What qualifies you to be a better expert on this than e.g. the article on Jogis? Instead of the usual rambling why not point to some alternate facts if you have them.
I would be surprised if you found anything at all about the history of the PCC88/ECC88/E88CC series in a paper encyclopedia. It's a very specific subject.
That is history in a way these things, contracts, bills were writted on real papers. That is called asking the history, the docs, vs rumors.
Who said I am an expert, did I say that. Are you as well as qualified yourself to recognise an expert on internet. Re read me I said I have not the verity and one should stay doubtfull. But the items I wrote seems true, and you just quote sources as knowledge without knowing too much those tubes. You are rigth to ask yourself and being doubtfull of others, but you should apply the same for your inputs. Because the man who see the man who say so, is not a valid method.
Borhok cite the second as a prophet. And I cite encyclopedia for the method. It is quite different Marcel. The guys are most often somitees in their paper article...
But well if people prefer the sofa prophety method from internet, up to you. Even Congress scanned library with AI research tools is nit saying it all.
And i have pointed some alternates facts and illustrate them.
You disagree that is all, not worthing writting a book for that. I agree not to be a prophet or cargo cult myself. And I said it above if you read well.
Who said I am an expert, did I say that. Are you as well as qualified yourself to recognise an expert on internet. Re read me I said I have not the verity and one should stay doubtfull. But the items I wrote seems true, and you just quote sources as knowledge without knowing too much those tubes. You are rigth to ask yourself and being doubtfull of others, but you should apply the same for your inputs. Because the man who see the man who say so, is not a valid method.
Borhok cite the second as a prophet. And I cite encyclopedia for the method. It is quite different Marcel. The guys are most often somitees in their paper article...
But well if people prefer the sofa prophety method from internet, up to you. Even Congress scanned library with AI research tools is nit saying it all.
And i have pointed some alternates facts and illustrate them.
You disagree that is all, not worthing writting a book for that. I agree not to be a prophet or cargo cult myself. And I said it above if you read well.
Dismissing some information just because it runs against your beliefs is in the root of anti-science.
Regarding historical information here is an instrument from 1956 having CCa tubes:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/siemens_messsender_rel_3_w_516.html
Also in the Jogis article there is an advertisement of Grundig television from 1957 with E88CC tubes. I'm familiar with that as my parents had that TV model. I believe it still exists and even works.
Regarding historical information here is an instrument from 1956 having CCa tubes:
https://www.radiomuseum.org/r/siemens_messsender_rel_3_w_516.html
Also in the Jogis article there is an advertisement of Grundig television from 1957 with E88CC tubes. I'm familiar with that as my parents had that TV model. I believe it still exists and even works.
Of course bad interpreation, I am not in the belief. , I exactly wrote the opposit, it is you who highligth a belief, you tottaly yourself lack of logic and scientifical method and you even doesn't see it, and you do what you reproach to me ! Very Unfair !
What the heck with the 1956 Cca here ? who care, the ECC88 poped up several years before that, and many knows that E88CC is not as good as ECC88 for our purpose. Is your parents valid for scientifical facts having had a TV. Do you realise the E88CC was a renforced ECC88 and not the opposit (ECC88 a weaked E88CC)... Commmon !
Bohrok we told you the ECC88 was the beginning of the the 50s', the 6DJ8 and E88CC cames later and that Amperex was purchased in 1955 by Philips and tooled by Philips ! True facts ! you cite sources that only illustrate your points : that is what I call no science, you asking the prophet book to check your beleif : that is superstition. ANd I don't say that against you or for personal purposes against you : that is what you write clearly, You mix slogan of science you cite with science !
Believe what you want , that is you that pop up again and again here with sterile and mixed facts you are not able to sort out as is showing your last post not me. What's the goal ! Have you an agenda there (mods ?). Did you try to convice yourself , because I am not with what you wrote. Your logic to cite what is illustrate your point is called sophism. It's okay to disagree, but don't talk to me as I was a fool as you you seem to have no clue but that you parents had a TV which has nothing to see here to prove anything.
