That's OK, you can like or dislike anything you choose. That's the wonderful thing about the freedom of human agency.
There were many advances in tube technology after 1936, though. And I've spent a lot of time measuring the linearity of tubes (your fact-claim, rather than opinion, with which I was disagreeing). Although there are many, many excellent octal tubes, the 6SN7 family being a good example, the very best tubes that I've measured for linearity all happen to be miniatures (e.g., D3a, 12AX7). I can't say that I've measured every tube out there, but I've looked at many of the highly touted tubes. ECC88 family are not the best for linearity, but they're quite good, better than most, and are very quiet. For cathode follower service or for low level voltage amplifiers, they're hard to beat- but they have to be used properly to realize their performance capabilities.
meehhh, not a big expert but I preferred 6CG7 over 6SN7 (RCA, clear top). Among the many 6CG7's i collected I prefer sylvania's (with and without screen). actually it is now my favorite small tube
That's OK. I've used 6SN7s, but not 6DJ8s -- because I haven't needed the latter type yet. I wouldn't say "Never" without at least looking into the possibility of using them if I thought they'd get the job done.
You really don't know what you're attempting to discuss here, do you? There were just esssssss-loads of types developed during the late 1940s -- 1950s, and even beyond. You had the appearance of specialized types for generating FM (several, in fact) for performing analog-to-digital conversions, video amp types (12BY7A -- color TV video amp, and has some of the nicest audio loadlines: too good, in fact, as these are becoming scarce and $Pricey, glad I already stocked up on these) 45MHz, IF types (and 6CB6s also make decent audio amp pents) color TV chroma demodulators, a whole bunch of horizontal power amp types as TV screens grew in size, and color TV put in its first appearance. Whole bunch of RF types, both small signal and large signal. Then by 1960, the "Compactrons", and "Nuvistors". Not all of which necessarily make decent audio types, but a lot of them do -- especially the horizontal deflection beam formers, and the vertical deflection power triodes (the latter type often appearing as duals with medium or high gain small signal triodes).
Audiophoolery knows no bounds.
This is nonsense. The reason why it might appear so is because the mini types appeared at the same time that the demand went out for higher gain VTs to support the use of enormous gNFB factors. Back in the day when octals were what was available, the use of gNFB wasn't so fashionable, and so the requirement was for more linear types that didn't require correction.
You can still find plenty of octal types that sound like
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
, and some mini types that sound quite good.
6SN7s hardly glow at all; the cathodes are very thin. 6BQ7s beat them in glowey bottle kewelness since the cathodes are enormous for a small signal type.
Neither are 6BQ7s (the spec sheets don't even mention audio uses) but that doesn't mean that they can't sound really good (at least 6BQ7s do) if used with the right loadlines and/or topologies.
Spending three and four figures for a small signal type is pure audiophoolery. As Fred Nachbaur said: "As one tube becomes popular, i.e. expensive, we'll use something else. Because we can".
And I did. Of course, the downside to that is that these types (6BQ6GAs and 6BQ7s) aren't as cheap as they were before we started talkin' 'em up.
Last edited:
Valve Lover, not being afraid of being wrong is key to learning, according to Edison. I agree as long as you're actually trying to learn. To say that the age of tube development ended in 1936 is to suggest that after that, the engineers put as little thought as possible into cooking up new tubes such as the EL34, EL84, ... All the Engineers I've met along my path as an Eng. Tech. seem to take pride in doing something excellent. Otherwise they probably never would have made it through engineering school. Maybe I'm wrong about that. It's probably about the market. When the demand and money go up, companies try harder to out do each other. The 6SN7 and the 6922 are my favorite tubes at the moment. They enable me to build a dam nice line level preamp with passive tone controls. My guitar amp has JJ E34L output tubes, 12AX7's, 6SN7's and a JJ EF86 front end. Am I missing something - are the pre 1935 tubes actually better? I've been tempted to use them just for nostalgia fun. I've heard that some of them are indeed very linear. I wonder if the gain and plate impedance compete well with the 6SN7 or 6922?
Hello Humdinger and All,
Your guitar amp is part of the musical instrument, part of your personal statement to your audience. Color and tone (nonlinearity) is the goal.
