What is it with old stock tubes?? They were made years ago and surely by now we have must learned something about making them. So why are some people searching for old tubes. I have a Shanling CD player and I actually think the stock tubes are better than the 395a tubes.
Hi Mechans- I've got six KenRad bottom getter 6SN7GTs to go with my six Sylvania VT-231 bottom getters for backup power amp tubes when the RPs(drivers) and Ws(phase splitters) run out. I just bought another pair of RPs out of Australia last week, and I've got one pair of backup W's. Below 250hz(10th order), my bass is handled via Hafler TransNova 9505. But the mid-bass speed that the W's provide is hard to beat. Really the biggest difference I notice between the Syl VT-231/KR GT and CTL/CHS combos is in soundstage depth. Other than that they are very close in timbre, tone, imaging, harmonic bloom, ambience recovery, frequency extention and(of course) all four iterations are the most transparent of the family. I can live with that, should my Grails fail. I dearly wish NOS 6550's or KT88's were still available in matched quads(or octets) for less than a king's ransom and first born male child(I could afford the second part). I'm saving my pennies for an octet of EAT Diamond KT88's.
I will top Trelja's offer. I will provide the Sovtek tube of my choice. I assure you it will be a commonly used audio tube. I will give you 2 for each "tests good, quiet tube pre 1970 from the 6922 family or "tests good and quiet NOS" 12 volt miniature double triode of the following 12AX7s, 12AT7s or 12AU7s. The offer is good until my supplies last. I will consider offers of GEC/MoV and Mullard or other NOS power tubes. Trelja I will share the bounty with you. I would like to point out that TRELJA is not a snooty guy. He introduced me to the Sino 12AX7 9th ed. or "C" version, which cost all of 5 or so bucks each and I use them. Further he recommended I use EH tubes in an application that have been nothing short of fantastic. I can probably get some fatter honkinger 6SN7s for him than the RCAs but he likes them, so why fight. But If I were him I would seriously consider my offer of CKR/VT-231 or civilian Ken Rad 6SN7 GTs. No N7 has better bass energy. Rodman I know you like the Tung Sol RPs and the tall Ws above all comers. I own 3 pairs of each and still say, quite confidently, that in terms of bass alone and only, the Ken Rads are better. Overall I am happiest at the moment with the Ws and won't be trading any of those.
There is a simple answer to this arguement.If it sounds good(not impossible with so much of the "better" designs)it IS GOOD!...PERIOD!!
Tube or SS!!!....AND if anyone doesn't buy that,what can I say?
Have fun rationalizing your preferrence!!
I LOVE my own well thought out hybrid system,and have spent many dollars,and years voicing it to my TOTAL satisfaction....BUT....
I have many friends who have ALL tube set-ups,and guess what?
Those systems(very carefuly put together)sound fantastic!!
To me,it is a definite "Skill Set" that many folks have attained,over a few years of exprience(and spending money).It can easily be SS or tubes,but the bottom line is....
I've heard enough "musically convincing" systems to know "either" camp is fine....
We've heard this before..."It's the Magic of the Magician"!!
A "well educated" hobbyist can go in either direction(somehow that sounds a bit odd-:) and get superb results!
Newbee...I was around in those days. Our tube equipment hummed, hissed, and produced so much IM distortion that one percent harmonic distortion was not a problem! Our goal was to improve these measurements, and I guess we were successful except for the IM distortion which still runs around one percent in many (most?) tube amps.
By the way, how would you describe "grain" and what would cause it in a ss amp?
Eldartford, FWIW, what was the HiFi enthusiast's goal in those days before the transistor was introduced to audio? All he had to work with was tubes, so I must assume his goal was unobtainable, he just didn't know it?
Now along comes the transistor based equipment and all of the great measurements regarding distortions etc. Now we have a standard, except for one minor thing. It was grain ridden, cold, clinical, and for the most part just unmusical (yeh, I know its gotten a lot better in recent years). And it certainly did facilitate the developement of power hungry speaker designs. Do you not consider the sonic distortions introduced by transistors to be a 'colorization' of the original recorded signal albeit less so in frequency response?
The goal of all audio components is, or IMHO shoud be, to collectively create a system that reminded one of a musical event being replicated in small scale in the home. The key to reaching that goal is a users recall or fantasy of what the music sounded like in the original venue. A very subjective venture, at best.