You should cite articles and threads to help audioexcell instead,
What the heck with the 1956 Cca here ? who care, the ECC88 poped up several years before that, and many knows that E88CC is not as good as ECC88 for our purpose. Is your parents valid for scientifical facts having had a TV. Do you realise the E88CC was a renforced ECC88 and not the opposit (ECC88 a weaked E88CC)... Commmon !
Bohrok we told you the ECC88 was the beginning of the the 50s', the 6DJ8 and E88CC cames later and that Amperex was purchased in 1955 by Philips and tooled by Philips ! True facts ! you cite sources that only illustrate your points : that is what I call no science, you asking the prophet book to check your beleif : that is superstition. ANd I don't say that against you or for personal purposes against you : that is what you write clearly, You mix slogan of science you cite with science !
Believe what you want , that is you that pop up again and again here with sterile and mixed facts you are not able to sort out as is showing your last post not me. What's the goal ! Have you an agenda there (mods ?). Did you try to convice yourself , because I am not with what you wrote. Your logic to cite what is illustrate your point is called sophism. It's okay to disagree, but don't talk to me as I was a fool as you you seem to have no clue but that you parents had a TV which has nothing to see here to prove anything.
You should cite articles and threads to help audioexcell instead,
Last edited:
Getting back to Lampization tubes that I might use in phase 4 of my modding of my CD880. I just looked at My preamp's tubes. The 7308 can be used as input tube in the line and / or phono stages or more likely wasted as cathode followers for those stages. So, I probably have at least one strong pair I could use for a Lampizator project. What think y'all? I also have one pair of NOS 1975 2n23p so called "holy grail" tube.
You´ll need a higher gain tube, since the signal is quite weak.
A small correction.....
You write "2N2P and 2N23P"..... It´s actually 6N2P and 6N23P 😉
Why not (since you call it "Lampization") use, what Lukasz has described...... 6N2P for the TDA1541.?
This has a gain/µ around 100....... same as the ECC83/12AX7 .
On the output between the 2µF and the RCA-socket, put a 100K to ground.
A small correction.....
You write "2N2P and 2N23P"..... It´s actually 6N2P and 6N23P 😉
Why not (since you call it "Lampization") use, what Lukasz has described...... 6N2P for the TDA1541.?
This has a gain/µ around 100....... same as the ECC83/12AX7 .
On the output between the 2µF and the RCA-socket, put a 100K to ground.
High gain is ideal to reduce the i/r resistor for the TDA 1541...12ax7 is good for the purpose, put a 5687 as a buffer and you are done. You don t need 5Vpp output. Gain can be managed by the pre.
Your targett is a Mu between the 33 talked to 100 and high transimpedance, Just take care of oscillation.
The mono D3A was famous but is a mono triode....
Your targett is a Mu between the 33 talked to 100 and high transimpedance, Just take care of oscillation.
The mono D3A was famous but is a mono triode....
Can you provide any evidence for this or is this just your belief?
Every historic evidence I've seen points to ECC88 coming at late 50's (1958) as a further development of E88CC (or CCa). E.g. http://www.r-type.org/exhib/aai0011.htm
B. we don't care... but before you ask :
The Cca is sorted out lessiest microphonics from E88CC Mullard "ancestor" (Mullard is Owned Philips) batchs for German Post Telecom.
The E88CC is sold since 1958, same time than ECC88 when I recheck and Worldwide. Seems my memory mixed 50s' with 60s'.
ECC88 was made less microphonic for VHF tunners. TV used too E88CC.
E188CC was the best low microphonic version with different parts, sorted out for the purpose. . Avoid the bad Siemens iteration one though.
So if you want long life microphony : get an 6922/E88CC, if you want long life sligthy less microphony, take the Cca. If you want better sound and lower microphony, take the ECC88. And ifyou want better microphony and same family of sound than ECC88 and long life take 7308/E188CC. I am aware of only one E88CC that is better than the ECC88/6DJ8 because of a better filament iirc, but impossible to find nowadays.
