Tube DIY Asylum

Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

RE: Initial A/B test between PP and SE 6bq5 amps

Posted by 91derlust on June 27, 2017 at 13:20:50:
If they each had cobbled-together power supplies, similar output transformers, cathode bias circuits configurations... or some other dominating/limiting factor to which SETs are sensitive (speaker?), sure it can.

But sure, you may be hearing a larger difference between topologies SE versus PP than you are between tube types in your SE implementations - but you mention hearing differences between your SE implementations in your build threads.

I'd posit that SE is easy to well enough, but tough to well. I reckon I could easily and cheaply make a nice-sounding, but dull, unresolved SE amp with almost any common DHT. If I sued the same components and transformer quality with PP, the PP would probably sound more dynamic and resolved.

Cheers,
91.