[Peter Wieck]

What massive, incredibly mis-informed crap.

Please note the interpolations:

On Nov 30, 6:31*am, Andre Jute wrote:

No reason why milspec tubes or other "special quality" tubes should
sound better. It is true that some were especially designed to be
superior to standard tubes on some parameter, and that the parameter
(higher voltage, higher current, low noise, lower microphonics) may or
may not give better sound if exploited. But many of the improved
parameters were useless for audio applications. Furthermore, the
majority of military or otherwise special tubes were not redesigned on
some parameter, but simply taken off the line and selected for that
parameter, in most cases regardless of other parameters which might
be, and usually are, more relevant to audio tubes.

Bullsh*t. At least as it applied to Tung-Sol and Sylvania, their
military-destination tubes ran on separate lines with separate
parameters to separate specifications. What actually happened is that
during the times of "Zero-Defect" programs (most of wartime and
immediate post-war production well into the 1960s), tube runs were
'selected out' for not meeting all parameters, not chosen for meeting
them. Consider the implications of that statement - 100% of all tubes
must be tested in order to find those few that meet the mil.spec.
designation. Not quite. RCA had much the same process that they
continued until they ended production, with culls going to the resale
& retail markets - quite an interesting method.

Even if the special
tube was redesigned and manufactured to enhance some audio-sensitive
parameter, you may not want it because it was a limited, handmade run,
and the slightly less audionically-desirable tube from the mass
production will be much more reliable.

There were no "limited hand-made runs" when it came to general-purpose
tubes from mil.spec. purposes. That sort of thing might be relevant to
radar receiving & transmitting tubes or special-purpose CRTs, but
general-purpose tubes used in everything from field radios to elevator
control systems - no such thing.

Finally, among the tubes that
suck in audio amps, I might single out the longlife ones, which were
designed for incredible MTBF but generally (I don't know of any
exceptions) sound like **** because you can't run them high enough and
hot enough to get really low noise.

And why should that be at issue? Use something else. More-or-less why
there are several flavors of ice-cream.

Andre Jute
18ct ears, lead-contaminated brain.


And perhaps an even mooter one if you argue that war promoted
development of more musically accurate tubes.

I didn't argue that. I think the 9-pin tubes were, with a very few
exceptions, a disaster for audio. The 12AX7 is and has always been
crap; it's a guitar tube, pure and simple.

That would be your opinion, unsupported by the facts. You need to
listen to a couple of Sylvania Mil.Spec. 5751s once or twice, or
RCA's late-run orange-label 7025 a time or two.

In any event, it is well known

Again, only by you as a product of a fevered brain and residual stroke
damage.

that the most accurate tubes existed
well before the war: 845, 211, 212E, 300A and B, 6L6 which spawned the
KT66 and KT88 that you still like, and, as a byblow of patent
circumvention, the development of the wonderful EL34 and its little
sister the EL84.

Ah, the EL84 - 7-pin miniature.

As to the rest in that pre-war line-up, most of them were developed by
Western Electric for telephonic and theatre-sound (Recording and
Playback) use. Where reliability and long life meant a great deal more
than absolute accuracy. And with telephoney, 300 - 3400 HZ is all one
got. And with theatre reproduction, even 10%+ distortion was entirely
acceptable.

So, with heroic measures TODAY, one can better those figures using
30s-tube designs. WOW, I AM impressed with their accuracy, quality,
and the sound that they might produce. Much as it is possible to put a
lawn-mower engine in a Lamborghini and make it go. Sort-of, with
special gearing, not very fast, don't ask it to go up any substantial
hills. Also impressive from a purely engineering point of view - but
one must ask Why?

Andre, you are reaching that age when the medications no longer are
effective. A minder is the next step. You already have a couple of
acolytes - I am sure either John B, George M. or William W. would be
glad to volunteer - that is assuming that George M. is an actual
person and not a sock-puppet.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA