diyAudio

diyAudio (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/)
-   Tubes / Valves (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/)
-   -   Why use E182CC? (http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/tubes-valves/75312-why-use-e182cc.html)

beamnet 6th March 2006 11:42 AM

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!

atarashi 6th March 2006 12:06 PM

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

pmillett 6th March 2006 04:44 PM

I've found, in general, that the E182CC (7119) and 7044 measure better than the ECC99 in a similar circuit. But all three are very similar, and very good, line amp or driver tubes.

Pete

knubie 6th March 2006 05:59 PM

In Morgan Jones' book it is said that E182CC measures better than it sound's. It's said that this tube "can sound strident", whatever that means.....

beamnet 6th March 2006 06:04 PM

i've found the 6n6p to be an allmost plug in replacement (heater vonnections differ)

any of the tubes you mention a must to try?

Bas

Brian Beck 6th March 2006 11:26 PM

Quote:

In Morgan Jones' book it is said that E182CC measures better than it sound's. It's said that this tube "can sound strident", whatever that means.....
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.

G 7th March 2006 05:26 AM

Re: why use e182cc?
 
Quote:

Originally posted by beamnet
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 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 7th March 2006 07:49 AM

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

Johan Potgieter 22nd March 2006 12:01 AM

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.

Brian Beck 22nd March 2006 11:17 PM

Quote:

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.
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 :)


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright 1999-2014 diyAudio


Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2