 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Please be forewarned, the following statement are my own and do not reflect the general concensus of this forum or others:I am a novice tube-0-phile. I have discovered some things about the whole issue of "which type is best" for my audio application.
I just plopped a quad of burned in Svetlana EL-34's into my CJ int. amp and much to my surprise, they sound almost every bit as good as the much coveted "Mullard EL-34" which are I might add, are nearly 4 times the price!. I know some of you may be saying "Hang 'em high" right about now, but I do not think the difference in cash is even close to worth it! Oh yes, there is no denyin' the Mullard is a tad smoother and refined, but at $130.00 (tax-in) for a matched quad vs. $150.00 USD (shipped) times 4!. Well, do the math!... It seems to me that premium tubes come at an ultra-premium price, and that great tubes come at an affordable price!
I can only begin to start to draw one simple conclusion:
1.) The ridiculous prices paid for NOS tubes, which are often unreliable electricly, due to age and history of storage, has more to do with rarities, nostalgia and vanity than it actually does with sound.
2.) The fact that they are the "best" sounding tubes available, (to which I will agree), puts them in an eclectic classification.
I am also wondering about the fact that technology, and the use of applied technology and apparatus, should by rights allow us to build a "Superior Quality" tube today. I am aware that Russian tube MFG'ers are using specs of yesteryear to acquire the "status" of tadays tube sonics and reliability. As like cars, due to advanced technology, should our tubes not be getting better?
Please, this is not a rant on NOS bashing, I love them just as much as you, but after hearing some side-by-each, I'm wondering what the heck all the rave is!............... I do invite your "controlled" replies. A-man
Please don't take personal offense, A-man, but you hardly offer "a strong argument" in the NOS vs. current production tube debate.If I understand correctly, you have exactly one experience with NOS vs. current production tubes -- dropping some excellent Svet EL-34's into an amp currently playing XF-2 Mullard EL-34's and hearing some difference, but not much.
Gosh, that really isn't much experience on which to base "a strong argument" is it?
Before closing your mind to NOS tubes, you really should consider that your test was extremely, incredibly limited in scope.
I'd suggest that you try rolling other NOS tubes, specifically those on the input and driver stages of amps where the sonic impact is more significant. I and others have said that before, and it's true. Plus, these tubes are more affordable generally than output tubes.
Don't spend a lot of money if you dont' want -- it's your choice -- always stay within your means. Buy some inexpensive NOS tubes and learn to listen for the differences through lots and lots of testing and note taking. Figure out what you are hearing and to what extent the differences are meaningful. Maybe your gear doesn't really show differences -- there's no shame in that if you like what you hear anyway.
By taking this route, you may discover some cool things about the real differences between NOS and current production tubes, plus you can have lotsa' fun while doing it.
In the end, if you find that in most instances you prefer current production tubes, then by all means put them in your amp, play some music and be happy.
Best regards, Paul
Did not mean to insult anyone here, but I cannot afford to buy hundreds upon hundreds of $$$ of tubes just to find that some are "incrementally" better than others. I only listen once. If I (personally) cannot hear too much of a difference, than there isn't any. I trust my ears, not status..
Paul: point taken with no offense. I should have said a strong argument based on this experience. For me, I am not willing to pay 400% more for "luxury goods" when they do not sound 400% better! It's a status thing. A-man
In a lot of ways, the degree of better or different is very subjective. I don't know how to define "for each incremental $ spent, what is the incremental sound improvement". I had KT-90s'. I like the SV6550C's better. I am probably in the minority here. I like the Tung Sol Black Plate no hole 6550's event better. These can be had for about twice the cost. For me, I felt as though they were worth it. I also own a pair of GEC KT-88's, which I like marginally better than the Tung Sol 6550s. They probably cost 3-4 times as much, generally speaking. I can't say whether they are 3-4 times better because I don't know what that means. I just know they sound better to me and I could afford to buy them and relative to what i had spent on my system, the price was reasonable. If someone owned Tung Sols and had to stretch for the KT-88's, I would advise them to do something else with their money like, put it into your front end or cables or something else.I am not being snippy, but if you have that "Price to Value" formula that we can all use please share it.
