"James Angelo Ruggieri, P.E." wrote:
So you are telling me that you have no basis to conclude these other
tubes
are so bad.
Did I say that? Please read on...
Yes you did by deferring to experts - implying that you did not know. On the
other hand - you could have cited accepted industry documents, references,
or publications --but you did not. Had you offered some reasonable
scientific basis for your opinions - then it was possible you could have
swayed me.
This thread was posted to alt.guitar.amps. Are you also a musician? How
many
different tubes have YOU experimented with in a Marshall 2204? What style
of
guitar do you play? How many different guitar amps do you own? What are
your
tube choices and why?
But it manifested in alt.rec.audio.tubes. Yes, I am a musician, I play the
guitar - however, not as much as I used to. I also don't own as many guitar
amps as I used to, and I'm not familiar with the Marshall 2204 - however, I
suspect it to be similar to the characteristic Marshall line of tube amps
that prevailed in the sixties - a rot gut simple and cheap push pull audio
amplifier with intentionally substantive distortion characteristics when
subject to overdrive.
When selecting tubes for these inherently imprecise devices, I use the
following criteria:
Does the tube fit into its octal socket
Will the tube perform without denigration within the given design parameters
of the amplifier
Are the tube elements loose such as to short out when the amp is subject to
expected shock and vibration
ONLY *FEAR* OF THE *POLISHED TURD*, would bring such a thought to the front of the mind.
I don't care what the data sheets say, I don't care what the curves look
like.
I sometimes can't keep the grid and screen straight in my mind. What I
care
about what they SOUND like in my gear, and how long they will perform.
I also don't care too much what the data sheets say owing to the fact that
the QC and reproducibility of manufacturer among the subject tubes to be
more consistent than the application of being used in inherently and
intentionally imprecise instruments.
And such, breeds such.
It was the existence of the precise vacuum tube devices that brought us to this point in
technology.
The road was paved in vacuum tubes.
Yet this way of thinking in the past, would would make you wonder, if this thinking was in
place in the past, would way be here at the same place in technology.
I think not.
Don't assume that I'm some yahoo just because you don't know me or because
you
have a different perspective on tubes.
I don't know where you got this from - I simply asked you for the basis of
your opinions. But you admit that your basis to be subjective --which is OK
So you are telling me that distortion is desirable and important to
you -
well - isn't distortion (a non-linear characteristic) a feature normally
inherent with poor tubes or poor circuits?
I thought you knew Marshalls, Sun, Fender, Ampeg...
But I do - as explained above. I also know that their desirable qualities
are owed in large measure to their imprecise performance.
They can by no more precise than the individual and the polished turd makes them.
Yet, with the right mind and vacuum tube, precision with repeatability will be found.
I can tell you that it produces a better sounding
midrange distortion in my Marshall and most of my other equipment. I've
tried
many, I've had others swap tubes so I judge them blind. I prefer Mullards
with
a slight preference for the long plates.
Then - you will admit that perhaps your Mullard with the long plate may not
sound so good in another Marshall amp.
Does kind a make you wonder about something, don't it.
Like, why is there not a graph included in the tubes family of curves, that represents the
tubes sonic characteristics.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...................!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!
Kind a makes ya wonder. Don't it!!!!!!!!!
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm....................!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!
Can the sonic *window* of an audio vacuum tube be defined!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is that why NOS GE's cost so much? NOS Tung Sols? Telefunken? Mullard?
Bugle
Boy? Or do you believe that it is just non "experts" that don't know any
better, and we'd all be better off with Sovteks or Chinese?
I guess the answer here is the use of the NOS - indicating scarcity. As you
know the audiophile and music business is the playing ground for some of the
most intense marketing hype and appeal to subjectivity.
Which prevails in BOTH camps of the audio fields!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And both fall victim to their own Voodoo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
From Monster Cable
to all sorts of nonsense. Of course, antiques typically commands high prices
because they are scarce. The scarcity, together with the subjective hype
will result in increased prices. But, and I'm sure you will agree, that to
say that my grandmother's old Singer sewing machine will perform better than
a newer machine is a bit off - no matter how many self-made tekkies weigh in
on the matter.
My father worked for Singer all his life, and was instrumental for the precision and
quality that is found in that sewing machine.
If as much was mindful thought was put into the making of today's polished turds, there
would be none.
Today, it's those in the peanut gallery, who've become the polished turd huggers who
re-write the past, for their agenda.
It's no different than the global warming debates of the two camps!!!!!
I'd just like to see some scientific data to support the opinions.
Why bother!!!!!!!!!!
With the concepts and attitudes present, having such would be a waste on the garden
slug!!!!!!!!!!
He wouldn't have a clue what to do with them, if he had them.
Besides, it wouldn't change the dialog here in the least, when even the existence of
factual data is already dismissed as meaningless to the issues at hand.
Oh, almost forgot.
The curves are elsewhere in the thread.
Regards,
Rich Koerner,
Time Electronics.
http://www.timeelect.com
Specialists in Live Sound FOH Engineering,
Music & Studio Production,
Vintage Instruments, and Tube Amplifiers