xlr8or Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 Beautiful pair of Tung-Sol 6F8G black round plate 6SN7 subs. Adapters required. https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2-NIB-Tung-Sol-6F8G-Tubes-Roundplates-/284494440298 1
Gryffles Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 16 hours ago, PKay said: Thanks for your very generous offer Ben. I will send an email to Audiofix to find out when the phono and the MC4 SUT are arriving. No worries. It sucks having to buy valves just to test them out lol
Red MacKay Posted October 23, 2021 Posted October 23, 2021 35 minutes ago, Gryffles said: No worries. It sucks having to buy valves just to test them out lol It sure does at the prices they are now!
PKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 What is the difference in current production methods today compared to some of these old tubes that go for large amounts of money?
Red MacKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) I don't believe they had any OH&S, PPE or the like back then. Any detrimental health outcomes for workers was just 'bad luck'. Workers were a dime a dozen. Hence - they could use more toxic materials and get away with it too. No EPA fines or the like either. And just maybe the women that made these treasures by hand on their machines were just a breed of human that was better than we are now. I remember when I was an apprentice back in 1980 at Stanley Tools, and the women working the most boring jobs grinding screwdrivers, setting the level in levels, packaging etc - wow - their skills, speed and endurance were phenomenal. Tubes are now made by machines.... Edited October 24, 2021 by Red MacKay typo 2 2
Silver Audiophile Posted October 24, 2021 Author Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, PKay said: What is the difference in current production methods today compared to some of these old tubes that go for large amounts of money? Although this is not a forum to debate NOS Vs New production tubes (belongs in the Great debate forums), as made clear when I started this thread. Suffice to say, most NOS tubes, and some of the best NOS tube ever made, are very inexpensive indeed. Only a few tubes go for big bucks, usually because they are in demand and rare. Below is an example of probably the best 12AU7 (ECC82) tube ever created on the face of earth- the 1950s White label CBS Hytron 5814... Price I bought my stash US$25/each! Thanks to @xlr8or for strongly suggesting this tube originally. Edited October 24, 2021 by Silver Audiophile 1 1
PKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 44 minutes ago, Silver Audiophile said: Although this is not a forum to debate NOS Vs New production tubes (belongs in the Great debate forums), as made clear when I started this thread. Suffice to say, most NOS tubes, and some of the best NOS tube ever made, are very inexpensive indeed. Only a few tubes go for big bucks, usually because they are in demand and rare. Below is an example of probably the best 12AU7 (ECC82) tube ever created on the face of earth- the 1950s White label CBS Hytron 5814... Price I bought my stash US$25/each! Thanks to @xlr8or for strongly suggesting this tube originally. My question was not meant to create a debate but rather gain some knowledge. I didn’t ask whether one sounds better than the other. 2
PKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Red MacKay said: I don't believe they had any OH&S, PPE or the like back then. Any detrimental health outcomes for workers was just 'bad luck'. Workers were a dime a dozen. Hence - they could use more toxic materials and get away with it too. No EPA fines or the like either. And just maybe the women that made these treasures by hand on their machines were just a breed of human that was better than we are now. I remember when I was an apprentice back in 1980 at Stanley Tools, and the women working the most boring jobs grinding screwdrivers, setting the level in levels, packaging etc - wow - their skills, speed and endurance were phenomenal. Tubes are now made by machines.... Thanks.