Hmmmm. I am not the most qualified person to get into this but here goes. In my opinion it really is worth spending the extaa dollars to buy old NOS tubes from a legitimate source (dealer). Not from ebay where a lot of old tubes have been relabeled/rebranded (fakes), and are of questionable sonic value. If money is not a problem (as it is with me) I would use NOS tubes in my highly modified all rebuilt Dyna ST-70. My amplifier has been upgraded with the Kennedy audiophile audio circuit board. I still smile for hours when I listen to how nice it sounds wired in triode, with it's modest 16 wpc output. I recently lost the 5AR4 rectifier when I stupidly tripped over the power cord. I caughed up $40.00 for a used low hour pull genuine Mullard replacment tube. There was no question of my not spending this money to me. I took the time to solder in quality Roederstein, Dale, and Vishay resistors. I used paper in oil capacitors in my ampliifier. It is all rebuilt, and my friends are simply amazed at how good it sounds playing with my 4 ohm 91db efficient speakers. Sadly, I am on a small monthly disability income due to medical negligence costing me 21 operations since 1995. If I had the money I would in a minute opt for a new (or even used) set of 4 matched EL-34 output tubes. Even in my modified Pas 3x I noticed a nice, albiet subtle improvement in sound quality when I went from new Russian 12ax7 tubes to installing 5 used RCA 12ax7 tubes. IMHO, if one has the money and can afford it, vintage NOS (or even good used vintage) tubes are a decent investment. If you are using a inexpensive vintage stock amplifier I would argue against using NOS. If a resistor, or capacitor fails it would be a crime to ruin some nice NOS tubes due to this. These are only my own thoughts on the subject. Yes, my amplifier sounds nice with Svetlana tubes now in it, but how much sweeter would it sound with good NOS tubes installed in it? I hope to find out someday.. :)
If $100-$150 each is a lot of monay to you...save it. It's for the person that wants the best and doesn't blink.I have cstomers all the time ask if Mullard El-34's are worth it.
One guy had a baby crying in the background and was going to have to go to Sears to make a payment on his maxed-out Discover card to but them. That's any easy one. Don't do it.
Another customer has original Marantz 9's, she's a dentist, and a very avid audiophile that appears to be able to afford what makes her happy. She should still make the decision because I don't know HOW important it is. To her.
Then everything else in between. But if you think that ANY tested operating Mullard EL-34 will be less dependable than ANY current EL-34...you're sorely mistaken. There is no comparison.
While some of the new EL-34's are getting better, they are not a Mullard. You know how many Svetlana and Tesla etc I have warrantied? Mucho.
Mullards? I think only one in many many years.
As to this Mullard staple plate stuff...I don't agree with it. They all sound fine. And I would take early ones.
"Older is better" is what people think. But not always true. In fact the first Amperex 6922 were the worst they made as were the first Mullard 6922 or CV2492. I mean the early wrinkle glass ones. I have 200 of them I won't even fiddle with cause it's such a bummer. They stink.
Look at 12AT7's. The first Amperex and Mullard don't hold a candle to the later Mullard CV4024 or 6201.
""Older is better" is what people think. But not always true. In fact the first Amperex 6922 were the worst they made as were the first Mullard 6922 or CV2492. I mean the early wrinkle glass ones. I have 200 of them I won't even fiddle with cause it's such a bummer. They stink."Kevin, to my knowledge, the early Amperex 6922 made in Holland is the "pinched waist version" with D-getter/wrinklr glass and IMO they are the best 6922 Amperex ever made and one the best-ever 6922. They should not be much cheaper than any NOS Mullard EL34 at least in my part of the world.
Are you referring to the US made 6922? If yes, I agree 100% with your assessment.
I'm hitting tube asylum in the early morning or late at nite. Sorry for lack of clarity due to lack of sleep!My comment below was:
""Older is better" is what people think. But not always true. In fact the first Amperex 6922 were the worst they made as were the first Mullard 6922 or CV2492. I mean the early wrinkle glass ones. I have 200 of them I won't even fiddle with cause it's such a bummer. They stink."
Tim's comment was
"Kevin, to my knowledge, the early Amperex 6922 made in Holland is the "pinched waist version" with D-getter/wrinklr glass and IMO they are the best 6922 Amperex ever made and one the best-ever 6922. They should not be much cheaper than any NOS Mullard EL34 at least in my part of the world.
Are you referring to the US made 6922? If yes, I agree 100% with your assessment."
My clarification:
I meant to say the most every early Mullard CV2492 is un-usable in any preamp. I was referring to the wrinkle glass ones, so don't take my comments elsewhere. In fact they may work in some DAC's...I'll have to try them.
In the case of the Amperex 6922 pinched waist, both the Holland and U.S. made are both very microphonic and have a higher than normal chance of being noisy. I've sold and tested hundreds. I have not used them in a preamp position successfully, and in the case of a CAT or Mod 3a or any other high gain preamp would not even attempt it. But as a buffer the very flaws it has may be what makes it sound good. So I am not saying these tubes don't sound good. They do.
The problem is that when making comments about liking or dis-liking tubes people don't always discuss HOW it's used.
