Talk:Valve amplifier

Title Change
I'd like to change the title of the article to "Vacuum Tube Amplifiers," since, as noted below, vacuum tube is the dominant usage world-wide. While it is entirely possible (and to be honest, I do not have enough knowledge of the subject to say one way or the other) that thermionic valve is the correct usage in more countries, I would be shocked if the majority of vacuum tube users today called them valve, for the simple reason that the US is very large and very rich and consequently has many English speakers who are wealthy enough to afford tube audio equipment, which seems to be the most common modern use of the devices. Does anyone have any objections? Quodfui (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Valve-Tube predominance worldwide issue
It is certainly true that the term 'valve' predominates in the United Kingdom, and 'tube' in the United States, but I do not find support for the statement that 'the rest of the world' use the term valve. Both appear to be in common usage, but not in equal numbers, nor close to even.

A quick and dirty use of Google yields these figures: "Valve Amplifier" yields 4120 hits, "Tube Electronics" yields 45100 hits. "Valve Amplifier" yields 69000 hits, and "tube amplifier" yields 445000 hits. All languages included in the search, and exact term restriction.

This article appears to be blatantly ethnocentric towards a viewpoint that valve is the most common usage world-wide. It obviously not. The article should at the very least remove the 'British+whole world' vs 'American english' content out and become more neutral. Step two is to replace the 'lesser known' valve in the title with the obviously more commonly used Tube amplifier and redirect the lesser known term 'valve amplifier'.

If someone can prove the claim it is more common, then use it and cite it. If valve was as common as tube, there would not be an order of magnitude difference in the Google hits. Evidence to the contrary?

There is no need to discuss anywhere but here. I'm not afraid to put my case on these pages. Are you?--Light current 19:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No need, true. Buts its a damn sight easier and more efficient. I dont think the rest of the world is interested in our squabble.My only interest to to achieve a high quality posting on a subject I care a lot about (and know a lot about), a posting that you arent going to tear down three minutes later in a fit of self righteous pique. The main result of your efforts has been to make what should be the main page for the subject into a wasteland that everyone else avoids. A tragic shame. I note that you claim to have edited 15,000 entries. well zippy do. How many of those were on subject you are an expert in ? honestly ?

No one on his own is a complete expert on anything. And everyones understanding of the subject matter is limited. Some peoples understanding is more limited than others. Do you think that makes them idiots? THats why collaboration and peer review is necessaary! BTW I dont claim to have made any number of edits, but if thats what the counter says- then thats what it is.--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Im perfectly willing to put anything I write in the public domain, but it seems to me that endlessly posting stuff for you to just delete it again is a rather inefficient way to make progress with anything.

Im afraid that on WP editors must convince other editors of the quality of thier offerengs. If they are not up to standard, they are usually modified or deleted. Thats the way WP works. Did you not see the warning notice at the bottom of the edit window?--Light current 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The overwhelmingly dominant application for tube amplifiers, bit historically and today, is audio amplification. I can agree to other applications getting a mention but I think it is resonable that the page should concetrate is space in at lesst some proportion to the subject relevance and interest

I dont happen to agree. Where is your evidence for this statement? All statements must be verifiable. Did you not see the notice directly under the edit window?--Light current 22:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All electronic amplifiers prior to the invention of the transistor were built using valves - mostly triodes. During this period the dominant circuit topology was the SET, principly the DH-SET. The triode, and as a consequence the DH-SET, has characteristics that substantially differenciate it from all subsequent amplifiers, notably good enough linearity to be used with little or no negative feedback, in which configuration it typically produces modest amounts harmonic distortion at rated power, that distortion appearing as a monotonically decaying distortion spectrum. There is minimal non harmonic distortion present. SE amplifers (of any technology) operate in class A and are consequently inherently free from any kind of switching distortion, and linearity improves as output power is reduced. These technical characteristics are well known, widely accepted, and directly contribute to the "sound" of that class of amplifier, which is very pure (and slighty "musical" due to the presence of the especially the dominant 2nd order order harmonics).

OK You can put this on the valve audio amp page.(I think something to this effect is already there)--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * from the 1950's onwards, increasing affluence and demand for more power, plus technical progress during the war in the design of tubes themselves saw the mainstream amplifier topology swithc to the class AB1 push pull circuit, typically using tetrode/pentodes, often in ultralinear connection. This circuit gave more power, but has both switching distortion and a preponderence of ("unmusical") odd order harmonics, which is far from attractive. Such amplifier tyoically require substantial negative feedback (invented by Black in 1927, and has its own wikipedia article) to reduce distortion to acceptable levels. The seminal amplifier that established the modern topology of class AB1 push pull with feedback was the "Williamson", designed in 1947 by DTN williamson (which has its own wikipedia article now)

Yes this also can go on the valve audio amp page.--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Many manufacturers have produced decendents of the williamson over the subsequent 50 years, notably Dynaco (has an own wiki page) who produced over 300,000 of a single model, believed to be the most popular amplifier ever made, of any type, ever - quite aside from making many other models. The number of Williamson decended hifi amplifiers certainly numbers millions, probably tens of millions. ... In contrast with vibration tables of which a few hundred probably exist.