Of course we tune our systems to accomodate our sensitivities. What other alternative 'actually' exists. None I think. :-)
you made a very insightful staemnet when you referred to stereo systems as "musical" rather than "reproducing" instruments.
in fact, all components are imperfect. thus at best, all stereo systems are imperfect reproducing instruments.
doesn't it make sense to select the nature of imperfection rather than settle for whatever accrues from configuring a stereo system in an attempt to create accuracy ?
obviously tube selection may be a way to voice a stereo system to suit one's taste.
So I guess that the one thing that everyone agrees about is that tubes "color" (alter) the sound: opinions vary regarding the best color.
But I thought the objective is to reproduce sound with "High Fidelity", which means without alteration. There really is nothing wrong with altering the sound if that's what you like, but such a system should be regarded as a musical instrument rather than a reproducing instrument. .
My own personal feeling is that musical preference has little to do with what tubes (or, loudspeakers, amplifiers, CD players, etc.) I prefer. The best tubes, loudspeakers, amps, or whatever do best with all of the many genres of music I listen to.
I will say that personal preference does play a role. For example, many people feel Sylvania 6SN7 to be among the best of the bunch, as there is a clarity and openness there. But, for a lot of applications, I prefer the honkin' fat mid/upper bass that the RCA variants lend. Likewise, the Telefunken 12AX7 is consideres the gold standard, but I find Sylvania Triple Mica 5751 to be so much more open and beautiful, these tubes just seem to make everything bigger, and everything gets better with no tradeoffs whatsoever. Again, that holds true whether I'm listening to hard rock, classic jazz, or dusty 1950s female vocals.
I would agree with sirspeedy, you need to find the right balance for a specific set up. But I think this takes a great deal of experience, time and cash.
I listen to a wide range of musical styles. From classical orchestral music and small scale instrumental music though to rock and electronic music. This is the main reason I dont go for old tubes and except in a few critical areas dont use them at all now.
My main use for tubes are in mic preamps and vintage mics these days where I am looking for color. My hifi is tuned to be neutral.
I have never found any tube to work well in a full range system although wonderful in bandwidth limited set ups like Quads etc or for a specific type of music normally acoustic small scale with or without voice.
Actually to adress Blueranger's original question...
In Tennis(I have played alot,for many years)one has the ability to choose the stringing type and tension as well as racket type,which will best serve one's game.
In acoustic guitars,the same thing almost.You choose a guitar type(dreadnaught,or Concert body,or Jumbo, etc)along with the preferred "tone woods" to voice a particular style of play...or musical flavor.Strings too.
With tubes,it's almost the same thing.It is very easy to voice a particular sonic preferrence,once one becomes familiar with what's out there.
Of course this can also be done in other ways.However.....tubes "can" allow a good system,with a careful owner,to be intriguing and down right captivating if done right.If the tube type is not up to snuff,it can easily be pulled out for a better match....we hope!Seems to me that many folks like this.
I've heard as many lousy sounding tube based rigs as SS set-ups,but when a good tube system is in front of me,it's instantly obvious!!And sorry....the better NOS tubes sound much better than the new alternatives.I wish it was not my experience,but it's so!
Btw,my own set-up is a hybrid,so I'm not in any specific camp.
What kind of music do you listen to? I have found with these more colored tubes, it sounds great with violin, guitar, and female vocal music. However, with piano and orchestra music, less colored tubes are more desirable.
Juanpablocuervo and Chadeffect, it's so exciting that you two love the Sovtek new production tubes so much!
OK, so that everyone is happy and sees I am not an ungenerous person, I am willing to buy 1 Sovtek equivalent, be it 12AX7, 12AU7, or whatever for each old tube you can provide me. On top of that, I'll even pay for the shipping!
Fantastic film. I have not seen that one before. Notice all the internal parts are selected and moved by hand, and not a rubber glove to be seen. All the salt from sweaty hands carefully preserved inside.
personally, ive tested A/B old NOS tubes 12au7 12at7, from GE and others vs. the new sovtek 12ax7a, and the new sovteks sound better to me.
analized the harmonics and noise floor with izotope ozone, and mda vst free plugins. with sine tone at arround 50hz. the new sovtek ax7a has lots more harmonics, than au7 and at7.
it all depends of you like color sound or grey sound. i like color, anyway.
Larryi, sadly its a sign that this technology has become a bit of a dinosaur with only the select few interested. Although I see a few tube docking stations for ipods!
