Garrard 301 - Project

12AX7LPS is not a variant of 12AX7; the LPS suffix is a Sovtek code for low noise. So it’s a Sovtek 12AX7 that was presumably tested and selected for low noise. It’s well regarded, at least for having low noise. A randomly chosen NOS 12AX7/ECC83 is unlikely to be as quiet.

Cheers! I've been really happy with mine. What it lacks in load options makes up in fidelity. I just think they nailed it – in my system anyway. Hope it works out for ya.

“A randomly chosen NOS 12AX7/ECC83 is unlikely to be as quiet.”

@lewm

Maybe so but that shouldn’t deter anyone to not experiment, right? It’s a calculated gamble with any NOS tubes…well regarded NOS 12AX7s or ECC83s (like Mullards, Telefunkens, or Amperex) may not be low noise as Sovtek but what they have in spades is harmonic complexity and tonal richness.

The Sovtek 12AX7LPS is indeed not a separate “variant” of the 12AX7 but rather a Sovtek-branded 12AX7 with the “LPS” designation, which stands for long plate spiral. This spiral filament design helps reduce hum in applications like phono stages, where low noise is critical. Its long plates can offer a bit more detail and tonal richness compared to short plate designs.

I had an extensive dialog with the manufacturer prior to my purchase, the Model 4 supports all 12AX7 variants. My particular piece is supplied with JJ ECC803S and it is dead quiet.

Sovtek 12AX7LPS is indeed not a separate “variant” of the 12AX7 but rather a Sovtek-branded 12AX7 with the “LPS” designation,

So for those of us who speak English as a native language, the 12AX7LPS is indeed a variant of 12AX7, whether you subscribe to either Merriam-Webster or Cambridge dictionary. I personally use 12AX7HTF's in my Marantz 7.

Congrats on the Softone. 

@dover ….Correct :-)  

“I just think they nailed it….
@hoytis 

I agree with your assessment. This is a very special phono at a screaming bargain. I have been listening to records two straight days…lol. Have you done any tube rolling? My unit came with JJ ECC803S, they are breaking in nicely and have whet my appetite for more. 

I haven’t heard an amp that hasn’t been improved by rolling in old production Telefunken ECC83/12AX7. Failing that, Grant Fidelity have a Black Treasure 12AX7 that is wonderful.

Dover, who else besides Sovtek make “long plate spiral” 12AX7s and also market those tubes as LPS? But of course you can use any 12AX7/ECC83 in your phono stages.

@noromance

Thank you for your recommendation. And I agree, Telefunken ECC83/12AX7 tubes are legendary for a reason. I am also looking at Mullard’s from 60’s which are known for silky and pleasant top end without being rolled-off. The best of these tubes retain a fine sense of "air" at the top, and the upper midrange is smooth and liquid. These tubes reproduce the human voice, especially female voices, with haunting realism. And then there is Siemens ECC83 NOS 1968, that are favorably touted for phono stages and preamps.

I may end up buying a pair of each and see which one’s are the keepers:-)

TFK ECC83s are so "legendary" for their "tonal richness" that the cost is high, and some duplicitous sellers are selling fakes. Caveat emptor.

I like Telefunkens, but, I never considered them to be tonally rich sounding tubes.  The ones I heard were very lively and dynamic sounding, but, considerably leaner than the likes of Mullard and Amperex.  The Telefunkens that I ended up using in my phono stage are ECC803S tubes that are very expensive.  They came in their original box,  This was quite a while ago when there were some concerns about fakes, but, the Chinese had not yet perfected the fake diamond molded into the bottom of the tube.  The box looked suspiciously clean and new, but the ends crumbled when I opened them, which indicated that t boxes were very old.  

For warmer sound, I like Amerex Bugle Boy 12AX7s.  

Haven't rolled tubes yet. Haven't felt the need yet. But never say never.

Link to my aforementioned Black Treasures.

TFK ECC83s are so "legendary" for their "tonal richness" 

No they are not.

Exact opposite - in the Marantz 7 circuit they are fast, reasonably transparent and very flat. I have a draw full of premium flat plate Telefunkins. They have never sounded rich.

If you want rich - Mullards tend to be much more fullsome the expense of speed and neutrality.

The problem with any discussion on tubes is that the best tube can be circuit related - you can't make blanket statements.

I like Telefunkens, but, I never considered them to be tonally rich sounding tubes.  The ones I heard were very lively and dynamic sounding, but, considerably leaner than the likes of Mullard and Amperex.  

Absolutely correct - I have drawer fulls of flat plate telefunkens - they are as described. I also have a stash of Mullard CV4004 and M8137's both are richer and fuller sounding than the Tele's.

In my Marantz 7 I preferred the Telfunkens.

