Questions about RCA 5751tubes


I am needing some help..

I ordered a pair of Sylvania 3 mica Black Plate 5751s for $150
and was sent RCA JRC-5751s instead. Please bear with all my questions.

1. I was told these were better tubes and matched within 2.5%
One tube has a sticker with 1.5/1.5 and the other says 1.6/1.7
Can I tell if these are matched from these values?

2. What do these values mean? Are they an indication of life left
on the tube? If so what values are considered NOS and what
values are considered 50% and 75% life left?

3. Are RCA JRC-5751 Black Plate, 3 mica, (smooth edge top mica)
as good as Sylvania 3 mica Black Plate 5751s?

I was surprised to get a different tube than I ordered but wanted
to ask everyone if this really is a better tube? Anything you can
tell me about this tube would be very appreciated..

More info on these tubes:

The top of the tube (nipple of the tube)is painted half green/half red.
I assume these are military markings..??? What do they mean?

The silk screening is all white but 90% worn off so you can't
read anything but part of the RCA logo, 5751, and JRC

2 black plates

Each tube seems to have 2 paper clip looking supports (one at each
end) to tighten up and better secure all 3 mica disks.

square halos.
tom92602
"Better" is purely subjective, and system dependent. The RCA w/clips may very well sound strident/overly bright in a system that already has that tendency. It does provide the best sound staging of any 5751 type though. In general- many that like 5751s, prefer the RCAs over the Sylvanias. Usually the triple micas w/o the clips however, as they are somewhat warmer(I'm a TLK ECC803S lover myself). To tell anything with regard to tube life from test results, you have to know what that particular tester's tube chart lists as "nominal new", "minimum good", etc for comparison. I seems presumptuous of a seller to send someone tubes other than what was ordered, but- that's just my opinion.
Thanks so far. There were 2 more labels that fell off
the tubes which were in the tube boxes:

Label 1: 1300/1350
Label 2: 1640/1740

Does this affect matching or it this the life left?

So is "1.5/1.5" an average tube value and not all that
outstanding?
Me, if I ordered and paid for a Sylvania 5751 triple Mica tubes, I should get a Sylvania 5751 triple Mica tubes, period!

I do not need someone telling me that the RCA is better sounding than the Sylvania etc. etc. The bottom line is, you should get what you paid for. What if the Sylvania sounds better to you than the GE or the RCA? Only you can tell in your system.

Oh, the label(1 and 2) is the Gm measurements of the tube where (first one indicates triode 1 and the second triode 2 for the 5751 which is dual triodes) which, in most instances, many confuse as an indication of the tubes being the numbers to match so that the tube pair can be called "match pairs".
"1.5," "1.6," "1.7," and "1.9" do not appear to me to be representative of filament draw. The 5751 is listed in my older GE tube manual as drawing 0.175 amps at 12.6 volts. If the 1.5 were amps, it would mean nearly 19 watts filament dissipation, which is obviously wrong for a low power dual triode. I don't know what those numbers would represent.

That tube manual lists gm (transconductance, also referred to as mutual conductance) for the 5751 as 1200, without specifying whether that is average, minimum, etc. My Hickok 800A tube tester lists 1250, specifying that as being for an "average tube," NOT an "average new tube," which it indicates will "be higher." So 1300/1350 would seem to be reasonably good numbers, while 1640/1740 sounds excellent, although the difference between the two sets of numbers leads me to question how well matched they are. The numbers before and after the slash, btw, I would assume are for each of the two triode sections within the tube.

HTH,
-- Al

Mechans:
I love the humility.. And I think we are all jackass's
for being so nuts about musical reproduction. So much
more in life to do and we get all crazy about audio..