[Sonnova]

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 14, 5:12*pm, Sonnova wrote:
About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with *SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Country of Origin?

I avoid anything from China as if it were plague-ridden, and when I
can purchase NOS US/Euro-origin tubes from reliable sources at much
lower prices than your $25, I tend to take that route. I have the
capacity to test, test for noise and match so I little surprises me.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:59:42 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 14, 5:12*pm, Sonnova wrote:
About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with *SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Country of Origin?

Electro Harmonix is a Russian Brand. The Tubes are stamped "made in Russia".

I avoid anything from China as if it were plague-ridden, and when I
can purchase NOS US/Euro-origin tubes from reliable sources at much
lower prices than your $25, I tend to take that route. I have the
capacity to test, test for noise and match so I little surprises me.

I bought these because they were supposed to be a premium brand tested for
low noise, with gold-plated pins (yeah, I know) etc. When I first installed
them, they worked fine (I replaced a set of SovTek tubes purchased directly
from Audio Research that had about 10,000 hours on the clock with them).
Slowly and surely, over the next 12 or so months, the Electro Harmonix set
started to fail, one after the other and always the same way - gassy. I just
received a set of of Tesla JJ's made in the Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from the
Tube Depot. We'll see how they fare.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Eeyore]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Aug 14, 5:12 pm, Sonnova wrote:
About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Country of Origin?

I avoid anything from China as if it were plague-ridden, and when I
can purchase NOS US/Euro-origin tubes from reliable sources at much
lower prices than your $25, I tend to take that route. I have the
capacity to test, test for noise and match so I little surprises me.

I can pay as little as 2 c in thousands volume for a low noise bipolar transistor
made almost anywhere in the world and rely on it to work as advertised. FETs
(which have triode like characteristics) are a little pricier - maybe 10-15 c.

Graham

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

You *could* avoid thermionic devices entirely and solve the problem at source.

It's amazing how reliable this modern technology stuff is ! ;~)

Graham

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 14, 11:07*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I bought these because they were supposed to be a premium brand tested for
low noise, with gold-plated pins (yeah, I know) etc. When I first installed
them, they worked fine (I replaced a set of SovTek tubes purchased directly
from Audio Research that had about 10,000 hours on the clock with them).
Slowly and surely, over the next 12 or so months, the Electro Harmonix set
started to fail, one after the other and always the same way - gassy. *I just
received a set of of Tesla JJ's made in the Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from the
Tube Depot. We'll see how they fare.

Why don't you try NOS options? AES has RCA or Philips-branded tubes in
the range you are paying *and* they are the high-priced outlet for
NOS.

And, just because I am curious, a couple of question:

a) Do you have the capacity to test tubes directly?
b) Why did you replace the original tubes? Based on actual experienced
deterioration? Age? Failure?

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Peter Wieck wrote:
On Aug 14, 11:07 pm, Sonnova wrote:

I bought these because they were supposed to be a premium brand
tested for low noise, with gold-plated pins (yeah, I know) etc. When
I first installed them, they worked fine (I replaced a set of SovTek
tubes purchased directly from Audio Research that had about 10,000
hours on the clock with them). Slowly and surely, over the next 12
or so months, the Electro Harmonix set started to fail, one after
the other and always the same way - gassy. I just received a set of
of Tesla JJ's made in the Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from the Tube
Depot. We'll see how they fare.

Why don't you try NOS options? AES has RCA or Philips-branded tubes in
the range you are paying *and* they are the high-priced outlet for
NOS.

And, just because I am curious, a couple of question:

a) Do you have the capacity to test tubes directly?
b) Why did you replace the original tubes? Based on actual experienced
deterioration? Age? Failure?


In my case it would be the hope that it's the tubes rather than my hearing
which is suffering from all of the above (deterioration age and failure).
Norman.


Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Eeyore]

Sonnova wrote:

Peter Wieck wrote
Sonnova wrote:
About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Country of Origin?

Electro Harmonix is a Russian Brand. The Tubes are stamped "made in Russia".

I avoid anything from China as if it were plague-ridden, and when I
can purchase NOS US/Euro-origin tubes from reliable sources at much
lower prices than your $25, I tend to take that route. I have the
capacity to test, test for noise and match so I little surprises me.

I bought these because they were supposed to be a premium brand tested for
low noise, with gold-plated pins (yeah, I know) etc. When I first installed
them, they worked fine (I replaced a set of SovTek tubes purchased directly
from Audio Research that had about 10,000 hours on the clock with them).
Slowly and surely, over the next 12 or so months, the Electro Harmonix set
started to fail, one after the other and always the same way - gassy. I just
received a set of of Tesla JJ's made in the Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from the
Tube Depot. We'll see how they fare.

In my tube days, ~ 40 years ago I always tried to use Mullard. Not the same
company now of course. I do have ONE Tektronix E88CC btw IIRC. Brand new in
maker's box, gold plated pins too I think. What's it worth ?

Graham

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:09:17 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Aug 14, 11:07*pm, Sonnova wrote:

I bought these because they were supposed to be a premium brand tested for
low noise, with gold-plated pins (yeah, I know) etc. When I first installed
them, they worked fine (I replaced a set of SovTek tubes purchased directly
from Audio Research that had about 10,000 hours on the clock with them).
Slowly and surely, over the next 12 or so months, the Electro Harmonix set
started to fail, one after the other and always the same way - gassy. *I
just
received a set of of Tesla JJ's made in the Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from
the
Tube Depot. We'll see how they fare.

Why don't you try NOS options? AES has RCA or Philips-branded tubes in
the range you are paying *and* they are the high-priced outlet for
NOS.

Normally, I'd agree with you. My VTL 140 monoblocs are tubed with NOS JAN
807s from WWII (they came from VTL with Chinese tubes which literally fell
apart if you touched them - the bulb would come loose from the base if you
tried to take the tubes out by holding on to the bottle, and the plate cap
would come off with the lead, breaking off clean and flush with the top of
the evacuation "tit". USELESS!) and the JAN tubes are top quality. But NOS
6DJ8s were designed as RF mixer/oscillator tubes for FM and TV tuners and
tend to be microphonic in audio applications. Modern ECC88/6922s have been
re-designed internally to give the internal elements more bracing (they
actually look more like 12AX7s than they do traditional 6DJ8s) and therefore
they can be used as audio pre-amp tubes without being microphonic.