Evidence- references?--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Class AB1 amplifiers (of all constructions, not only tubes) DO have switching distortion and distortion consequently INCREASES with reduced power output (from a given design). NFB results in a lower peak distortion value but a much more complex and not entirely harmonic distortion spectrum, that (objectively !) sounds less musical, often being described in terms such as sterile, brittle, or harsh. Any "warmth" (as some designs are considered to have) has its origins in the complex frequency dependnet behaviour of the componets used, notably stray complex reactance in cpacitors and wound componets (transformers) and in some cases mechanical resonances within the tube itself.

Valve audio amp page--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Tube amplifiers (typically also push pull williamson decendents) are as you noted widely applied for especially guitar amplification. Such amplifiers are cheaper to make than hifi amplifiers, notably because transistor amplifiers do not need output transformers at all, and guitar amps need only cheap transformers, when hifi amplifiers need extremely high grade transformers that dominate the production cost of the total amplifier.

Valve audio amp page--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

As a consequence, tube amps for guitar and PA use have remained in more widespread usethroughout the transistor era than the HiFi counterparts. however they also have much worse distortion values that would be tolerated in a hifi amplifier, indeed this distortion is deliberately "engineered in" to some degree and constistutes the distinctive sound

Valve audio amp page--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * imho the page should ideally include sample SE and PP circuit diagrams, together with a summary of the resulting characteristics (possibly distortion spectrums)


 * The page should aslo give a couple of paragraphs to minority audio amplifiatcion topologies such as OTLs, and to use in eg direct drive of electrostatic loudspeakers

Valve audio amp page--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, power tubes normally have a service life of thousands of hours, small signal tubes tens of thousands of hours. The widely held view that tubes "only" last a couple of years applies only to guitar and PA amplifiers that invariably use modern production eastern block tubes (most of which are greatly inferior to the classic originals - albeit at a fraction teh price) combined with circuits that overdrive these tubes hard, to deliberately get highest possible quoted power outputs and/or heavily distorted sound. As with anything, if you go rallying flat out in a normal road car - dont expect it to last too long. Definitive studies by teh US miliary (who hve probably used more tubes over the years than anyone else) confirm that tubes have extremely long lifetimes is used inside the design envelope, in most cases they will last the lifetime of the product they are installed in.

Ahh this can go on this page as it is general info!--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PLEASE NOT THAT ALL OF THIS IS OBJECTIVE AND RELEVANT. Comments about eg harmonic distortion are not something that can be editted away except as the consequence of destroying the value of the page, since the reader is left with no understanding of what makes a tube amp significantly different in its characteristics. All of this is well and widely understood

Valve audio amp page--Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Radio transmitters


 * .. of course include gain stages, but these are usually simply class A gain stages and otherwise unremarkable. But please NB that the various tuned circuits currently shown on the page arguably belong better on a page devoted to eg radio transmitters than to general purpose amplifiers, since the circuit is as much an ANTENNA TUNING device as a gain stage, something that is not really to doe with "amplification" .. although I could agree to radio transmitter applications being justified here and having perhaps a couple of paragraphs and a link

This is a general page on valve amplifiers and should briely discuss all types and applications. It does so. Specialist applicatiots like audio are covered on their own main pages when there is enough material to make it worth while. In the light of this, I really cant see what you are moaning about! --Light current 21:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

New page - Valve audio amplifiers
There seems to be sufficient justification to put all the matl relating to valve audio amplifiers on its own page. I have created such a page and put the disputed material there for valve amp enthusiasts to add to.--Light current 04:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazing to se that you now consider audio amplifiers - the overwhelmingly dominant use of valves both today and historiaclly - as unworthy to be described in detail on the main page. yet you think your beloved vibration table amplifiers somehow justify the space. amazing. tubenutdave