Example is the Amperex 7308. I like that tube in preamps. I never sell them to customers to use as driver tubes in amps. In the ones we have tried them in they sound too bloated in the bass.
It's like saying "Bob is a good worker, so I am going to hire him"
But if Bob is a steelworker and you need an accountant, you may have made a bad choice, regardless of how good he is.
Kevin: Your insights are duely noted. A-man
Hmmm, it seems you hit on a very real issue. How much is too much? That's an age old question.1) Yes and no. Supply and demand determine pricing. You have a dwindling supply, reasonable demand and increasing prices. Sound quality varies with NOS tubes. Some are a lot better, some could be worst. It depends both on the individual tube, the exact piece of equipment and the system. Whether it's an improvement and whether it's worth it is purely a personal discussion.
2) Well, I'm not sure if eclectic is the best description. But certainly. the best NOS tubes are becoming increasing rare. It's also terribly complicated as there are so many variates of the same tubes. They are somewhat like rare collectables. Now the market is hot, a few years ago it wasn't.
Pricing never reflects the quality difference completely. It's solely based on simple supply and demand. The Mullards that you mention aren't going to be 4 times better. But to some folks, that difference is worth the cost. And yes, it does appear that a few of the new production tubes are rivaling the NOS counterparts, particualarly considering the cost differential.
I for one look foward to new production tubes sounding better than NOS. In my experience with 6922 tubes, I have found that only a very select few NOS are worth the extra money and effort to search out. These vintages tend to sound better IMO because they pass more information, filter out noise and are more involving and musical. I hope the new Sovtek gets it right this time.
Makes you wonder if vintage tubes get better with age, like wine and violins? My Svetlana`s 6L6GC`s are very close in design and sound to NOS GE`s, it shouldn`t be long before new tubes will meet or beat vintage tubes. If demand for good sounding tubes keeps growing, as I`m sure it will some sharp business men will fill that demand, thats the free enterprise way, nothing has changed there.
The Svetlana is indeed a very good current production tube. I'm curious about which version of Mullard you tried. Type 1,2 or 3? What color is the base? How many getters? Does it have a hole in the center guide pin? And how many hours of burn-in did they have?Regarding your conclusions
1. Nope - simple supply & demand. Folks arent buying NOS tubes around here for nostalgia. Its just a lot of folks chasing thier favorite tubes allied with a dwindling supply.
2. Closer to the truth - see above.
Joe
Joe: i'm very new to this game, so I'll answer your question as best as possible: the base is black, it does indeed have a hole in the center guide pin. Getters?, I've heard of this, but do not know exactly what it is, or where it is located in the tube, perhaps tell me and I'll reply. Type??, again, don't know. About 400 hrs. of break-in. Again, compared to the Svetlana EL-34, I really don't understand wht the hell i paid so much!!! as i said before though, i can hear a sonic difference and there is no denyin' the mullard is better, but to the tune of 5-6 times the price....No. A-man
Hmmm, based on your description they are probably '70s vintage tubes. Worth maybe $75 each max - certainly not $150! I've got a few and they sound marginally better that Svetlanas in my system but the differences are just that - differences - not necessarily advantages. I've found that you've got to be playing with mid '60s or earlier mullards to get any real advantage out of the swap...Joe
Well, I must say that the Mullard that you have tried is likely to be the late production stapled plate model with a xf4 or later production code. This type of Mullard EL34 hardly worth its price and is indeed not any better than Svetlana.You should perhaps wait until you hear the earlier production Mullard EL34 before arriving at a conclusion about NOS tube in general. One of the biggest problem with NOS tube is that there are so many version of them even for same model of tube from the same manufacturer (e.g. there must be > 50 types of NOS Mullard 12AX7 out there) and some of them really cannot be any better than new production tube, particularly for 6922 and EL34. While some other are so good that it is hard to believe a single tube can make so much improvement.
It is difficult to decide what is really worth for a NOS tube. But I know for myself that it is clearly more worthwhile than spending thousand of dollars on silly priced "audiphile-grade" cable and interconnect which have new model every 6 month.
I think because I am much so a novice in the tube rolling game, i had better stick with competant well-known brands, that have warranty rather than venture out like I did.... the new Svets sound fine!....A-man
Just for your info, it is an xf-2 Mullard, which i am told is amongst the best of that crop. A-man
xf2 should sound better than Svetlana already. But the difference can be subtle. But I can tell you that xf1 (big brown base) and Type 1 (metal base) are VERY significantly better than the later versions that anyone who can tell the difference between ss and tube sound can appreciate within seconds. And that is why they are also so VERY expensive.
