box or something (using a footnoted link to the article end), and readers could vote on the status (in favor, neutral, or against).
If the voting stays above some % favorable threshold, or strongly neutral, the provisional status would be maintained. If the voting is highly favorable, then it could be incorporated into the mainline text. An if none of the above, it would expire after some time limit, or be relegated to some accessible "junk" bin for those interested in differing opinions (might be a storage problem).
That way, controversial subjects or issues could illuminate the full flavor of the discussion, without everything shrinking down to some narrow rigid dogma.
Some provision would likely be needed to disregard huge voting blocks localized in time, especially for politically sensitive articles (via robot attack or Put-rin or Kim-Dong-Un, like, ordered gangsta attacks). Maybe make votes expire after some variable time span. (ie, the faster the votes come in, the faster they expire or get weighted less, ie, assumed unreliable)
If the voting stays above some % favorable threshold, or strongly neutral, the provisional status would be maintained. If the voting is highly favorable, then it could be incorporated into the mainline text. An if none of the above, it would expire after some time limit, or be relegated to some accessible "junk" bin for those interested in differing opinions (might be a storage problem).
That way, controversial subjects or issues could illuminate the full flavor of the discussion, without everything shrinking down to some narrow rigid dogma.
Some provision would likely be needed to disregard huge voting blocks localized in time, especially for politically sensitive articles (via robot attack or Put-rin or Kim-Dong-Un, like, ordered gangsta attacks). Maybe make votes expire after some variable time span. (ie, the faster the votes come in, the faster they expire or get weighted less, ie, assumed unreliable)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.