Valve audio amps are mentioned here with 18 lines of text (ATM). but are a special case and deserve their own page due to their controversial nature. Other amplifiers are mentioned here and do not have their own page. Vib table amps have 4 lines of text.. So what is it exactly that you are complaining about? Where is your evidence for saying: the overwhelmingly dominant use of valves both today and historiaclly(sic) (is valve audio amplifiers)? my bolding. BTW I dont love vib table amps- they just happen to be one application of valve amplifiers. THere are many others.--Light current 19:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * no, they are not a special case, they are the overwhelmingly dominant case, certainly for standalone pure amplifiers (and this page is valve amplifiers). I can agree that eg pre transistor TV sets also used tubes to give gain for the video signal etc, but tht gain was buried inside a complete circuit for receiving/demodulating the signal and driving the CRT, which includes generating raster scans etc - hardle a standalone amplifier. And at the other extreme, how a tube generates gain is rightly explained on the wiki page(s) devoted to tubes themselves, again not a tube AMPLIFIER page ; an amplifier is a system, not just a component. Valve amd are niether contravercial. Sure you can find lots to argue about them, in the same way that you can argue if Ferrari are better than Porsche, of its the 288 GTO was better that the 275 transamerica or whatever. but to say that in the industrialised world today, transport (and indeed the urban environment) is dominated by a 4 wheel vehicles typically with 4-6 seats, 3-5 doors and a piston engine of 1-5 litres runing on petrol of diesel - a CAR - is very uncontraversial. And it would be quite appropriate to spend hundreds of lines explaining the evolution of teh car from beam axles and chassis to modern moncoques, the increasing dominance of front wheel drive, the introduction of seatbelts, airbags, cupholders ... withou in any way conflicting with the valid need for a separate FERRARI page and Porsche Page.
 * errr.. that there are Millions and millions of them ? its sad that you dont know this already, and are not willing to trust anyone else without an explicit citation for everything, but to give just one, it has been widely reported for decades that dynaco made 300,000 ST-70's alone - its the most populat amplifier ever made. and thats just one type, from one maker. there have been hundreds, possily thousands of tube amp makes over the years compared to how many vibration tables exactly has the world ever seen ? I think not 4/18th that number. 4/18,000th might be closer (but probably still high). I find you viewpoint incredible. Its like an article on motor vehicles that gives 18 lines to describe the car (all cars, from ferrai to lada) .. then gives 4 lines to discuss the crawler used to move space rockets, then 70 lines or so (I havent conted your section of transmitters) devoted to armoured personel carriers or something.so why single out just that one ?!?! - that is both especially obscure and also which has no specific requirements that make a vlave amp more suitable for this application than any other kind ? You could make a much stronger case for mentioning eg amplifiers required to work at very high voltages, such as electrostatic applications.but more to the point I would ask why are you so reluctant to give extensive treatment - which is merited by the continuing interest (demonstrated by the market for) such amps, on what started out as a main page for exactly that purpose ? I have no problem in you adding in other applications for valve amps. but when you cut down the trees to make more room in you forest for references to an extinct type of squirrel that used to be very occasionally found there, I think it goes too far ?! / tubenutdave

WP Policies
THe policies of WP say that you cant just make up your own facts and expect everyone to believe you- even if you are right!. Things must be verifiable. Please refer to and read policy at WP:Verifiable befrore resuming this discussion. It will save you (and me) a lot of time.--Light current 21:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Class of operation
Why do you keep repeatedly posting the section on the classes of operation for an amplifier - which actually is nothing specific to a vlave amplifier at all - especially the way you describe the classes in turns of phase angles, which is NOT APPROPRIATE OR CORRECT for anything except an amplifier carrying a single frequency constant amplitude sine wave (such as a transmitter) ... yet object so strongly and keep REMOVING and explainationas about the CONSEQUENCES of the different classes of operation on the distortion spectrum etc ? What are you trying to do ? what dont you understand here ?


 * I think youre having trouble with your browser!--Light current 00:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Gross vandalisation
I see you have again removed the informative text describing audio amplifiers. for the record please cite you arguments for doing so since it is my view that in removing this text you have removed the major slice of information in this posting. **You** are breaking the 3RR rule by repeatedly simply reverting these sections to your previous form, simply ignoring clear explainations of wht is wrong with them, with no attempt to rework or improve them.


 * I have made only 2 reversions within the last 24 hrs. The material still seems to be there!--Light current 00:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

well, I just did a reload, and its definately gone. Congratulations on wasting an entire evening, with the net result that most of the information added to the page is still removed. I am fed up with this pig headed behaviour. are you willing to accept mediation by a third party ? / tubenutdave


