I am not down on this tube, I just thought for $50-$60, I could improve upon it.
So does whether or not you're selling expensive NOS tubes. I bought mine when they were cheap ('60s and '70s), have no intention of selling, so don't have a financial dog in this fight.
Jim, it might be worth thinking about who you are listening to, and why
who: I am listening to everyone.
why: all knowledge is helpful
I do feel that a few onlookers are keeping their opinions to themselves. I wish they wouldn't.
I suppose some don't want to get into a NOS vs non - NOS debate. Perhaps that has already been done a bit too often and people dont want to regurgitate the battle for still another time.
Thats understandable
In the end, my meager budget is going to determine what I do. And if I am not convinced I can better the tubes I already have within what I am willing to spend, then I am content to do nothing since the sound I had was already pretty good to my ears.
change the tubes when they wear out
may happen before you expect it
change to another reliable tube
preferable one you can afford to replace shortly after
noone never knows what happens with them tubes
plug it in and forget about it
It's hard for me to believe that all this verbiage has been slung out on what used to be the commodity audio tube for the masses. The 12AX7 was the Toyota Corolla of audio tubes. They were everywhere.
I never found a particular brand of 12AX7 that would make a bad sounding amp sound good (other than from worn out tubes). I never found a genuine and properly working 12AX7 type that would make a nice sounding amp sound noticeably "bad," either!
Really, the differences you hear between the 12AX7 and 12AT7 tube types will swamp the differences between tube brands of the same type. I guarantee you will hear more difference between a (good, working) 12AT7 and a (good, working) 12AX7 than you'll ever hear between any two (good, working) 12AX7's (in the same circuit, of course).
And hey -- your Philips ECG 12AT7WA are actually valuable, NOS tubes! They are perfectly good. If you can find a couple of tested-good 1970's or '80's Sylvania or GE 12AX7A, or something like that for a decent price (up to maybe $15 per tube for new, like $5 for used), get 'em, listen to them in that circuit, and be happy that you have heard a true vintage American-made 12AX7 in your EQ. That way you'll know what a 12AX7 sounds like vs. a 12AT7 -- in that circuit.
--
I never found a particular brand of 12AX7 that would make a bad sounding amp sound good (other than from worn out tubes). I never found a genuine and properly working 12AX7 type that would make a nice sounding amp sound noticeably "bad," either!
Really, the differences you hear between the 12AX7 and 12AT7 tube types will swamp the differences between tube brands of the same type. I guarantee you will hear more difference between a (good, working) 12AT7 and a (good, working) 12AX7 than you'll ever hear between any two (good, working) 12AX7's (in the same circuit, of course).
And hey -- your Philips ECG 12AT7WA are actually valuable, NOS tubes! They are perfectly good. If you can find a couple of tested-good 1970's or '80's Sylvania or GE 12AX7A, or something like that for a decent price (up to maybe $15 per tube for new, like $5 for used), get 'em, listen to them in that circuit, and be happy that you have heard a true vintage American-made 12AX7 in your EQ. That way you'll know what a 12AX7 sounds like vs. a 12AT7 -- in that circuit.
--
Given your economic constraints utilize your precious dollars in getting maximum bang for minimum buck.
NOS Vintage Mullards vs. Telefunkens vs. RCA's (12AX7 or 12AT7s and their variants) are fine, but no better than your Philips JAN types...which, as has already been pointed out, are, in fact, just fine.
The current hyperbole
surrounding vintage NOS tubes is best typified by the purveyors of so-called high-end audio who routinely describe the tonal qualities of their tubes using ridiculous descriptives like, exhibits "smooth cherry mids", "dark smoky lows" and "airy highs"
At prices that rival expensive wines, it's no wonder that particular vernacular is being utilized to hoodwink tube consumers.
As a DIY tube builder I'm a relative neophyte, but as a owner/consumer of lots of tube equipment over the past decades I've yet to hear anything a so-called professional medical instrument grade vintage NOS 1960s Telefunken 12AX7 ($200 per tube if you believe some current valuations) can do that my $8.95 Realistic Lifetime 12AX7 (Made in Japan, circa 1970 by the way) doesn't do just as well.
