Output tube observations
Moderators: pompeiisneaks, Colossal
Re: Output tube observations
Interesting findings and info. I have a couple amps sporting Sovtek 5881 tubes that are extremely pleasing using loud overdrive tones. These numbers may reinforce something may ears have been telling me.
Re: Output tube observations
Last trip to Nashville a friend and great player gave me a box of Svtek 5881's (like 30 of them) brand new never used some r-ebranded Fender and GT.. They sound wonderful in my MM 700v amps.. and like Stell says loud OD tones.. but don't really care for them to much in a 450v clean style Fender type amp.. Don't get me wrong they don't sound horrible just kinda Ahhh!!.. Your mileage may very!!...Good Luck.stelligan wrote:Interesting findings and info. I have a couple amps sporting Sovtek 5881 tubes that are extremely pleasing using loud overdrive tones. These numbers may reinforce something may ears have been telling me.
Tony
" The psychics on my bench is the same as Dumble'"
Re: Output tube observations
That's pretty much the problem today...Where are you finding the strong ones??
-
David Root
- Posts: 3540
- Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 3:00 pm
- Location: Chilliwack BC
Re: Output tube observations
The MaxiMatcher is a great tool, I use mine all the time.
Here's a conundrum I have right now with two pairs of tubes I would like to use as a quad, with two separate bias pots.
1) Pair of NOS JAN Sylvania 6L6GAs, 1940s, labeled as such.
2) Pair of NOS Jan Sylvania 6L6GAs, labeled as National Electronics 6L6WGB, but appearing identical to 1) above.
Both pairs bought from the same vendor.
After letting them settle in the MaxiMatcher at 400V and -48V settings, they measured
1) mA 20.2, 21.3; Gm 2.42, 2.48
2) mA 50.3, 47.5; Gm 2.52, 2.73
If I put one pair on one side of the PP pairs, and the other pair on the other side, each pair to one bias pot, and I vary the bias to each pair to get matched cathode current in all four, how is the quad likely to sound in a 410V Bluesmaster HRM?
Am I dreaming in Technicolor and VistaVision?
Here's a conundrum I have right now with two pairs of tubes I would like to use as a quad, with two separate bias pots.
1) Pair of NOS JAN Sylvania 6L6GAs, 1940s, labeled as such.
2) Pair of NOS Jan Sylvania 6L6GAs, labeled as National Electronics 6L6WGB, but appearing identical to 1) above.
Both pairs bought from the same vendor.
After letting them settle in the MaxiMatcher at 400V and -48V settings, they measured
1) mA 20.2, 21.3; Gm 2.42, 2.48
2) mA 50.3, 47.5; Gm 2.52, 2.73
If I put one pair on one side of the PP pairs, and the other pair on the other side, each pair to one bias pot, and I vary the bias to each pair to get matched cathode current in all four, how is the quad likely to sound in a 410V Bluesmaster HRM?
Am I dreaming in Technicolor and VistaVision?
Re: Output tube observations
My experience, too. Clean tones are kinda blah...... Prefer the SED clean tones by a mile.talbany wrote:don't really care for them to much in a 450v clean style Fender type amp..
Tony
Re: Output tube observations
Im loving the tone of EL34's @ 465V
It's true i've lost my marbles and i cant remember where i put them
Re: Output tube observations
While I was working in the custom shop at Peavey this was a huge problem. Peavey would buy literally thousands of tubes at a time. We had a testing procedure for both preamp and poweramp tubes. Once the tubes got to the custom shop, we had a matching and sorting system there where we could burn them in, and take various measurements. For every model amp we produced while I was at the custom shop (which was 3) we had a "tone standard" that we were always referencing back to. I can honestly say, that without fail we usually were not able to build the amps to sound as good as the standard. This was very frustrating, and did cause issues with customers.
Every now and again, Hartley would dig into his private "stash" and pull out some NOS stuff. These tubes did not always sound magical, but I'll say this. They tested more consistently, and sounded more consistent from tube to tube than anything new we were getting.
Robert Mineville (a friend of mine, and great amp builder) once told me that like everything, tubes are manufactured in a cheaper manner today than they once were. He believed that the inconsistencies we hear today had to do with the materials used in making the tubes being different or inferior. He also mentioned some of the treatment processes of certain parts of the tubes may not be the same as they once were. He even questioed if we really knew what was done, and how would we go about measuring these treatment processes? Anyway, I digress.
Long story short, while at Peavey, it seemed to me that the quality of the tubes seemed to cycle, depending on origin of manufacture. This may have been due to the life cycle of tooling at each facility. For a while we were using JJ in almost everything. Then all at once, we were sending tubes back by the thousands. Then it was Ruby, then Sovtek, and so on. Then we'd be back on JJ again. And no it wasn't due to price. When you buy 30,000 at a time, the price did not vary all that much from one brand to the next.
Sonically, I'd have to agree with what Scott found. I have had good luck with Sovtek 5881's, TAD short bottle 6L6's, and Winged C EL34's. They all impart their own characteristics, but all have served me well. Now if I can just find any, and I mean any 12AX7's that are anything that even remotely resembles consistent!
If I could shut that tone in my head off, I could stop chasing it!
Every now and again, Hartley would dig into his private "stash" and pull out some NOS stuff. These tubes did not always sound magical, but I'll say this. They tested more consistently, and sounded more consistent from tube to tube than anything new we were getting.
Robert Mineville (a friend of mine, and great amp builder) once told me that like everything, tubes are manufactured in a cheaper manner today than they once were. He believed that the inconsistencies we hear today had to do with the materials used in making the tubes being different or inferior. He also mentioned some of the treatment processes of certain parts of the tubes may not be the same as they once were. He even questioed if we really knew what was done, and how would we go about measuring these treatment processes? Anyway, I digress.
Long story short, while at Peavey, it seemed to me that the quality of the tubes seemed to cycle, depending on origin of manufacture. This may have been due to the life cycle of tooling at each facility. For a while we were using JJ in almost everything. Then all at once, we were sending tubes back by the thousands. Then it was Ruby, then Sovtek, and so on. Then we'd be back on JJ again. And no it wasn't due to price. When you buy 30,000 at a time, the price did not vary all that much from one brand to the next.
Sonically, I'd have to agree with what Scott found. I have had good luck with Sovtek 5881's, TAD short bottle 6L6's, and Winged C EL34's. They all impart their own characteristics, but all have served me well. Now if I can just find any, and I mean any 12AX7's that are anything that even remotely resembles consistent!
If I could shut that tone in my head off, I could stop chasing it!
T. Jauernig
Re: Output tube observations
Try the Shuguang G9 12AX7.Now if I can just find any, and I mean any 12AX7's that are anything that even remotely resembles consistent!
Re: Output tube observations
These tubes have alot of gain and can sometimes get fizzy IMO. They have great high end though which is good for warmer guitars.FYL wrote:Try the Shuguang G9 12AX7.Now if I can just find any, and I mean any 12AX7's that are anything that even remotely resembles consistent!
I use single coil teles so their not really my cup o tea
It's true i've lost my marbles and i cant remember where i put them