 * It seems you do not know how to operate this wiki! If you are fed up being pig headed- then stop it! Mediation is not required as it is you who has been blatantly flouting accepted WP procedures and policies and not I. BTW why do you not sign and date your posts? Its simple. Just click the signature tab on the tool bar at the top of the edit window. Please?? 8-| --Light current 01:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting over?
I'm not a mediator, just someone who tried to disambiguate induction on this page, but I feel like stepping into this. (1) The original article needs work -- it's badly organized, from my perspective at least. Light current, it really needs cleanup -- and I think the information on the design of particular valves/tubes should go elsewhere (the article on valves shold be the place to explain why and how triodes, pentodes, etc. work, not here). (2) Tubenutdave, your changes have been fairly violent -- and repeatedly removing sections, putting apologies in the flow of the article, and apparently not using the preview button is not the way to clean it up. I reverted it to Light current's version for the moment, if only because the previous version wasn't even formatted right. Let's discuss what should be in Valve amplifiers, and possibly a Valve audio amplifiers article, here, in the discussion page, and try to come to some compromise instead of continuing this edit war, if only because the edit war is not helping the encyclopedia. ArglebargleIV 14:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I have stayed away from wiki entirely for six month after my anger and outrage experienced from Lightcurrents vandalism here, this is my first time back here.


 * To address your points above


 * 1) I totally agree this article is now a complete mess. Actually I would suggest it is already badly over editted and the best way forward is to delete it entirely and have a clean rewrite done by someone new. I strongly support the idea to discuss a new structure, I will look at your new version, and maybe comment on that after I have seen it


 * 2) I fundamentally disagree with Lightcurrents unilateral restructuring of these pages, in particular the way he has marginalised the mainstream applications for tube amplification (linear amplification, usually for audio) yet distracting readers with niche verging on obscure applications such as vibration tables, which actually have no casual reason for using tubes rather than silicon and today typically are driven with mosfets rather than tubes. Radio Transmitters contain tubes and the tubes do provide gain but a transmitter is more than simply an amplifier and imho discussing transmitters rather than amplifiers is more likely to confuse than enlighten, and imho probably merits treating on a separate page far more clearly than audio amplification - which is after al simply linear amplification and there are minimal differences between eg a small signal tube gain stage used for a preamp and ione used in an instrumentation amp (eg for an old tube oscilloscope, or indeed in a TV etc ...)


 * 3) Regards my "violent" changes, I was simply trying to defend the article against the equally gross changes made my lightcurrent, whio deleted vast amounts of text I consider to have been salient and informative, at the same time as inserting large amounts of text (eg regards transmitters) that as above I qwould argue are inappropriate and questionably misleading

tubenutdave 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Argle, thanks for stepping in. This is a page in the process of synthesis. It is intended to be an overview of valve amplifiers in general and not specifically about AUDIO valve amplifiers as Tubenut wants it to be. There is another page called Valve audio amplifiers epsecially created for that purpose.


 * As such, it is not going to perfect without more material on the various forms of valve amplifier, especially including circuit diagrams to explain how they work. Tube nut seems not to be concerned with how they work, but the fact that they are superior to transistors. There is another page in existence called Valve sound for the description of differences between transistor and vlve sounds.


 * I have included circuit diagrams of some valve amplification (RF amps) as examples of circuit topology. Tubenot has persistently removed these. If you cant have circuit diagrams on the subject youre discussing in the article, where should they go? So I must disagree here. I was hoping that tube not or others may add to the circuit topology material and make this an informative page about valve amplifiers in general with some design guidelines etc. He has not offered any technical circuit details but continues to fill the page with irrelevant material about audio. Of courses, it may well be that when the page is full, we will not have room for details of specific sorts of valve amplifier and it will need to be spilit into Main article hdgs etc. I dont think we are anywhere near that yet.--Light current 14:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Regards Ligtcurrents comments above


 * a)imho this page is called "valve amplifiers" and as such should discuss all types of valve amplifiers, probably concentrating on the most common applications and techniques etc. Lightcurrent is (as in my experience, often) being grossly misleading when he makes claims that I only want this page to discuss audio applications - thats is completely untrue and always has been, as he well knows.


 * b)While I might agree that Audio amplification might also merit a page of its own to go into greater depth (the current page for that also needs improvement), I do not accept that it is justified to exclude the dominant application for tube amplification from such a main page as this : Its like having a page about road vehicles that doesnt even discuss cars. The historic development of the tube is dominated by audio (NB speech telephony is also audio ..) and speech/audio dominates the production volumes of products built using tubes (at all points in history including the present)


 * c) regards lightcurrents slanderous and unfounded opinions about if I am concerned how they work (for the record, I design tube amplifiers) and claims I have not offered any technical information etc .. which I think is somewhat rich considering the large amount of information about eg distortion mechanisms and consequences etc which I wrote and he they deleted ..or my alledged belief they are superior to transistors .. both statements being incorrect ... imho an apology from lightcurrent is in order. It is true that I have stated that tubes (in particular triodes) are more linear that transistors, a fact which is widely accepted, but I also freely admit (and always have) that in terms of size, efficiency, in paricular cost, robustness etc etc etc .. silicon is today preferable, except for very high voltage circuits. As most engineering matters reality is a complex compromise and over-simplistic sweeping statements that X is unconditionally and in all respects better than Y is unhelpful


 * d) As noted above, Lightcurrents inclusion of RF stages (in particular tuned circuits) imho belong in a dedicated article since they are most likely to confuse a naive reader accessing this entry seeking an overview of valve amplification : transmittors are not simply amplifiers. In the same way that an Article about piston engines should not be mostly devoted to a discussion about the particular issues concerning marinised boat engines imho.


