Tube Experience 101

[wisnon]

The phrase "a fool and his money...", really comes to mind. I've dabbled in tubes...but my experiences have run pretty mainstream, because I think it's a mine-field out there!

Seriously...I could take a pair of $10 Chinese tubes, and I dare say 95% of aficionados at RMAF; couldn't pick them from $1,000 NOS. I'm not trying to challenge anyone's expertise; but I used to deal in an enterprise, where "fakes" also ran rampant. As soon as you try and find a "fool-proof" method, for weeding out the knock-offs; the bad guys find a way to use it against you.

Not to single KT out...but if he has the time, to educate himself; and in his mind, stay one step ahead...then that's good for him. I know most of us don't. I mean...just as a small example; I'm looking for 6922s for my ARC pre-amp. I keep reading about the "holy grail" of CCa. Now...if you search eBay; you'll find everything from $15 for a single, to $450 for a pair.

A well-known and used vendor...is charging $450/per, for some. So...who's gouging; who's got the real deal, etc. I mean, it's dicey business. I think we all want to believe, there are bargains to be had; and maybe...just maybe...we let that sway us into hearing what we want.

But it's a subject with passionate opinions; and I urge everyone, to show some restraint here. In other words...let's not attack each others opinions or choices. Carry on :thumbsup:

That's why I mainly go tube hunting locally, like here:

Ali-Charles-Baba

 

[wisnon]

Not to single KT out...but if he has the time, to educate himself; and in his mind, stay one step ahead...then that's good for him. I know most of us don't. I mean...just as a small example; I'm looking for 6922s for my ARC pre-amp. I keep reading about the "holy grail" of CCa. Now...if you search eBay; you'll find everything from $15 for a single, to $450 for a pair.

A well-known and used vendor...is charging $450/per, for some. So...who's gouging; who's got the real deal, etc. I mean, it's dicey business. I think we all want to believe, there are bargains to be had; and maybe...just maybe...we let that sway us into hearing what we want.

Chris, here is an argument I got AGAINST the CCa being the "ultimate" or true "holy grail":
I am not a fan of
the ecc83 and 12x type tubes as i consider all double triodes flawed by design
(two amplification elements are never properly
aligned when used in parallel
and crosscouple into each other when used for different channels or
amplification stages).

That said, this is the extreme purist point of
view.

A well made amp using them in parallel config. can still deliver ,
even so a similar amp with single stage tubes of comparable design will add more
performance on top.

So single element triodes or pentodes come to mind
(most state of the art recording consoles of the golden age used pentodes, only
later double triodes, as they were cheaper.

I would look for a pre with a
minimum number of tubes in signal path and with the best tube power supply.
According to my research the more tubes in the signal path, the more "fuzzy
haze" .

 

[CDLehner]

I would look for a pre with a
minimum number of tubes in signal path and with the best tube power supply.
According to my research the more tubes in the signal path, the more "fuzzy
haze".

And see...as much as anything; this perfectly illustrates my point, about why this is such a subjective topic. Some people really like that "haze"...lol

In fact...I'm trying to decide now, between staying in the 6922-based realm; or updating, if not upgrading...to 6H30s. Please...no need to cast your vote here; I've heard from some of you, and I'm having a tough enough time choosing :bonkers:

It's more to illustrate the conundrum. Do you want to be linear ("solid-state"), or more tube-y (and then again...there's kind of old-school tube-y, vs. new-school tube-y...lol). Do you want...fewer tubes, less rolling, but more reliability; or do you want the exotic mysteriousness, of playing the NOS field?

As always...what it really boils down to, is sound; and for me...sound is always dependent, on matching or synergy. Maybe if I had a REF 75...a 6H30-based pre-amp, is just what the doctor ordered. But with my DS-450...which does have its pros; I need to F A T T E N the signal up, as much as possible.


P.S.-Now I just need someone, to slide me their old LS-25 mkI!

 

[wisnon]

Actually that haze is NOT the same as tubiness and that insight came from a mega designer I know. I rate him more than all others I know and I know quite a few.

