View Single Post
Old 14th December 2002
Here for the gear

Originally posted by Ethan Winer

> Tubes Versus Transistors ... on D.W.Fearn's web site <

That's the biggest load of crap I've seen in a while.
OK, I didn't writie it. But that's a pretty big diss, considering how much crap there is about and how hard it is to miss that crap.

While there may be differences between tubes and transistors, and some folks may legitimately prefer one over the other, that article adds nothing of value to the knowledge base.
Can you explain further, please? What is it about the observations related in the article that make them eduationally useless? Are they flawed? If so, in what way? Or do you mean to say simply that this is from the beginning of understanding the real issues around tubes vs. transistors (etc.) and the perspectives are way off in light of what is now common knowledge? I expect there are plenty of folks reading this who, like me, don't share your wealth of knowledge and would not be able to see what makes the information in this article (especially about the type of distortion produced) of no value. Is there another article somewhere that refutes it, or could you write up such a thing for us? Or is this really a much simpler issue, such as, perhaps, that you only read the first page and never got to the meat of the article?

Quoting a guitar player (hey, I'm one too) saying "Tube records have more bass. . . . The bass actually sounds an octave lower" pretty well sums up my point.
Then I'm not getting your point at all. It seems rather appropriate to me that the author tried to convey some sense of the perceptions of non-technical musicians and their imprecise attempts to describe them, since they formed the cultural context of the phenomena being discussed. The meat and focus of the article was obviously elsewhere. This suggests to me that perhaps the article might have touched some "sensitive spot" for you, and that maybe (just maybe) you are overreacting.

I have enjoyed the helpful knowledge you have been dispensing on the internet for years now, appreciate it a lot, and respect your opinion. So that's why I'm asking you to elaborate on what it is about this article that makes it invalid. The main thing I came away with was the observation about relative differences in lower and upper harmonics and 2nd and 3rd harmonics. Isn't that still a valid generalization, albeit perhaps with plenty of exceptions? If not, please share your superior knowledge to offer a better way of looking at it. Simply saying "that's a load of crap" is only so helpful as it makes me wonder if what I learned from that article is actually either invalid or irrelevant. I still don't know which, or why.