Slashdot Mirror


Return of the Vacuum Tube

sciencehabit writes "Peer inside an antique radio and you'll find what look like small light bulbs. They're actually vacuum tubes — the predecessors of the silicon transistor. Vacuum tubes went the way of the dinosaurs in the 1960s, but researchers have now brought them back to life, creating a nano-sized version that's faster and hardier than the transistor (abstract). It's even able to survive the harsh radiation of outer space."

26 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Gives a whole new meaning... by Toe,+The · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...to the phrase "a series of tubes."

  2. Sweet by Hatta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I can have a tube amp in my mp3 player.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Sweet by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Informative

      They modded you funny but any musician will tell you for guitar amps you can't beat tubes. as a bassist I prefer my Trace solid state (one of the last Brit made before they got bought by Peavey) because its hard to get a truly clean tone out of a tube but frankly that is what makes them great for guitar as even a "clean" tube tone has a warm slightly compressed midrange that is just better than solid state.

      Let us just all hope that Russian Sovtek factory never goes out of business or rock would be screwed. I have heard just about every kind of modeling amp out there but none of them compare to the tone of a Marshall Plexi or a Fender Bassman or Concert, hell even a mid 70s Peavey Mace tube head sounds better than the modeling amps. Sometimes the older tech is just better, that's all.

      as for TFA I'd love to see something like that filter its way down to musical applications. Can you imagine a tube amp you could just throw in a rack and that would take as much abuse as a solid state? man that would be like heaven.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Sweet by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually it's far more technical than some fuzzy "it sounds warm" bullshit you hear from audiophiles. When you overdrive a tube they have a natural tendency to round over slightly rather than hit a hard limit and flatline. This is similar to tapes which could be recorded above their maximum 0dB point. This creates an interesting form of compression and combined with distortion / overdriving creates a sound that is very difficult to replicate with solid state stuff.

  3. Amps by Aeros · · Score: 5, Informative

    These are still widely used in some of the best amps out there.

    1. Re:Amps by EdZ · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most expensive, maybe, but best? Not if your goal is a transparent amplifier: one that takes an input, and reproduces that output as accurately as possible with a higher amplitude. Valves suck at this. An entire branch of mathematics (control theory) was developed to compensate for the horrendous non-linearities of vacuum tubes.

      You may like the distortions produced by tube amps (or transistor amps outputting those same distortions via DSP), but don't pretend they're better at reproducing sound. They are demonstrably not.

    2. Re:Amps by Zordak · · Score: 4, Interesting

      <memorylane> One of my lab partners in my EE Lab class played bass guitar. He wanted a tube pre-amp, but didn't want to spend $1,000 for it. So we built one as our lab project. We pulled a transformer out of an old Hammond organ, pulled tubes out of some old random stuff in a cabinet in the lab, threw in a pair of 12,000 uF caps, and four ceramic diodes for the rectifier. Then we had to code our own SPICE model for the tube so we could simulate it. That was one stout amp. Except the transformer put out a really unstable power waveformm, so one of our ceramic diodes exploded (tripping a breaker and taking out power in that wing), which was actually kind of cool. But we had to find a different transformer. Another time I accidentally grounded the 600-V node, which blew a big hole in our trace line and evaporated the solder off of one of our caps. The edges of the trace line survived, so we soldered the cap back in, powered it up, and it worked great. It was perfect except we were never able to get rid of the 60 Hz hum when it was plugged in. If you unplugged it, you could play for about a minute before the caps drained, and it sounded spectacular.</memorylane>

      I miss those days. Now I just sit around writing patents and pleadings all day.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    3. Re:Amps by jenningsthecat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, transistor audio amplifiers are "way more linear" with gobs of negative feedback applied, if THD, (Total Harmonic Distortion), is your measurement criterion. ANY amplifier is more 'linear' with correctly applied negative feedback. The basic premise is that added harmonics are bad - if you feed a pure sine wave into an amplifier, you want a pure sine wave at the output. The problem is that in audio, THD is a fundamentally flawed measurement with very poor correlation between lab measurements and listening tests.

