why use e182cc?
I am using an ecc99 in my amp as a phase splitter/driver. I like plugging new tubes in adn making small tweaks. i have 6n6p running now, and in my search for other useable tubes, i found the e182cc tube as a suggested replacement.
I got the datasheet out and it states literally: "not intended to be used in applications in which humm, noise or linearity is of importance"
The tube was used as a digital tube in old mainframes.
Surfing the net i found a few precious and expensive amps using this tube. Even found it used as a phono tube!!!!
Now i haven't heard the tube, but i can't imagine it being of any relevant quality for hifi.
Am i right in ignoring these tubes?
Oh, and if somebody knows of an other sube he or her thinks i should give a go, you're very welcome!
I am using an ecc99 in my amp as a phase splitter/driver. I like plugging new tubes in adn making small tweaks. i have 6n6p running now, and in my search for other useable tubes, i found the e182cc tube as a suggested replacement.
I got the datasheet out and it states literally: "not intended to be used in applications in which humm, noise or linearity is of importance"
The tube was used as a digital tube in old mainframes.
Surfing the net i found a few precious and expensive amps using this tube. Even found it used as a phono tube!!!!
Now i haven't heard the tube, but i can't imagine it being of any relevant quality for hifi.
Am i right in ignoring these tubes?
Oh, and if somebody knows of an other sube he or her thinks i should give a go, you're very welcome!
Well, after looking at the Datasheet, i would say, people use it, because:
a) with currents of 15mA or more it is very linear
b) it is a long life tube
So, basically nothing wrong with it, looks very nice as a line level stage.
For Phono, one would need to find out more about noise and hum (ok, what hum, your not heating your phono-input tubes with ac, are you?), but otherwise, why not, might be able to drive a rather low imp. RIAA...
Regards
Michael
a) with currents of 15mA or more it is very linear
b) it is a long life tube
So, basically nothing wrong with it, looks very nice as a line level stage.
For Phono, one would need to find out more about noise and hum (ok, what hum, your not heating your phono-input tubes with ac, are you?), but otherwise, why not, might be able to drive a rather low imp. RIAA...
Regards
Michael
The E182CC has a hefty Cpg of about 4.1 pF. This, plus its very high transconductance, can make it unstable - which might make it sound strident. This tube needs a good layout, low inductance in the grid circuit and possibly a grid stopper. I think it's a great tube. I use it in a headphone amp for both the phase splitter and for the class A push-pull output tubes. I've also used it in the first stage of an ESL amp. Just use DC on the heaters and noise won't be a problem. And I've experienced no stridency at all.
Re: why use e182cc?
I use a E182CC as a input tube for my SE EL34 amp and absolutely love the sound. I have tried 5687s and 7044s but prefer by far the E182CC/7119. Try one and see what you think. If we only used tubes that were "recommended" for audio we would be ignoring some great sounding tubes.
beamnet said:
I use a E182CC as a input tube for my SE EL34 amp and absolutely love the sound. I have tried 5687s and 7044s but prefer by far the E182CC/7119. Try one and see what you think. If we only used tubes that were "recommended" for audio we would be ignoring some great sounding tubes.
I am using rusian GU50's in pp, and a first stage consisting out of e1148 tubes (very rare radar tube). So i know what to expect for non reccommended tubes.
I am convinced now it can be great. It' just so stupid philips states this on his datasheet:
"The e182cc will maintain its emission capabilities after long periods of operation under cut-off conditions but it is not intended to be used in circuits critical as to hum, microphony or noise"
For the non-english speakers, it struck me that the "special quality tube" is translated in the other languages more in the direction of "a tube that can suffer great abuse"
if i'd change from ecc99 to this, what should i look out for? it's in a 10k ltp, ra is 30k, and dc coupled to the first stage, driving fixed bias GU50 penthodes
I am convinced now it can be great. It' just so stupid philips states this on his datasheet:
"The e182cc will maintain its emission capabilities after long periods of operation under cut-off conditions but it is not intended to be used in circuits critical as to hum, microphony or noise"
For the non-english speakers, it struck me that the "special quality tube" is translated in the other languages more in the direction of "a tube that can suffer great abuse"
if i'd change from ecc99 to this, what should i look out for? it's in a 10k ltp, ra is 30k, and dc coupled to the first stage, driving fixed bias GU50 penthodes
I have used the E182CC a number of times in driver duty, and would like to contribute the following:
The E182CC has a higher plate dissipation than most, at 4,5W each triode and 8W for both. Otherwise it is difficult to choose between it and e.g. an ECC88; both are similar with the ECC88 having the slightly higher mu. The E182CC has a slightly higher Vmax at 600V, but a disadvantage is that I found that the 2 triodes can differ up to 30% in conductance, though infrequently. (One must remember that as a computer tube, being either on or off most of the time, equal mu's are not important.)