I know many here will disagree here, but in my experience other technologies, especially in power amplifiers, have moved so far ahead in terms of what you get for your money vs performance, and without the insecurities of knowing whether you have the best tubes from the 1950s or not.
The small magical details that we obsess over like this tube or that NOS tube bringing out extra detail here or there, can be had at the flick of a button on a remote control now without even reaching for a screw driver.
I have been trying out some of these latest generation of digital and switching amps for a while now. Some amps have room correction and a host of toys built in. The various filter settings are very powerful and have similar effects to tube rolling.
The same economic issues hold for other components as well. There are tube gear manufacturers who know how to make a better output transformer but cannot make them like they used to. That is because, with the scale of production so much smaller than it once was for transformers, the manufacturer cannot order the needed specialty steel in a large enough batch.
I would agree with you. Manufacturers need a constant supply of reliable tubes that can be bought in bulk for a reasonable price.
I guess it is up to the individual to search and test which selection of tubes works best in whatever equipment. Though this can be tedious. I spent a lot of time and money trying out valves that were unsatisfactory. Though I felt good when I finally found the best combination.
I doubt very much that a good quality valve cannot be made today. Manufacturing techniques are far more advanced now. Unfortunately we are such a small market to cater for that it probably isnt worth tooling up for these days. Even so, we still run into the problem of which ones to remanufacture? Imagine remaking the bad sounding ones!
As someone said the laws of physics have not changed (yet! Maybe CERN will change this) so in theory performance can be copied or even bettered. Who knows? We live in the age of information. Everything we need is out there somewhere.
Wouldnt it be great if the equipment just worked at its finest performance level, rather than us wasting time listening to tubes. We could be listening to music or dealing with things of real importance like which cable sounds best? Aaagggg!
Again- Info on some of the precious few companies manufacturing tubes comparable to NOS quality/transparency, and the prices they are commanding: (http://www.kraudio.com click on "tubes") (http://www.elusivedisc.com/products.asp?dept=1681) (http://www.euroaudioteam.com The only company making quality small signal tubes now-click on EAT) (http://www.westernelectric.com) (http://thetubestore.com/wesel.html) I have to agree with the "economics/supply and demand" scenario as to why more aren't taking the time and effort to produce tubes as good as those(granted- the select "Grails" and certain choice others) from the 40's through the 60's.
I am not sure that you can get good engineers to work on tubes these days. People are what make products good or bad. If you are an EE, will you choose tube design as your career?
They did not even teach tubes when I was in the EE program, and that was a long time ago....
NOS tubes are compared with new production by listening to them. It seems to me that comparitive measurements of what the tubes do to the signal waveform could lead to an understanding of what needs to be changed in new production tubes to make them sound like the old ones which people prefer. The laws of physics haven't changed, so there is no reason that tubes made today can't be superior.
Underlying the discussion of whether this or that tube is better than another is the notion that there is an objective standard and that each tube fits into a specific spot along a worst-to-best continuum. That is hardly the case. It is a matter of the designer or the user finding a personal fit. There are so many more choices in older tubes, it is not surprising that one can, if one searches diligently, find older tubes that better fit the bill.
Manufacturers have to use readily available tubes, meaning, in most cases, currently manufactured tubes. Why go through the considerable expense of selecting NOS tubes when there is a good chance those tubes will not be the customer's preference anyway? Also, for those not inclined to try different tubes, the manufacturer has to be reasonably assured that the same tube is available many years from now to service that equipment. Just by pure odds, it is unlikely that the particular tubes chosen by the manufacturer will fit any particular customers idea of an optimal choice.
I am sure that, wholly apart from sonic considerations, certain older tubes have because of their "exotic" and rare status (people actually collect tubes, such as 300As). But, i can assure you that I would be glad to use current 6sn7, 12ax7s, etc., if they happen to work well for me. I pay a lot for the EML meshplate 2a3s I run because, they outperform anything else I have heard. In other words, I am not paying for their rarity (they are currently being manufactured), but I am paying a premium for performance.
Just a comment on a minor point. Tight tolerances has nothing to directly do with sound qualities. It only means whatever the attributes of the design, the finished product consistently meets specifications.
That could just as easily mean that the tube is consistently not suitable for audio.
I've noted there is a tendency by some to almost automatically ascribe good qualities to the old stuff. However, having lived in the 50s and 60s, I know that period of time had its share of poor and mediocre products. There is little doubt in my mind some tubes from that era are less than they could have been.