Short of one tube being noisy, micro-phonic or suffering from some other problem (one triode section being weaker than the other, for example) the audible differences between the same numerically designated tube is negligible at worst.
Eli D. and others have made a number of recommendations regarding the current production of various tubes that are worth reading and heeding...based on real experience..that seem to indicate there are a number of reasonably priced current production tubes that do everything they are supposed to.
If I were to err, it would be on the side of advice that is offered to respect your economic constraints whilst maximizing performance.
If the 12AT7s sound fine in your eq...then there's no reason to quibble...but if curiosity has a hold of you, see if you can find someone in your locale willing to let you try out some spare 12AX7s in exchange for
,,,that way you can let your own ears decide your next course of action and the $$$ you're prepared to commit to the experiment.
The ultimate test of any tube is in the actual circuit.
NOS Vintage Mullards vs. Telefunkens vs. RCA's (12AX7 or 12AT7s and their variants) are fine, but no better than your Philips JAN types...which, as has already been pointed out, are, in fact, just fine.
The current hyperbole
surrounding vintage NOS tubes is best typified by the purveyors of so-called high-end audio who routinely describe the tonal qualities of their tubes using ridiculous descriptives like, exhibits "smooth cherry mids", "dark smoky lows" and "airy highs"
At prices that rival expensive wines, it's no wonder that particular vernacular is being utilized to hoodwink tube consumers.
As a DIY tube builder I'm a relative neophyte, but as a owner/consumer of lots of tube equipment over the past decades I've yet to hear anything a so-called professional medical instrument grade vintage NOS 1960s Telefunken 12AX7 ($200 per tube if you believe some current valuations) can do that my $8.95 Realistic Lifetime 12AX7 (Made in Japan, circa 1970 by the way) doesn't do just as well.
Short of one tube being noisy, micro-phonic or suffering from some other problem (one triode section being weaker than the other, for example) the audible differences between the same numerically designated tube is negligible at worst.
Eli D. and others have made a number of recommendations regarding the current production of various tubes that are worth reading and heeding...based on real experience..that seem to indicate there are a number of reasonably priced current production tubes that do everything they are supposed to.
If I were to err, it would be on the side of advice that is offered to respect your economic constraints whilst maximizing performance.
If the 12AT7s sound fine in your eq...then there's no reason to quibble...but if curiosity has a hold of you, see if you can find someone in your locale willing to let you try out some spare 12AX7s in exchange for
,,,that way you can let your own ears decide your next course of action and the $$$ you're prepared to commit to the experiment.The ultimate test of any tube is in the actual circuit.
Last edited:
Yeah but nobody who loves Hendrix or Cream is tone-deaf.
They just have a need that only Howling Wolf at full volume can fulfill.
My dad was apparently tone-deaf.
He thought of music as a kind of chest-pounding.
He liked female singers, but I doubt it was about the music.
He even got a tube amp (mono), back when stereo was only a novelty.
It was clear he wasn't impressed with that,
although he liked the cover of Tijuana Brass Taste of Honey:
Again, was it the music, or the at the time stunning visual effect?
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Andrew, it should be clear by now that this forum is is based on a solid foundation of engineering, and common sense
in that respect, I sure hope you check your unit very carefully when plugging in those precious tubes
voltages etc.
and adjust bias afterwards
and not just throwing them in there
in that respect, I sure hope you check your unit very carefully when plugging in those precious tubes
voltages etc.
and adjust bias afterwards
and not just throwing them in there
I'm still learning myself ( aren't we all ?), but I do trust my ears and be assured, I am very happy with the amps that I have. I confess that maybe I use a little overkill on many things. The MARANTZ 9 (is it ) is out of the range of what I am willing to fork out, as are Macintosh amps.
I have a Pioneer SA-810 in my bedroom and a Sansui 1000A in the garage,
They are my main amps and I love 'em. They sounded pretty crap when I 1st got 'em, I've done a lot of work to get them sounding like they do and different tunes sound different in "them".
