 
|
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 |
184.98.49.108
I understand that some of the metal used when manufacturing NOS tubes is not available anymore. What I don't get is, virtually every area of technology has improved since these NOS tubes were made. Cant they improve on tube technology also? Or is this NOS thing a hoax? I await your responses. Thanks
Follow Ups:
But I hear very few people argue that overall manufacturing quality has. They don't make houses, appliances, etc... like they used to. Quick and cheap is the order of the day.
I liked Siemens/RCA 6922 but eventually found I liked Tesla/JJ better in my application. I liked RCA black plate square getter 12ax7 but I found I like the PSVane 12ax7 the best in my headphone amp. I haven't tried any NOS EL84's but I really like the Sovtek/Mullard/Tung Sol EL84's. My favorite 6550 is SED which I guess is NOS now. I know the Tung Sol black plate is the best but I don't know Mikael Samra all that well so I won't be getting those probably ever. So I vote New as being not that bad.
I like the 6550 black plates but I also like the reissue Genelex KT88s..The Tungsol black plates are a slightly different sound but all too often I have found that output tubes don't display the differences that driver/PS/voltage amp, and preamp tubes do because the amplification factor is just not that high by comparison..When you have 12AX7s with a gain or 80 to 100,that shows just how high the sensitivity is of the smaller tubes.
I totally agree with you on the JJ 6922..That is a hell of a great tube and they are low microphonics from my experience.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
Ya I agree. There are some good new production tubes out there.
to produce now with former telefunken tools or "modern" machines does not guarantee good tubes at all!
former experts retired or are dead, their experience and know how is lost.please make your own conclusions about those facts...
The times, they are changing...
Edits: 06/03/16
to produce now with former telefunken tools or "modern" machines does not guarantee good tubes at all!
former experts retired or are dead, their experience and know how is lost.
You are so right..My favorite are the Telefunkens...Anthony and I just said there are some good tubes out there and to say there isn't is just dishonest..While we don't have the craftsman today that they had at RCA,Telefunken,Raytheon,Western Electric,etc,we can't discount the fact that tubes have improved over the last 20 years and as more artful people hone their skills,tubes should get better yet.
Telefunkens have been the best dual triodes and EL84s in my collection and this is why I have so many...I don't believe the new labeled telefunkens are anything like the original and I won't pretend that they are.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
Most current production tubes are not of the same quality NOS tubes. This is especially true with small signal tubes. None of the current 12AX7's hold a candle to the NOS types. I've provided NOS 12AX7's to gutiar guys, and they all were amazed with the difference in sound.
I'll agree about the re-issue KT-88's, as they are pretty good. My amps use 1625 output tubes, which I find are one of audio's better kept secrets. They are a 6L6 with better power handling requirements. Very well made, high quality, and not expensive.
"What this country needs is a good 5 watt amplifier!" (Paul Klipsch)
I have been bouncing between NOS 6922/6DJ8/7308 and new Gold Lions in my Cary SLI-80.
I really like 60's Sylvania 7308, the best so far. Everything is there and nothing extra. Bugle Boys are the next best. Slightly more laid back than the 7308's.
The GL's are just too bright in my system. Might be good in a system that is not as revealing or is on the darker side.
This comes down more to certain materials that may create a desired sound but with today's technology,we can do a lot of things with tubes that we couldn't years ago..Trimming and spacing the elements are a key factor and the content of the elements plays a role and we can check these things with computers and special devices.
I can tell you point blank that KT66 reissue GEN is every bit as good if not better than the Gray glass GEC KT66 which I have many..The reissue Gen KT66s definitely beat the the vintage clear glass and the fact that they centered the plate structure in the bottle has worked wonders for heat dissipation and,the bases no longer come loose as they did on the vintage KT66s.Here is a test I did on a few of my KT88s and 6550s compared to the reissues.There is also another link.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" H. L. Mencken
Edits: 06/02/16 06/02/16
The US factories that made tubes were often relocated after the market started falling off. Raytheon and RCA set up shop in Japan for instance. Many of the new tube makers are using equipment that has been in use for over half a century.
Materials should be as good or better unless there was some stuff used during WWII that was so lethal that not even the Chinese will use it, which I doubt.
So if the equipment is the same or improved, the material as good or better then the only thing left is the people who make the tubes and the QC.
There is a market, or the things simply would not be made and if that was the case then NOS would be out of reach of many of today's users of tubes. Supply and demand. Who was the guy on Rec.Audio,Tubes that was trying to buy up all the Mullard EL-34s he could? I wonder if his dream came true. He listened to an Eico AF-4 with University Triax, or so he told me. The EL-34s were strictly his retirement. If things like the KT-66s and a few of the other replica tubes weren't around I would think it was assured. Now I don't even have a guess.
Thatch
Future compost
snip: Materials should be as good or better unless there was some stuff used during WWII that was so lethal that not even the Chinese will use it, which I doubt. So if the equipment is the same or improved, the material as good or better then the only thing left is the people who make the tubes and the QC.
Two key words: should be.
Should be doesn't necessarily translate into is be.
Materials quality is just one of the problems. The materials are not as good, nor better. If they were, issues related to lesser quality materials would be reduced.
Economics certainly plays into the quality of todays tubes. Efforts to reduce cost too often (not always) result in lower quality. In the end, the materials and workmanship of these new tubes is just not up to par with the NOS.
Stick to the NOS or used old stock.
"I can't compete with the dead" (Buck W. 2010)
"It would take me forever. I don't think I have forever" (Byrd 2015)
Go on the net and watch how vacuum tubes are made. Extremely labour intensive, from the glass blowing to the hand assembly of the internal parts. How much would it cost today to make tubes of the quality of an Amperex or Telefunken? Does the skilled labour even exist to make them in any kind of quality? Do guitar players(who are 90% of the vacuum tube market) want to pay for this type of quality?