The important thing in the discussion is the difference between the E88CC and ECC88 for our audio purpose.
ENd of the story
Btw, take care if yoou have an E88CC/6922 circuit made and want to put an ECC88 instead as anode plate max V is weaker. Anyway all the filamaent amp needs are sligthy different too.
The Cca is sorted out lessiest microphonics from E88CC Mullard "ancestor" (Mullard is Owned Philips) batchs for German Post Telecom.
The E88CC is sold since 1958, same time than ECC88 when I recheck and Worldwide. Seems my memory mixed 50s' with 60s'.
ECC88 was made less microphonic for VHF tunners. TV used too E88CC.
E188CC was the best low microphonic version with different parts, sorted out for the purpose. . Avoid the bad Siemens iteration one though.
So if you want long life microphony : get an 6922/E88CC, if you want long life sligthy less microphony, take the Cca. If you want better sound and lower microphony, take the ECC88. And ifyou want better microphony and same family of sound than ECC88 and long life take 7308/E188CC. I am aware of only one E88CC that is better than the ECC88/6DJ8 because of a better filament iirc, but impossible to find nowadays.
The important thing in the discussion is the difference between the E88CC and ECC88 for our audio purpose.
ENd of the story
Btw, take care if yoou have an E88CC/6922 circuit made and want to put an ECC88 instead as anode plate max V is weaker. Anyway all the filamaent amp needs are sligthy different too.
Last edited:
My next questions are about SRPP Lampizator circuits regard using different I/V resistor values and tube types.
1. I know that lower value I/V resistors result in lower voltage being applied to the grid of the first triode section. And, I think that if no other components in the circuit are changed as shown in a given schematic, the amp's output voltage will be less than it would have been with a higher value I/V resistor?
2. How many components absolutely need to be changed to substitute a tube with the same pinout but lower gain than the tube in a given schematic assuming both tubes can handle the plate voltages and B+ voltages shown in the schematic?
I understand that .a tube with lower gain will change the circuit's output voltage and will ask about how to keep the output voltage at about 2v later. At this point, I am just trying to learn bit by bit about what components need to be changed to sub different tubes in SRPP amps.
1. I know that lower value I/V resistors result in lower voltage being applied to the grid of the first triode section. And, I think that if no other components in the circuit are changed as shown in a given schematic, the amp's output voltage will be less than it would have been with a higher value I/V resistor?
2. How many components absolutely need to be changed to substitute a tube with the same pinout but lower gain than the tube in a given schematic assuming both tubes can handle the plate voltages and B+ voltages shown in the schematic?
I understand that .a tube with lower gain will change the circuit's output voltage and will ask about how to keep the output voltage at about 2v later. At this point, I am just trying to learn bit by bit about what components need to be changed to sub different tubes in SRPP amps.
ecc88 is 6dj8, but please don't use it , it is a bad tube, lots of microphonic and a distressed sound.
Not correct. As I already said E88CC appeared on a Grundig television already at 1957 and before that in Siemens-Halske measuring instruments (as CCa).
According to the Valve Museum the 6DJ8 and the PCC88 were both introduced in 1957. The ECC88 was introduced in 1958.
The oldest pages of this Philips PCC88 datasheet are from 4 April 1957 and they are preliminary:
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/pcc88.pdf
The oldest pages of this Philips ECC88 datasheet are from 7 July 1957, but the graphs on them are marked PCC88. The other pages are from 1 January 1958.
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/ecc88.pdf
This Philips E88CC datasheet is from December 1968,
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/e88cc.pdf
but the advertisement of Mullard shows that they were also made in 1957.
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/pcc88.pdf
The oldest pages of this Philips ECC88 datasheet are from 7 July 1957, but the graphs on them are marked PCC88. The other pages are from 1 January 1958.
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/ecc88.pdf
This Philips E88CC datasheet is from December 1968,
http://www.r-type.org/pdfs/e88cc.pdf
but the advertisement of Mullard shows that they were also made in 1957.