The opinion that "tubes sounded wooly due to distortion" is nearly universal among guitar players. The effect is obviously real and easy to hear.
But you are right. Tubes don't really have a "sound" in most HiFi amps. In fact a Dynco ST70 and a Gainclone "chip amp" sound so much like each other that only a few experts can notice any difference by listening. (By looking it is easy.)
Ok now, but how good should it be?
Although there is still quite much babble about side issues, I think that the article is already rather good.
Well at least it no longer reads like it was written by anti-tube trolls..Reads a lot better than I remember it.
Although there is still quite much babble about side issues, I think that the article is already rather good.
Yep, it reads like being written by tube fetishists.
After all these years the article still hasn't been deleted and claims like (high) "output impedance" (lack of) "negative feedback" and "soft clipping" being tube amplifier characteristics are still being made?
Why? These could just as well be characteristics of a transistor amplifier circuit designed somewhat differently than the norm and there are several occasions when tube amplifiers introduce none or only few of those characteristics.
Great example why wikipedia articles should have a big warning sign preceding of them:
"These articles are possibly written and 'peer-reviewed' by random amateurs. DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU READ FROM THIS ARTICLE!"
Last edited:
It is Wikipedia as usual
Could you explain your attitude more?
Aren't they quite typical properties of tube amplifiers? If that is a fact, I can not see a problem there.
Could be and sometimes they are. I could show some examples and actually some of them have been mentioned in the article. But those are not typical properties of modern solid state amplifiers. Do you agree?
If you found errors, correcting them is always an option.
Could you explain your attitude more?
Considering the growing popularity of SET amplifiers, I would agree that many of those characteristics are in fact accurate.
In fact they apply equally to PP tube amplifiers which do not use negative feedback as well. Although, they are in a minority compared to the number of PP amps utilizing GNFB or local NFB.
In fact they apply equally to PP tube amplifiers which do not use negative feedback as well. Although, they are in a minority compared to the number of PP amps utilizing GNFB or local NFB.
I have dealt a lot with both vintage and modern solid-state guitar and bass guitar amplifiers and I can assure you, in those they are very typical properties.
Yes, they are not that typical in high fidelity designs, for obvious reasons. With that said, the very same properties are quite atypical also for high fidelity tube amplifiers, for obvious reasons.
I fail to see how this nothing but strenghtens the point that there really isn't such a thing as "tube sound".
No. The article mainly tries to present generalisations as facts. So do you.
And that's the main problem.
Even the very first reference in that article blatantly contradicts that there is a single, quantifyable thing known as "tube sound".
I do agree that many of the variables outlined in that article can introduce certain electrical behaviour of a circuit which consequently produces certain archetypal sounds inherent to such circuit. I cannot agree that those variables are properties of tube amplifiers alone (nor that they even exist in all tube amplifiers) and that makes the entire concept of tube amplifiers having some particular "sound" somewhat moot.
Last edited:
What has happened during two and half years?
The recent edits during past two and half years expanded the article about 3 kilobytes and few corrections were done.
The recent edits during past two and half years expanded the article about 3 kilobytes and few corrections were done.
Here is a picture for your article. Enjoy it, and have a nice year!
Attachments
None of those apply to all tube amplifiers. One can implement those in any kind of amplifier.
dave
Well, we need to find published (like a magazine printed on paper) articles to support our pontifications, and make references to it. If I wanted to say that tubes give us some 2nd H, said to be pleasing to the ear, I have to find some published statement saying the human ear likes some 2nd H. Some people on wikipedia get really anal about this...
Last edited:
Yes, I can't understand the modern habit of requiring every statement (even of things which are common knowledge to those in the field and which can be found in any relevant textbook) to be supported by a cite. It may be a vain attempt to deal with plagiarism, as modern folk seem incapable of understanding the old-fashioned idea of cheating unless it is carefully explained to them what is permitted and what is not. Do we refer to Mr. Ohm every time we calculate a resistor value?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.