Hey Johan Potgieter
Man, that underneath wiring is absolutely gorgeous! My congratulations on an excellent job.
Victor
Man, that underneath wiring is absolutely gorgeous! My congratulations on an excellent job.
Victor
And I thought I was about the last here to know waxed string harnessing. Beautiful work Johan. It's always easy to spot the handiwork of someone with lots of time 'under the hood'.
Wow Johan,
Thats beautiful, both on top and bottom. Your wiring looks A LOT like that of one of my brothers in law who started me on this tube madness. He is an old school guy and winds his own transformers etc.
Any chance of a schematic?
Andrew
Thats beautiful, both on top and bottom. Your wiring looks A LOT like that of one of my brothers in law who started me on this tube madness. He is an old school guy and winds his own transformers etc.
Any chance of a schematic?
Andrew
All folks,
Gee whizz! - as our Arch-bishop Desmond Tutu once said in a very un-clerical way, showing his sincerety all the more.
Thanks, but all it needs is a little time extra. I am sure the other pics showing tops only would have been in class re bottoms. But recognition, especially from a forum such as this, is humbly accepted and with appreciation.
Zigzagflux, that can be exactly so. One does not run parallel wiring without danger, and therefore without forethought. Not to compare myself to Peter Walker, but the Quad II is the classic example. Those wires belong to the power stages only (and d.c.) But the "sensitive" regions were done point-to-point as you would have noticed. Just a bit of nostalgia .........
This thread is about preference of output tubes, not circuits. Pushing the limits I will try, perhaps on another thread. Also a lot of it (semiconductors 😱 for safety and regulation circuits) is irrelevant to audio.
Now let us see other pics, please!
Regards
[Edit: spelling]
Gee whizz! - as our Arch-bishop Desmond Tutu once said in a very un-clerical way, showing his sincerety all the more.
Thanks, but all it needs is a little time extra. I am sure the other pics showing tops only would have been in class re bottoms. But recognition, especially from a forum such as this, is humbly accepted and with appreciation.
Zigzagflux, that can be exactly so. One does not run parallel wiring without danger, and therefore without forethought. Not to compare myself to Peter Walker, but the Quad II is the classic example. Those wires belong to the power stages only (and d.c.) But the "sensitive" regions were done point-to-point as you would have noticed. Just a bit of nostalgia .........
This thread is about preference of output tubes, not circuits. Pushing the limits I will try, perhaps on another thread. Also a lot of it (semiconductors 😱 for safety and regulation circuits) is irrelevant to audio.
Now let us see other pics, please!
Regards
[Edit: spelling]
EL38's.....Int Oct...If I had a chassis with these (in disquise) I would probably swap in budget UX base 807's and see how it sounds.
The early 6550A is my favourite glass for HiFi and a pack of 807's will do nicely for MI wind.
richj
The early 6550A is my favourite glass for HiFi and a pack of 807's will do nicely for MI wind.
richj
Re: Another one...
But what has that to do with the topic under discussion?
TubeHead Johnny said:
But what has that to do with the topic under discussion?
Ec8010
EC8010,
The topic under discussion is "Favorite Output Tube". I posted the original thread. I also stated that MY fave was the EL84. I was encouraged by others to share my photos. The amp pic is an EL84 powered amp. Any OTHER questions, fruitcake?
~~~Johnny~~~
EC8010,
The topic under discussion is "Favorite Output Tube". I posted the original thread. I also stated that MY fave was the EL84. I was encouraged by others to share my photos. The amp pic is an EL84 powered amp. Any OTHER questions, fruitcake?
~~~Johnny~~~
My vote would have to go to the German post tube F2a. The sound is excellent and tube life is not an issue. I do love it.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1085107#post1085107
Regards,
Milan
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=1085107#post1085107
Regards,
Milan
The forum occasionally finds commercial interests attempting to gain free advertising by registering as new member and then hawking their wares, so the word "eBay" rings our alarm bells. It was sufficient simply to give an answer to the question. Insults are not necessary or encouraged.
Re: I'm sorry...
Oooh! I cannot resist this one.
That is one neat way to pacify someone - make him a double triode!! (You need an emoticon to qualify this one? Oh come now!
)
But TubeHead Johnny:
Interesting to find that you have separate bass and treble controls for the two channels. Separate bass intensities would mostly shift nodes and antinodes in the room, but I can see that treble controls could affect (improve) the stereo image, for one because of the often overlooked factor, that fractional-dB equality at the tweeter's mouth does not guarantee that at the listener's ears (different reflections, room acoustices, etc.) Did you find this arrangement usefull or was it mostly for conveniense - and then in what way?
And I should have started by saying that it is a most impressive construction. I believe accolades coming my way earlier must be shared! (So also with other pics here.)
(Edit: Typos)
TubeHead Johnny said:
Oooh! I cannot resist this one.
That is one neat way to pacify someone - make him a double triode!! (You need an emoticon to qualify this one? Oh come now! ) But TubeHead Johnny:
Interesting to find that you have separate bass and treble controls for the two channels. Separate bass intensities would mostly shift nodes and antinodes in the room, but I can see that treble controls could affect (improve) the stereo image, for one because of the often overlooked factor, that fractional-dB equality at the tweeter's mouth does not guarantee that at the listener's ears (different reflections, room acoustices, etc.) Did you find this arrangement usefull or was it mostly for conveniense - and then in what way?
And I should have started by saying that it is a most impressive construction. I believe accolades coming my way earlier must be shared! (So also with other pics here.)
(Edit: Typos)
Moamps -
??????????????????????????????????
Is there a remark here? Are you a moderator?
I was asking for a reason behind a specific application of tone devices, not the circuit diagrams. Posts #1, 3, 14, 32 and 35 also addressed tone one way or another.
Re second quote: A complete sentence would have read (in reply to the previous post): "A schematic may not be appropriate here, because this thread is about preference of output tubes, not circuits." Is my English poor? Other posts referred folks elsewhere for circuit diagrams.
On to something more productive:
Ulibub,
You mentioned in your post #32 that a 6L6 sounded poor but a 7027 better. But these tubes are exactly the same, construction and all, except for dissipation. I am wondering whether this could again point to freedom with numbering, or could you have used sub-standard 6L6s? Could you think of an explanation or elucidate, please?
Regards
??????????????????????????????????
Is there a remark here? Are you a moderator?
I was asking for a reason behind a specific application of tone devices, not the circuit diagrams. Posts #1, 3, 14, 32 and 35 also addressed tone one way or another.
Re second quote: A complete sentence would have read (in reply to the previous post): "A schematic may not be appropriate here, because this thread is about preference of output tubes, not circuits." Is my English poor? Other posts referred folks elsewhere for circuit diagrams.
On to something more productive:
Ulibub,
You mentioned in your post #32 that a 6L6 sounded poor but a 7027 better. But these tubes are exactly the same, construction and all, except for dissipation. I am wondering whether this could again point to freedom with numbering, or could you have used sub-standard 6L6s? Could you think of an explanation or elucidate, please?
Regards
Following:
Sorry, Milan, I notice that you are a moderator (late at night). Still, was my question too far out, or what exactly was your point?
Thanks
Sorry, Milan, I notice that you are a moderator (late at night). Still, was my question too far out, or what exactly was your point?
Thanks