Which Tele's did you try Mr B? |
Hi Rodman,
They came with my Dynaco pre-amp. I bought it and a Stereo 70 from the son of an engineer who made it while he was in college in 1965. I don't believe he ever changed the tubes. The tubes test very well in my tube tester.
The tubes have the diamond in the glass inside the semi-circle of pins. There are number codes inside the diamonds (date codes I guess).
I have long since rubbed off the lettering while cleaning the tubes with isopropanol. But the diamonds are of course there as they are molded in the glass. |
I know none of you will believe this (until you try it!) but the best way to clean tubes, and especially European tubes with that delicate white printing, is naphtha (as in: Ronsonal lighter fluid.) Anything with even a hint of water in it (almost all alcohols, Win dex, etc) will dissolve the white paint, but not naphtha. |
Now you tell me! After I washed off those cool little bugle boys off my Bugle Boys! Should I just toss them and buy some of those more robust Bugle Boys where the bugle boy doesn't wash off?
Thanks for the information! I will give it a try. |
B-man I've heard rumors (un-verified by me, mind you) that the BB's with the permanent labels (not the Amperex orange globes) might be fakes. I would suggest doing a bit of research first. I could be wrong of course, however I find "Trust but Verify" to be an excellent approach (in many areas of life actually!)
BTW, according to my techie friend Stephen Sank, any of the minitriodes that say Herleen Holland are out of the same Amperex factory? Just different labels/brands.
. |
Thanks Nsgarch for watching out for me. I should have put a "just kidding" type statement after my first paragraph above. Sorry, my sense of humor can be pretty bad or twisted.
I have read articles on the Internet in my research about the counterfeits of the highly valued "NOS" tubes, and one of the first things they mention to look out for is labels that are tenacious and don't wash off.
Actually, as an aside, the counterfeits make me wonder about re-issues. Are they really built to spec of the original tubes, and with the same quality of workmanship? The burning question is, do they sound as good? Anyone have experience with them in comparison to the originals?
From the very first moment that I started cleaning my NOS tubes, I noticed how easily the labels came off. The labels were practically rubbing off in my latex-gloved fingers. And with isopropanol, they came off immediately (the labels, not my fingers). I immediately broke out my tube tester and Sharpie-brand marker, and numbered, tested and cataloged my tubes before cleaning the rest. I matched the tube number to the tube brand and measured specs. I am so happy I did that because now, years later, I can still identify tubes and match them.
Thanks for the tip about Herleen Holland, too. I will look out for them. I like the BB's so much that I am very curious to see if the other Amperex's sound as nice.
Thanks again for watching out for me so that I don't get ripped off -- there are many things I am naive about and it is great when decent people speak up! |
B-man, we were all beginners once, and although people have to have their own learning experiences, it doesn't hurt to ive folks a little heads up.
As for current ('reissues') vs. NOS (honest people now call them ANOS = almost new old stock = slightly used old stock ;-) Honestly, slightly used is a better bet than brand new old stock because at least the slightly used are proven working. If I were buying expensive BRAND NEW old stock tubes, I'd make a deposit but then insist the seller
test and burn-in the tubes for a few hours before shipping them to me ;-)
As for their sound, the current issues aren't bad, and I'm sure they will slowly get better. The brands bought by the American fellow who owns New Sensor in russia are: Sovetek, Genalex Gold Lion, Electro Harmonix, Svetlana, Mullard, Tung Sol, and a few other I forgot. None of them are like the originals (internally) although some are built very substantially.
The real difference between the old and new is metalurgy. The old-timers who experimented for years and years cooking up new (secret and jealously guarded) plate coatings had no one to pass the secrets to when ss came along. So the craft died with them. They succeeded in achieving very high plate current at rated voltages that tubemakers today can only hope they'll get to one day.
As an example, a typical NOS Genalex GEC or Gold Lion had transconductance values (when new) of 10,000 umhos or more (that's the measure of a tube's gain). Today's best KT-88's, the Genalex or the Shuguang/Penta-Labs (the Penta is an exact copy of NOS tube) when they are brand new are 7000 to 7500. I have some USED NOS Genalex theat are 9000! So it's not so stupid to buy he older tubes and some of them have a sparkle to them than so far no current tubes can duplicate. Anyway that's the basic story. There's tons of history and lore available today at the click of a mouse.
. |
Great information Nsgarch, thank you! |
Yes, it does appear that many older tube varieties have very fragile printing on them. My telefunken ECC83/12AX7s barely have any markings left, just from handling. I am fairly careful handling the ECC803S which were never used (cam in very nice looking boxes, though the cardboard has become somewhat fragile). My Bugle Boys also have somewhat fragile printing.
