Bye...fdegrove said:Hi,
E80CC cheap? Send me some.
Well... for what it is,what it does, and what it sells for (current price) I would still call it "cheap" ,especially if you consider that for the price of a single SYLVANIA (metal base) 6SN7W or a RCA (Red Base) 5692,or MULLARD ECC33 you can buy half a dozen E80CC's.
Anyway the E80CC is a late Philips development intended for the professional user (instrumentation, studio, telephony, telegraphy etc) using boxed anodes and a pin to pin layout conform to the B9A standard.
Right,perfect description.
It's a very linear, reasonably low mu, twin triode bigger than a 12BH7A that CAN be used as a drop in replacement for a ECC82.
It will sound different from the original ECC82 when used as a replacement for that valve but then it should.
Sure, it will often make that circuit sound better but it would be better still if the anode load and cathode resistors were to be adjusted to properly accomodate this valve.
I fully agree with this.
While I can understand the enthusiasm for this E80CC, it really shouldn't be considered as a drop in replacement for the humble (and mediocre) ECC82/12AU7-A.
Sure It Isn't ,some circuit adjustments will be needed to compensate for the different tube parameters. Definitely not a 12AU7 "Plug and Play" sub, though it MAY work...
And yes, more bad news, there was an ECC80 but it nothing in common with either the ECC82 nor the E80CC....
AFAIK there never was a ECC80 and I've never seen this reference listed in any Tube databooks or databases. Maybe an obscure BRIMAR tube ? Or a current "new" fancy (unregistered) reference like the ECC99 ? No ECC80's to be found in the TDSL database neither...
Ciao,
I never heard of this, and can't find any reference to it on the internet either. If this was true, CRT's must have been the deal breaker.
Miniature tubes were the natural evolution octal tubes. This came because of the constant desire to make stuff smaller. A lot of miniaturization began in aircraft electronics, and the ever increasing RF frequencies used in avionics forced the use of smaller tubes.
Wavebourn said:
As I said, as soon as American government invented taxes on enclosed vacuum to force an industry to make smaller tubes for computers, octal tubes were considered as obsoleted all around the world, and miniature replacements were designed and offered. Among them, Philips offered ECC80 to replace 6SN7. SOviet engineers made 6N1P. Yes, tolerances of Russian manufacturing are out of question, I myself worked in a team that restored QC measurement equipment when a Ministry comission demanded from the head of the plant to restore it.
Tolerances of RCA tubes were incredible, even thouigh Telefunken was known as the flagman of tight tolerances.
Neither 6N1P, nor ECC80 are direct replacements for 6SN7; they were designed to replace them in new designs
This is new to me... Could you quote your source ? I've never actually seen or heard of a ECC80. This reference is not listed in any Tube Databooks or databases. (No ECC80's listed in the TDSL database neither). Just checked in my huge PHILIPS tube library and no ECC80's can be found. Not a RMA (or other) registered reference neither. Not a trace of the ECC80 in my Tube Encyclopedia or the BRANS Vade-Mecum. The E80CC is an exception,as it doesn't adhere to the (European) code reversal scheme for designing special quality versions of common receiving tubes. (e.g: ECC82/E82CC , etc...). There are a few other exemples like the E90CC and E92CC where the code reversal system doesn't apply. As Frank rightly pointed out, a ECC80 (if it exist) will have nothing in common with the E80CC and is a completely different tube. This doesn't mean a ECC80 didn't exist ,but it must have been the result of some obscure rebranding of an unknow tube. I still need to see one. BTW, your 1st picture looks to me like a nice TELEFUNKEN ECC801S (with the "1" faded or not visible) ,definitely not a ECC80.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/VQXOlv7x5TtvT7tYZSfiTA
Since ECC80 can't replace 6SN7 where more rugged 6SN7 was used so designers kept using the original instead of the "replacement", a special version E80CC was introduced.
For Soviet computers 6N6P was developed because 6N1P was too weak for fast switching applications.
ECC80 were used in European radios in 1950'th.
Since ECC80 can't replace 6SN7 where more rugged 6SN7 was used so designers kept using the original instead of the "replacement", a special version E80CC was introduced.
For Soviet computers 6N6P was developed because 6N1P was too weak for fast switching applications.