 * e) I would happily have added "technical circuit details" and indeed was planning to do so, but never got time since it was a constant battle simply to try to undo Lightcurrents constant and impressively rapid vandalisation. In the end I just got so angry I  gave up and quittubenutdave 01:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's a couple of random observations, I'll look into the other issues in a bit..
 * The information on classes of amplifiers is also in the amplifiers article, and it's much better explained over there. Probably a pointer to that information would be best.
 * I entirely agree that the classes are generic and should be defined under amplifers in general - however imho it is appropriate to note (assuming a reader of an encylopedia entry cf another author/editor is ignorant about the subject and seeks knowledge) that specifically due to tubes only supporting electron flow (cf the flow of "holes") it isnt possible to construct totem poles using complemenatry devices analogous to the most commonly found output stage topology in silicon amplifiers, and while "push pull" outputs can (and often are) constructed using output transformers, tube amplifiers (especially historically and at low power levels) are overwhemingly the Single Ended triode, which is almost by definition operated in class A in any linear application, and eve PP circuits are using identical devices ..usually in class AB1 (exceptionally in class A), Cf silicon circuits that overwhelmingly use complementary totem pole outputs ... usually hard into class B, even in low power devices (eg op amps and even the output stages of CMOS and MOS logic gates - hardly linear amplifiers but current/buffer amplifiers non the less) .. a salient difference I think ...  tubenutdave 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm making a copy of this article at User:ArglebargleIV/Valve amplifier, and I'll be making proposed changes over there -- this way, we can avoid some of the thrashing over the article until we have some sort of consensus. ArglebargleIV 15:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Gotta find a better page to point to for mortal threat.
 * It's a good thing, I think, to discuss general types of valve amplifiers, and possibly illustrate a couple of the important types with diagrams and detailed explanations, but we have to avoid becoming a complete technical manual for amplifier design.
 * We should say why engineers would use a vibration table.
 * is this new page live yet ? where can I find it ? the link above does not seem to work at preent ?tubenutdave 01:46, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have made changes ar per your first 3 para. The usage of viration tables for testing is mentioned in the para. This is now at the end of the article to be less prominient. Im reluctant to move the examples of the valave topology untill something else is forthcoming. After all, the page is about valve amplifiers. We must show the circuitry of at least one! I hope these changes satisfy most of your concerns!--Light current 15:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made a few more changes, mostly copyediting to make it read smoother, and more copyediting will be coming.
 * Is it possible to make the circuit diagrams smaller? The labels would have to be redone, since the font is barely readable at the current size, but the current size is a bit awkward for the page.
 * What exactly should go into the Valve audio amplifiers page? Should it be a description of current items on the market, a history of valve audio amplifiers, or what?
 * I'm going to look into the math formatting, and whether the theory part can be effectively shortened.

ArglebargleIV 17:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the last point -- I don't think that how tubes/valves work belongs in this article -- a reference to the appropriate article on tubes/valves is more appropriate. How the basic circuits work is useful though. ArglebargleIV 17:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I might suggest that the salient differciator for a tube circuit (in the typical linear circuit) is the high internal (plate) resistance of a tube, and the need for an even larger plate load need (typically ~ x3 although the value varies depending if optimising for best output power or best distortion.) This profoundly affects the characteristics of tube amplifiers, specifically they have very high Z out (so high that simply the capacitance of a cable may be a problem at high frequencies) unless an output transformer is used (which is a hge subject all of its own, but some mention of it is certainly appropriate on this page imho, as a way to decouple high voltages and trade high voltage swings at very low currents into low voltage high current swings suitable to drive low impedance loads, such as speakers (and also motors etc ..) ? just a thought ? tubenutdave 02:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well actually, I cant see anything major that discusses how the valves work. There are of course circuit descriptions that say how the various amplifiers work in the different modes. I dont think we can take that out as thats the subject of the page as it says at the top. I will, however look into reeducing the size of the diags which are a bit on rthe large side 8-|--Light current 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Argle, Unfortunately, you appear to have erased some of my later additions to the page on distributed amps etc! Should I put them back or will you?--Light current 20:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Uh, I don't see where I accidentally deleted anything -- if you see something deleted, you should put it back. I will look at things in more detail later tonight -- however, the "how does it work" subsection is more detail that I think we need here, but I want to think about it before I propose a shortened version -- I need to go back to my EE days and work out a good short explanation.  (I don't think the formulas are needed, for example.) ArglebargleIV