 

[mep]

Actually that haze is NOT the same as tubiness and that insight came from a mega designer I know. I rate him more than all others I know and I know quite a few.

Can you describe "fuzzy haze" and how you think that relates to tubes? How do you know it's not circuit related vs. tube related? The CAT preamps use lots of tubes and I have never heard anyone refer to them as having a "fuzzy haze" sound. I owned a CAT preamp and I know I would never use that description. I also owned a Counterpoint SA-5.1 for many happy years and it's about as pure tube as it gets and it didn't fit your "fuzzy haze" label either. Ditto for the Counterpoint SA-2 pre-preamp.

 

[Myles B. Astor]

Chris, here is an argument I got AGAINST the CCa being the "ultimate" or true "holy grail":
I am not a fan of
the ecc83 and 12x type tubes as i consider all double triodes flawed by design
(two amplification elements are never properly
aligned when used in parallel
and crosscouple into each other when used for different channels or
amplification stages).

That said, this is the extreme purist point of
view.

A well made amp using them in parallel config. can still deliver ,
even so a similar amp with single stage tubes of comparable design will add more
performance on top.

So single element triodes or pentodes come to mind
(most state of the art recording consoles of the golden age used pentodes, only
later double triodes, as they were cheaper.

I would look for a pre with a
minimum number of tubes in signal path and with the best tube power supply.
According to my research the more tubes in the signal path, the more "fuzzy
haze" .

How do you separate tubes vs. circuit e.g. the effect of a cathode follower in the pre or phono section? Or output transformers in amps? I really think you're getting in trouble trying to oversimplify things.

 

[wisnon]

Can you describe "fuzzy haze" and how you think that relates to tubes? How do you know it's not circuit related vs. tube related? The CAT preamps use lots of tubes and I have never heard anyone refer to them as having a "fuzzy haze" sound. I owned a CAT preamp and I know I would never use that description. I also owned a Counterpoint SA-5.1 for many happy years and it's about as pure tube as it gets and it didn't fit your "fuzzy haze" label either. Ditto for the Counterpoint SA-2 pre-preamp.

You are making it too specific. I am not even sure that CAT uses dual triodes the way described above and the opinion also stated viable workarounds which they also may be using.

However, you are shifting the goalpost. I gave a scientific/engineering rationale and you conflate that with opinion on sound you have with your own experience which may or may not apply.

 

[wisnon]

How do you separate tubes vs. circuit e.g. the effect of a cathode follower in the pre or phono section? Or output transformers in amps? I really think you're getting in trouble trying to oversimplify things.

MYLES!!!!!!

How does that argument apply? Where did I mention circuit per se? The opinion started with a design rationale and elaborated why it was sub-optimal and gave viable workarounds. Downstream design elements are just that. They may be good or bad on their own and addititive or subtractive to the originally identified "problem". It all matters in the end for final results but if you start with a potential design flaw, you limit the potential height of the ceiling on performance.

 

[mep]

You are making it too specific. I am not even sure that CAT uses dual triodes the way described above and the opinion also stated viable workarounds which they also may be using.

However, you are shifting the goalpost. I gave a scientific/engineering rationale and you conflate that with opinion on sound you have with your own experience which may or may not apply.

I'm not shifting the goalpost. You made a statement as to why you don't like dual triode tubes in general and you wanted a minimum number of tubes in the signal path because too many tubes cause a "fuzzy haze" sound. I mentioned the CAT preamp that violates both of your admittedly purist views as it uses both dual triodes and lots of them and told you that it doesn't have a "fuzzy haze" sound and asked you to describe what that really means.

 

[wisnon]

"I" made no such statement. Go back and read my original post. I offered an alternative position given to me by someone else.

 

[mep]

"I" made no such statement. Go back and read my original post. I offered an alternative position given to me by someone else.

Sorry, you are correct. I missed that when I first read it and I thought those were your statements.

 

[audiolove]

Random jump in, Siemens CCA are my favorite...Amperex come next (12au7 - the old rare stuff); and the tesla 12ax7 for transparency.