Talk:Valve audio amplifier/Archive 3

message: *Talk:Valve audio amplifiers/Archive1
*Talk:Valve audio amplifiers/Archive2
It appears that text which Light current does not agree with or which does not support his POV will be swept away into an archive. My conclusion is that there isnt much point is wasting large amounts of time responding to him in these pages, if he isnt interested that they should be read. He has from many montsh ago an open invitatioon to discuss matters he wishes to keep private by personal email, and I suggest that would be a preverable medium for the sort of discussions that have gone ontubenutdave 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have archived the previous page as it exceeded the recommended limit for any page. Thats all Not trying to hide anything. If you wish to bring up any subject that has been archived, you can copy the relevant parts back here so we can discuss them . But please dont copy big chunks, as it will only fill up the page again.!--Light current 22:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

message: Having looked at a bit more of the exchanges here, I have a suggestion.  Use the talk page for discussing the article only- do not discuss the subject matter here except as needed to improve the article.  So, Light current, if you have a "have they tried doing this?" question, don't post it here.  Tubenutdave, don't respond to questions except as needed to improve the article.  This isn't the place to try to come up with ideas for tube amps.  I strongly suspect the experts in the field have tried whatever ideas some Wikipedia editor can come up with.  Friday (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Qs I put are to do with the subject matter of the page. At least I try to make them so. You must decide for yourself whether Tubenut is using this talk page properly.--Light current 18:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, what I'm suggesting is that the talk page is for talking about the article, not the subject matter.  Go find a forum if you want to kick around ideas on circuit design, or debate the merits of tube amplification.  This isn't a general "let's chat about tube amps" area, this is the talk page for an encyclopedia article.  Friday (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you accusing me of chatting about tube amps? And how exactly is the subject matter of the article differentiated from the contents of the article would you say?--Light current 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And how exactly is the subject matter of the article differentiated from the contents of the article would you say?---Light current 02:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: we dont rise to this furthertubenutdave 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: As obove I welcome and strongly support Fridays proposal . I suggest and actively seek a short discussion as to how to do this taking in views from as many as are interested - lets figure out our direction before we start work power editting ;-)
Purely to start the ball rolling I would propose something like..
Scope : this article will primarily address amplifiers for REPRODUCTION of music, ie domestic Hifi's, and PERFORMANCE of music (notably guitar amplifiers (accoustic and electric) and to a lesser degree PA. It will not primarily address the use of valve amplifiers for as AF amplifiers in telephony applications, radio receivers, those systems have very different objectives and AF amplification is only an ancilliary subsystem within the overall application
Structure
: Types : I propose the discussion about the "sound" of SE vs PP, NFB etc from the article "valve sound" be moved here in cleaned up and cut down / more accessible form to explain the differences and relative advantages . disadvantages, sonically and technically
: Historic amplifers, lets arbitrarily define that as up to the point the transistor became a commercial alternative (the fifties) ? (mainly SE)
: Classic "golden age", (maily PP, post williamson) power amplifiers (quad, Dynaco, Macintosh etc), often based on the last generation of indirectly heated double triodes 6AX7 / ECC 83 et al) and power pentodes (EL84/ 34 / KT66 / 88 etc
: Modern "audiophile" (power) amplifiers, specifically the SE (notably the DH-SET) the PP, and the OTL
: Guitar amplifiers etc
: Technology ... the main valve AF circuit stage topologies (on a "for dummies" level) .. the SE gain stage, the diff long tail pair, the SE and PP output stage, the phase splitter
: historic valve preamplification, includimg microphone amplifiers, phono equalisers and amplifiers, tone controls & scratch / rumble filters, historic phono equalisations (ie other than RIAA)
: modern valve preamplification (short)
The valve sound page should then be deleted imho, or at best replaced with just a stub noting that there is such a thing as "valve sound", but noting it is as much to do with circuit designs as valves per se (hence how it is possible to make transistor circuits that try to emulate - albeit with reduced performance - the sound of tube stages, not least in guitar effects boxes !, also notin the similarites between triode and mosfet, bipolar transistor and tetrode
But this is just a starting proposal .. please modify / improve / make counter proposals ! tubenutdave 21:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have opinions on a lot of this, but:  I agree that valve sound seems a bit redundant with valve audio amplifier.  I suppose one could focus on technology and the other could focus on sound, but I'd personally try to keep them together and only consider a split if length becomes an issue.  I'd treat pre-amp/power amp issues similiarly- keep them both in one article until it gets too long.    Friday (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for your comment, seems a good approach to me to. I will also wait say at least 24 hours and see if any others are reading and wish to join in or has additional suggestions ! In particular if anyone is "into" guitar amps, help with that would be most appreciated (I am not "Into" them) ! tubenutdave 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guitar amps are the only reason I'm even aware that people still use tubes.  Tube amps are still favored over solid state by a great many guitar players.  Friday (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its also my impression that guitar amps are the only area that tubes remain the dominant mainstream. however tube amps remain (mostly in the heady waters of the high priced so called "high end") of hifi amplification as well. I think this page should perhaps try to reflect this, ie should say more about Guitar amps, in particular respects with which these differ from Hifi amps, help on hat aspect would be most appreciated, I am not a guitarist ! tubenutdave 10:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New structure proposals

message: If anyone knows how to make an archive, I think it would be good to move on from the large amount of spilt milk thats long under the bridge now and have a clean sheet here as we set out on trying to improve the page ?
I tried, but somehow messed it up, I tried to revert the change to undo it. If anyone has a better idea how this should be done please do ?! .. thanks / tubenutdave 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: archive time ?