Tim: AGREED!!... The ones I have are not quite the ones you mention. As I said, my ear "can" tell the difference even with the xf-2 poly base, but honestly, there was not a hell of a lot of difference between these and the new Svets. A-man
I use 12AX7, actually 5751, tubes in my Jolida hybrid amp. I yearn for the day that I can buy a new tube which sounds as good as a NOS tube. My rationale is that NOS are becoming harder to find and their prices are getting quite high. I guess it's that supply and demand thing. Never-the-less, I would like to be able to buy a new tube that sounds as good or even better than NOS. So far I haven't found one. Svetlana is suppose to come out with a 12AX7 in the next couple of weeks, or at least it is suppose to be at Music Direct then. I am hoping this tube fits the bill. If not, maybe one day another manufacturer will come out with one. I am still amazed that the older NOS tubes sound better than the ones made more recently, or at least in the ones I have thats the case.
"I am still amazed that the older NOS tubes sound better than the ones made more recently, or at least in the ones I have thats the case."I have observed the same phenomenon with all the NOS tubes that I have and all that I have heard (with the exception of super selected models such as Gold Aero Platinum).
Can anyone explain why the OLD WAYS of tube making are always better even among those make in the 60's or before?
Tim
Some of it might be attributed to materials. The purity of certain materials is difficult to duplicate today without the use of cancer causing processes.A second issue is construction. Many of the current production tubes are not designed to duplicate NOS tubes. In some cases, radio tubes are modified to electrically look like a NOS tube from a spec viewpoint, but the construction is completely different.
That is actually not the question that I have.My question is why the tube made by the same factory in early 1950's is better than that in late 1950's which in turn is better than any of the same tube made in the same factory in early 1960's. That should be no problem with rare material at that time apart from a continued "improvement" program which somehow brought exactly the opposite result, as least as far as audio application is concerned.
The tubes made in the 30s, 40s & 50s were made in the heyday of tubes. Many manufactures differentiated their products on the basis of quality, performance, reliability and design. So - lots of quality tubes. By the 60s and very notably thru the 70s & 80s transistors wiped out huge parts of the tube market and was rapidly wiping out what was left. As a result tubes became a commodity with fewer and fewer customers. Low demand = lower prices. Cheap tubes means cost cutting and that showed up in both simplified designs as well as cheaper materials.Narrowing down to the window you defined I dont know that I would agree that that time period defined a decline in quality for all types. Are you referring to a specific model? If so it might be as simple as that model falling into general disuse in new electronics during that period and the resulting drop in demand resulted in a drop in price - followed again by cost cutting, etc...
Joe
Joe
Might have been 2 parts passion, 3 parts purer materials or something like that, but I don't believe that tubes were ever constructed for "sonic integrity during this period, we audiophiles just happened to find this out 30 years later. Correct me if'n i'z wrong, but were not tubes mfg'd for military, commercial and household purposes, according to grade. i believe that most of the explanation of superior sound of NOS was attributed to better construction and purer materials, or as another poster put it, maybe they do need age to come to full potential like a fine vintage wine. If this is the case, me Svets should be soundin' mighty good when grandson plugs 'em into his tube driven MP3.... Nurse, nurse!!! a-man
Hi -I have done relatively little tube rolling, but what I have heard tends to bear out the *very* general impression that the older the tube, the better the sound.
I would like to throw a few ideas into the mix. I haven't done very much to correlate them to my listening experiences per se, but I imagine that some of these factors may contribute to the sonic characteristics of tubes with different constructions and vintages.
1) NOS & older tubes in good condition may tend to have harder vacuums than brand new tubes, due to the getter absorbing most of the gas remaining due to outgassing from the tube elements over time.
2) The lower transconductance tubes from the teens through the 40's generally seem to be more linear - perhaps related to larger spacings, physical elements & more easily controlled tolerances.
3) The lead materials used for new design vacuum tubes changed around WWII - an alloy was discovered which had virtually the same thermal coefficient of expansion as the glass used in vacuum tubes, allowing more compact construction, but perhaps this was at a sonic penalty, due to more tendency to microphonics & perhaps higher coercivity of the signal carrying leads(?).
4) The trend toward higher transconductances at low heater power ratings seems fairly well correlated to greater susceptibility to microphonics (due to the generally much smaller dimensions between grid, cathode & sometimes plate, etc.) & I've never heard anybody say that a 417A or 6DJ8's microphonics were 'euphonic' - quite the opposite, in fact.
Receiving tubes were generally made as cheaply as the market would bear for decades. It doesn't seem improbable to me that the latest materials technology and computer modeling could create new vacuum tube types with ratings similar to classic types but improved sonic performance. Perhaps the relatively recent developments in cold cathode quantum tunneling technology could be applied to 'heaterless' tubes with vastly improved lifespans and efficiencies essentially equivalent to solid state devices.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
