Tube 'Characteristics' - EL-34 and 845 and 211


At the risk of getting slammed by those that think all tubes should sound the same in a properly designed circuit, I was wondering if anyone can comment on their experiences and the differences they have heard between the EL-34 tubes and the 845's and 211's. I've used the EL-34 for many years but have been advised that I should seek out a good 845 mono block to use with my super sensitive KHorns. Is the 845 more powerful sounding? Does it have or can it match the natural 'beauty' inherent to the EL-34?
stickman451

Showing 2 responses by dopogue

I went from Conrad Johnson Premier 12s (140 wpc pp, 6550 output tubes) to a friend's design SET monoblocks (12 wpc 845 outputs, EL34 drivers, 6N7 inputs) because the 845 SETs sounded MORE powerful and open, with exceptional dynamics and just plain musicality. That was 4 years ago and I never regretted the change for a minute.

I'm using metal plate 845Ws, no longer available, if only temporarily. The input and driver tubes make a big sonic difference too, and the Mullard xf1 EL-34s I formerly used have given way to much less expensive reissue Russian KT77s by Genelex/Gold Lion. These are sensational tubes, IMO.

Bottom line: Yes, moving to 845 SET monoblocks will be a major upgrade IF they have robust trannies. Mine are humongous Magnequests. Good luck, Dave
The Gold Lion KT77s surprised the heck out of me. I had earlier tried JJ KT77s TWICE (the first pair plagued by various well-known teething problems) and assumed the Gold Lions would be similar. Instead, they took all the best qualities of the Mullard xf1's and bettered them -- better dynamics, clarity, openness, with no downsides I can find. I should point out, though, that my Mullards were not exactly fresh tubes (unknown hours) and tested just barely into the "good" range on my Eico tester.

Paul, I've never heard an 845 SET amp sound "fuzzy, rounded, or rolled off," but I guess if you say so, they must be out there. Wimpy trannies maybe?