In the world of audiophilia nothing is clear it seems. Many opinions and experiences with many variations of equipment all needing to addressed differently.
The only thing we can be sure of is some types of NOS are better than new versions and others are worse due to various factors.
A thread should be started stating the valve type and its number plus variants as NOS and newly manufactured valves. Just as a guide to their character. Something like the guy at Humble hifi has done with caps.
Out of interest I would love to know which age group you guys are from. Say over 30/ over 40/over 50/over 60s etc. I only say this because I am sure this is the last generation that has this knowledge or even cares!
I have been to many Hifi shows and shops and I dont see any teenagers there.
So maybe there will be many NOS valves left soon as no one will be left to buy them! I got into this hobby as a kid and grew up with it as I am sure most of you did. It seems to be only the stubborn few left.
All the kids have and will have small digital set ups. They probably wont be very interested in 2 channel sound at all in the home.
It would be a shame to loose all these experiences and knowledge for good dont you think? All those great records and recordings form a bygone era never to be heard as intended again.
Wouldnt it be great to catalogue them? Even just so someone can simulate the effect in the digital domain as physical modeling sometime in the future. This is where its all going. Its cheaper and who knows, probably just as good.
Well I have to second the sentiments of Sir Porter.Yet,and yet.....since we are in the "what do ya think" phase of this thread,I've got a question I am dying to get feedback on(if anyone knows at all,or some thoughts)....
For those understanding the "why" of how come the CCa variants of Siemens(or Telefunken)6922 tubes are so good....these were made for the German Govt and communication industry,so had to meet a certain critical performance spec.Very tight tolerences!
My experience tells me they are superb(so are Amperex variants,but they were not CCa level,in supposed spec(sound damn good though).....SO....The Amperex 6922 Pinched Waiste tubes have gotten an incredible rep(the price goes hand in hand with the rep,unfortunately).I'm concerned with phono tubes,where I use my three Siemens CCa's.These took top spot from my comparing about six varieties in my set-up,to my taste,but...
I've got it on good authority(other than stuff like Joe's Tube Lore)that the Pinched Waiste tubes are "that good"(I've not tried them)....Info from the very credible Jafox(I think he's a friend of yours,Albert)and Steve Huntley of Great Northern Sound....Jafox seems to be "such" a nice guy that he offered to loan me some,for my opinion.
That was very generous,but I could not allow him to do it!Yet it does tell me just how nice a fellow he seems to be!!
Steve told me he had Jafox's superb pre in for an update awhile ago,and "it" was tubed with the Pinched Waiste Amperex tubes....The pre came UPS,but the tubes came via Wells Fargo Armored vehicle(I made that part up -:)
Steve told me he was bowled over by just how good the Pinched Waiste tubes performed.....thus my intense interest(within reason)...
My question is....I know of a source who claims that he has NOS Pinched Waiste 6922's BUT "these" are ALSO CCa's!!!
Yeow!!!Supposedly(I really don't know,but am very intrigued)even better than the normal already ultra scarce Amperex Pinched Waiste variants.These are Phillips of Holland 6922 Pinched Waiste CCa's.To me,unheard of!!A Pinched Waiste tube AND CCa to boot!!!Oy vey!
The seller claims the CCa variants of Pinched Waiste tubes are about as scarce a Gold Dabloons,found in your attic,and "supposedly" these would trump any other tube,for a Phonostage,or amp.....I'd love any thoughts.
I hope you guys have fun with this thread and convince yourself that NOS tube are not worthy of your system.
Good is what I say, all the more left for me.
I've returned my Aesthetix to the factory for upgrades three times in the last 11 years and every time they run the tests they are amazed at the results.
The difference between my Aesthetix and the ones they deliver new? Theirs are new stock Russian and mine is 100% USA, German and British NOS tubes, the best possible for each position in the unit.
Laugh all you want, but tubes are parts too. No one seems to think it's funny to use good quality caps, resistors and cables but cross over to tubes and the funny spring worm jumps out of the can.
I am neither an ee nor a missile designer. Does anyone know if there is truth to the notion that older tubes typically had a deeper (not sure if that's the right word) or more intense vacuum and therefore might be expected to last longer or perform better?
Larryi...The design of electronics so as to not rely on precision parts or trims is a well established practice in areas other than audio. In my area of work (missile guidance systems) we were forced to adopt this philosophy, quite apart from cost benefits, because requisite performance was not achievable simply by using more and more exotic parts. There were howls of protest from the circuit designers, but once they put their minds to it things have worked out well.