And, just because I am curious, a couple of question:

a) Do you have the capacity to test tubes directly?

Yes, I have a vintage Sylvania tube tester that used to belong to my dad.
It's housed in a gray steel "briefcase" and works fine, thank you.

b) Why did you replace the original tubes? Based on actual experienced
deterioration? Age? Failure?

Age, They had more than 10,000 hours on them and most tested in the "yellow"
area of the tube tester meter for transconductance or other parameters.

[Peter Wieck]

On Aug 15, 9:08*am, Eeyore
wrote:
Sonnova wrote:
About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with *SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

You *could* avoid thermionic devices entirely and solve the problem at source.

It's amazing how reliable this modern technology stuff is ! * * ;~)

Graham

Skim milk and water only or non-alcoholic beer and wine when
celebrating major events, bland white-meat chicken and only white
fish, no salt, spices or flavorings, public transportation only, avoid
relationships of any kind, read books only with an Imprimatur and
Nihil Obstat, watch no television, rent one room only, save everything
for a rainy day.

With only a little bit of effort and planning, most of life's problems
may be avoided. Along with most of life.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[John Stone]

On 8/14/08 5:12 PM, in article , "Sonnova"
wrote:

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It sounds like
you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when confronted with 6
failures like this, Music Direct might just replace them free of charge.



I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Why? Simply because one tube type has a problem doesn't condemn the entire
line of EH products. Likely this is nothing more than a marketing company
that buys their tubes from a supplier in Russia who makes them for a number
of different companies.

[willbill]

John Stone wrote:

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It sounds like
you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when confronted with 6
failures like this, Music Direct might just replace them free of charge.


that's a good suggestion, as Music Direct has
always seemed to me to have great service

even if it is beyond the "normal" tube warranty


bill

[Norman M. Schwartz]

willbill wrote:
John Stone wrote:

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It
sounds like you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when
confronted with 6 failures like this, Music Direct might just
replace them free of charge.


that's a good suggestion, as Music Direct has
always seemed to me to have great service

even if it is beyond the "normal" tube warranty


If there is a problem with any run of these tubes, their
importer/distrubutor should have learned of it. In that case they might be
happy to send replacements free of charge.


bill

[willbill]

Sonnova wrote:

I just received a set of of Tesla JJ's made in the
Slovak Republic ($10 ea) from the Tube Depot.
We'll see how they fare.

i took a quick look at tubedepot
and wasn't too impressed, but maybe
that $10 is a good deal for that
specific tube (6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88)?)

you seem to be in the sound biz,
and have nice equipment, so you
checked www.upscaleaudio.com
for tubes?

bill

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:53:58 -0700, John Stone wrote
(in article ):

On 8/14/08 5:12 PM, in article , "Sonnova"
wrote:

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It sounds like
you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when confronted with 6
failures like this, Music Direct might just replace them free of charge.

Then again, they might not....



I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Why? Simply because one tube type has a problem doesn't condemn the entire
line of EH products. Likely this is nothing more than a marketing company
that buys their tubes from a supplier in Russia who makes them for a number
of different companies.

Do what you will. You have been warned.

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 02:46:00 -0700, willbill wrote
(in article ):

John Stone wrote:

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It sounds like
you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when confronted with 6
failures like this, Music Direct might just replace them free of charge.


that's a good suggestion, as Music Direct has
always seemed to me to have great service

even if it is beyond the "normal" tube warranty


bill


By the time I realized that this problem with these tubes was chronic, I had
thrown half of them away. MD said that they would refund me if I returned all
of the tubes to them. I couldn't do that.

[John Stone]

On 8/16/08 10:35 AM, in article , "Sonnova"
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:53:58 -0700, John Stone wrote
(in article ):

On 8/14/08 5:12 PM, in article , "Sonnova"
wrote:

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp with SIX
new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix (actually ordered them
from Music Direct). In that year, every single tube ($25 each) has become
gassy, some to the point of losing their vacuum altogether, others just
became noisy.

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It sounds like
you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when confronted with 6
failures like this, Music Direct might just replace them free of charge.

Then again, they might not....

Have you tried?

I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend that
everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Why? Simply because one tube type has a problem doesn't condemn the entire
line of EH products. Likely this is nothing more than a marketing company
that buys their tubes from a supplier in Russia who makes them for a number
of different companies.

Do what you will. You have been warned.

I do electronic restoration as a side business and have a fair amount of
experience with these tubes. I haven't used the EH 6922's, but I've used
their EL 84's and 6v6's and haven't had any problems at all. Even in the
early days of tubes, it was a fact that the brand name printed on the tube
was no indication at all of who actually made it.

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message


Skim milk and water only or non-alcoholic beer and wine
when celebrating major events, bland white-meat chicken
and only white fish, no salt, spices or flavorings,
public transportation only, avoid relationships of any
kind, read books only with an Imprimatur and Nihil
Obstat, watch no television, rent one room only, save
everything for a rainy day.

Sounds a lot to me like audio in the days before solid state and digital
freed us from having to obsess over high maintenance, low enjoyment
time-wasters like tubes and vinyl. Now we have so much more time to just
enjoy the music!

[Norman M. Schwartz]

Sonnova wrote:
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:53:58 -0700, John Stone wrote
(in article ):

On 8/14/08 5:12 PM, in article ,
"Sonnova" wrote:

About a year ago, I re-tubed my Audio Research SP-11 MKII preamp
with SIX new 6922H (6DJ8 - ECC88) tubes from Electro Harmonix
(actually ordered them from Music Direct). In that year, every
single tube ($25 each) has become gassy, some to the point of
losing their vacuum altogether, others just became noisy.

Tubes losing their vacuum is a pretty strange failure mode. It
sounds like you just got a bad batch. It seems to me that when
confronted with 6 failures like this, Music Direct might just
replace them free of charge.

Then again, they might not....



I think my experience is ample justification for me to recommend
that everyone avoid this brand of Russian tube completely.

