Tubes Asylum

Questions about tubes and gear that glows. FAQ

Return to Tubes Asylum


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100

67.176.235.210

Posted on March 8, 2017 at 08:48:48
csofan
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: IL
Joined: August 5, 2003
I plan on replacing the 6DJ8 (original tubes) driver tubes in my Counterpoint SA 100.
Since these are driver tubes I assume tat NOS is not needed. Any suggestions would be welcome. Thanks

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 8, 2017 at 08:56:39
DAK
Audiophile

Posts: 1757
Location: PACIFIC
Joined: August 8, 2010
Contributor
  Since:
December 0, 0000
I dunno about that. Anyway, you can't go wrong with Amperex made in Holland. I like the "A frame" type more than the others. But, NOS, might be the better way to go whether you get Amperex or some other brand.

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 8, 2017 at 13:47:24
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 2676
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
Back in late 1980's I bought a new SA12 and later had it upgraded to an SA100, and then again to the NP100 status by Alta Vista. Unless you want to chase increasingly sketchy and expensive NOS, I'd highly recommend the JJ 6922's. Make sure to pay for selected and tested ones. Been a while since I've bought any, but you should probably expect to pay ~$30 each for them plus shipping. The JJ's have a neutral tonal presentation that is very reminiscent of the Tele 6922, IMO.

If you want to chase NOS, DAK's recco of the Amperex is a good one. You may also want to add Siemens 7308 to your list for more sparkle and punch. Amperex 7308's are nice too, but I had a predilection to the Siemens in my old Counterpoint.

 

See if Upscale still has the old Russian Rocket logo 6922's..., posted on March 8, 2017 at 17:32:07
DeKay
Audiophile

Posts: 3867
Location: So. CA
Joined: November 22, 2002
Last time I checked only "driver" grade were in stock and they were more than reasonably priced.

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 9, 2017 at 09:19:44
Jonesy
Audiophile

Posts: 1199
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
Joined: September 1, 2005
What are the current driver and signal tubes you have in there?

Cheers!

Jonesy

"I know just enough to get into trouble. But not enough to get out of it."

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 9, 2017 at 21:05:07
csofan
Audiophile

Posts: 195
Location: IL
Joined: August 5, 2003
They are the original tubes that came with the amp and are unmarked . I'm guessing eastern European from the 90's

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 10, 2017 at 05:52:15
Sondek
Audiophile

Posts: 2676
Location: Fort Worth
Joined: May 17, 2000
Contributor
  Since:
April 5, 2002
Seems like my SA12 originally came with some Chinese made tubes and then shortly after that Counterpoint switched over to using some Czech made tubes (I suspect they were Tesla). Once Counterpoint made the switch, so did I and it was good step up in sound quality.

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 10, 2017 at 08:17:40
Jim McShane
Dealer

Posts: 5584
Location: Chicago
Joined: January 13, 2003
Don't rule out the Genalex reissue 6922s just because they aren't old stock. They are very good tubes, readily available, and have a warmer tone that is similar to some of the older Amperex/Mullard stuff.

 

RE: Driver tubes for Counterpoint SA 100, posted on March 10, 2017 at 12:07:50
Mechans
Audiophile

Posts: 1558
Location: East Coast
Joined: May 23, 2004
You shouldn't discount the impact of driver tubes. It was the driver tubes in a very modest amp that got me started tube rolling and eventually collecting.

 

RE: I was referring to the NOS comment, posted on March 11, 2017 at 08:22:06
DAK
Audiophile

Posts: 1757
Location: PACIFIC
Joined: August 8, 2010
Contributor
  Since:
December 0, 0000
i tried lots of good testing used tubes in driver position also with excellent results.

 

Page processed in 0.074 seconds.