      THD measurements are taken as the ratio of the total power of all harmonics to the power of the fundamental, with no weighting of any kind applied. The trouble is, human hearing doesn't respond to harmonic distortions in this linear fashion - our ears find higher order harmonic distortions much more apparent and objectionable.. This deficiency was noted by prominent BBC engineers D.E.L. Shorter and Norman Crowhurst in the 40's and 50's, when they proposed weighting harmonics by the square or the cube of the order; but their voices were drowned out by market forces that wanted a simple, flattering figure of merit that made the newer, more powerful pentode-based amps, (with lots of negative feedback), look better on paper than their lower-powered triode predecessors. The market won out over scientific and technical accuracy, (it usually does), and today engineers the world over, ignorant of this history, mistakenly believe that low THD is the gold standard for measuring and defining audio amplifier quality. (For a good technical analysis of distortion and the sound of an amplifier, see Lynn Olson's excellent investigation.

      By the way, in the 'tubes vs transistors' debate, good triodes have the advantage of being more intrinsically linear than transistors. This means that they require less negative feedback to tame their distortion, and often sound wonderful with NO negative feedback. The THD figures of amps built this way are often quite poor, but look at their spectra and you'll see predominantly second- and third-order, with a smooth and rapid falloff of higher order harmonics. Occasionally solid-state amps can give this kind of performance, but tubes have an easier time of it. Designing a good-sounding, (as opposed to good-measuring), audio amp, requires a lot of skill, and a lot of knowledge about distortion mechanisms and how to counter them. Unfortunately the prevailing practice in HiFi is to add more gain, throw most of it away with additional NFB, get a nice low THD figure, and call the job done. Amps designed this way generally sound like shit, if not initially, then after 20 minutes or so of listening, at which time listening fatigue sets in.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    4. Re:Amps by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As the former road manager of several well-known bands (in the 1960's) I can state with absolute confidence that the reason we bought valve amps (or copied the well known Vox design ourselves) was that they did not blow up if overloaded. Early transistor amps were not very robust, and typically burned out during gigs.

      *AFAICR Vox, Fender, Orange, etc all uses the exact same circuit - the valves and transformers came from different suppliers, and some of the metal work was a different shape.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  4. Vacuum tubes have never left! by mpoulton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Almost every TV broadcast transmitter and most FM radio broadcast transmitters still use vacuum tubes for the high power output stages. Every microwave oven uses a vacuum tube to produce the microwaves. Most radar transmitters use vacuum tubes for the output stages, and often for signal generation too. The fact is that semiconductors have simply not been able to catch up to vacuum tubes for high power applications at UHF frequencies and above. 1960's technology still reigns supreme.

    --
    I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
    1. Re:Vacuum tubes have never left! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh... Microwave ovens use a magnetron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Design I've repaired many a Microwave ovens and I have never seen any vacuum tubes.

      Too smart for your own good. A magnetron is a vacuum tube. Not all vacuum tubes are transparent. Hell, the "vacuum tube" in the article has neither a tube or a vacuum!

    2. Re:Vacuum tubes have never left! by digitig · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh... Microwave ovens use a magnetron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Design

      I've repaired many a Microwave ovens and I have never seen any vacuum tubes.

      Nathan

      Indeed they do use magnetrons. And to quote from the first line of the Wikipedia article on magnetrons" "The cavity magnetron is a high-powered vacuum tube..." (my emphasis). Do you repair the microwaves with your eyes closed?

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    3. Re:Vacuum tubes have never left! by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 4, Informative

      1960's?

      The amplifying triode vacuum tube was invented near 1907.
      The transistor itself in 1947.

      --
      Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
    4. Re:Vacuum tubes have never left! by smpoole7 · · Score: 4, Informative

      > At low power levels (e.g. 10kw) transistorised VHF/UHF output amplifiers are fine. Additionally, you can get a higher power output by operating multiple VHF/UHF output amplifiers in parallel - which also gives some redundancy for transmitter maintenance.