Why? Simply because one tube type has a problem doesn't condemn the
entire line of EH products. Likely this is nothing more than a
marketing company that buys their tubes from a supplier in Russia
who makes them for a number of different companies.

Do what you will. You have been warned.

I think this might be an even better place to both warn people and discuss
these problem tubes:
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/etv.mpl?forum=tubes

[Howard Davis]

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from 1976 to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof. My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

[[email protected]]

Howard Davis wrote:

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof.

If this is the case, then why should one avoid E-H tubes? I'm not sure how
the subject of your post fits in with what you just wrote. Do you know
something you have not told us? Are they worse than other tube brands? Is
their failure rate unacceptable?

My work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly
low opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other
than high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in
particular, to be based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In
fact, they are demonstrably inferior.

From a technical standpoint of "superiority" I'd not argue your point.
However, there are other reasons than you cite as to why an audiophile
might want a tube amplifer (as long as he does not kid himself about its
technical and sonic properties). It could be something he built and likes
to tinker with. It could be a longing based on nostalgia, or aesthetics
(some people like the soft glow), maybe they got a good deal on one, or it
could simply be what they have. As long as outrageous and unsupportable
claims are not made for tube gear, and as long as one observes the
principle of "buyer beware." who cares?

Michael

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:44:07 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ) :

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from 1976 to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof. My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

And this post adds what to the conversation? Tubes are not better than
solid-state, but they are different. And good tube equipment is good
equipment, period. When I bought my Audio Research SP11, it was very
expensive, beautifully made, and highly regarded. I always found that it
sounded very musical and afforded a level of control that few preamps today
provide. Now, some 17 years later, I see that SP-11s STILL command a lot of
money on E-bay (Original cost was ~US$4900, and EBay had one for sale a few
weeks ago that was up to US$3000 when I last looked. How's that for
depreciation), thus the unit has held its value in a way that most SS
equipment has not. Still, to paraphrase the late Julian Hirsch, the SP-11,
like most modern electronic components, has no sound of its own and adds
nothing and takes nothing away from the signal it is passing. It's still that
way. BTW, the SP-11 has the most versatile, best sounding and quietest phono
stage I've ever heard. It will take anything from the lowest output MC to the
highest output MM without once adding ANY hiss or ever overloading. That, in
itself, is worth the price of admission especially if you have as large a
collection of records as I do.

Since I am not one to change components simply for the sake of changing them,
and since a preamplifier that could actually take the place of my SP-11
doesn't seem to exist - either in tube or solid state form, I choose to keep
the SP-11 and to re-tube it every 10 years (or when otherwise necessary). I
don't see this as a big drawback and pre-amp is awesome.

[Honest Abe]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:44:07 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ) :

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from 1976
to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects
pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes
have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof.
My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

And this post adds what to the conversation? Tubes are not better than
solid-state, but they are different. And good tube equipment is good
equipment, period. When I bought my Audio Research SP11, it was very
expensive, beautifully made, and highly regarded.

I'm sure it was MOST highly regarded by those that profited from its sale!
(:-))
I'm not saying it is bad equipment; I'm saying that the same investment in
properly designed solid state gear would have given you something even
better for the money.

I always found that it
sounded very musical and afforded a level of control that few preamps
today
provide. Now, some 17 years later, I see that SP-11s STILL command a lot
of
money on E-bay (Original cost was ~US$4900, and EBay had one for sale a
few
weeks ago that was up to US$3000 when I last looked. How's that for
depreciation), thus the unit has held its value in a way that most SS
equipment has not.

For far less I'm sure you can find a solid state preamp equal or better in
performance.
This kind of money for speakers I can understand, as this is typical or even
low for real quality speakers, which are the most crucial components - they
make an audible difference. But for a preamp alone, no way I'd spend that
much! The difference between properly designed, carefully selected tube and
solid state preamps would be inaudible. Until the tubes age and go bad, that
is!

Still, to paraphrase the late Julian Hirsch, the SP-11,
like most modern electronic components, has no sound of its own and adds
nothing and takes nothing away from the signal it is passing. It's still
that
way. BTW, the SP-11 has the most versatile, best sounding and quietest
phono
stage I've ever heard. It will take anything from the lowest output MC to
the
highest output MM without once adding ANY hiss or ever overloading. That,
in
itself, is worth the price of admission especially if you have as large a
collection of records as I do.

If you like it, use it - but as I say on my website, tubes are relatively
fragile, drift (change operating characteristics) with time, and eventually
have to be replaced. They are also far more inefficient, heavier and more
bulky, and are more costly initially and when replaced - which is never
necessary in a properly designed solid state preamp.

Since I am not one to change components simply for the sake of changing
them,
and since a preamplifier that could actually take the place of my SP-11
doesn't seem to exist - either in tube or solid state form, I choose to
keep
the SP-11 and to re-tube it every 10 years (or when otherwise necessary).
I
don't see this as a big drawback and pre-amp is awesome.

Every 10 years? I'd say only if you don't use it very much. And the
distortion goes up long before the need for tube replacement becomes
obvious. But as I said, if you like it, use it.

[Sonnova]

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:06:12 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:44:07 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ) :

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from 1976
to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects
pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes
have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof.
My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

And this post adds what to the conversation? Tubes are not better than
solid-state, but they are different. And good tube equipment is good
equipment, period. When I bought my Audio Research SP11, it was very
expensive, beautifully made, and highly regarded.

I'm sure it was MOST highly regarded by those that profited from its sale!
(:-))
I'm not saying it is bad equipment; I'm saying that the same investment in
properly designed solid state gear would have given you something even
better for the money.

I disagree. None of the preamps I looked at prior to purchasing the SP-11 had
its features and none performed better.

I always found that it
sounded very musical and afforded a level of control that few preamps
today
provide. Now, some 17 years later, I see that SP-11s STILL command a lot
of
money on E-bay (Original cost was ~US$4900, and EBay had one for sale a
few
weeks ago that was up to US$3000 when I last looked. How's that for
depreciation), thus the unit has held its value in a way that most SS
equipment has not.

For far less I'm sure you can find a solid state preamp equal or better in
performance.