My application needed a driver for a Quad-type distributed load output stage (100W), where 350Vpp of signal was required into a 33K load resistor. I use them at 500V Vao, no-signal Ip=8mA, and plate voltage of 230V.
Regarding use as a pre-amp tube I would not use it simply because there are more suitable types (smaller, cooler, lower microphonics, etc.). I think it is in a comparative sense that it is not "recommended" for pre-amp work; as said, the anode-grid capacitance is severe (3,4 - 4,6pF compared to ECC88 and others of 1,2 - 1,6pF). It is slightly microphonic, again not a prime requirement regarding its intended application.
Apart from the hint in the previous post, "special quality" mostly means guaranteed life for this kind of tube, not rigidity, low microphonics etc. not required in its main field of use. (Those requirements would be mandatory in special quality audio tubes, e.g.)
For my application I find it quite satisfactory. With due respect to MJ, the "sound" of a tube is so related to other factors, apart from the subjectivity of hearing, that I am always a little sceptical as to such reports.
I hope this helps, beamnet. Regards.
The E182CC has a higher plate dissipation than most, at 4,5W each triode and 8W for both. Otherwise it is difficult to choose between it and e.g. an ECC88; both are similar with the ECC88 having the slightly higher mu. The E182CC has a slightly higher Vmax at 600V, but a disadvantage is that I found that the 2 triodes can differ up to 30% in conductance, though infrequently. (One must remember that as a computer tube, being either on or off most of the time, equal mu's are not important.)
My application needed a driver for a Quad-type distributed load output stage (100W), where 350Vpp of signal was required into a 33K load resistor. I use them at 500V Vao, no-signal Ip=8mA, and plate voltage of 230V.
Regarding use as a pre-amp tube I would not use it simply because there are more suitable types (smaller, cooler, lower microphonics, etc.). I think it is in a comparative sense that it is not "recommended" for pre-amp work; as said, the anode-grid capacitance is severe (3,4 - 4,6pF compared to ECC88 and others of 1,2 - 1,6pF). It is slightly microphonic, again not a prime requirement regarding its intended application.
Apart from the hint in the previous post, "special quality" mostly means guaranteed life for this kind of tube, not rigidity, low microphonics etc. not required in its main field of use. (Those requirements would be mandatory in special quality audio tubes, e.g.)
For my application I find it quite satisfactory. With due respect to MJ, the "sound" of a tube is so related to other factors, apart from the subjectivity of hearing, that I am always a little sceptical as to such reports.
I hope this helps, beamnet. Regards.
Johan, well said. Often I read descriptions like this: "The 12xx7 has tighter bass, but more strident highs than a 12zz7, and the ABC brand has better detail than the XYZ brand". Huh? I always wonder: at what current, at what voltage, at what signal level, in what circuit, common cathode, cathode follower, phase splitter, diff amp; what source and load impedances, etc, etc.? What really is surprising is when people roll tubes that are even not-interchangeable, such as when I've heard people describe the differences between the 12AX7 and the 12AU7 rolled into the same circuit location. Well, that keeps the AudioAsylum gang off the streets I guess
Exactly Brian.
I usually try to respect individual hearing experiences (my Mother taught me good manners), but some are a bit thick. But I am also perturbed by tests in an article I have just reread (in a reply to another thread re 6L6s), that 6L6s tested for distortion (triode), gave figures from 0,62% to 1,18%. As a pentode the figures ran from 0,95% to 1.25%. These for different makes.
But then the writer also states that 7027s are "quite different" from 6L6GCs and need to be rebiased, etc. Well now..... (for the unintiated, they are exactly the same, except for maximum ratings). I guess back to your point then.
But I am off thread now.
I usually try to respect individual hearing experiences (my Mother taught me good manners), but some are a bit thick. But I am also perturbed by tests in an article I have just reread (in a reply to another thread re 6L6s), that 6L6s tested for distortion (triode), gave figures from 0,62% to 1,18%. As a pentode the figures ran from 0,95% to 1.25%. These for different makes.
But then the writer also states that 7027s are "quite different" from 6L6GCs and need to be rebiased, etc. Well now..... (for the unintiated, they are exactly the same, except for maximum ratings). I guess back to your point then.
