serengetiplains said:
It absorbs the stray electrons that make it out of the active structure in the tube and keeps them from causing secondary emission off the glass that would scatter back into the tube anode causing distortion. The improvement is measureable.
It also makes tubes, especially like KT-66 less atractive to look at IMO.
What rcavictim said!
In Morgan Jones's 6SN7 measurements, the carbonized envelope types were the clear winners (of course, he didn't have any 5692s to try). It's hard to draw a conclusion from a single data set/example, but it's at least suggestive.
The look is the only downside to my beloved EL37s.
In Morgan Jones's 6SN7 measurements, the carbonized envelope types were the clear winners (of course, he didn't have any 5692s to try). It's hard to draw a conclusion from a single data set/example, but it's at least suggestive.
The look is the only downside to my beloved EL37s.
Hi,
Just imagine what a 5692 would measure if it would have had a carbonized glass envelope....
If I'd be asked to make a vote on how audio tubes should be made, carbonized glass envelopes would be high on my wish list together with those black plates (molybdenum?).
I've almost always found those to sound markedly better than the more ordinary versions but YMMV.
No idea what the reduction in distortion actually is, I doubt it would be big, but it's sure is audible.
Cheers,
Just imagine what a 5692 would measure if it would have had a carbonized glass envelope....
If I'd be asked to make a vote on how audio tubes should be made, carbonized glass envelopes would be high on my wish list together with those black plates (molybdenum?).
I've almost always found those to sound markedly better than the more ordinary versions but YMMV.
No idea what the reduction in distortion actually is, I doubt it would be big, but it's sure is audible.
Cheers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.