I just said that I couldn't. If I had, I would have bough it.

This kind of money for speakers I can understand, as this is typical or even
low for real quality speakers, which are the most crucial components - they
make an audible difference. But for a preamp alone, no way I'd spend that
much! The difference between properly designed, carefully selected tube and
solid state preamps would be inaudible. Until the tubes age and go bad, that
is!

Agreed, but again. There was nothing on the market (of which I was aware)
that offered the features and flexibility of the SP-11.

Still, to paraphrase the late Julian Hirsch, the SP-11,
like most modern electronic components, has no sound of its own and adds
nothing and takes nothing away from the signal it is passing. It's still
that
way. BTW, the SP-11 has the most versatile, best sounding and quietest
phono
stage I've ever heard. It will take anything from the lowest output MC to
the
highest output MM without once adding ANY hiss or ever overloading. That,
in
itself, is worth the price of admission especially if you have as large a
collection of records as I do.

If you like it, use it - but as I say on my website, tubes are relatively
fragile, drift (change operating characteristics) with time, and eventually
have to be replaced. They are also far more inefficient, heavier and more
bulky, and are more costly initially and when replaced - which is never
necessary in a properly designed solid state preamp.

Simply NOT important to me.

Since I am not one to change components simply for the sake of changing
them,
and since a preamplifier that could actually take the place of my SP-11
doesn't seem to exist - either in tube or solid state form, I choose to
keep
the SP-11 and to re-tube it every 10 years (or when otherwise necessary).
I
don't see this as a big drawback and pre-amp is awesome.

Every 10 years? I'd say only if you don't use it very much. And the
distortion goes up long before the need for tube replacement becomes
obvious. But as I said, if you like it, use it.

10 years = 10,000 hours (more or less) the way tubes are used in the ARC unit
is paired with an FET. So, tube drift is less important. And I do like it and
I do use it, and I defy anyone, in a double-blind test, to tell the
difference in sound between my SP-11 and the most expensive modern
solid-state preamp available today.

[Honest Abe]

wrote in message
...
Howard Davis wrote:

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof.

If this is the case, then why should one avoid E-H tubes? I'm not sure
how
the subject of your post fits in with what you just wrote. Do you know
something you have not told us? Are they worse than other tube brands?
Is
their failure rate unacceptable?

I did not write the original post whose title appears on the response I
posted here.

My work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly
low opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other
than high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in
particular, to be based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In
fact, they are demonstrably inferior.

From a technical standpoint of "superiority" I'd not argue your point.
However, there are other reasons than you cite as to why an audiophile
might want a tube amplifer (as long as he does not kid himself about its
technical and sonic properties). It could be something he built and likes
to tinker with. It could be a longing based on nostalgia, or aesthetics
(some people like the soft glow), maybe they got a good deal on one, or it
could simply be what they have. As long as outrageous and unsupportable
claims are not made for tube gear, and as long as one observes the
principle of "buyer beware." who cares?

Michael

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 9, 9:26*am, "Honest Abe" wrote:

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.- Hide quoted text -

Mpfffff... Much of this is based on "definition".

If one insists on low-powered amplifiers and relatively inefficient
speakers, then tubes have *some* advantages with soft clipping and a
sort of fuzzy sound that helps conceal/disguise/sweeten a lack of
headroom. Even so with very efficient speakers. And, of course, if
one is using single-driver horn-type speakers (Lowther et.al.) the
mechanical and physical limitations are so significant that tubes
neither help nor hurt the ultimate outcome - and may as well join the
party.

The advantages that tubes have over solid-state:
a) They can be impressive looking.
b) They serve in the same way as a pipe and tweed jacket with leather
elbow patches (better, worn through elbows) - a illusion of genteel
scholarship and good taste.
c) On cold days they can warm the hands.
d) The cat seldom wants to get near exposed tubes - on top of the
cage, perhaps.
e) Similarly with small children.
f) They can sound very nice when their limitations are accepted and
when they are properly installed, maintained and operated.
g) If installed-etc. as above, they can last a very, very long time
with very, very good reliability.
h) They are relatively more tolerant of user-error, wide speaker
impedances and similar problems - on the other hand, failures can be
spectacular and costly.

The advantages that solid-state has over tubes:
a) Massive, clean power is possible at relatively low cost.
b) Care-and-feeding is much easier.
c) SS equipment tents to be smaller, run cooler and have more features
than similar tube equipment.
d) Although they are relatively less tolerant of user-error, built-in
protection circuitry and proper fusing is easier than with tube
equipment.

But, just as there are those who prefer a Triumph Spitfire or Harley-
Davidson for their "fun ride", there are those who enjoy, even prefer
tubes. Much as there are those who prefer Benedictine as a tipple, or
Ouzo, or Grappa. No refinement required or implied, just the simple
*capacity* for enjoyment.

Writing for myself, I keep five systems on active duty. Two are
entirely solid-state, two are entirely tube, one is a mix of both. I
keep three (3) tube amps (and have a home-brew on the bench in a near-
complete state), and half-a-dozen SS amps on a constantly changing
rotation, not to mention seven sets of speakers from junk-to-Maggies.
It's all fun. It's all good. But, for the record, there is no revealed
religion or received wisdom attached. It is a hobby.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Honest Abe]

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:06:12 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:44:07 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ) :

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from
1976
to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects
pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes
have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by
Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack
thereof.
My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly
low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other
than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

And this post adds what to the conversation? Tubes are not better than
solid-state, but they are different. And good tube equipment is good
equipment, period. When I bought my Audio Research SP11, it was very
expensive, beautifully made, and highly regarded.

I'm sure it was MOST highly regarded by those that profited from its
sale!
(:-))
I'm not saying it is bad equipment; I'm saying that the same investment
in
properly designed solid state gear would have given you something even
better for the money.

I disagree. None of the preamps I looked at prior to purchasing the SP-11
had
its features and none performed better.

Features have nothing to do with the type of active components used (tubes
or solid state) - but with the design quality. Relative performance, without
comparitive test data to show, is subjective.

