Tubes Asylum Questions about tubes and gear that glows. FAQ |
|
In Reply to: RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results posted by airtime on December 29, 2016 at 07:43:40:
Well it was purchased from Audio Classics in 2012 with Richard Modafferi. So everything works as it should.
I suppose the problem here is my confusion at what is said for the Tung Sols to sound like (lively and chimey) don't in the phono section yet do in the line stage. It is pulling my hair out because being circuit dependent, it doesn't help with strategizing tube purchases when this happens. BTW it sounded less strident than the Gold Lions in the phono section here.
Yes I suppose I could post this in the Mac section over there, but this needs knowledge of tubes and how they work in various circuits to uncrack for me. The lads over there are very good and I might just do that right after this, but seeing as this is where the tube experts live, I am confident you all can help.
Btw in the MC240, the Gold Lion provided a deeper smoother soundstage than a ribbed Telefunken. That was a surprise.
See? Everything is all upside down. Plus the naysayers who say that current tubes aren't a patch on old stuff confuses me. I tried a Mullard 161 and a 163 in the line stage in the 110 and they were strident and shrill compared to the Gold Lions.
I am wondering how a Mullard reissue in the phono section might work against the Tung Sols. I can't predict because it seems that down is up in that different applications...
Paul
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results - Paul Kehayas 07:58:14 12/29/16 (4)
- RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results - Sondek 10:32:56 12/29/16 (2)
- RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results - Paul Kehayas 10:39:12 12/29/16 (1)
- RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results - Sondek 11:02:47 12/29/16 (0)
- RE: Confusion at MX110 12AX7 tube results - airtime 08:47:36 12/29/16 (0)