But I am off thread now.
Yes, there atre so many points ov view to know which tube to use. As I´d like to describe: Things like the choice of a tube or a partner has to be done by everybody him(her)self.
E182CC doesn´t sound exactly like 5687 or 6N6P oe whatever. Replacements are n o t the same.
I have heard the E182CC as an input stage at 86V and 2,4mA or a little less where it sounds great, 3D, air in sound , stage. excellent with a little lack of bass. (you can try other voltages and currents...)
If I ran it at 3,4 mA, the sound went sharp. But in all, it´s one of my favourite input tubes. In datasheet we can see, that it´s a low Z output tube , so it must be good as an output stage, right?
No wrong, the sound at 6mA was too harsh and I didn´t like the punch in bass. Not my favourite output stage at all...Well if you like that sound, it´s unique anyway, take what you like..
So, I stopped reading sounds, but test and l i s t e n to everything I can with any tube I want to know. That´s the long way and the only one I know to find a personal truth which is very subjective indeed.
E182CC doesn´t sound exactly like 5687 or 6N6P oe whatever. Replacements are n o t the same.
I have heard the E182CC as an input stage at 86V and 2,4mA or a little less where it sounds great, 3D, air in sound , stage. excellent with a little lack of bass. (you can try other voltages and currents...)
If I ran it at 3,4 mA, the sound went sharp. But in all, it´s one of my favourite input tubes. In datasheet we can see, that it´s a low Z output tube , so it must be good as an output stage, right?
No wrong, the sound at 6mA was too harsh and I didn´t like the punch in bass. Not my favourite output stage at all...Well if you like that sound, it´s unique anyway, take what you like..
So, I stopped reading sounds, but test and l i s t e n to everything I can with any tube I want to know. That´s the long way and the only one I know to find a personal truth which is very subjective indeed.
If I may resurrect some 8 years after starting:
At present there appears to be a bewildering array of offerings from all over in the marketplace. Prices vary by a factor of up to 20!
From members' experience at this time I would again please like some commentary, particularly on what to avoid regarding poor life and inconsistency of characteristics ( µ1/µ2 needs to be fairly similar) etc. Are 6N6 and perhaps others possible alternatives from life point-of-view? I read commentary that ECC99s (JJ) were not long-lasting. (Pin connections may differ as this is for a new project; I am using them as plate resistor loaded drivers at 500V plate supply, Va = 230V, Pa = 2,5W per triode, high output amplitude.)
Much obliged!
At present there appears to be a bewildering array of offerings from all over in the marketplace. Prices vary by a factor of up to 20!
From members' experience at this time I would again please like some commentary, particularly on what to avoid regarding poor life and inconsistency of characteristics ( µ1/µ2 needs to be fairly similar) etc. Are 6N6 and perhaps others possible alternatives from life point-of-view? I read commentary that ECC99s (JJ) were not long-lasting. (Pin connections may differ as this is for a new project; I am using them as plate resistor loaded drivers at 500V plate supply, Va = 230V, Pa = 2,5W per triode, high output amplitude.)
Much obliged!
Hi Johan,
I have used USA-made 5687 and 5687WB quite a bit, and have a couple pair of 7119 as well. The USA-made tubes seem to last a really long time, even when run with Ea = 140V and Ia = 18mA. The 5687's last 2 years at minimum, used just about every day.
I have been using 6N6P (1988 production) and Sovtek 6N30P (2002 production) quite a bit lately. Keeping my 5687's on the shelf for later. I've found I need to replace these more often, but they last at least a year in this service. I think they are pretty good, and fresh ones perform very well. No catastrophic failures, nothing dramatic. I just replace them when they begin to look and sound tired (brown tinge to glass, 'sleepy' sound).
I bought maybe 24 of 6N6P and went on a testing binge with a friend's TV-7. I got many tubes with tightly matched sections. Only a very few were very far off. My batch of 5687WB were not quite as consistently matched section-to-section, but I still got many matched pairs of those too.
I hope that helps.
--
Last edited:
I have used the 7044, 7119, and 5687 for many years with resistor plate loads as well as CCS. I generally run them about 6mA to 10mA at about 120V to 140V on the plate. My personal preference is the TungSol 5687, but I really think that it depends on the operating conditions as well as the circuit.
E182CC @ The National Valve Museum
Could a 12BH7A work ? I found it worked for ECC82 and was obviously better.
Could a 12BH7A work ? I found it worked for ECC82 and was obviously better.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.