Because of all of this discussion, I did something I rarely do (being quite lazy), which is to switch out the ECC803S and replace them with the ECC83. Where my memory was that the ECC83 was more "muddled" sounding, that turned out to not exactly be the case. The ECC83 is not really more muddled or lacking in clarity, it is more the case of transients (initial attack of the note) being softened, as compared to the ECC803S. I still prefer the ECC803S, but again, the price differential is striking.
I should also mention that, in another friend's system, the Bugle Boys sounded terrific in the phono stage of a Hovland preamp -- so much more lively than the stock tube that came with the preamp. |
Larry, one day I just said, "this really sucks!" and I got some Q-Tips, gathered a few old European tubes that had almost no printing left, and set out to try every solvent I could think of to see if anything would spare the printing. Naphtha was IT. And no surprise really -- that's the only solvent dry cleaners will use on your clothes!
I should have noted that even the moisture in some peoples' skin can take off the printing, so it's best to handle those with really fragile (almost gone) labels with a clean cotton cloth or latex gloves before and after cleaning.
. |
It seems many are raving about the RCA 12ax7 black longplates, but I've barely seen or heard a word about the RCA 12ax7 GRAY longplates. I've owned and listened to both varieties in my system. I just shook my head. I wound up selling the blackplates. |
Just replaced my Tung Sol 12AX7's in my phono stage with the Black RCA 5751's. This is the way to go if you can handle the slightly different tube. More dynamics/punch on the bottom end, smoother on top and just clearer overall.
Bob |
Bob, the RCA 5751 TMBP is my favorite 5751 (it's a REALLY tough call, but I still think I like it better than the Sylvania.)
I have mine in a Mac amp, but in a phono stage did you notice:
A. Any reduction in gain? Many are concerned about this, personally I don't think it would show up unless one is driving the tube over the brink!
B. Any (noticable) reduction in noise floor - you did say "clearer", so that might could be lower noise floor? |
I have a Hagerman Trumpet phono stage, and Jim Hagerman said not to use them over the 12AX7, but it sounds so much better. There was no reduction in gain that I noticed. In fact, it sounded louder because of the increased dynamics. It was also clearer but smoother on top. Could be a reduced noise floor. Don't know.
I do know that there was a very low level buzz in the Tung Sols that I was using before that is now gone with this 5751. Don't get me wrong, those Tung Sols are very, very good - a sweet sounding tube with clarity and kick.
I need to try the Tung Sol's in my preamp and see how they fare against the RCA Clear Tops I am using there now. Or perhaps try the 5751's in there and see if it betters everything all around or if they truly belong in the phono stage (I only have 1 pair, so a search for their best location is needed).
Bob |
Bob, "ruggedized" (for the military) 5751's (especially the triple mica ones) are supposed to be great in phono and microphone preamps because of their extremly low noise and/or microphonics compared to a regular 12AX7. Something I can't really judge as mine are in an amplifier. However, they are definitely smoother (by which I mean less in-your-face grainy) than the 12AX7's I've tried; and the really good 5751's are more dynamic too. -- Neil
. |
Bob,
Jim H, most likely doesn't recommend 5751's in the Trumpet because the RIAA is passive and the tubes contribute to the equalization. That being said. I am no RIAA equalization
Nazi and use 5751's, which I think sound great, in my phono pre amp. I am building a Cornet2 and will try them there, well.
Cheers,
Geary |
Update, I had some good ears over this past weekend and we played with a few different things. We did try swapping out the 5751's for the Tung Sols.
The impression was that the RCA Black Blate 5751's were a bit more dynamic but ultimately too plummy and slower on the bottom end. The Tung Sol 12AX7's were clearer and cleaner and faster all around. The general consensus was to leave the Tung Sols in.
Well, that's what this hobby is all about. Trying different things from time to time, but making sure to go back and see if a change is ultimately an improvement, or just a change.
Enjoy,
Bob |
Some POS from Singapore is trying to sell a pair of NOS ECC803S's for $1099.99 + shipping.
http://cgi.ebay.com/2XNOS-ECC803S-ECC83-12AX7-Telefunken-Bottom-Ulm_W0QQitemZ130310286752QQihZ003QQcategoryZ67816QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
MoFo! |
Bicycle_man, isn't that queen just too much!? It cracks me up every time I see his auctions! Bob, I applaud your reminding us all of this: . . . but making sure to go back and see if a change is ultimately an improvement, or just a change. Human beings being the stimulation junkies we are, changes often seem 'better'. For at least a minute!! Geary, I have also been cautioned about using 5751's if they would be in (active) RIAA circuits. Apparently passive RIAA circuits are not affected. Neil . |
Tubes sound different in different preamps. Maybe someone can comment on the synergy of this.