My goal is to reproduce your gone Platinum album in my listening room with enough realism to pretend that I am at the live performance. Jimi Hendrix, Valleys of Neptune, was the play list last night.
Other times I just want to take my brain out and play with it. Out to the bench I go. How does a Cascode sound next to a Shunt regulated Push Pull or a (fill in the blank). The tubes are in my mind bottles of SPICE to pick off the rack. The tube needs to meet the requirements of the circuit or vice versa. Things like gain, impedance, transconductance, load and linearity are the nagging realities that tell you something needs to be changed. Preference tells you when to quit.
BTW, 6BK7 cathode followers make a kick butt line output stage. They drive difficult loads and I like the sound.
DT
All just for fun!
Your guitar amp is part of the musical instrument, part of your personal statement to your audience. Color and tone (nonlinearity) is the goal.
My goal is to reproduce your gone Platinum album in my listening room with enough realism to pretend that I am at the live performance. Jimi Hendrix, Valleys of Neptune, was the play list last night.
Other times I just want to take my brain out and play with it. Out to the bench I go. How does a Cascode sound next to a Shunt regulated Push Pull or a (fill in the blank). The tubes are in my mind bottles of SPICE to pick off the rack. The tube needs to meet the requirements of the circuit or vice versa. Things like gain, impedance, transconductance, load and linearity are the nagging realities that tell you something needs to be changed. Preference tells you when to quit.
BTW, 6BK7 cathode followers make a kick butt line output stage. They drive difficult loads and I like the sound.
DT
All just for fun!
Dual Triode, what's that CD you mentioned, "Valley's of Neptune"? That sounds like fun. What's it like? Who's it by? I could use a new CD, or is it a DVD? thx.
Hello,
That is old school Jimi Hendrix that has been locked in the vault for 40 years and brought out (produced) by his sister I recall is the story.
I was listening to the 2 LP vinyl version.
Highly recommended if you like Jimi.
Amazon.com: Valleys Of Neptune: Jimi Hendrix: Music
DT
All just for fun!
Most of the Hendrix recordings sound like Bassomatic looks. How is this one? Jimi cared about playng his guitar and didn't care about the recordings, or he had blown out his ears and couldn't tell. I remember seeing a rack of NEW Hendrix that had been done from the original masters by the engineer that was responsible for the earlier releases. No way. There is a lot of really good music out there that I can't listen to because the recording is so bad that is makes an Ipod nano sound like the Boston Pos at Tanglewood. A great example was the Aerosmith Blues record released a few years back. It sounded like it had been compressed 30 times and decompressed, uncompressed or what ever it is called 15 times then sold for 18 bucks plus lots of sales (no state income tax my behind) in Texas.
Well this whole thing is whether the 6SN7 or the 6DJ8 is a better tube. I do not know the linage of the 6DJ8 but do the 6SN7. The 6SN7 was for audio as was every tube in the line before it back to the venerable triode the 27 thus called because it was first made for use in powering a speaker in radios in 1927. 27s are still a wonderful tube and still used in audio and in high end audio, like for phono stages.
On the other hand the 6DJ8 was used for non audio purposes until somebody found out that it would fit into a lot of designs, that nobody wanted them like they did the 12AU7 which basically replaced the 6SN7. They were cheap and easy to design around and since they had been used in a lot of non audio apps, like inside of scopes used to test how well an audio tube was working in a circuit, they were laying around with no job and were almost worthless. Then one went into a DAC, then Shanlingus put in in the DAC with real pretty blue rings around it and it was sexy. Then the hunt was on for some that were of high enough quality to satisfy people that had trained ears and knew Bassomatic when they smelled it. Not many of those and none have been made since the early 70s or when ever Amperex shut down the production of the JAN Phillips that the US military was using in their scopes because all the scopes were Solid State. 6DJ8s were now made by countries who were still using tube gear in their military test equipment and every where else kids shot them with BB guns or Lieutenants in the Quarter Master Corps still counted them in the warehouse on the DEW line in Newfoundland because the military never threw anything out and it was to far away to be auctioned off in obsolete or non functioning gear to civilians who let their kids shoot the tubes with their BB guns.