 * You want me to take out the equations? OK. BTW my mistake about you erasing- its still there!--Light current 21:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need ccts for

similar to transistor cct descriptions. Anyway Argle, are you happy that the page is reasonable at the moment. --Light current 21:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Cathode follower,
 * Common cathode
 * Common grid
 * Cascode?
 * Differential amplifier


 * It looks greatly improved to me -- much more readable -- sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, every time I went to look at it, things came up. I'm going to look at it in more detail later today -- and thank you! ArglebargleIV 16:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are very welcome-- and thanks for your help!--Light current 17:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Microwave valve section added
I added a section about microwave valve, since valves are still in many ways superior for high power microwave use. Gerry Ashton 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Guitar effects?
Um, at the risk of being sucked in to the schoolyard fight going on on this page, I just wanted to point out that the Guitar Effects link seems out of place, especially in light of the aforementioned schoolyard debate, and the subsequent sequestration of the Valve Audio Amp information to a separate WP page. I'd edit, but the rest of you seem to be having so much fun, I won't get in your way.--Chris van Hasselt 21:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Why dont you have a go!. We like to see new blood (being spilt) 8-)--Light current 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Royal We" even... Yeah, I think I will stay away too. Sadly Lightcurrent has not just imho ruined these pages but has also taken a lot of the pleasure out of the entire wikipedia venture, for me at least. Looking accross some other articles I have had nothing to do with, interesting to see a growing list of other contributors he has irritated beyond tolerance. tubenutdave 01:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whos just dug you up again?--Light current 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, mon cherie, Give us a kiss ... or cant you handle anyone else having any opinions ?tubenutdave 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course but we thought you were dead.--Light current 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * ooo, we ARE sensitive, arent we ? I am reminded of some of your endless high handed lectures about wikipedia policies. You may wish to refresh your own memory of some of them. In the mean time behaving like this, imho, just makes you look rediculous. I assume you have nothing more constructive to contribute ?tubenutdave 02:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not engage in personal debates or attacks. WP:NPA If you wish to help improve the article, you are welcome. 8-)--Light current 02:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As indeed I hinted in the entry immediately preceeding ? yet here speaks the author of "Whos just dug you up again?", "Of course but we thought you were dead" etc ... I refer you to you own advice. I am happy, and prefer, to concentrate on improving the article if you are tubenutdave 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Um, Dave?
Too much generalisation here I think. Me, I'm an electrical engineer - anything less than half an amp is leakage - but what I see here is, very often, credible attempts to add content from you, tidied up by Light current. I agree that LC can be annoying and overenthusiastic, but ''so can you '' and you have to admit that he has made some very good edits to this article, you're obviously both interested in the subject. He's also pointed out, if I read it right, a few places where "what Tubenutdave knows" needs to be backed with references to secondary sources, which should be easy for you to find (it doesn't need to be on the web, it can be Bottle Monthly, Feb 1972, Vol. 77, no. 8, page 19 for all we care. Secondary sources are excellent, they help to resolve philosophical arguments.  Bottle Monthly says X, but MOSFET Week say Y, and leave the reader to decide which is more likely to be "true".  Wikipedia does not "do" truth, we do verifiability which is not the same thing.

Seems to em that if instead of arm-waving you were both to raise specific points - take a para, comment on the changes made, say what precisely is the problem with each, working in bite-size morsels, it would not be long before this was a very good article indeed. You understand bottles, LC understands Wikiformatting and citation, off we go. Above all, more talk and less dialogue-by-edit-summary would hep a lot. Try it. Take a para and work on it here, see how good the two of you can make it. Don't start with the lead, pick one in the middle somewhere. Go on, what is there to lose?

Maybe there's too much water under the bridge, or maybe I'm oversimplifying based on a small subset of the total edits (there are a lot of them), but doesn't that strike you as a possible way forward? Anyway, I don't want to get sucked in only to suggest something that's worked before. How do you eat an elephant? One slice at a time. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi and thanks for your input. I entirely agree that ideally this and its related pages would have long since have matured to have an obvious and pedagogic structure, with many supporting references. Indeed I fully had the intention to work towards just this/


 * However, the result was simply to be baulked at every turn, with emerging efforts to add something being deleted already by the time the next few paragraphs were ready, resulting in edit conflicts when trying to store, far less allowing time for new material to mature and gain supporting references (as you say there is a huge amount of material available andsince the basic information presented was intended to be not only "true" but "widely held truth", and also balanced so its just a matter of hunting down citations).


