These discussions are always somewhat of word games, but here's my 2 euro cents.
A system can be lifeless without adding anything - it can be lifeless by not amplifying something in the music, losing it along the way.
A well done lively record absolutely should sound lively, but I find that many systems don't project this through. I would characterise these systems as 'lifeless'. So the mark of a truely magnificent system would be that dry records always sound dry, and lively records sound rich and lively. My opinion is that a good system makes all kinds of music and recordings sound more of what their own character is, becoming truely transparent.
A system can be lifeless without adding anything - it can be lifeless by not amplifying something in the music, losing it along the way.
A well done lively record absolutely should sound lively, but I find that many systems don't project this through. I would characterise these systems as 'lifeless'. So the mark of a truely magnificent system would be that dry records always sound dry, and lively records sound rich and lively. My opinion is that a good system makes all kinds of music and recordings sound more of what their own character is, becoming truely transparent.
Hi,
There is a large margin between what the industry considers as equivalent and to what actually is electrically.
Without even considering so called equivalents from data books etc, there's enough difference from one tube to another to make you wonder about the building blocks you're using in your search for the holy graal.
Just like lookng for DNA matches, sometimes it happens and you find yourself in the presence of something that actually matches your master tape.
In real life it rarely ever happens. Just as rarely as anyone winning the lottery and then some.
Why is this, you may ask?
The answer is quite simple: Money talks.
Cheers,
I guess I'm still learning but I always thought the makings of a good audio system was the ability to amplify the signal without adding something to it that isn't there. You talk about the lifeless of a 6SN7 for example. I'm confused... so a tube is supposed to alter and inject something into the mix that just isn't there? I had always thought that a recording of a performace should sound just like the performace did. Boy was I wrong
So, my Aikido (6sn7/6sn7) and my Frank's 6sn7/5692 line stages are incorrect because they are more true to life sounding? My Quicksilvers with 12BH7 should have the 12BH7's pulled in favor of the 12Au7?
Oh, I almost forgot about the 6fq7/6cg7. The 6cg7 is better because its got a magical screen in it but yet when I have tried a one lb coffee can of assorted tube I can tell no difference in my 6FQ7/5687 Aikido. Still confused
Granted what I have is minimal compared to some of the systems and equipment that some here own but for accuracy against the real thing I'll go with what I have.
There is a large margin between what the industry considers as equivalent and to what actually is electrically.
Without even considering so called equivalents from data books etc, there's enough difference from one tube to another to make you wonder about the building blocks you're using in your search for the holy graal.
Just like lookng for DNA matches, sometimes it happens and you find yourself in the presence of something that actually matches your master tape.
In real life it rarely ever happens. Just as rarely as anyone winning the lottery and then some.
Why is this, you may ask?
The answer is quite simple: Money talks.
Cheers,
Interesting that Hans Beijner first used 12AX7 in the preamp stage and 12AU7 in the driver stage and 6C33C in the output stage in the 1st schematic of his OTL amp and subsequently published his latest OTL schematic with 12BH7 replacing the 12AU7 in the driver stage 12AX7 and 6C33C being retained. There will be a reason for this. I have not gotten round to ask him perhaps it works better in this topolgy, There is no guarantee that the one is better than the other in all configurations. I will surely ask him why he changed from 12AU7 to 12BH7. I also note that some SET,s use 12AX7 and 12BH7 and 6C33C.
This is fairly dumb. A 12BH7 is not a 12AU7, etc. so, why shouldn't it potentially sound "better", or "worse" in any given circuit?
Are you using them both in the same amp, but adjusting all relevant circuit values to accomodate the different gain, currrent demand, plate resistances, etc?
I really would like one of you "shootout" guys to explain to me a statement like "I heard a 12BH7 will blow a 12AU7 out of the water."
I am running a topic over on audiogon about the 12BZ7 and the 12AX7 . I ordera bunch of 12BZ's to ck how they perform vs the AX's.
This 12BH7 is something new to me, and will ck them out, I can tell you as a fact, The E80CC *tall Boys*, will blow out the water any/every AU ever made.
Including the *Holy Grails* Teles/Siemens.