The 6DJ8 was an industrial tube that was used because it was easy to put it into almost any kind of design and because they were so cheap nobody wanted them unless you had a scope in Siberia that was made the year before the wall came down in Berlin.
Nato blew the hell out of the JJ factories because they didn't want the scopes working or the radars in MIGs or the range finders in tanks.
We go to war with China tomorow the tube factories that make what ever the number for 6DJ8 is over there will be targets. They might have stolen or reverse engineered our technology but the military was based on the Soviets and a lot of the military gear is run on tube technology. To bad for us because an EMP won't stop it from working. An EMP will have all our planes fall out of the sky, our cars won't work, the stores won't get restocked and since our TVs won't work we will just have to shoot each other with our NRA rifles over a can of beans nobody will be able to open, all because the 6DJ8 wasn't designed for use in audio gear, but the 6SN7 was.
And TOOBs in GEETAR amps don't count for much because the amp is used as an instrument as much and in the cases of those who can't play very well, more than the guitar is. Audio tubes are not supposed to be valued for the type of distortion they make or how easy it makes it to saturated the output transformer. Running up the price of Mullard long plate 12AX7s for the purposes of causing the speakers to squeal like a pig isn't a good thing. Well it is capitalism, just like the price of a JAN 7308 but it doesn't matter to me. I check out the tube numbers carefully and if I can't remember the Chinese or really the Soviet system for numbering tubes, I do a search and if it is a 6DJ8 in any form I won't buy the gear just for that.
My way of thinking is that if whoever designed the piece of audio equipment doesn't want to go the extra quarter mile or nano second of computer time to put in a tube that was designed for audio purposes or evolved from a tube designed for audio purposes then he is a lazy engineer and there is bound to be other corners cut in the design and that the QC will be about the same because the company sets policy and the engineer was probably following orders.
I am sure that there are some 6DJ8s that sound good. That a single one did is a happy accident, but there is not a one worth $250 to get delivered to your front door.
I know there are other tubes priced way above what they should be, the 300B WE is one of them, but no matter what the 300 trode was designed to boost audio signals. The fact that it did it extremely well is not in any way or form an accident.
6SN7s were designed for boosting audio signals. They are not high gain. They don't get used a whole lot. Most guys would chose a 6SL7 before a 6SN7, just like most will chose a 12AX7 over a 12AU7 while they should be using a 12AY7 since it is probably the only dual triode engineered from start to finish as a high fidelity tube. Not enough gain and for the geetar players, they won't distort the way Daddy's Fender would, good. I'll take all I can afford. I'll trade a Telefunken smooth plate 12AX7 for a mil spec BP 12AY7 type any day.
Well I got OT. Forget what I said about the 12AY7s. They SUCK!! 6DJ8s are the best tube ever made and if you want the best try a pair of the JAN Phillips made at the Amperex facility in Holland by blonde giants who eat lots of Gouda. Thatsa Gouda Tube that 7308!!!
Later Guys!
Thatch
Well this whole thing is whether the 6SN7 or the 6DJ8 is a better tube. I do not know the linage of the 6DJ8 but do the 6SN7. The 6SN7 was for audio as was every tube in the line before it back to the venerable triode the 27 thus called because it was first made for use in powering a speaker in radios in 1927. 27s are still a wonderful tube and still used in audio and in high end audio, like for phono stages.
On the other hand the 6DJ8 was used for non audio purposes until somebody found out that it would fit into a lot of designs, that nobody wanted them like they did the 12AU7 which basically replaced the 6SN7. They were cheap and easy to design around and since they had been used in a lot of non audio apps, like inside of scopes used to test how well an audio tube was working in a circuit, they were laying around with no job and were almost worthless. Then one went into a DAC, then Shanlingus put in in the DAC with real pretty blue rings around it and it was sexy. Then the hunt was on for some that were of high enough quality to satisfy people that had trained ears and knew Bassomatic when they smelled it. Not many of those and none have been made since the early 70s or when ever Amperex shut down the production of the JAN Phillips that the US military was using in their scopes because all the scopes were Solid State. 6DJ8s were now made by countries who were still using tube gear in their military test equipment and every where else kids shot them with BB guns or Lieutenants in the Quarter Master Corps still counted them in the warehouse on the DEW line in Newfoundland because the military never threw anything out and it was to far away to be auctioned off in obsolete or non functioning gear to civilians who let their kids shoot the tubes with their BB guns.