I always found that it
sounded very musical and afforded a level of control that few preamps
today
provide. Now, some 17 years later, I see that SP-11s STILL command a lot
of
money on E-bay (Original cost was ~US$4900, and EBay had one for sale a
few
weeks ago that was up to US$3000 when I last looked. How's that for
depreciation), thus the unit has held its value in a way that most SS
equipment has not.

For far less I'm sure you can find a solid state preamp equal or better
in
performance.

I just said that I couldn't. If I had, I would have bough it.

This kind of money for speakers I can understand, as this is typical or
even
low for real quality speakers, which are the most crucial components -
they
make an audible difference. But for a preamp alone, no way I'd spend that
much! The difference between properly designed, carefully selected tube
and
solid state preamps would be inaudible. Until the tubes age and go bad,
that
is!

Agreed, but again. There was nothing on the market (of which I was aware)
that offered the features and flexibility of the SP-11.

Still, to paraphrase the late Julian Hirsch, the SP-11,
like most modern electronic components, has no sound of its own and adds
nothing and takes nothing away from the signal it is passing. It's still
that
way. BTW, the SP-11 has the most versatile, best sounding and quietest
phono
stage I've ever heard. It will take anything from the lowest output MC
to
the
highest output MM without once adding ANY hiss or ever overloading.
That,
in
itself, is worth the price of admission especially if you have as large
a
collection of records as I do.

If you like it, use it - but as I say on my website, tubes are relatively
fragile, drift (change operating characteristics) with time, and
eventually
have to be replaced. They are also far more inefficient, heavier and more
bulky, and are more costly initially and when replaced - which is never
necessary in a properly designed solid state preamp.

Simply NOT important to me.

I hope you remain satisfied, but sooner or later some tube-related problem
will come up that might change your mind.

Since I am not one to change components simply for the sake of changing
them,
and since a preamplifier that could actually take the place of my SP-11
doesn't seem to exist - either in tube or solid state form, I choose to
keep
the SP-11 and to re-tube it every 10 years (or when otherwise
necessary).
I
don't see this as a big drawback and pre-amp is awesome.

Every 10 years? I'd say only if you don't use it very much. And the
distortion goes up long before the need for tube replacement becomes
obvious. But as I said, if you like it, use it.

10 years = 10,000 hours (more or less) the way tubes are used in the ARC
unit
is paired with an FET. So, tube drift is less important. And I do like it
and
I do use it, and I defy anyone, in a double-blind test, to tell the
difference in sound between my SP-11 and the most expensive modern
solid-state preamp available today.

I'd like to know if any such comparisons have been done.
By the way, FETs are very similar to tubes in their overdrive and harmonic
distortion characteristics, but have all the advantages of being solid
state.

[Honest Abe]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 9:26 am, "Honest Abe" wrote:

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes
have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.- Hide quoted
text -

Mpfffff... Much of this is based on "definition".

If one insists on low-powered amplifiers and relatively inefficient
speakers, then tubes have *some* advantages with soft clipping and a
sort of fuzzy sound that helps conceal/disguise/sweeten a lack of
headroom. Even so with very efficient speakers. And, of course, if
one is using single-driver horn-type speakers (Lowther et.al.) the
mechanical and physical limitations are so significant that tubes
neither help nor hurt the ultimate outcome - and may as well join the
party.

If any non-linear operation (clipping) is ocurring, that is NOT high
fidelity reproduction - it is the misuse of or inadequacy of the equipment.

The advantages that tubes have over solid-state:
a) They can be impressive looking.

So can a limo without an engine.

b) They serve in the same way as a pipe and tweed jacket with leather
elbow patches (better, worn through elbows) - a illusion of genteel
scholarship and good taste.

In other words, they have snob appeal for those ignorant of what matters in
electronics.

c) On cold days they can warm the hands.

And run up the electric bill.

d) The cat seldom wants to get near exposed tubes - on top of the
cage, perhaps.
e) Similarly with small children.
f) They can sound very nice when their limitations are accepted and
when they are properly installed, maintained and operated.

Does a real audiophile want such limitations and the need for maintenance,
or does he want to turn on his equipment and reliably and immediately (with
no warm-up time) hear the music?

g) If installed-etc. as above, they can last a very, very long time
with very, very good reliability.

Solid state components in properly designed circuitry lasts indefinitely,
and unlike tubes they do not change their operating characteristics as they
age.

h) They are relatively more tolerant of user-error, wide speaker
impedances and similar problems - on the other hand, failures can be
spectacular and costly.

The advantages that solid-state has over tubes:
a) Massive, clean power is possible at relatively low cost.
b) Care-and-feeding is much easier.
c) SS equipment tents to be smaller, run cooler and have more features
than similar tube equipment.
d) Although they are relatively less tolerant of user-error, built-in
protection circuitry and proper fusing is easier than with tube
equipment.

All true.

But, just as there are those who prefer a Triumph Spitfire or Harley-
Davidson for their "fun ride", there are those who enjoy, even prefer
tubes. Much as there are those who prefer Benedictine as a tipple, or
Ouzo, or Grappa. No refinement required or implied, just the simple
*capacity* for enjoyment.

To each their own, but those in the know technically go with solid state.
Those that value fads, empty snob appeal, and are easily conned by devious
retailers buy tube equipment.

Writing for myself, I keep five systems on active duty. Two are
entirely solid-state, two are entirely tube, one is a mix of both. I
keep three (3) tube amps (and have a home-brew on the bench in a near-
complete state), and half-a-dozen SS amps on a constantly changing
rotation, not to mention seven sets of speakers from junk-to-Maggies.
It's all fun. It's all good. But, for the record, there is no revealed
religion or received wisdom attached. It is a hobby.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

You certainly have a great selection of equipment. My earliest amps and
tuners had tubes, but that was long ago - and I'll never go back.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 06:26:29 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

wrote in message
...
Howard Davis wrote:

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack thereof.

If this is the case, then why should one avoid E-H tubes? I'm not sure
how
the subject of your post fits in with what you just wrote. Do you know
something you have not told us? Are they worse than other tube brands?
Is
their failure rate unacceptable?

I did not write the original post whose title appears on the response I
posted here.