      See Pentium 100's reply; he hit the high points. But it's essentially a matter of cost-effectiveness. If you tell me, "I need 30,000 watts at 100 MHz (a typical FM arrangement), I'm going to use a tube. Even after paying $5,000 for the tube and building a 10,000 volt, 5A power supply, I'd still come out ahead. Combining enough 100-200W solid-state modules to get that kind of power level would be far more expensive.

      There's a practical matter, too -- for example, or 50 KW AM stations *do* use solid-state, and they're done as Pentium100 describes: you combine bunches and bunches of modules to get that power level. That's at a much lower frequency, and they can be made very efficient .. . .. but with full modulation, our Nautel transmitter runs a 300V primary supply and draws in excess of 300 amperes(!). There are giant 3/0 cables (they look like booster cables!) running all over the inside of that thing just to handle the current.

      Can't cheat physics: power = voltage times current.

      But I'll add this: Some competitively-priced solid state high power transmitters have begun appearing, so I have hope for the future. (We're looking at some of the new Nautel FM units ourselves; www.nautel.com if you're curious.) But seriously, even as recently as 2 years ago, there was no question that a 4CX20000 tube in a tuned cavity was far more cost-effective than trying to do it with solid-state.

      --
      Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
  5. Reel to reels as well by John3 · · Score: 4, Informative

    And they are used in some of the best old-school reel-to-reel recorders. I don't know if they are making new components with tubes, but older tube pre-amps for Ampex and Scully tape recorders are prized by some audiophiles for their "warm" sound. They are also great for creating distortion...over-driving tube pre-amps creates some nice distortion effects which digital components would just clip.

    But (and I'm speaking as someone who has been out of radio and audio for many years...I own a hardware store), from what I've seen and heard there are some pretty awesome digital programs that can duplicate nearly any pre-amp ever made. Based on what my daughter can do with her Mac (Protools, FInale, etc) I am pretty impressed at the sounds that can be processed even in a home environment with no need for tubes.

    On the other hand, my tube pre-amps do keep the basement warm. :)

    --
    "We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers." Carl Sagan
  6. Re:Old is new by SomeJoel · · Score: 5, Funny

    Keep seeing all these whippersnappers nowadays wearing the same clothes I wore years ago.

    You should have thought of that before you donated them.

    --
    <Complete your profile by adding a signature!>
  7. Outer space is not the limit by Cochonou · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From a radiation engineering point of view, outer space is not the most stringent environment. It is actually significantly more forgiving than a lot of useful earth orbits or the radiation belts of the gas giants (but of course, you can hardly replace a failed transistor in space...).
    These "vacum tube like" diamond field emission devices have shown radiation tolerance from 10 to 100 Mrad (1 MGy in SI units), so we are more talking about the levels required for operation in nuclear reactors or close to the beam of particle accelerators.

  8. Re:Ahistoric Hyperbole Rant Warning by scharkalvin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually an open heater was NOT the way most tubes died. The coating on the cathode that emits electrons when heated gradually decays and emission drops off to the point that the tubes transconductance is too low for it to operate. But the heater rarely burns out, at least not in indirectly heated tubes. Another way they die is that air gradually leaks in and the vacuum becomes too poor. The silver flashing on the side of the tube will then turn a milky white as the chemical "getter" that absorbs air has absorbed all that it can. Once the getter coating is depleted the tube will become gassy. A tube can also die from shorts when closely spaced elements break loose from vibration and touch. Over heating will soften the elements and cause the same effect. Tubes can handle a much higher percent of overload than solid state devices however. Tubes computers were never faster than solid state ones even if the tubes themselves were faster. Because of their size the total wiring in a tube computer is much longer than in a solid state system. In transistors it is the "holes" in the crystal structure that "move" and the speed of light in silicon is lower than in a vacuum for electromagnetic waves. Still these waves have less distance to propergate in an IC than a bunch of interconnnected tubes. Finally note the description of this new tube technology, it is really a "vacuum state" IC. I always wondered when nanotechnology would be applied to thermionic "valves" (as they say across the "pond").