The 6DJ8 was an industrial tube that was used because it was easy to put it into almost any kind of design and because they were so cheap nobody wanted them unless you had a scope in Siberia that was made the year before the wall came down in Berlin.
Nato blew the hell out of the JJ factories because they didn't want the scopes working or the radars in MIGs or the range finders in tanks.
We go to war with China tomorow the tube factories that make what ever the number for 6DJ8 is over there will be targets. They might have stolen or reverse engineered our technology but the military was based on the Soviets and a lot of the military gear is run on tube technology. To bad for us because an EMP won't stop it from working. An EMP will have all our planes fall out of the sky, our cars won't work, the stores won't get restocked and since our TVs won't work we will just have to shoot each other with our NRA rifles over a can of beans nobody will be able to open, all because the 6DJ8 wasn't designed for use in audio gear, but the 6SN7 was.
And TOOBs in GEETAR amps don't count for much because the amp is used as an instrument as much and in the cases of those who can't play very well, more than the guitar is. Audio tubes are not supposed to be valued for the type of distortion they make or how easy it makes it to saturated the output transformer. Running up the price of Mullard long plate 12AX7s for the purposes of causing the speakers to squeal like a pig isn't a good thing. Well it is capitalism, just like the price of a JAN 7308 but it doesn't matter to me. I check out the tube numbers carefully and if I can't remember the Chinese or really the Soviet system for numbering tubes, I do a search and if it is a 6DJ8 in any form I won't buy the gear just for that.
My way of thinking is that if whoever designed the piece of audio equipment doesn't want to go the extra quarter mile or nano second of computer time to put in a tube that was designed for audio purposes or evolved from a tube designed for audio purposes then he is a lazy engineer and there is bound to be other corners cut in the design and that the QC will be about the same because the company sets policy and the engineer was probably following orders.
I am sure that there are some 6DJ8s that sound good. That a single one did is a happy accident, but there is not a one worth $250 to get delivered to your front door.
I know there are other tubes priced way above what they should be, the 300B WE is one of them, but no matter what the 300 trode was designed to boost audio signals. The fact that it did it extremely well is not in any way or form an accident.
6SN7s were designed for boosting audio signals. They are not high gain. They don't get used a whole lot. Most guys would chose a 6SL7 before a 6SN7, just like most will chose a 12AX7 over a 12AU7 while they should be using a 12AY7 since it is probably the only dual triode engineered from start to finish as a high fidelity tube. Not enough gain and for the geetar players, they won't distort the way Daddy's Fender would, good. I'll take all I can afford. I'll trade a Telefunken smooth plate 12AX7 for a mil spec BP 12AY7 type any day.
Well I got OT. Forget what I said about the 12AY7s. They SUCK!! 6DJ8s are the best tube ever made and if you want the best try a pair of the JAN Phillips made at the Amperex facility in Holland by blonde giants who eat lots of Gouda. Thatsa Gouda Tube that 7308!!!
Later Guys!
Thatch
Last edited:
Hello,
I have a crate of WWII JAN RCA 12SN7’s that I like a lot. I 20 or so Vietnam vintage JAN 6922’s I like a lot too. Depending on application they are all good. It is like redhead or brunette. Today my preference is chestnut brunette. None of that bleached blond bolt-on aftermarket stuff for me thank you.
I have no complaints regarding the vinyl version of Jimi doing Valleys of Neptune.
DT
All just for fun!
I have a crate of WWII JAN RCA 12SN7’s that I like a lot. I 20 or so Vietnam vintage JAN 6922’s I like a lot too. Depending on application they are all good. It is like redhead or brunette. Today my preference is chestnut brunette. None of that bleached blond bolt-on aftermarket stuff for me thank you.
I have no complaints regarding the vinyl version of Jimi doing Valleys of Neptune.
DT
All just for fun!