I wrote the original post. My Audio Research SP-11 Pre-amp uses six
6DJ8/ECC88/6922 tubes. I decided last year that the current set of tubes
probably had 10,000 hours on them , and that it was time to re-tube. I
purchased, from Music Direct, six Electro-Harmonix 6922 premium tubes with
the gold-plated pins and replaced the tubes in the pre-amp. After about a
month one channel of the phono stage went dead. Investigation revealed that
one of the E-H tubes had completely lost it's vacuum. I put one of the old
tubes (which I hadn't gotten around to throwing away yet) back and tossed the
bad E-H, shrugging my shoulders. It could happen to anyone. No big deal.
Well, as it turned out, it was a big deal. Over the next 8 or 9 months, all 6
of the E-H tubes either lost their vacuum altogether or became gassy enough
to be noisy. I replaced each, in turn with a Slovak-made JJ Tesla 6992 and
these seem to be fine. I posted because I thought (and still think) that 6
out of six vacuum failures is unacceptable, so I thought that I would post a
warning here, you know, Caveat Emptor?

Before this, the worst tubes I have ever seen were the OEM Chinese made 807
output tubes that VTL supplied with my VTL 140 monoblock power amplifiers.
These were the poorest made tubes I've ever seen. If you are familiar with
807s, these are pre-WWII RF output tubes for low-power transmitters.
Generically, they have much in common with 6L6 audio tubes in that they are
beam-power pentodes with almost identical plate dissipation, grid bias
requirements, filament voltage and current requirements, etc to their
audio-only cousins. The only difference is that 807s are good to about 30 MHz
and 6L6s are not rated for much over about 100 KHz. Physically, the 807s have
nothing in common with 6L6s which are octal-socket tubes where the 807s are
the old-fashioned 5-pin configuration whith two fat pins and three skinny
ones. The 807 also has an "anode cap" which 6L6s lack and a sexy, curvy shape
that looks great glowing in the dark on one's equipment shelf.

Anyway, the Chinese-made 807s that came with my amps all had a characteristic
in common. While they all worked, one should never try to remove them from
their sockets except to replace them. The reason? If one grabs the tube by
its glass envelope to remove it from its socket, the glass will separate from
said socket! When one tries to remove the anode connector from the top of the
tube, the anode cap will stay inside the connector and the anode cap will
separate from the top of the tube, breaking the anode wire off, flush, with
the top of the glass! This of course renders the tube useless (if the
separation of the phenolic from the glass at the tube's other end hasn't
already separated leads thereby rendering the tube useless). My solution, of
course, was to find a large cache of NOS WWII vintage JAN 807s (with the tan
phenolic - instead of black - bases). I bought a lifetime supply and due the
ease with which VTLs allow the user to bias each output tube separately, I
don't need matched sets.

I'd like to use NOS 6DJ8/6922s in my pre-amp too, but unfortunately, older
6DJ8s were designed solely as RF tubes (in TV and FM tuners, mostly) and were
not designed to give any protection from microphonics (not important at RF
frequencies). When used in audio applications these older designs will ring
like bells if excited by such things as foot-falls in the same room. Modern
6DJ8/6922s have an internal support structure more like a 12AX7 than a
original 6DJ8 design and aren't any more microphonic than that more
traditional pre-amp tube.

My work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly
low opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other
than high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in
particular, to be based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In
fact, they are demonstrably inferior.

From a technical standpoint of "superiority" I'd not argue your point.
However, there are other reasons than you cite as to why an audiophile
might want a tube amplifer (as long as he does not kid himself about its
technical and sonic properties). It could be something he built and likes
to tinker with. It could be a longing based on nostalgia, or aesthetics
(some people like the soft glow), maybe they got a good deal on one, or it
could simply be what they have. As long as outrageous and unsupportable
claims are not made for tube gear, and as long as one observes the
principle of "buyer beware." who cares?

Michael

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.

They certainly do have a "sound". As to whether its superior or not depends
upon one's tastes. If one's idea of perfection is signal accuracy, then tubes
are, obviously, not for you. If you think a "warm" sound is more like live
music played in real space, then you might think that tubes give you that
sound where most solid-state designs do not.

Rock musicians STILL prefer tube amps for their guitars because they prefer
that sound.

Many modern professional, condenser microphones have tube pre-amps in them
because many pro recording engineers and artists alike prefer their sound.

Likewise, tube microphone pre-amps are often preferred over solid-state
pre-amps for similar reasons.

It's not really that cut-and-dry. HOWEVER, good tube equipment is often not
that much different (in performance) from solid-state.

My SP-11, for instance uses a triode stage in conjunction with a JFET for
each gain stage. Each hybrid block in this design uses the triode as the load
for a source-follower P-channel JFET in a cascode-like circuit. This is said
to lower distortion due to the complementary nature of the tube and the JFET
transfer curves. Whatever. And whether or not there is any real advantage to
this hybrid design, the SP-11 still provides a very neutral and very clean
presentation without being clinically cold sounding like some solid-state
designs that were contemporary with the SP-11 (Krell's stuff from the late
1980's comes to mind here). Of course, today, solid-state preamps are so
good, that they all sound pretty much the same - Power amps too.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 08:28:06 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article ):

On Sep 9, 9:26*am, "Honest Abe" wrote:

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.- Hide quoted
text -

Mpfffff... Much of this is based on "definition".

If one insists on low-powered amplifiers and relatively inefficient
speakers, then tubes have *some* advantages with soft clipping and a
sort of fuzzy sound that helps conceal/disguise/sweeten a lack of
headroom. Even so with very efficient speakers. And, of course, if
one is using single-driver horn-type speakers (Lowther et.al.) the
mechanical and physical limitations are so significant that tubes
neither help nor hurt the ultimate outcome - and may as well join the
party.

The advantages that tubes have over solid-state:
a) They can be impressive looking.
b) They serve in the same way as a pipe and tweed jacket with leather
elbow patches (better, worn through elbows) - a illusion of genteel
scholarship and good taste.
c) On cold days they can warm the hands.
d) The cat seldom wants to get near exposed tubes - on top of the
cage, perhaps.
e) Similarly with small children.
f) They can sound very nice when their limitations are accepted and
when they are properly installed, maintained and operated.
g) If installed-etc. as above, they can last a very, very long time
with very, very good reliability.
h) They are relatively more tolerant of user-error, wide speaker
impedances and similar problems - on the other hand, failures can be
spectacular and costly.