  9. Re:But in outer space... by compro01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, space is a far far harder vacuum than anything we can currently manage on-planet.

    A vacuum tube still has between 1 million to 1 billion molecules per cubic centimetre, depending on tolerances. The best vacuum we can currently make has about 100k molecules per cubic centimetre.

    Interplanetary space has about 10. Interstellar space has about 1. Intergalactic space has about 1 per cubic metre (10,000 cubic centimetres).

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  10. Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When Viktor Belenko defected to Japan with a MiG-25 fighter jet in 1976 (state of the art Russian aircraft back then, meant to counter our F-15) it was discovered that most of the electronics onboard the aircraft were built with micro-miniature vacuum tubes! The reason being that the fighter jet was designed for presumably nuclear war situations, and the Russians wanted to ensure that EMPs from nuclear explosions would not permanently damage the electronics, so the aircraft could still fly and fight even after exposure to any nearby nuclear explosions that were still distant enough to not physically destroy the aircraft.

    1. Re:Soviet Russia by fluffy99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry to be a whiny bitch, but the MiG-25 was actually designed to shoot down the XB-70 Valkyrie. The XB-70 project may appear to be a failure in that it only produced two prototypes at enormous cost, but it achieved what it was supposed to in that the USSR spent a fortune building a fleet of interceptors to shoot it down.

      And now Al Queda does the same thing to use. They employ a few guys with piloting skills and box cutters and we spend trillions trying to hunt down their boss and securing our airports against a non-threat.

    2. Re:Soviet Russia by careysub · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Your post and the GP's post are in agreement, I think. The XB-70 Valkyrie was designed to drop nuclear bombs on Soviet cities. The MiG-25 was designed to shoot it down. If one XB-70 dropped a nuclear bomb, and the EMP disabled the transistor-based radars of all nearby MiG-25s, then the other XB-70s would be able to reach their targets unmolested. So the MiG-25 radar was built with vacuum tubes instead.

      And in addition, it was a tremendously powerful radar - 600 kilowatt continuous beam - well beyond the capability of solid state electronics of the day.

      It was an extremely well designed radar system - it is hard to see how any possible design of the period could have improved upon its many advantages.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re:Soviet Russia by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sorry to be a whiny bitch, but the MiG-25 was actually designed to shoot down the XB-70 Valkyrie. The XB-70 project may appear to be a failure in that it only produced two prototypes at enormous cost, but it achieved what it was supposed to in that the USSR spent a fortune building a fleet of interceptors to shoot it down.

      This analysis is flawed - the threat of the XB-70 accounts only for the development of the Mig-25, not its production. The B-70 program was cancelled in 1962 but production of the Mig-25 did not begin until 1969.

      It is debatable whether the money spent on the full 1100 Mig-25 production run was the best investment in air power that could have been made, but the Mig-25 has proved to be of historic importance as a reconnaissance aircraft. Overflights of Israel were pivotal moments leading up the Six Day War, India uses them regularly to monitor Pakistan in peacetime and in war. Its ability to outrun opponents has proven to be valuable in battle.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  11. Re:News for who? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I believe that anyone younger than 30 now stands a damn good chance of never seeing a vacuum tube or even know of their existance.

    Wrong.

    If they ever attend a rock concert or watch a video of one (or if they ever take up electric guitar or bass) they'd see walls of them. Usually with big script logos that say "Marshall" or sometimes logos that say "Fender", "Soldano", or "Mesa-Boogie", with a few other brands that are less well-known and typically considered more "exclusive" like Matchless, Framus, Dr. Z, Top Hat, Divided by 13, Bad Cat, Victoria, etc etc.

    All the top guitar-amplifier makers' top-of-the-line pro-level models brag of being "all tube". DSP has not yet been able to equal the tone, "feel", and response to the player's nuances that vacuum tubes exhibit. It's really, REALLY hard to model all the variables that affect the sound of an electromechanical device like a vacuum tube with digital signal processing.