 * it seems as though lightcurrent has nothing else to do except sit there and pounce as soon as a mouse pokes its head out of the mousehole, far less is willing will allow him to eat an elephant one slice at a time : that does not seem to work when his herd of power editting elephants is charging though at the time, and will trample you to death if you go anywhere near.


 * I have tried hard to work with him on this, including taking a cooling off period of six months (why should he be able to drive other people to such a degree ?). it seems impossible to work with this guy, because hold HIS opinion as the only important one. Who put him in sole authority to decide what material should go on this page, what should be buried off on others ?.


 * I have been driven to the point of shaking with rage by Lightcurrent in the past and as stated elsewhere I am simply not prepared to go there again, and I will not myself edit these article any further. There are many other knowledgable people out there and I trust that over time they will develop the page(s) positivles - if only light current would stand aside and let them ? My challenge to him is that if he also cared about the wiki project rather than some personal objectives, he would also simply stand aside from these pages. That seems a very easy and comprehensive resolution of this problem (at least on these pages, he seems to be all over wiki.)


 * to list just a few of the pages major outstanding issues at this point, imho (but which I will not make any further attempt to insert in the main article) ..,
 * the entire subject seems to have now been fragmented over very many pages with gross duplications and inconsistencies as well as a lack of coherence / structure (valve amplifiers, valve audio amplifier, valve sound, hi-fi amplification, audiophile high end audio. One might suspect that other contributors have just started up other pages rather than try to work here/ Its very hard to do now but I cant help thinking a major (and collaborative) work item is needed for a group of suitable people to try to rationalise and sort out this whole area/ (dont look at me, as above I am too outraged to have anything more to do with it)
 * the comment that "some power valves" have good open-loop linearity is grossly misleading .. triodes generally and especially small signal triodes are generally exceptionally linear. precisely why the dominant small signal gain stage when using tubes is and can be the (extremely simple and low parts count) common cathode SE (without any feedback).
 * it still lacks basic and generic information (eg misses the most generic gain stage of all (the common cathode SE), yet goes into detail for unrepresentative RF circuits - something that I think risks misleading the wikipedia's target audience)
 * totally misses eg the continuing use of valves in eg military applications well into the "transistor age", (that have important causal reasons behind them, eg quality and resistance to EMP) while eg mentioning uber-niche applications like vibration tables that have no obvious causal reasons for being mentioned other than "they are there".
 * imho, Lightcurrents effort to marginalise "audio" amplifiers to a separate page is misguided, because not only was audio (inc telephone) the dominat application for tube amplifiers throughout the history of tubes, but also there is nothing "special" about them .. the circuit designs and etc applicaple for audio are generic and are essentially the same as though used in all other applications other than at RF/.Specifically in the context of audio amplifiers, from his own comments it seems very far from the case that he is interested in the subject - he seems to just want to put it down at every turn. Which imho lacks the neutrality needed to work towards an unbiased article
 * the comments about tubes remained in use for longer in high power / high frequency applications is correct in principle but itself now overtaken by progress, today huge numbers of microwave systems are built (consider civil as well as military radar, cellular phone sytems) and this is almost entirely solid state. Power electronics sufficient to drive the currents and voltages needed for eg locomotives and statium lighting are also dominantly solid state these days. its imho misleading to overplay the continuing (cf historical) use of tubes in these roles, even if some remain in older installation Tubenutdave 21:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please comment on content but never contributors. Thanks !--Light current 22:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ;-) ... noting that your reply itself lacks any content whatsoever regarding the subject matter or the complaint (as so often) thats kind of hard to do. SInce you make no counter argument at all, shoyuld we infer that you accept these arguments as presented ?


 * NB I am not making any personal attack eedits that you (personally) have made to these article and discussion and talk pages. Your edits are "content", and that is what is being discussed.


 * You have to stand for the actions you make, and my view is that you have made a large number of destructive edits here - edits you seem concistently unwilling to justify for less consider alternative viewpoints. I have coherently outlined a large number of specific objections to to your edits to the article at hand , for clearly stated reasons (given) that I consider to be substantive and relevant. Have you anything useful to say in support of why such and such an edit should be made as you propose? You rarely if ever give one. please do so, since then we (and also others, eg Guy et al) can discuss the subject on its merits.