ECC80 were used in European radios in 1950'th.
tubelab.com said:
I tried to find in Google, but can't, though I remember well learning in the university how a government can force manufacturers to follow directions. Also I remember similar regulations in Germany, about tax on number of tube sockets, so many devices including resistors were enclosed in the single tube envelope.
Hi Tubologic;
I believe you are not an expert in Russian tubes, but I am. I learned the history of an electronics industry worldwide, in late 70'th among other things (is Tomsk in Europe?). My specialty was design and manufacturing of radio and electronics equipment. And it is what I am doing now, after a break when I switched to software development and design of networked computer systems. I am not a scholar, I don't research the history in the Net and in libraries; I shared with you what I was taught about tubes, when they were still manufactured and widely used, so I can't give you references, sorry.
I believe you are not an expert in Russian tubes, but I am. I learned the history of an electronics industry worldwide, in late 70'th among other things (is Tomsk in Europe?). My specialty was design and manufacturing of radio and electronics equipment. And it is what I am doing now, after a break when I switched to software development and design of networked computer systems. I am not a scholar, I don't research the history in the Net and in libraries; I shared with you what I was taught about tubes, when they were still manufactured and widely used, so I can't give you references, sorry.
Rob11966 said:
Main differences that make them non-substitutes:
* different characteristics- the 6CG7 is a much better tube for audio, being more linear;
*.different heater current ratings;
* different pin-outs;
* the presence of an internal shield in the 6CG7;
* the 12.6v center-tapped heater of the 12AU7, requiring use of different pin connections for 6.3v operation.
Hi Ray_moth,
I missed the center tap on the heaters (or lack thereof) in the 6CG7. Thanks.
As far as the pinout goes, if you were using the two sections of the ECC82 in parallel, then the hookup as far as the anode, cathode and grid could be left unchanged for the 6CG7. So, is the 6CG7 that much better than the ECC82 to justify the (small) effort required to rewire the heaters*?
Rob
*Assuming that the transformer has the extra kick to handle the 6CG7 heaters
I missed the center tap on the heaters (or lack thereof) in the 6CG7. Thanks.
As far as the pinout goes, if you were using the two sections of the ECC82 in parallel, then the hookup as far as the anode, cathode and grid could be left unchanged for the 6CG7. So, is the 6CG7 that much better than the ECC82 to justify the (small) effort required to rewire the heaters*?
Rob
*Assuming that the transformer has the extra kick to handle the 6CG7 heaters
Hi,
Both 6CG and 6FQ7 (often quoted as equivalents although not quite identical) exist in a 12,6V heater version.
Check for total current draw though, it may well be higher than the 12AU7A. (Haven't checked myself).
There used to be a particularly good sounding Brimar ECC82 (CV449?) with black plates IIRC.
Of course there were also the boxed anode Mullards, the odd chrome(?) plated Cifte's etc.
As for the ECC80, I think I once spotted it in a Babani equivalents booklet.
May have had some pulled from old radios, not sure. Never mind.
Cheers,
Rob11966 said:
Both 6CG and 6FQ7 (often quoted as equivalents although not quite identical) exist in a 12,6V heater version.
Check for total current draw though, it may well be higher than the 12AU7A. (Haven't checked myself).
There used to be a particularly good sounding Brimar ECC82 (CV449?) with black plates IIRC.
Of course there were also the boxed anode Mullards, the odd chrome(?) plated Cifte's etc.
As for the ECC80, I think I once spotted it in a Babani equivalents booklet.
May have had some pulled from old radios, not sure. Never mind.
Cheers,
fdegrove said:
There used to be a particularly good sounding Brimar ECC82 (CV449?) with black plates IIRC.
Of course there were also the boxed anode Mullards, the odd chrome(?) plated Cifte's etc.
Cheers,
Got a couple of these Brimar types and are my reference pair but sadly these don't represent the typical performance of whole group considering their continuing popularity of the brand in vendors catalogues.
ECC82; I've got alot of short anode Mazda types (practically unused NOS) and their performance inconsistancy in R/C setups is appalling and the centre values given in the Philips data sheet should run. Substituting with other ECC82 types, these Mazda by suprise give near identical gain specs. Only the thd is through the roof. It had occurred to me that these tubes may have accidentally the wrong markings and logo, but I doubt it. The gm, anode performance/ grid volts etc is sim to other ECC82's.
