1. My experience is that most books about tubes are written by engineers.
2. Engineers think that they have produced an insightful clarification if they translate the operation of a schematic or component into a mathematical model.
3. This is a mistake and it does not lead to any enlightenment if you are yourself not an engineer too.
4. So I don't read any books written by engineers because it is a waste of money and leads to frustation and thus to a shorter lifetime expectancy
5. It should be forbidden that engineers write any more books about tubes because this doesn't lead to a better world
Jaap said:
I agree that some books are really hard to follow by non-engineers. Still MJ is quite understandable with some basic math knowledge.
I wonder who should write books about tubes then? Seems Menno van der Veen is going in the direction of 'philosophical approach to audio design', but I refuse to read another book written by him...
I have the second edition of MJ Valve Amplifiers.
This is not a bad book at all
, but it could be bettered by a more systematic structure and a better foundation, if it is to be used by people with no background on electronics.
By the way is electrical current going from + to - , or is it going the other way round ?
This is a simple question for a beginner, where can you read about it ? Are you sure you know the right answer ?
This is not a bad book at all
, but it could be bettered by a more systematic structure and a better foundation, if it is to be used by people with no background on electronics. By the way is electrical current going from + to - , or is it going the other way round ?
This is a simple question for a beginner, where can you read about it ? Are you sure you know the right answer ?
There is a simple reason why I suggest getting the Jones books: they are well written in an easily read and accessible style for the beginner (by a very competent and experienced Engineer), and they have a wealth of design detail that takes into account almost everything you'll need to know to successfully build a tube amp.Brit01 said:
Quite a difference in opinions here.
1 book, both, none..
I could probably find all the theory and much of the rest elsewhere on the web for free, but here you have all the theory and design detail (VA) and then how to implement it in a practical way (BVA) in one source with none of the (seeming) contradictions that different bits of work from different authors can bring.
It's up to you. If you just want to build a single amp, find one with a how to, or a kit and build it. If you are a tube and/or electronics beginner and would like to know how they work and possibly build more than one, buy VA and BVA.
Here are Google books previews for you to have a read of a few pages and see what you think for yourself.
Valve Amplifiers
Building valve Amplifiers
Correct, and with good reason; most non-engineers have insufficient understanding of the subject to guide a newcomer through the detailed design choices necessary to successfully design and build a tube amp. Many I have seen by misguided (even if well intentioned) could only be loved because of the invocation of Beranek's Law.Jaap said:
And you UNDERSTAND how a circuit works otherwise, exactly how?Jaap said:
Written by an ignorant non-engineer.Jaap said:
Idiotic twaddle.Jaap said:
When you have the same level of understanding of the subject as MJ, then you should criticise his work. From other threads you clearly do not, so be quiet and don't discourage a newcomer from learning through an excellent and valuable resource that has been well reviewed all over.Jaap said:
You are right
I should not discourage newcomers.
The post had a high grade of "tongue in cheek" if you understand what i mean.
Morgan Jones is also the best choice as a starter, very accessible, but it still has holes. But I guess even the Radio Designers Handbook of Langsforth Smith is not complete.
The best way for a starter is to buy a kit, buy some books or lend them and don't give them back, and lurk the internet.
As far as I know mathematics gives relations between parameters expressed in laws or formulas. Perhaps I am naive but I want to know what happens in reality.
I was really "shocked" when I heard that electrons don't seem to go from plus to minus. So the engineers used mathematics that worked at that time but they had no clue what was really going on ?
Problem with experts is that they sometimes forget the time that they were a non-expert. They also sometimes have no humor. Perhaps writing for beginners is more difficult than for collegues. In any case, the best judge of a book that is targeted at beginners is a beginner.
Einstein: "the more I know, the more I realize that I know nothing"
I should not discourage newcomers.
The post had a high grade of "tongue in cheek" if you understand what i mean.
Morgan Jones is also the best choice as a starter, very accessible, but it still has holes. But I guess even the Radio Designers Handbook of Langsforth Smith is not complete.
The best way for a starter is to buy a kit, buy some books or lend them and don't give them back, and lurk the internet.