    I build and sell custom vacuum-tube guitar amps myself, as well as provide service and repair for vintage & modern tube guitar and bass amps. I can also occasionally be found on a stage in a club, or on a festival stage somewhere, playing guitar. I've been doing both for about 4 decades now.

    Strat

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  12. Re:News for who? by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It has more to do with reputation than with "can't be done otherwise". A 50 cent-a-pop DSP probably has enough power to simulate the good ol' vacuum tube sound.

    Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. For 40 years I've worked at music stores and been in bands, never mind being an amp tech/designer/builder, even worked in avionics and military-related high-end electronics systems, heard many of the very best DSP studio rack processors made costing many thousands of dollars, and my ears and everything else I know and have learned so far during all this time convinces me that, although DSP has gotten much, much better compared to even 5 years ago, it hasn't arrived yet at the point where the human ear can't tell the difference.

    DSP guitar tone, clean or overdrive/distortion/effects, does not sound like real tubes *yet*. They will probably get there, I'm not saying it won't happen, maybe quite soon. It's just not there yet.

    There's one solid-state amplifier made starting in 1975 that sounds great for jazz guitar. The Roland JC-120 Jazz Chorus 120 amplifier. Beautiful clean sounds. It does have a distortion function, but *nobody* used it once they heard it! :)

    Don't get me wrong. If you're in a local small-town working bar/dive band that is mostly there for the $40 to $80 a man per night, and not trying to impress anyone with your tone except the bar owner...just enough, that is, to pay you and keep you on the booking rotation, and you don't want to carry any more than absolutely necessary nor tie up more money than you absolutely have to in an amp, something like one of the "Line 6 Spider" combo amps will "get it done". Sorta like when old people...well, never mind. :-/

    Those type of DSP solid state amps are also great for those just starting out, as it has a bunch of effects in software already, no effects pedals or rack effects, cords, etc to bother with, and they're dirt-cheap as amps go. If it breaks, throw it away and buy another just like a disposable lighter.

    And yes, I do prefer the vacuum-tube amps, not only because of the sound, but also the warm feeling of old electronics :)

    Here's my personal amp that I built recently.

    http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h103/stratman_el84/Testament%2030/cabhead03.jpg

    4 tubes total. two 12AX7 dual-triode preamp tubes (one a parallel-triode preamp gain stage, the other is the "long-tailed pair" style dual triode inverter/driver tube) and two KT66 beam tetrode power tubes in cathode-biased push-pull Class AB, producing around 30 watts. Volume and Tone controls, Standby/On and Power On/Off toggles. That's it. It sounds fantastic. You can't find a Volume/Tone control setting combination that sounds bad. I keep finding wonderful new tones and sounds almost every time I play it.

    The sealed-back dovetail pine cab finished with Tru-Oil gunstock finishing oil with a Baltic birch plywood baffle has a pair of Celestion G12T-75 12-inch 8 Ohm guitar speakers wired in parallel for a 4 Ohm total impedance. It sounds absolutely gorgeous. Combined with that amp, some serious guitar tone-heaven.

    I took the amp head into the local Guitar Center store shortly after I'd finished it. They had *nothing* that sounded anywhere near that good. The manager finally noticed the small crowd gathering, and (gently) asked me to cease after he started hearing a couple people asking if I sold amps like that one. :D

    Oh, and since you mentioned a "warm feeling from old electronics", here's a little something that's sure to make wherever it is at just a little warmer. And louder. A *LOT* louder.

    http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h103/stratman_el84/Junk/monster.jpg

    --
    Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  13. Re:Pure marketing by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 4, Informative

    The tube on the AOpen mobo was a 6DJ8/6922, not a 12AX7.

    The 6DJ8 is also a dual triode, but it has much higher transconductance because it is a frame grid design. Those tubes were widely used as input amplifiers in vintage Tektronix scopes because of their low noise and high linearity.

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org