I have a Jolida Envoy and a Symphonies, while TF ECC83's rank high in each, the Mullard 10M 12AX7 out shines everything in the Symphonies, but is not particularly interesting in the Envoy. |
Thanks, Nsgarch! It burned me up to see that auction. After a little thought, I have reached the conclusion that I won't let the likes of him upset me. If people are willing to pay the prices he asks, it is their problem. Thank you for your supportive comment.
Perhaps the synergies between different tubes and amps has to do with the electrical properties of the tubes and the circuits they are plugged into. This sounds like stating the obvious. But, maybe the effects of the parameters are more profound than theory or expectations suggest. It is an interesting phenomenon! |
Has anyone tried the Mullard Reissue 12ax7 and/or the new production Sovtek LPS 12ax7? They get good reviews over at Audio Asylum and the LPS's especially seem to have the rep of being exceptionally quiet. I've ordered some of each to try out in a VAC pre I just picked up. I thought I would try this route before blowing the inheritance on NOS. |
Cruz123 - The Mullard reissues are garbage IME, and the Sovtek LPS are moderately better. I've found you get what you pay for when it comes to tubes. Finding used NOS tubes in good condition can save you some money, but still expect to pay quite a bit more than the inexpensive current tubes previously referenced. |
Bicycle Man,
The ebay price listing for the ECC803S is quite high, but, is there something else you object to about the listing? Are these fakes?
Whether or not a tube is the "best" is a matter of system synergy and taste. I found it a bit obnoxious for the poster to suggest there is any kind of audiophile consensus on the 803S, but, the price any decent tube of that type gets is a reflection of demand for that tube. Sure, collectors have driven up the price too, but, I bet quite a few are in actual use.
I do think the 803S is unique, in terms of its utter speed, impact of transients, and detail. I know it can sound lean and analytical in most setups, but, where it works well, I have not heard anything that can compare. It also has a reputation for having a very long life. The value of what this tube offers is in the eye of the beholder.
I am just trying to get some idea of whether you are raising objections to the tube itself, the crazy pricing, or the specifics of the particular ebay posting/poster. |
Bicicyle_man, in fairness, I have seen "museum quality" TFK 803S's go for as much as $1400 a pair on eBay (before the financial meltdown!) They ARE rare, and if one is a collector (and has no intention of using them - which blows my mind ;-) I suppose . . . . . .
But if you were to do a little research as I did, purely out of curiosity (I wondered what a $1400 pair of 12AX7's must sound like?) you would probably discover as i did that the concensus was "nothing special"!
The only time I [almost] got badly burned buying NOS tubes (the seller took them back ;-) was when I paid a premium for some truly NEW NOS tubes and one was a complete dud. But nobody knew because no one had ever tried to use them! Oh yeah, the seller had tested and measured them, but not actually placed them in service in a component. From then on, I only buy ANOS (almost new old stock) tubes with at least a few hours on them. There's nothing like a 'track record' when it comes to tubes! |
Hi Larryi,
My objections were to (what I believe is) the crazy pricing. I even think ~$300 for a pair of 10m's is insane. I love the tubes dearly, but where does gouging end and fair value begin?
I am not used to the idea of rare tubes and the enormous prices they can command. I realize price will only go up as time progresses, and the tubes become more rare. Through my own experiences with 12ax7's, 6gh8's, and el34's, I do believe that the older tubes were better.
I think it is a seller's market, and am disappointed to see the free market capitalism envelope push so hard. But that's only my opinion, there are many valid arguments against my point of view! One of them is the very obvious supply and demand. Another is the arguable dearth of current production competition.
The thought that these were fakes did, of course, cross my mind. How would you return them if the midrange was grainy and top-end was shrill, then you discovered you could not rub off the markings with your finger tips? It seems to me to be too much of a risk to take at that price. I am in no way implying that they are fakes! I have no experience with the seller, and have nothing against him except the pricing of his tubes.
These may turn out to be fair market value, given the laws of the market. Of course, then I eat crow, as they say. But I have seen other markets where the price envelope is pushed to the extreme by a few, then that pushes the average to an artificially high level. That is what repulses me.
I have read the above comments. Thank you! All valid points.
Cheers. |
After looking at record lists, and some thought, I think I can reconcile the seemingly absurd pricing of some NOS tubes. Analogizing it to record prices, some records are exquisite, rare, and no longer produced, and thus priced accordingly.
That doesn't mean I won't shiver when I see the prices. I just understand that they are not made anymore, and that they are masterpieces of their genre, hence command a pretty penny. Of course, I will avoid them because of higher priorities for my money.
Of course, deep down I still will feel disdain towards those driving market prices up. But that's my issue to deal with.
Best wishes... |