The advantages that solid-state has over tubes:
a) Massive, clean power is possible at relatively low cost.
b) Care-and-feeding is much easier.
c) SS equipment tents to be smaller, run cooler and have more features
than similar tube equipment.
d) Although they are relatively less tolerant of user-error, built-in
protection circuitry and proper fusing is easier than with tube
equipment.

But repair is often much more difficult and costly.

But, just as there are those who prefer a Triumph Spitfire or Harley-
Davidson for their "fun ride",

Can't speak for Harley's as they're not my cup of motorcycle tea, but older
sports cars are more fun than modern ones. Modern cars are very good. They
stick to the road as if glued there, and most will beat a vintage sports car
around any track or up any twisty mountain road that you can name. OTOH,
modern cars are NOT fun to drive. All the seat-of-the-pants feedback that old
sports cars give to their drivers has been engineered out of modern cars. You
cannot feel the road through the steering wheel of a modern car because the
power steering has, effectively, disconnected the steering wheel from the
front wheels of the car. You can't feel the brakes being modulated by your
right foot like you used to and have to go by what the car is doing rather
than what the brakes are doing. IOW, the feeling that the driver is "one
with" and therefore part of the car is gone forever, and with it much of the
fun of driving (for those so inclined, that is).

But the analogy with tubes vs solid-state is a moot one and a better analogy
would be modern cars and vintage cars vs. records and CD decks. Like the
vintage sports car, there is more operator involvement in playing a record on
a turntable than there is in putting a CD in a player. That may have a lot to
do with the continued "success" of LP long after it should have been put to
rest.

there are those who enjoy, even prefer
tubes. Much as there are those who prefer Benedictine as a tipple, or
Ouzo, or Grappa. No refinement required or implied, just the simple
*capacity* for enjoyment.

Writing for myself, I keep five systems on active duty. Two are
entirely solid-state, two are entirely tube, one is a mix of both. I
keep three (3) tube amps (and have a home-brew on the bench in a near-
complete state), and half-a-dozen SS amps on a constantly changing
rotation, not to mention seven sets of speakers from junk-to-Maggies.
It's all fun. It's all good. But, for the record, there is no revealed
religion or received wisdom attached. It is a hobby.

Very well put.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:33:26 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
...
On Sep 9, 9:26 am, "Honest Abe" wrote:

Good points. My issue is that some less than scrupulous manufacturers and
retailers mislead often uneducated audio consumers into thinking tubes
have
some superior "sound" or other advantages over solid state.- Hide quoted
text -

Mpfffff... Much of this is based on "definition".

If one insists on low-powered amplifiers and relatively inefficient
speakers, then tubes have *some* advantages with soft clipping and a
sort of fuzzy sound that helps conceal/disguise/sweeten a lack of
headroom. Even so with very efficient speakers. And, of course, if
one is using single-driver horn-type speakers (Lowther et.al.) the
mechanical and physical limitations are so significant that tubes
neither help nor hurt the ultimate outcome - and may as well join the
party.

If any non-linear operation (clipping) is ocurring, that is NOT high
fidelity reproduction - it is the misuse of or inadequacy of the equipment.

The advantages that tubes have over solid-state:
a) They can be impressive looking.

So can a limo without an engine.

b) They serve in the same way as a pipe and tweed jacket with leather
elbow patches (better, worn through elbows) - a illusion of genteel
scholarship and good taste.

In other words, they have snob appeal for those ignorant of what matters in
electronics.

The methodology is NOT important. The musical results are what's important.
Tubes or transistors, whichever gets an individual closer to his vision of
what real music played in real space ought to sound like is what's good.

c) On cold days they can warm the hands.

And run up the electric bill.

d) The cat seldom wants to get near exposed tubes - on top of the
cage, perhaps.
e) Similarly with small children.
f) They can sound very nice when their limitations are accepted and
when they are properly installed, maintained and operated.

Does a real audiophile want such limitations and the need for maintenance,
or does he want to turn on his equipment and reliably and immediately (with
no warm-up time) hear the music?

Hopefully, he wants to FEEL the music. Anything that gets closer to that goal
is good for the music. If that's the distortions introduced by either tubes
or vinyl, then, so be it.

g) If installed-etc. as above, they can last a very, very long time
with very, very good reliability.

Solid state components in properly designed circuitry lasts indefinitely,
and unlike tubes they do not change their operating characteristics as they
age.

Not terribly important as long as one keeps in mind that this IS the case.

h) They are relatively more tolerant of user-error, wide speaker
impedances and similar problems - on the other hand, failures can be
spectacular and costly.

The advantages that solid-state has over tubes:
a) Massive, clean power is possible at relatively low cost.
b) Care-and-feeding is much easier.
c) SS equipment tents to be smaller, run cooler and have more features
than similar tube equipment.
d) Although they are relatively less tolerant of user-error, built-in
protection circuitry and proper fusing is easier than with tube
equipment.

All true.

But, just as there are those who prefer a Triumph Spitfire or Harley-
Davidson for their "fun ride", there are those who enjoy, even prefer
tubes. Much as there are those who prefer Benedictine as a tipple, or
Ouzo, or Grappa. No refinement required or implied, just the simple
*capacity* for enjoyment.

To each their own, but those in the know technically go with solid state.
Those that value fads, empty snob appeal, and are easily conned by devious
retailers buy tube equipment.

What about the MUSIC? Damn the technically knowledgeable, I'm technically
knowledgeable, but how does that help me, or you, or anybody else get closer
to the music? Music is an emotional medium. Probably the most emotional
medium there is. The audio hobby is ostensibly about getting a recreation of
a performance in your home that's palpable enough to evoke the emotion one
feels when exposed to REAL music, music that you, the listener, loves
(hopefully).