Silver Audiophile Posted October 24, 2021 Author Posted October 24, 2021 11 minutes ago, PKay said: My question was not meant to create a debate but rather gain some knowledge. I didn’t ask whether one sounds better than the other. All good Hopefully, knowledgeable folks will be able to address the question of construction methods and materials used in NOS tubes. 2
dwbasement Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 15 hours ago, xlr8or said: @dwbasement Hey Dennis, here are my favourite 45's. The famous RCA UX245 balloon-shaped tube: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/3-RCA-Cunningham-UX-245-45-Globe-45-Tube-245-all-Tested-Good-/144251054991 Edit: Here is a nice pair of 2A3's: https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/A23-pair-ken-rad-jan-ckr-2a3-vt-95-vacuum-tube-/133911832160 Hi Kirk, the balloon 45 tested 50 where 47 is minimum value. Does that mean they only tested like 60%? Do you think it still be ok? I might ask the seller if he can sell just 2. Will also keep an eye on the 2A3.
dwbasement Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 @xlr8or are below ok too? https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2-Sylvania-45-Tubes-USA-ENGRAVED-BASE-/274991983805?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2-RCA-45-Tubes-USA-/284495571893?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0
xlr8or Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 2 hours ago, dwbasement said: @xlr8or are below ok too? https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2-Sylvania-45-Tubes-USA-ENGRAVED-BASE-/274991983805?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/2-RCA-45-Tubes-USA-/284495571893?mkcid=16&mkevt=1&_trksid=p2349624.m46890.l49286&mkrid=711-127632-2357-0 Yes, Dennis, they are perfect. 1
xlr8or Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) NOS and UOS vintage tubes from the 1930's right through to the 1950's used the most superior materials available (metals, ceramics and gases) for their internal construction features. There was simply no compromise in the build quality. Tubes were over designed. Telephony comms required the absolute best of materials as life dependent on it. When one breaks open an early 1950's Philips E88CC Eindhoven made tube and sees gold plated grid posts used for the internal construction features one can only think that the cost of manufacturing any such tube must have been prohibitive. The shear weight of these tubes also signifies the use of more material. Compared to today's standards, most of the materials used from yesteryear are still banned from use today. Handmade glass envelopes and handwired carefully spaced grid wire constructions made by companies such as Siemens, Munich are simply sensational sounding to own. Edited October 24, 2021 by xlr8or 4 2
ikhuong Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 I bet NOS tubes that were designed to be used in military and communication, submarines, airplanes, missiles, ect have no place for any compromise 3
Artnet Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 15 minutes ago, ikhuong said: no place for any compromise Sounds right, That's what good Audio needs. 1
Artnet Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 So Curious @xlr8or going back to some earlier threads. I am using a phono stage with 2 x 12AX7 amplification stage and one 12AU7 in the output stage. Two questions please. Can I sub the 12AU7 with 13D3 / cv2212 in the output stage? Those windmill 5751's, can I sub those in on the 12AX7 socket with an adapter? Some what theoretical questions for the moment as the TT is out of action but was interested in the discussion and hope I have it the right way round.
xlr8or Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 37 minutes ago, Artnet said: Can I sub the 12AU7 with 13D3 / cv2212 in the output stage Yes, the Brimar 13D3 can be used in place of the 12AU7. 38 minutes ago, Artnet said: Those windmill 5751's, can I sub those in on the 12AX7 socket with an adapter? Yes, but no tube adapter is required. It's a straight plug-in. 2
Red MacKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 11 minutes ago, xlr8or said: Yes, the Brimar 13D3 can be used in place of the 12AU7. 13D3 has a gain of 32, 12AU7 a gain of 20. So keep that in mind. It might actually work in your favour in a phono section. 2
Red MacKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 1 hour ago, ikhuong said: I bet NOS tubes that were designed to be used in military and communication, submarines, airplanes, missiles, ect have no place for any compromise But what the military and commercial/ industrial parameters are, is different to what we require for audio. The military require that a tube is robust and will always still work after being chucked on the ground in the middle of a conflict, or is flying through the sky at mach2 when pulling 5Gs and still operate within spec. Industrial use requires long life under hard electrical conditions like flip flops in early computers, where the valve would go into sharp cut off. Microphony here did not matter at all and was not a consideration. What we require in audio is a little different, so be careful when selecting tubes. A great example of this is the 5R4W potato masher rectifier. It is super robust and can run heavy current draw for a lifetime - but (to my ears) sonically it sounds second rate and easily bettered by almost any other 5R4G. I'm not wanting to get in a war here, so please don't read it as that. 5 2
Artnet Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 20 minutes ago, xlr8or said: Yes, the Brimar 13D3 can be used in place of the 12AU7. 1 hour ago, Artnet said: Those windmill 5751's, can I sub those in on the 12AX7 socket with an adapter? Yes, but no tube adapter is required. It's a straight plug-in. Thank you Kirk for clarifying. I have tried a WE5755 but obviously with an adapter. The 5751 seems similar in amplification factor slightly higher on plate voltage so will be similar in gain ? not sure what to look for on tube specification charts but thank you again. 10 minutes ago, Red MacKay said: 3D3 has a gain of 32, 12AU7 a gain of 20. So keep that in mind. It might actually work in your favour in a phono section. Thanks Red I was rather hoping may give it a wirl.