One obvious example from audio is automatic tube bias adjustment.
As for evidence about gassy tubes, I simply submit that gas leakage through glass is a function of time so old tubes can be expected to have picked up some gas over the decades. Of course a new tube might have gas from the get-go. Some large tubes, notibly CRTs, have a "getter" which captures gas when the tube is operated, and failure to turn on such a tube, or at least the filiament, for a few years can result in catistrophic failure.
My guess is that, when tubes were used in everything, there were a lot of manufacturers competing, and this competition resulted in superior product. Also, we tend to now collect and praise the very best of the old lot, and in that sense, older tubes have been cherry-picked (the crap models having long ago been trashed).
In some cases, key elements are just no longer manufactured, either because the scale of manufacturing is no longer there, or the product is now deemed hazardous. There is some speculation that the Chinese have recently stopped manufacturing the 845 tube because they were relying on old stock of Thoriated Tungsten filaments that are no longer available. I have also heard that key parts of the currently manufactured Western Electric tubes are also "old stock" and manufacturing will cease when those parts run out.
Some preference for old tubes is just a matter of personal taste and system matching. For example, a lot of people covet red-base 5692s. In my system, and for my taste, they are NOT right (I like Tungsol roundplate 6sn7s). The much larger variety of older tubes (again the result of ubiquity of tube use) means a greater chance of finding the right match amoung older varieties than the limited choices of new tubes.
I personally have found a few new tubes to be very good. I am a BIG fan of EML meshplate 2a3s. These are the best sounding 2a3s I've heard, though they MUST be driven gently to survive.
As for the comment above that well designed components ought to be insensitive to variations in tubes, that make so sense at all. With good equipment, minor differences in any component, including tubes, SHOULD be discernable --if you can't hear the difference it is because detail is being lost in the muddle of crappy reproduction.
Also, the suggestion that people who like old tubes might be enjoying "gassy" tubes is completely unsupported. Where is the evidence that all older tubes are gassier than new tubes because of infiltration? Sure, some may go bad over time, but, on what basis does one conclude that those are the ones coveted by those who favor older varieties? I have a tube tester that measures for this condition. The older tubes I use are NOT gassy. As far as 6sn7s are concerned, it is actually some currently manufactured 6sn7 that measure as gassy.
Well designed electronics OUGHT TO BE insensitive to minor variations of components, including tubes. Perhaps this design objective is not met in some audio equipment. All things equal, an old tube should be inferior to a new one because of gas infiltration over time. Maybe gassy tubes sound good...more of that tube sound.
Every single tube component from my stable as well as those that I owned in the past benefited from tube rolling. Selected NOS tubes were always my preferences. There ar some nice new stock tubes like JJ or GE 211 among few others but in general, NOS rules. Only my opinion.
P.S I spoke to more then few designers and in all cases the NOS were recommended and prefered over the new stock. Lowering the production costs and difficulties in finding the right source are just some of the reasons to choose new stock over NOS.
if you speak to many manufacturers of tube amps, tube cd players and tube preamps, in production today, you will be told that replacing the tube with nos varieties will have a mimimal sonic effect. bat and mcintosh are two examples of this.
i have found that many current poroduction tube components are relatively insensitive to changes in tubes.
We seek out old tubes because the Gilbert Erector Sets, Tinkertoys, Lionel Trains, and GI Joes so popular in our youth are more expensive and difficult to find in mint condition.
Trelja- I gave my son my ST70 some years back for his birthday. He ended up with RCAs as Sylvanias weren't available when the ones in it bit the dust. Everything else in the system was different, but- They sounded like an excellent tube(especially the imaging and soundstage). My Cary monoblocks take 6550/KT88 output tubes(matched quads necessary), so- nothing NOS is actually an option regarding price. I'd have to sell a couple ounces of gold to purchase the EAT KT88 Diamonds right now, so- I'm using Svetlana 6550's(latest iteration, ST Petersbug plant) from Upscale Audio. I was really pleased(shocked/surprised) that they actually peformed as good as the NOS Phillips ECGs I had in the Carys. I tried some other current production tubes in them first, and couldn't get them out of the amps fast enough. Off the subject: If you want a quantum leap in the performance of the ST70- Upgrade the coupling caps to film/foil, and install a better power cord. I used a Zu Birth without having to modify the chassis in any way. Those were just two of the basic things(among a host of others) I did to mine that REALLY yielded major results as far as accuracy.