No wonder they were designed for TV frame stages. These I think are the worst performers and the only possible application (these days) is in a power supply.
I don't have any 6CG7; and when I get some long anode types I will suss them out. This is probably the reason that the 6SN7 has accomplished fame. By & large I get far better performance from long anode types than shorts.
The only medicine to get those rotton Mazda ECC82 to work is to CCsource and CCsink them.
Pic of short plate ECC882s heavily eroded Mazda legend. Avoid'em like the plague !
richy
Attachments
Hmmm,
this is 6N8S in metal base is equivalent: 6H8C, 6SN7, ECC32, 6CC10, 1578
Application: LF voltage amplification
Cathode type: oxide,indirect heating
Envelope: glass
Filament voltage,V: 6,3
Filament current,A: 0,55-0,65
Anode voltage,V: 250
Anode current,A: 0,0055-0,0115
Anode power,W: 2,75
Grid1 voltage,V: minus 8
Steepness,mA/V: 2,1-3,1
Reverse grid current,uA: 2
Microphnic noise,mV: 150
Gain: 18,0-23,0
Socket type: rsh5-1
link: 6N8S
and this is 6N1P-EV is equivalent: 6DJ8, E88CC, 6922
Type: Double triode, hi-durable, long-life
Cathode type: oxide,indirect heating
Filament voltage,V: 6,3
Filament current,A: 0,55-0,65
Anode voltage,V: 250
Anode current,A: 0,006-0,009
Anode power,W: 2,2
Steepness,mA/V: 3,8-5,1
Reverse grid current,uA: 0,2
Microphnic noise,mV: 50
Gain: 28,0-42,0
Socket type: rsh8
link: 6N1P-EV
it's little bit info, thinks it's can help you
Regarding ECC80 i have never! seen the type designation
btw. i do use Philips E80CC in my pre-amp
The description of an (late) 1950ś audio tube is the one of the ECC808/6KX8
The picture showing Tfk ECC80 is an Tfk ECC801S missing a digit & letter,
notice the double mica wafer and the round getter is similar in the attached Tfk 801S picture .., other possible tubes where missing print could designate them as ECC80 is the ECC808, ECC807, ECC804, ECC803S, ECC803, ECC802S..., but! they are all different regarding the two mentioned details of the build.
Hope this did solve the matter
btw. i do use Philips E80CC in my pre-amp
The description of an (late) 1950ś audio tube is the one of the ECC808/6KX8
The picture showing Tfk ECC80 is an Tfk ECC801S missing a digit & letter,
notice the double mica wafer and the round getter is similar in the attached Tfk 801S picture .., other possible tubes where missing print could designate them as ECC80 is the ECC808, ECC807, ECC804, ECC803S, ECC803, ECC802S..., but! they are all different regarding the two mentioned details of the build.
Hope this did solve the matter
Attachments
Mazda brand valves with blue print are generally remarked East European manufacture; often RFT or Hungarian Tungsram.richwalters said:
How well ECC82's perform depends on the circuit. I did some measurements (near bottom of the page) on a simple cathode-coupled amplifier and found that ECC82 gave lowest 2nd-order and about the same 3rd-order as 6CG7 etc. In this particular circuit section-matching is the important parameter, as distortion in one triode can be partly cancelled by the other. The best performer was a US-made RCA 12AU7A. I saw no correlation between performance and anode size.
I too like a good argument.
You can note this, today I am in complete agreement with DF96. “How well ECC82's perform depends on the circuit”. From my point of view this is not just limited to ECC82’s or 12AU7’s.
The Test Circuit in the link shows parallel tubes sharing a common cathode resistor. There is a lot going on in that resistor and it is not even an active device. It ties the function of the parallel triodes. As the current through the left triode varies so does the voltage across the cathode resistor and modulates the bias of the right triode. This is not so much equal and opposite cancelation as feedback and or input to the right triode’s cathode. It cannot be equal and opposite cancelation as the triodes do not share equal plate voltage or current. They are 180 degrees out phase.
Often we speak of harmonic cancelation. I prefer the concept of a composite output characteristic curve of the overall circuit.
I am not in opposition here, perhaps a different perspective.
DT
I like musty old books and calculus.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.