I have never professed to be an expert ( jack of all trades, master of none) but I trust my ears. Guitar player for 38yrs.
The only quality tubes I don't like in my stock are a set of used Telefunkens. I have no means of testing my tubes other than listening very carefully. If I could afford it I would hire somebody else's expertise to do it for me.
Cheers, Andrew.
I have a Pioneer SA-810 in my bedroom and a Sansui 1000A in the garage,
They are my main amps and I love 'em. They sounded pretty crap when I 1st got 'em, I've done a lot of work to get them sounding like they do and different tunes sound different in "them".
I have never professed to be an expert ( jack of all trades, master of none) but I trust my ears. Guitar player for 38yrs.
The only quality tubes I don't like in my stock are a set of used Telefunkens. I have no means of testing my tubes other than listening very carefully. If I could afford it I would hire somebody else's expertise to do it for me.
Cheers, Andrew.
Engineers aren't always right either.Andrew, it should be clear by now that this forum is is based on a solid foundation of engineering, and common sense
in that respect, I sure hope you check your unit very carefully when plugging in those precious tubes
voltages etc.
and adjust bias afterwards
and not just throwing them in there
NOS Vintage Mullards vs. Telefunkens vs. RCA's (12AX7 or 12AT7s and their variants) are fine, but no better than your Philips JAN types...which, as has already been pointed out, are, in fact, just fine.
The current hyperbole
At prices that rival expensive wines, it's no wonder that particular vernacular is being utilized to hoodwink tube consumers.
As a DIY tube builder I'm a relative neophyte, but as a owner/consumer of lots of tube equipment over the past decades I've yet to hear anything a so-called professional medical instrument grade vintage NOS 1960s Telefunken 12AX7 ($200 per tube if you believe some current valuations) can do that my $8.95 Realistic Lifetime 12AX7 (Made in Japan, circa 1970 by the way) doesn't do just as well.
Short of one tube being noisy, micro-phonic or suffering from some other problem (one triode section being weaker than the other, for example) the audible differences between the same numerically designated tube is negligible at worst.
The ultimate test of any tube is in the actual circuit.
Lets break this down into two things:
1) The engineering perspective-
There is much to say when you know what a circuit is (schematic) and you have a known device (a tube) to put in it. There are a number of things you can look at and assess. You can draw conclusions to what tube might function most properly in it. In this way, you could say that if a 12at7, for instance, is best suited, that any 12at7 will do the job properly.
2) The listening perspective-
I will leave out a myriad of examples that I could use here that would make my point, but I will illustrate the one that most closely pertains to this subject.
As I mentioned previously, I uesed to have a CAL Aria CD player. It had 6d8j tubes in it. It came with Chinese Golden Dragons. Like my present situation, the Golden Dragons sounded fine, but I was curious to what other tubes might sound like. I got some Russian tubes from a local stereo shop. Now to me, there were clear audible differences between the two. They were not night and day differences, but differences there certainly were.
Golden Dragons - Warmer, smoother. Gentle highs. Fat bass.
Russian Tubes - Sharper, more articulate. Harsher highs. Cleaner better defined bass.
The above descriptions sums up in short my memory of what each sounded like.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I suppose I find myself somewhere inbetween the opposing views where one states there is little to no audible difference between tube brands of the same type and those whose description leads you to believe that there are dramatic differences.
I would describe brand/model#/era differences in tubes as subtle to moderate. Perhaps comparing the very worst to the very best, I may say substantial. While there is no doubt in my mind that some people assessments are exaggerated and a bit over the top, there is no doubt in my mind that there are real differences in tonality, smoothness, and detail.
Generally, in audiophile land, I find your return on your dollar past a certain point has diminishing returns. A $10K amp isnt 10 times better than a $1k one. A MFSL Gold CD isnt twice as good as its aluminum counterpart. Often times, you have to spend twice as much for something to gain a 5-10% improvement.
If the argument is that a $200 RCA Black Plate tube is not worth ten times the price of a $20 Solvek, then this is a reasonable argument. But to say there is no difference at all I think is simply wrong.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.