In my Jadis preamp I preferred the Mullards in some positions ( but not all ).

@dover Funny, I had a drawer full of the box plate Mullards you mention. Nice if one likes creamy, warm, and slow, with no air. I'll concede that Teles can be a little lacking in warmth. However, I maintain that you can adjust tonality elsewhere in the system without slowing it all down in the phono amplifier.

@dover, @larryi 

You both are right—Telefunken ECC83s are not “tonally rich” in the sense that Mullards or Amperex tubes are. They’re prized for their neutrality, speed, and precision rather than warmth or fullness. Their sonic signature tends to be leaner, more transparent, and dynamic, which is why they excel in circuits like the Marantz 7, where their neutrality complements the design’s inherent qualities.

As you mentioned, tube performance is highly circuit-dependent. Telefunkens might shine in a circuit designed for clarity and speed, while Mullards or Amperex tubes with their fuller and richer sound, might be better suited for systems aiming for warmth and body. It’s fascinating how tube rolling allows for such fine-tuning, but also how generalized statements about “the best tube” fall short when we take into account circuit topology, system synergy and personal preference.

Your experience highlights the beauty of experimentation, something I deeply believe in.

Do you find that your preference for Telefunken or Mullard shifts depending on the type of music you’re listening to or is it the system’s overall tonal balance?

Dover, Please lighten up. I was quoting Lalitk. That is why the words were in quotation marks.  Evidently Lalitk experiences the TFK ECC83 as tonally rich. As we all know, one's impressions of the SQ of any single item in a system are dependent upon what else is in the system and what is in the caput of the listener. Although I have to say that I preferred the sound of TFK ECC83s against any other congener in my Quicksilver preamplifier, I also hold with noromance that you can adjust tonality elsewhere, such as by careful choice of output coupling capacitor, and etc. I used the TFKs in the Q because I have owned a quad of them since the 1970s, and I figured I ought to at least give them a try.  The Quicksilver is a superb sounding unit, in my opinion, but these days it just sits on the shelf.  Mullards were underwhelming in the Quicksilver, not even second choice. I am in general not a fan of tube rolling at all.

Do you find that your preference for Telefunken or Mullard shifts depending on the type of music you’re listening to or is it the system’s overall tonal balance?

No. I listen to mostly Jazz & Classical.

My preferences are for maximum speed and transparency. I very seldom have any issues with system balance - having multiple arms/cartridges is enough.

One thing I cannot stand is slowness or aberrations/colourations - I find that ultimately they grate on you over time. Best to build a balanced system to start with.

In terms of tube choice - its the particular application that can determine tube variant in my experiences - specifically with classic circuits eg Marantz you have tubes that perform gain functions and tubes that are used in a cathode follower application ( no gain, used as buffer to generate a low impedance output ).

Occasionally I have found that the 2 best tubes in those positions are not the same.

@lewm

I used to distribute Quicksilver, I have owned them years ago - the QS preamp runs the tubes very very hard. 

@dover

Your focus on speed and transparency aligns perfectly with your preference for a balanced and revealing system. It’s great that your approach to tube selection considers the nuances of classic circuit design. That level of detail ensures optimal synergy and performance without introducing unwanted coloration or sluggishness.

My journey into analog so far has been nothing short of amazing experiences. There is still lot more work ahead as I look forward to receiving the elusive Woodsong plinth + implementation of 2nd tonearm and Mono cart by Spring 2025.

Dover, I own the old QS preamp that has a built in MM phono stage, along with its linestage, not the newer models that I think are separates, a phono stage and a separate linestage.  Since I have measured the voltages across the tubes, and thereby also calculated plate current and plate dissipation, I can assure you that the early 1990s era QS does not run the tubes "very hard". The plate dissipation is well within spec. Upgrading the capacitors in the RIAA filter and the output coupling capacitors does wonders for the sound.

@lewm 

Dover, I own the old QS preamp that has a built in MM phono stage, along with its linestage, 

Yes - that's the one I'm talking about. In hindsight it may have been the power supply feeds to the tubes that had some design foibles that were precarious. I have the circuit diagrams here with updates by Mike ( there were several updates to that pre ), but my tech was not happy. He did explain to me the design issue, but I can't remember the detail - its some years ago.

Its an ok preamp.

@lewm If you find that:

Upgrading the capacitors in the RIAA filter and the output coupling capacitors does wonders for the sound.

I am surprised that:

I am in general not a fan of tube rolling at all.

It seems to me that if a better capacitor does wonders, then a better tube might as well! Perhaps I have fooled myself, but I'm surprised to find that changing a rectifier tube can affect the sound quality, never mind the tubes in the signal path. I am not guilty of changing types of tubes, only the manufacturer.