Last edited:
I like the 6SN7 better than the 6DJ8 just because it's better able to handle heat, so should last longer. I've seen linearity comparison tests done by top people in the field that showed that the difference between these two tubes was dam small, but I've also read in forums that 6DJ8's often have noise problems. I also like the mechanical rigidity of the 8 pin octal socket. It seems sturdier. Maybe it's more nostalgic too. It would be awesum to have some of the early 5 and 6 pin tubes like the 27 and 76 (extra nostalgic to me), but I'm not willing to compromise on any of the specs, plus being single section tubes would take twice the space.
i set aside my 7N7 preamp for the 6H23, they sound the same to my ears, the 6H23 operates at a B+ of 60volts and 4.7k plate loads in a CE/CF config....
my 7N7 preamp uses a B+ of 300volts and has 28k plate loads in the same config....
The 6moon website during their review of a Yamamoto A-08S tube amp described the Sun Audio 2A3 which uses 2A3 and 6SN7 tubes as having an "old school euphonic and has a more metallic edge in the top and upper midrange, with a definitely rounder bottom", while the Yamamoto sounded "ultra-modern."
I can understand what they might talk about, but as I have not heard the Yamamoto yet, I have no clue. I expect five Yamamoto A-08S under the X-mas tree any year now.
My Sun Audio clone sound good enough for me, and I plan to get more of them, even though my aluminum diaphragm compression drivers already sound plenty metallic. My problem is actually to find a cone driver that would be playing between 80-400Hz to match the same high detail metallic sound as the compression drivers above. May have to invent it myself.
From 6moon review:
[Here's a final outside observation (from owner Todd). It segues seamlessly into my own concluding listening impressions. He finds "that the Yamamoto sounds very natural with awesome tone and a very realistic bottom end. I would say that the Sun [Audio 2A3 amplifier] sounds more old school-tube euphonic and has a more metallic edge in the top and upper midrange, with a definitely rounder bottom compared to the Yamamoto." The A-08S is distinctly not old-school if by that term we mean the prototypical sound which most people still associate with valves - euphonic, forgiving, soft, pleasant but colored. The Yammy with the stock Cunninghams is new school ultra-modern. It obeys present-day expectations for resolution, speed and linearity, areas in which it completely transcends tubed preconceptions. It's fast, precise, with fully developed treble energy and incisive when called for. Here it acts all solid-statish if we must use another tired old label." ]
Last edited:
How can we get it through to people that valves don't have a sound; even circuits don't have a sound. It is the 3-tuple of (valve, circuit, signal) which has a sound. And then we could add 'EMC environment' too.
No, I know basic physics and electronics, as well as amplifier design. The writers for 6Moons are chosen on the basis of gullibility and gushing prose.
Of course, but hopefully amps so celebrated has solved, not all, but most problems in their circuit design, as to give the listener a good impression of what the type of tube should sound like at its best.
I have read that the Sun Audio has some problems at some stage, but to me it sounds good.
I agree they take pages and pages to write something very simple. At times I wish they would be more critical, but in their defense most speakers in the class that they are reviewing will sound great, if not fantastic.
They are often invited to the homes of the manufacturer and if they want to get invited to anyone else in the future they cannot completely bash their lives work. That would be Romy the Cats job, and he is not even invited to most forums.
I get a feeling that they want to live the hifi life-style, and are not as interested in knowing what is the Top 3 speakers in the world.
Another quote from 6moons, partly directed to us forum posters:
6moons.com - industry features: Oswald's Mill 2008
[So how good was the sound at the Mill? In a nutshell, the entire experience was fairly ******* amazing. I'm not talking about a particular component (how could I?) or anything to do with typical audiophilia. I'm talking about an experience. To be perfectly upfront, I'm beginning to grow very very weary of the number of reviewers (and I include forum posters) who insist that their particular vantage point somehow always offers them the ability to hear what's best (or not) no matter the circumstance, no matter the length of time spent listening, no matter how familiar or unfamiliar the stuff is they're listening to. As if we need to get there within every single review or show report, as if there is really any such thing as a best in audio to begin with. The reviewer's Categorical Imperative condensed to a 'best' stamp of approval (or not) simultaneously stamps out the ability to enjoy outside one's comfort zone."]
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.