Well at least in my defy 7, how the E80Cc performs in other curcuits, i can not say.
As I say, i just boughta bunch of 12BZ7's and am curious if it awakens the Defy7 , AS MUCH AS THE E80CC's have ~~exploded the fq's~~ in the Defy7.
E80CC @ The Valve Museum
6cg7 for ecc99
Hi, I would like to know if I can replace ecc99 with 6cg7, changing the tension of B+ and heaters in this Pete Millett's schematic.
Thanks
el-scorpion — ImgBB
Hi, I would like to know if I can replace ecc99 with 6cg7, changing the tension of B+ and heaters in this Pete Millett's schematic.
Thanks
el-scorpion — ImgBB
I have both PSVane 12au7-S and Electro Haronix 12BH7EH gold pins. Both are of similar price. The PSvane is smoother, more agile and more balance throughout the frequency spectrum. More refined. The Electro Harmonix is harsher but has better driving ability. I prefer the PSVane over the Electro Harmonix.CRAMER VERSUS CRAMER
Hi,
A 12BH7A iso a 12AU7A will often sound better.
The 6CG7 exists as 12CG7/12FQ7 and is not quite the same asa 12AU7.
They may be still in production at the former Yugo factory but I need to check this.
I know this factory still produces the 12BH7A though as a Philips licensee.
Cheers,
Seriously?
1. Under what conditions are you comparing all those various tubes?
Are you optimizing all the circuit parameters and voltages for each tube, including the driving impedance, and load impedance, etc.?
Are you adjusting the gain stage after the tube, so that the listening volume is the same, due to all those different stage gains caused by all those different u's and rp's.
Are you doing double blind listening tests?
2. Yes, I have used the 6N1P, but you can not just "shoehorn" it into a 12AU7 spot, or any other of the tubes that were mentioned above.
And finally, I write a phony theory below for all of you who like to read such things:
3. If you wire all those 12.6V/6.3V tubes to use 6.3V, and also use the 6.3V tubes, you will find the following:
A 12BH7 sounds better than a 12AU7; and a 6SN7 sounds better than a 12BH7.
The filament current is not the same.
It is lowest on the 12AU7, then higher on the 12BH7, then higher yet on the 6SN7.
The filament voltage becomes 6.3V on the 12AU7, 6.2V on the 12BH7, and 6.1V on the 6SN7.
How about the ECC99 which sounds better than all of them. It has even higher filament current, and causes the 6.3V to drag down to 6.0V.
To prove # 3 above, you will find multiple references on this forum that says tubes sound much better with reduced filament voltages.
I hope this thread can follow with some better proofs of what sounds better, instead of what we have read so far.
And remember:
"All tubes are equal, but some tubes are more equal than others" Stolen from George Orwells novel "Animal Farm".
1. Under what conditions are you comparing all those various tubes?
Are you optimizing all the circuit parameters and voltages for each tube, including the driving impedance, and load impedance, etc.?
Are you adjusting the gain stage after the tube, so that the listening volume is the same, due to all those different stage gains caused by all those different u's and rp's.
Are you doing double blind listening tests?
2. Yes, I have used the 6N1P, but you can not just "shoehorn" it into a 12AU7 spot, or any other of the tubes that were mentioned above.
And finally, I write a phony theory below for all of you who like to read such things:
3. If you wire all those 12.6V/6.3V tubes to use 6.3V, and also use the 6.3V tubes, you will find the following:
A 12BH7 sounds better than a 12AU7; and a 6SN7 sounds better than a 12BH7.
The filament current is not the same.
It is lowest on the 12AU7, then higher on the 12BH7, then higher yet on the 6SN7.
The filament voltage becomes 6.3V on the 12AU7, 6.2V on the 12BH7, and 6.1V on the 6SN7.
How about the ECC99 which sounds better than all of them. It has even higher filament current, and causes the 6.3V to drag down to 6.0V.
To prove # 3 above, you will find multiple references on this forum that says tubes sound much better with reduced filament voltages.
I hope this thread can follow with some better proofs of what sounds better, instead of what we have read so far.
And remember:
"All tubes are equal, but some tubes are more equal than others" Stolen from George Orwells novel "Animal Farm".