Writing for myself, I keep five systems on active duty. Two are
entirely solid-state, two are entirely tube, one is a mix of both. I
keep three (3) tube amps (and have a home-brew on the bench in a near-
complete state), and half-a-dozen SS amps on a constantly changing
rotation, not to mention seven sets of speakers from junk-to-Maggies.
It's all fun. It's all good. But, for the record, there is no revealed
religion or received wisdom attached. It is a hobby.

Peter Wieck
Melrose Park, PA

You certainly have a great selection of equipment. My earliest amps and
tuners had tubes, but that was long ago - and I'll never go back.

That's your choice. Some people like the sound of tubes and feel closer to
the music when it's played back through them. If that's not your cup of tea,
fine, but don't denigrate others for preferring what you have left behind and
cut modern tube equipment short. It's VERY good and very musical sounding -
and so is much transistor gear. But they are different. Tube equipment is
much more variable than modern transistor preamps and amps which tend, these
days, to all sound pretty much alike. You can get tube gear that is very
neutral all the way to gear that's swimmingly lush and romantic sounding.
Maybe that's its appeal.

[Sonnova]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:52:34 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 20:06:12 -0700, Honest Abe wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message
om...
On Sat, 6 Sep 2008 08:44:07 -0700, Howard Davis wrote
(in article ) :

I am an electronics engineering consultant that has done projects for
Electro-Harmonix, and I was the company's chief design engineer from
1976
to
1981. Their primary line of products has always been guitar effects
pedals,
not audiophile equipment. It is only in recent years that vacuum tubes
have
been manufactured in Russia, imported, and marketed by
Electro-Harmonix.

I cannot vouch for either the quality of their tubes or any lack
thereof.
My
work has been with solid-state circuitry, and in fact I have a fairly
low
opinion of the use of obsolescent tube technology in anything other
than
high power radio transmission. Frankly, I consider any claims of
superiority
of tubes vs. solid state, for audiophile equipment in particular, to be
based on profit-motivated lies, ignorance, or both. In fact, they are
demonstrably inferior.

Reference:
http://howard.davis2.home.att.net/Tu...SolidState.htm

And this post adds what to the conversation? Tubes are not better than
solid-state, but they are different. And good tube equipment is good
equipment, period. When I bought my Audio Research SP11, it was very
expensive, beautifully made, and highly regarded.

I'm sure it was MOST highly regarded by those that profited from its
sale!
(:-))
I'm not saying it is bad equipment; I'm saying that the same investment
in
properly designed solid state gear would have given you something even
better for the money.

I disagree. None of the preamps I looked at prior to purchasing the SP-11
had
its features and none performed better.

Features have nothing to do with the type of active components used (tubes
or solid state) - but with the design quality. Relative performance, without
comparitive test data to show, is subjective.

That's irrelevant. Features may have nothing to do withe the active
components, but they are a strong reason to select one component over
another. As far as performance is concerned, I never said that the SP-11
sounded better than anything else at the time, but I did say that it had the
features I wanted and both the measured and heard performance that I was
looking for. The fact that perhaps many solid-state preamps had similar
measured and subjective performance is irrelevant if they don't also have the
controls and other features that I was looking for.

I always found that it
sounded very musical and afforded a level of control that few preamps
today
provide. Now, some 17 years later, I see that SP-11s STILL command a lot
of
money on E-bay (Original cost was ~US$4900, and EBay had one for sale a
few
weeks ago that was up to US$3000 when I last looked. How's that for
depreciation), thus the unit has held its value in a way that most SS
equipment has not.

For far less I'm sure you can find a solid state preamp equal or better
in
performance.

I just said that I couldn't. If I had, I would have bough it.

This kind of money for speakers I can understand, as this is typical or
even
low for real quality speakers, which are the most crucial components -
they
make an audible difference. But for a preamp alone, no way I'd spend that
much! The difference between properly designed, carefully selected tube
and
solid state preamps would be inaudible. Until the tubes age and go bad,
that
is!

Agreed, but again. There was nothing on the market (of which I was aware)
that offered the features and flexibility of the SP-11.

Still, to paraphrase the late Julian Hirsch, the SP-11,
like most modern electronic components, has no sound of its own and adds
nothing and takes nothing away from the signal it is passing. It's still
that
way. BTW, the SP-11 has the most versatile, best sounding and quietest
phono
stage I've ever heard. It will take anything from the lowest output MC
to
the
highest output MM without once adding ANY hiss or ever overloading.
That,
in
itself, is worth the price of admission especially if you have as large
a
collection of records as I do.

If you like it, use it - but as I say on my website, tubes are relatively
fragile, drift (change operating characteristics) with time, and
eventually
have to be replaced. They are also far more inefficient, heavier and more
bulky, and are more costly initially and when replaced - which is never
necessary in a properly designed solid state preamp.

Simply NOT important to me.

I hope you remain satisfied, but sooner or later some tube-related problem
will come up that might change your mind.

Then I'll fix it. I've had solid-state equipment that too. You'll not get me
to buy the mythology that solid-state gear never fails - and when it does,
it's usually much more catastrophic (and the trouble-shooting more complex)
than when tube gear fails.

Since I am not one to change components simply for the sake of changing
them,
and since a preamplifier that could actually take the place of my SP-11
doesn't seem to exist - either in tube or solid state form, I choose to
keep
the SP-11 and to re-tube it every 10 years (or when otherwise
necessary).
I
don't see this as a big drawback and pre-amp is awesome.

Every 10 years? I'd say only if you don't use it very much. And the
distortion goes up long before the need for tube replacement becomes
obvious. But as I said, if you like it, use it.

10 years = 10,000 hours (more or less) the way tubes are used in the ARC
unit
is paired with an FET. So, tube drift is less important. And I do like it
and
I do use it, and I defy anyone, in a double-blind test, to tell the
difference in sound between my SP-11 and the most expensive modern
solid-state preamp available today.

I'd like to know if any such comparisons have been done.
By the way, FETs are very similar to tubes in their overdrive and harmonic
distortion characteristics, but have all the advantages of being solid
state.

The JFETS in the SP-11 are used in a Cascode mode and paired with a triode
for the simple reason that they have a complementary transfer curve to the
tube and ostensibly cancel out the non-linearities of both.