|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
173.21.167.104
In Reply to: RE: The Audible Illusions Reality posted by Bambi B on May 01, 2014 at 17:30:13
thx for your 'war and peace' response ;) ;) looks like the combo of more voltage(sorry jimmy mac) and higher wattage works out for the AI's.
i've tried the red label tungsrams and they're clean sounding and dead quiet...but i'm looking for a little more mid-range lushness/fullness. i'm probably headed for red valvo e188cc's of 1963 vintage (VR6)...they're re-branded amperexes which are close enough to the tubes that wood1 earlier recommended.
Follow Ups:
jmochevar,
RE: "War and Peace response" : Those on this site who know me from earlier times- (starting I think in 2000 or 2001), that I never use one word when twenty will do just as well.
I am pleased that Jim McShane so succinctly clarified the Watts /dissipation aspects as the key parameters to evaluate tube ruggedness.
The Tungsram E88CCs are for me similar to the Siemens upon which they are patterned, and as you mention very quiet, but I also ended up using Valvo E188CC in the positions with the greatest influence on the sound. The Tungsram and Siemens do have an admirable accuracy, energy and punch, but the Philips seem to have a more pleasing timbre. Most of the Philips E188CC I have (24) are VR5 and VR9. I have about 100 of the 6DJ8 family and never found a really compelling sonic reason to buy the very early ones.
Cheers,
Bambi B
Main System: Oracle Delphi III /SME V / Audioquest 200, Dual 1019 (78's)/Cambridge Audio 640 v2 , McIntosh MR67 (1965)> Audio Research SP10 > ARC D115 > Vandersteen 2C, Audioquest King Cobra IC, Audioquest Rocket88 speaker, Audioquest NRG 2 power, OneAC 12A isolation transformer power conditioner
"Those on this site who know me from earlier times- (starting I think in 2000 or 2001), that I never use one word when twenty will do just as well."
Bambi, are you sure we aren't related somewhere along the line?? :~)
Jim McShane,
I think we are related in the sense that written descriptions of sound, it's relationship with hardware, and the science behind it does require a careful word choice- and to make a complete and supported description- a lot of words. Your post concerning tube ruggedness was excellent and to me, was clear, accurate, and exactly the right length.
Recommending a particular tube, requires scientific, technological, quantitative, qualitative,and aesthetic language! And, especially the aesthetic language may be confused and seem vague. Think of how many ways a tube might be called "cool".
Personally, I had always thought I would write austere poetry and novels in the magical realism style, but instead I am writing Patent applications- much more difficult to do well,..
Follows is a wordless description of the arcing of a GE 6550A called "Design for a Theatre".
Cheers,
Bambi B
Hi, Bambi, so you are in the patent business I see, done a few applications myself although I am primarily a patent searcher, who are you with?
gkargreen,
Ah- I may have made this sound grander than it is, as these are provisional applications for my own projects, of which there are a considerable number. These are considered preparatory and the hope is that they will represent sufficient protection during a development / funding phase.
I've been doing my own searches too- which seems more difficult to do well. In 2009, after what I believed to be a careful search, I worked on a project for months and only when doing application exhibits found an astoundingly similar design patented two years previously. This was a surprise as it was a complex and somewhat counter-intuitive device. It seems that the unconventionality confused the search- difficult to categorize.
A friend who is retired from NASA and who has several Patents is advising and there is much to be learned from doing searches and reading other applications. Even reading the details of infringement lawsuits is informative.
I've often wondered how professionals learn this as it requires a combination of high density technical, descriptive, and legal thinking.
Required forum audio content> quite a few audio projects including a couple that are vacuum tube related.
Cheers,
Bambi B
" looks like the combo of more voltage(sorry jimmy mac) and higher wattage works out for the AI's."If you mean the tube is capable of handling higher dissipation wattage then that is true. But...
Again, it is NOT the voltage that kills the AI tubes, it's the current and the dissipation. This is not something I'm making up out of thin air. It is the FACTS .
You can put 400 volts on a 6922 - and unless it arcs the voltage will not be a problem AS LONG AS THE DISSIPATION AND CURRENT ARE WITHIN LIMITS!! I'm not saying you should (there are a lot of considerations besides the voltage limit of the tube), but you can.
Do you know what "higher wattage" means? "Higher wattage" in the tube ratings means the tube has a higher dissipation rating. Dissipation is measured in watts. It has to do with the ability of the tube (or other device) to deal with the heat generated.
If a given tube has a maximum dissipation of let's say one watt - it can reach that dissipation limit with any number of voltage and current combinations. All the voltage/current combos listed below yield one watt of dissipation:
1 ma and 1000 volts
2 ma and 500 volts
4 ma and 250 volts
10 ma and 100 voltsAnd so on...
For any given current - if you increase the voltage you will increase the dissipation; if you decrease the voltage you will decrease the dissipation.
For any given voltage - if you increase the current you will increase the dissipation; if you decrease the current you will decrease the dissipation.
The voltage we are talking about is the plate voltage - which is the voltage difference between the plate and the cathode. If the voltage on the plate is 200 volts and the voltage on the cathode is 10 volts then the plate voltage is 190 volts. If the voltage on the plate is 200 volts and the voltage on the cathode is 0 volts then the plate voltage is 200 volts.
Finally remember this - a simple definition for voltage is "potential difference". It may be helpful to remember that you can have voltage without current, but you can't have current without voltage . Even arcing - which occurs when the voltage (pressure) overcomes the resistance and CURRENT FLOWS - just like too much pressure in a garden hose can burst it and cause flow.
Voltage is like the pressure in a garden hose with the hose nozzle shut. There is pressure but no flow. Open the nozzle and you get flow - unless you lose pressure at the nozzle (like if the hose kinks).
Voltage = pressure, current = flow. Current requires electron flow. Voltage does not.
None of the above is my OPINION, it is fact, as dictated by the laws of physics that apply. I don't know everything about physics and electricity, but I do know that what I just posted is FACT. And yes, this is partially a rant, because "sorry jimmy mac" implies I am wrong. I'm not.
Edits: 05/02/14
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: