Time to chime re: tube synth

[Doug Tymofichuk]

On Wed, 27 Oct 1999 07:43:39 -0500 Bill Layer 
<blayer at uswest.net> wrote:

> Hey hey all,
> 
> I've been following the LATEST tube synth thread, and it 
> strikes me as being quite a great deal like the last 
> several. Pro arguments from the open minded, derision from 
> the silicon-entrenched and NOBODY building one save myself 
> and one other brave soul who actually built prototypes.

IMHO the *derision* is more about the attitudes and claims 
of the *other brave soul*, not so much as about the tubes 
vs. solid state issue itself.
 
> With respect to the argument that the thermal drift 
> experiment is a hoax, due to the tube's superior insulating 
> properties: This is a lot like coming in second in a 
> footrace, and claiming that it was only due to the winner's 
> superior body. Silicon devices could be encapsulated as 
> easily in glass as a thermionic device, but they aren't 
> because they are products of the plastic age, and hence 
> CHEAP.

Then compare apples to apples. Take both the tube synth and 
a solid state synth and subject the ENTIRE units to 
temperature changes and see what the difference in 
stability is. Isn't that what really matters, real world 
situations?

> When the transistor was first brought to use, it wasn't 
> because it was more linear, or better sounding; it emerged 
> in the consumer market as a cheap, light alternative, and 
> by that time we were competing with the Asians for consumer 
> electronics. Funny that in a world of "linear, stable and 
> robust" transistors, the simple 6080W vacuum voltage 
> regulator was still being produced in 1987, some 40 years 
> after the advent of silicon devices. The machine of 
> capitalism has much more to do with the fact that we 
> subsist on doped silicon, than the actual properties of the 
> devices themselves.
> 
> Remember the promise of plastic? How it would enrich all of 
> our lives with inexpensive consumer goods? How true was 
> that (just look at a new appliance for god's sake)? What 
> other things were said back then that also proved to be 
> untrue?
> 
This has turned out to be untrue? I get the impression that 
the stores are FULL of inexpensive plastic consumer items 
to enrich our lives. What are the alternatives? Bakelite 
microwave ovens? Glass cased video games? Die cast metal 
cell phones?

I think that all electronics formats have merit, even 
d*g*t*l, and if it makes good sounds, then fine. But don't 
try to say that one is *better* than another, maybe just 
more practical or more suited to your application or 
preferences. Otherwise we'd all be working purely in the 
d*g*t*l domain by now. I can't for the life of me 
understand why someone who prefers analog electronics to 
d*g*t*l would have a problem with tubes.

Here at work we have state of-the-art multimillion dollar 
linear accelerators that have everything from vacuum tubes 
(solid state high power switches are still not up to the 
task) to the latest computer technology, with everything 
in between. All technologies have their appropriate uses. 
And yes, I think that tubes still sound best, but I also 
claim to have the ability to hear differences in speaker 
cables, so my opinions are probably suspect.

Lets talk about building stuff, not tearing down other's 
efforts. I would find technical discussions on building tube
equipment every bit as interesting as the latest ladder 
filter clone, it would enrich us all.

Sorry for the rant, but I couldn't help myself.
----------------------
Doug Tymofichuk
dougt at cancerboard.ab.ca