 * But in the absence of a reasoned case, Please stop making gross changes to the work of others that the other contributors might reasonably consider to be vandalism, unless and until you are willing and able to at least present a coherent case to pursuade people as to the merits of such a change - if not up front, at least if the edit is challenged. Tubenutdave 11:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Page structure
I you take look at http://www.radau5.ch/basics_1.html which provide extracts of old vacuum tubes related technical books, you will see 2 kinds of classification for the amplifiers: low frequency and high frequency, or audio and radio amplifiers, and another one with tuned and untuned amplifiers. From a technical point of view, audio and radio amplifiers are just particular cases of tuned and untuned amplifiers. This is why I think it would be much better to use the tuned/untuned classification in that page. Both can be class A, B or C, both can be used in audio, radio, telephony, etc. And put the audio, radio, vibration table, telephony stuff in a dedicated section, as example example of use, or practical uses. I also think, as valves usually work better at high impedance, a distinction must be made between voltage amplifiers and power amplifiers.83.228.242.153 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

signing
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.206.222.149 (talk) 11:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC).


 * I am currently travelling and have to access wiki from public internet cafe's which I cant consider a safe environment to log in, however I am manually editting attributions as I go and working to keep indenting clear so that attribution is clear. I will log in as normal when I am home, regards / tubenutdave Tubenutdave 11:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

David Berning - ZOTL Technology
Just wondering --as someone much more savvy than I immediately and totally undid my addition today-- what would be the appropriate way to (or reasoning not to) have the information in the following two paragraphs (or something based on it) added to this article? David Berning has been manufacturing tube audio equipment for a comparable amount of time to (if not longer than) Julius Futterman, has several substantive patents, and offers the ZOTL Technology that is unique in tube audio; doesn't this deserve mention? Is it too long? Too something? Totally off-base and unwelcome? Thank you; feedback and guidance most welcome.


 * The David Berning Company, established in 1974, manufactures vacuum tube audio amplifiers based on an unique Impedance Converter (named ZOTL Technology, for Zero Hysteresis Output Transformeless) that replaces the traditional audio power output transformer and greatly extends and improves amplifier performance. Operating at a fixed high-frequency without traditional audio output transformers, the ZOTL Impedance Converter eliminates the frequency-dependent performance limitations inherent in all transformer coupled tube amps. Berning amplifiers using the ZOTL technology exceed the performance of traditional OTL tube amplifiers by properly matching the tube impedance to that of the speaker. Berning amplifiers depart from traditional OTL amplifiers in that they do not require a large number of hot power tubes to supply adequate current for driving speakers.


 * U.S. Patent #5,612,646 Output Transformerless Amplifier Impedance Matching Apparatus teaches the principles behind the Berning ZOTL technology that can properly match the impedance of vacuum tubes to the impedance of speakers without using audio output transformers. The impedance conversion is done with dc-dc switching converters operating at fixed frequencies well above audio frequencies. The actual voltage and current impedance transformations are done via special high-frequency transformers. This is an RF carrier system that eliminates the frequency-dependent distortions present in audio transformers, and can enable the amplifier to have a wider frequency response and be dc coupled. See also: ZOTL Technology vs Audio Output Transformers and Electronic Devices and the Amplification Process.

TubeGod (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you rewrite it to sound not like a product brochure but like a dry encyclopedia account then it will be somewhat more appropriate. If you use reliable, verifiable references that aren't based at www.davidberning.com you'll be even closer to gaining a foothold. It doesn't really matter if ZOTL is the most fantastic technology—we rely not on primary but on secondary and tertiary sources to establish notability. You need to have ZOTL mentioned in magazines and such. I searched for ZOTL online and found mostly people with the surnam Zotl, and no high quality links to concept papers given at an AES convention or technology notes written up in engineering literature. Binksternet (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would this be more acceptable? The David Berning Company manufactures tube audio amplifiers utilizing the patented ZOTL Impedance Conversion Technology, a method that properly matches high impedance vacuum tubes to the low impedance realm of speakers without the use of a traditional audio power output transformer.     TubeGod (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Totally Biased, Non-neutral Article
First off, References like number three in this article are biased and self serving as they totally lack the objective neutrality demanded of Wiki. This article carries over the same (possiby jaundiced) bigoted and slanted viewpoints, citing refderences that lack credibility themselves, even possibly written by the same person or at least person with similiar non-objective viewpoints. Also this article lacks nearly totally any engineering substantiation of what is ostensiblly an engiineering topic, to the point where it clearly whs not created or edited by an actual degreed electrical engineer. Instead it carries the opinions of a self appointed "tone artist" and uses pretty pictures rather than legitmate analysis, likely because the author(s) are not capable of that analysis. The entire article is tainted and unreadable because of its bias. Perhaps an entire new article written by an accomplished engineer, rather than by a "tone artist" is in order for Wiki.99.2.69.235 (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)