I echo all who said that they simply sound better but are at times in poor working condition. The NOS tubes are virtually gone except for the JAN military surplus made in the 70s and 80s believe it or not The occasional treasure found in a repair man's attick or tubes nobody wants. What you find are used tubes that test well on a questionable tube tester because that too is over 40 years old. Yes I know you can get it to spec by sending it to a pro. My experience is that tolerances drift easily with these old (explective). In essence I have learned in my collecting tubes that it is truly just a hit or miss on ebay but with dealers you get to know, they will sell you only tubes that they expect to hold to spec longer than other thus "good" tubes. There really is the occasional good tubes is all I sell dealer but that is rare. Old stock tubes are also often superior because of they afford you variety. Tubes in their hey day came from many many brands, that had there own recipe, to actually give their tube a certain flavor e.g. "Our tube is better than ordinary tubes find out and you will only smoke Mazda tubes." (All tube making facilities secretly were and are owned by Phillips. Yes I know that all brands were not made by Phillips and please I am not bashing Mazda) thus you get different sonics with the brand you buy. So it gives you a tone knob on our very simple path amps and pre-amps. However you still need guidance from a person who truly knows what that particular tube sounds like compared to others. For example one can make generic statements about a particular brand such as Mullard such as " they are warm colored." Simply put this person is correct, but not all the time. I use a military variant for a 6922. This tube is made by Mullard and is a drop in sub. This tube is not warm and fuzzy it sounds very fast and very clean with a powerfull voice comparable to a German tube. ( The Mullard CV 2943s) Trelja I have a few pairs of 7199s but all brands are made by Amperex no matter what the label is. I think so anyway. It could be Sylvania I have to find out. Non Trelja people please do not write asking for these tubes -thanks
Rodman99999, I'm using the RCA 7199. Sylvanias were also an option, but most people told me the RCA were preferable. Not having tried the Sylvanias, I don't know how they stack up against the RCA, but I was assured either would be a tremendous improvement over the Sovteks.
I'll need to try an NOS rectifier, based on your recommendation.
As far as new production tubes go, there are several I like, the JJ KT88 and E34L and EH 6CA7 among them, along with the Shuguang 12AX7. But, apart from those, I come down on the side that the old tubes absolutely smoke current production.
Chadeffect, I hope you're right! but history has shown that you're probably wrong. As witnessed by the tube resurgence of the last 10-15 yrs. when obviously newer and better solidstate technologies have evolved, tube equipment is still thriving! So,obviously a lot of people still think dreadfully inefficient technology is fine. One thing I have learned and you should've also, is that logic doesn't apply to highend audio.
By the time these NOS tubes have run out, either better technology would have appeared and make tubes a thing of the past for good, or electricity will be so expensive that no one will be able to afford to run dreadfully inefficient technologies like tubes without their own hydro power station!
I wonder what will happen when all of the nos tubes are gone? and no one will have to pay the outrageous prices folks are charging for them. Will highend audio survive? What will we do? Lord help us! Somewhere in this scenario sanity has taken a long vacation but again, we're talking about highend audio where some would say sanity has no place.
Mil Spec components were usually required to be much better than necessary. That was before cost control became important. Nowadays most military equipment uses commercial hardware whenever possible, which greatly reduces cost, improves (yes) reliability and performance. Also, we have learned to make electronics whose performance is derived from the basic circuit design rather than from reliance on tightly spec'd components and trim procedures.
I am surprised that new tubes are less accurately made. A tube would seem made to order for precision automated fabrication.
Trelja- Just curious what 7199's you're using. I owned(and modded) an ST-70 for about 15 years and found the Sylvania and Phillips ECGs to be the best. Have you installed a NOS 5AR4 yet? Talk about another revelation! I used a Mullard in that position. Regarding the others' experiences with their un-named NOS tubes of unknown origin: (like everything else in this hobby) Your results will depend a lot on into what these tubes are plugged, their condition/quality, and who is doing the listening(many variables). The best NOS tubes just get out of the way of the music and add or subtract nothing, which is the definition of, "transparency", and you've removed one variable by using them. From there it becomes a matter of taste and/or what may be lacking in the rest of the gear.
You must have a verified phone number and physical address in order to post in the Audiogon Forums. Please return to Audiogon.com and complete this step. If you have any questions please contact Support.