As far as I know mathematics gives relations between parameters expressed in laws or formulas. Perhaps I am naive but I want to know what happens in reality.
I was really "shocked" when I heard that electrons don't seem to go from plus to minus. So the engineers used mathematics that worked at that time but they had no clue what was really going on ?
Problem with experts is that they sometimes forget the time that they were a non-expert. They also sometimes have no humor.
Perhaps writing for beginners is more difficult than for collegues. In any case, the best judge of a book that is targeted at beginners is a beginner.Einstein: "the more I know, the more I realize that I know nothing"
It is just that sometimes the application precedes the scientific discoveries. Engineers should be able to cite quite some more exampled of things that 'just worked' in practice, but whose scientific explanation came later...btw, this also seems to be the case for audio stuff, such as the effect of marketing, labelling, etc on 'sound quality': seems to work in practice, but the scientific proof remains to be found!
The debate (or discussion) between 'electron flow' and 'current flow' still continues to this day, though it has waned considerably. I recall a discussion not too far back with a guy who was trained in generator maintenance with the Navy. They taught him 'electron flow', which assumes current flows from negative to positive. This convention tends to be more common with the 'old timers', as it is not currently taught in universities. He was very adamant about electron flow, I should note, where my position was use it if it works for you.
I think it's not so much of engineers not knowing, they simply chose a model to use in order to describe what they were measuring, and sometimes what they were theorizing. And the model works, regardless of which convention you use, as long as you are consistent. If the model needs tweaking (a la Newton's model revised by Einstein), then tweak it.
No different than the model of the atom. Bohr was able to develop a model that worked, and correctly described what he was observing. The model is not a perfect image of reality, but chemistry still uses it to teach the behavior and character of the atom. The correct attitude is to understand we are dealing with a model, and to understand the abilities and limitations of that model. The world is full of good engineers and bad engineers. A good engineer uses the model to its fullest potential. F=ma still works well on planet earth. Use it in outer space, you are destined to fail. Know the limitations of your model.
Having said all that, I don't understand the gripe against the equations and mathematics behind electricity:
Where do you see the disconnect between the model and reality with regards to amplifier design? How would one build a better amplifier while ignoring the equations developed by stuffy and humourless engineers?
I think it's not so much of engineers not knowing, they simply chose a model to use in order to describe what they were measuring, and sometimes what they were theorizing. And the model works, regardless of which convention you use, as long as you are consistent. If the model needs tweaking (a la Newton's model revised by Einstein), then tweak it.
No different than the model of the atom. Bohr was able to develop a model that worked, and correctly described what he was observing. The model is not a perfect image of reality, but chemistry still uses it to teach the behavior and character of the atom. The correct attitude is to understand we are dealing with a model, and to understand the abilities and limitations of that model. The world is full of good engineers and bad engineers. A good engineer uses the model to its fullest potential. F=ma still works well on planet earth. Use it in outer space, you are destined to fail. Know the limitations of your model.
Having said all that, I don't understand the gripe against the equations and mathematics behind electricity:
Where do you see the disconnect between the model and reality with regards to amplifier design? How would one build a better amplifier while ignoring the equations developed by stuffy and humourless engineers?
zigzagflux said:
He probably means Ohm's Law. Have you checked out the Digital forum lately? Already some members feel that Shannon's Sampling Theorem can be ignored in DAC design, so it's only a matter of time before somebody question's Ohm's Law
On a different note I find the slam about Engineers pretty funny, even though I am one, because the expertise of the engineer was never discussed. So, by analogy, did Jaap mean "general practitioners should not be writing books about surgery", or "surgeons should not be writing books about surgery"?
Do not take my remarks too seriously I, don't.
I think that I meant that the book "surgery for amateur-surgeons" should better be written by someone who has no formal education in surgery but has learned it on the street. Of course he should be a good writer.
Not everybody is a Richard Feynman.
Remarks about engineers
are of course only a bit of teasing
I, don't.I think that I meant that the book "surgery for amateur-surgeons" should better be written by someone who has no formal education in surgery but has learned it on the street. Of course he should be a good writer.
Not everybody is a Richard Feynman.
Remarks about engineers
are of course only a bit of teasing
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.