It is easy to understand why "premium" quality tubes (like Psvane or Treasure) cost 2 or 3 times the cost of standard guitar tubes. It costs that much to make tubes that are comparable to good NOS. Might as well just buy NOS when possible.
There seems to be one video about this subject. The tubes they show are specialty tubes and not production tubes. Are production tubes automated? Like with robots and other machinery. If all tubes are hand made, I can see how and why they are so expensive....
Higher quality metals and alloys, glass, vacuum, phenolics, etc. Higher quality construction (welds, wire and glass quality, accuracy of construction, etc.). Higher QC criteria. Tighter, sustainable tolerances. Just plain higher standards overall resulting in higher quality.
It all adds up. NOS or new production? I'll stick with the former in EVERY instance.
"I can't compete with the dead" (Buck W. 2010)
"It would take me forever. I don't think I have forever" (Byrd 2015)
Nt
.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Now that's just mean...
--------------------------
Buy Chinese. Bury freedom.
At about 2:40 "bragging" :-)
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
I am ashamed to admit I don't know where I have that piece. In the Hot 5s or 7s, I suppose.
I thought he said put a $20 piece in his pocket, to show he died standing pat? He didn't ask for a tube which would have been current production at that time.
I'll try YouTube
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2084061-1300668809.jpeg.jpg)
I have a reissue, not sure which one - great music and sound.
In 1928, when Louis first made the song famous, those tubes would have been 17 years in the future.I went down to St.James Infirmary
Saw my baby there
She was stretched out on a long, white table
So cold, so sweet, so fairLet her go, let her go, God bless her
Wherever she may be
She can look this wide world over
But she'll never find a sweet man like me (bragging)When I die bury me in shoes,
I want a Boxback coat and a Stetson hat
Put a twenty dollar gold piece on my watch chain
So the boys will know that I died standin' patBy 1959, when the linked version of the song was recorded, they would have already been NOS.
The 6sn7w (metal base, tall black base and short black base) were only made during WW2.
Tre'
Have Fun and Enjoy the Music
"Still Working the Problem"
Edits: 06/06/16
I want to talk to you Tre'. You get it. I want a current production matched quad of 6SN7s. Aways preferred short black base Sylvania Ws. They just sing. Like a late 50's Amperex Holland that never existed.
I need a matched quad due to my image inspecific otherwise amps and in spite of owning a dozen Sylvania Ws, a matched quad just doesn't exist there.
And yes, this is the lower case Joe of joe's tube lore. Any current production matched quad alternative in the universe?
peace, your mileage may vary, etc...
joe
Current production 6SN7s that I have tried, such as Tung Sol and standard Russian product along with regular Chinese product are tolerable at best. Not always terrible but nothing like or approaching the sound quality of even ordinary Sylvania 6SN7s from (circa) the 50s and not remotely close to the 6SN7W metal base tubes. In my mind the black based Ws are also very, very good.
There are other tube types where this applies but I have found the current production Gold Lion KT-88s (Russian) are indeed excellent as Mike Samra has pointed out. I am very happy with the lot I got from Jim.
Would that be new in the box, or used?
My used inventory is limited.
(just kiddin')
OAI?
"I can't compete with the dead" (Buck W. 2010)
"It would take me forever. I don't think I have forever" (Byrd 2015)
I gather you see the point, Byrd.
With all the new technology, what we have discovered in ceramics and glass, tighter manufacturing tolerances and many others that we have today. Look at automotive technology compared to the 30's till now. If they want to build a better tube they can.....
You're completely right. The technology is definitely there to build a better tube. I wouldn't even say materials or tooling are any kind of barrier, either. What made NOS tubes desirable are the tolerances. In the 60s, when you bought a 12AX7, you GOT a 12AX7, as per the spec sheet. Today, LOL, the typical values one refers can test from a little to WAY off: plate resistance, transconductance, amplification factor, and more. (see the link supplied below - highlights the variances between manufacturers, batches, and tolerances in QC).
The real barrier is the economics of tube production. Essentially, no one really needs them anymore, save for those who use them for antique restoration, Hi-Fi, guitar amps, radio broadcast, some satellite broadcast systems, and still-going Minuteman missiles lol. The whole industry that was predicated on the tube is essentially GONE.
So, while the available moneys for R&D, materials and tooling are an an issue, the other side of the coin (ie, "the market") is people's willingness to pay. And because this is a market that makes money per unit on low volume of sales, and really that means fewer opportunities for marginal profit and a poor investment for lenders.
Really, they can build wicked tubes, but they would cost 10x the regular, and people would still go elsewhere for the nuanced sound of another product. And to that effect, there ARE decent tubes in production today, including Gold Lion tubes by New Sensor, and a handful of high-end products out of China. But, they cost as much as a NOS tube (NOS that hasn't gone totally unobtainium). Some examples include:
-Gold Lion KT88, KT77 and KT66 - AWESOME vacuum quality (important for high voltage applications, in my experience).
-TJ Full Music / Northern Electric 12AX7 - awesome tube that closely follows tolerances.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
The technology certainly does exist to make better tubes. Its just the market wont pay the cost. Back in the tube era, military, medical and other users demanded and got quality tubes. With todays small market, nobody can justify the cost involved to make tubes of that quality. The market just isnt there any more.
Amen. There is nothing new under the sun.
Edits: 05/31/16
Economics rule the roost. Tube makers need to turn a profit.
Eli D.
Competition amongst manufacturers was prolly much stiffer in the 1930-60s. When many different electronic devices needed reliable tubes.
Today, market is much smaller. Less revenue = less $$$ for R&D.
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:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