Red MacKay Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 4 minutes ago, Artnet said: Thanks Red I was rather hoping may give it a wirl. I have a good friend that uses them and he loves them. Go for it. 1
Artnet Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 7 minutes ago, Red MacKay said: What we require in audio is a little different True, now we have the tech but cant use the materials. The military and commercial parameters in General terms (no pun intended) is going to provide reliability as a primary but why we are here of course to see what sounds better and salvage all the gold 2
denimhunter Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 1 hour ago, Red MacKay said: But what the military and commercial/ industrial parameters are, is different to what we require for audio. The military require that a tube is robust and will always still work after being chucked on the ground in the middle of a conflict, or is flying through the sky at mach2 when pulling 5Gs and still operate within spec. Industrial use requires long life under hard electrical conditions like flip flops in early computers, where the valve would go into sharp cut off. Microphony here did not matter at all and was not a consideration. What we require in audio is a little different, so be careful when selecting tubes. A great example of this is the 5R4W potato masher rectifier. It is super robust and can run heavy current draw for a lifetime - but (to my ears) sonically it sounds second rate and easily bettered by almost any other 5R4G. I'm not wanting to get in a war here, so please don't read it as that. Agreed with Red on the 5R4 potato masher. They are tough as hell, can drop them on the floor and still be ok. Audio Note use them with their 845 amp not because of sound quality but because they are robust! Likewise some of the triple mica tubes are necessary for fighter jets but not audio. 2
xlr8or Posted October 24, 2021 Posted October 24, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Red MacKay said: But what the military and commercial/ industrial parameters are, is different to what we require for audio. The military require that a tube is robust and will always still work after being chucked on the ground in the middle of a conflict, or is flying through the sky at mach2 when pulling 5Gs and still operate within spec. Industrial use requires long life under hard electrical conditions like flip flops in early computers, where the valve would go into sharp cut off. Microphony here did not matter at all and was not a consideration. What we require in audio is a little different, so be careful when selecting tubes. A great example of this is the 5R4W potato masher rectifier. It is super robust and can run heavy current draw for a lifetime - but (to my ears) sonically it sounds second rate and easily bettered by almost any other 5R4G. I'm not wanting to get in a war here, so please don't read it as that. +1. That's exactly what I have found as well. The 1960's saw the introduction of special military designated tubes that sound inferior to their predecessors. For audio use they sound crap. Raytheon tubes started this in the 1950’s. Triple mica construction in many 9-pin tubes killed the sound. I dislike the 5751 for this very reason. Siemens E83CC version 1 1960's and version 2 1970's triple mica construction are very different sounding to the 17mm Siemens long plates from the early 1950's. Bendix 6900 is another. The 5691 and 5692 octals the same. I can go on and on. Even with the 13D3 I like the version 1, which was manufactured until 1954. Version 2 tubes started to target low microphony and noise as the priority. Edited October 24, 2021 by xlr8or 1 1 1
Recommended Posts