Talk:Valve amplifier

message: 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)
thread_title: Title Change

message: 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)
thread_title:  WP Policies 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Class of operation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Gross vandalisation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Microwave valve section added

message: 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)
replies: text: Why dont you have a go!. We like to see new blood (being spilt) 8-)--Light current 21:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Whos just dug you up again?--Light current 01:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, mon cherie, Give us a kiss ... or cant you handle anyone else having any opinions ?tubenutdave 02:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course but we thought you were dead.--Light current 02:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Guitar effects? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Page structure

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Would this be more acceptable? The David Berning Company manufactures tube audio amplifiers utilizing the patentedUSPTO patent 5,612,646 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.Audio ReviewReview by Dick Olsher, Enjoy The MusicReview of Berning ZH-270 using ZOTL Technology, FI Magazine, Dick Olsher, March 1998Review of Berning ZH-270 using ZOTL Technology by Martin Appel, Stereo Times, May 1999Review of Berning ZH-270 using ZOTL Technology by Charles Hansen, Glass Audio Magazine, vol. 12, issue 1-2, January, 2000, and February, 2000Review of Berning ZH-270 using ZOTL Technology by Gary Beard, Positive Feedback Magazine, Issue 5, 2002 TubeGod (talk) 00:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Berning - ZOTL Technology 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Totally Biased, Non-neutral Article