[Bret L]

" Note: The author of this mesage requested that it not be arched. This message will be remed from Groups in 5 days (Apr 26, 6:53 pm).

On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 12:08:26 -0700 (PDT), "Watt? Me worry?"

wrote:
Hi RATs!

I did not say tubes were not purposely designed. I said using tubes
for audio that were not designed for audio is neither sinful nor
foolish.

Not quite. You said "The reason a tube sounds good is the circuit it
is in, if it ever sounds good. Not because it was "designed" for low
(audio) frequency...
..
..
..
It doesn't matter what the tube was designed to do..."

It most certainly does "matter what the tube was designed to do." A
remote cutoff pentode, for example, is a lousy choice for 'hi-fi'
because it was specifically "designed" for a different purpose and, as
a result, isn't very linear.

Now, what's true is that some purposes share similar needs or may, at
least, be non conflicting. One would, for example, probably like a non
distorted TV picture and, so, use reasonably linear sweep tubes that
might also be suitable for audio.

The previously mentioned 807 is simply the guts of a 6L6 repackaged to
make it even more suitable for RF but that does not negate the audio
characteristics (or vice versa); a case of 'non conflicting'. The guts
were also used for the 6BG6 sweep tube.

You create a straw man in saying "Not because it was "designed" for
low (audio) frequency." "Low frequency" isn't the 'design' criteria.
Linearity, noise, hum, etc. are some of them.

Whatever works, works. It is not as if audio is the highest destiny of
electronics...

It also isn't quite as trivial as you imply if your goal is more than
to simply make noise. "