On Jul 13, 1:36*pm, Bret L wrote:
None of the rectifier tubes were designed with audio in mind. Even
then the audio market was small potatoes compared to the industrial
market at large.
McIntosh and Marantz were the worst offenders using tubes like 6DJ8,
6CG7/6FQ7, 6550 and other NON-AUDIO tubes in their circuits.
Ironically they are among the most sought out by collectors.
* "Designed for audio" means different things in different contexts,
No, it means the tube was designed with audio as the primary purpose.
*I mean, penishead, that a small signal tube is optimized for audio in
a different way than a power output tube. For example the heater
connections may be changed to reduce hum, important in preamps and
power amp first stages, irrelevant in a power tube.
Therefore the 7025 is the only 12AX7 variant designed with audio in
mind. Any company that uses a standard 12AX7 is "phooey".
i.e, whether one is talking about small signal or power tubes, and as
opposed to general purpose tubes or tubes specifically designed for
other purposes. In some cases tubes specifically designed for other
applications work quite well in audio applications and in others not
so well.
That makes no difference, people.
*In the case of power tubes, specifically audio types differ from RF
output, TV horizontal deflection, and voltage regulator tubes in
several areas. Linearity is at a premium, plate caps are undesireable,
Tell that to McIntosh, who used 6BG6 tubes with great success. Yes,
it's similar to 6L6 tubes. However, they used these tubes even though
6L6 tubes were as cheap and (perhaps) more plentiful.
*Only on one, obscure industrial model
Did I say otherwise?
http://mcc.berners.ch/power-amplifiers/A116.pdf
*This tube was identical to the 6L6 except for pin out...http://www.vacuumtubes.com/6BG6.html
So why did they use a horizontal deflection tube? McIntosh is clearly
"phooey".
* The 6DJ8 was specifically designed to be operated in cascode and
works well in that application. It is not generally considered an
"audio tube" but works well in some audio circuits. The only Marantz
amplifier app is the not great sounding Model 9 AFAIK.
*The 6550 was an audio tube and nothing but. Where you got that from I
have no idea.
That is irrelevant to the main point: that non-audio tubes make an amp
"phooey".
*These specific tubes tend to do that based on hundreds of DIY and
small company products that are a pain in the ass.
I have a supply of a tube called a 6384. It works quite well. Others
agree. Ditto EL38, 12E1 and the others I mentioned earlier.
You (and GOIA) claim technical expertise is a prerequsite in your
worlds to be an audiophile. Now you abuse those who have it. Make up
your mind, numbnuts. LoL.
*It's worth mentioning that the hi-fi market at its peak (the JFK/MM
era more or less) was indeed lucrative and many power and signal tubes
were specifically designed for those markets. Many of those specific
designs were never all that popular as they did little to improve on
the old standbys in the minds of designers.
Are you on drugs? I never said it wasn't a viable market. I said it
was small potatoes as far as tube usage to industrial applications.
What a moron.
*Are you smoking your tampon? Industrial was never that high a
volume.
LOL! It was a far higher volume and with far more usage than audio.
And an audio amp would get usage that might require switching tubes
every few years. Industrial switches and other machinery (not to
mention the military) would switch tubes out far more frequently.
TVs used far more tubes and had far higher turnover. Audio was not as
big in consumer electronics as TVs.
*Some very good audio products use tubes not designed for audio but so
do a lot of ****ty ones. And some using only purpose designed audio
tubes are pretty bad.
And some are pretty good. Since you didn't bother to listen to the BAT
amp you'll never know and you are therefore entirely unqualified to
make the statement you made.
I already knew that. Now you do too.
*I did not say the BAT has to suck, but that it uses a tube that is
bad practice to audio for audio in general.
I'll bet that amp sounds great.
*The best thing to do to determine what are "audio tubes" is to read a
tube manual.
Wrong. Tube manuals do not state why the company that developed a tube
developed it. A tube manual does not even tell you what company
developed a particular type. Therefore you cannot tell what tubes were
developed for audio from a simple tube manual.
*Look at the description. AUDIO POWER AMPLIFIER, HORIZONTAL DEFLECTION
AMPLIFIER, and RADIO FREQUENCY POWER AMPLIFIER are pretty self
explanatory. You can ALSO read the audio specific literature such as
RCA's HF-110 circular.
Perfect. Go through your tube manual and tell me how many are audio
specific. Then seperate out the power tubes from the signal to see a
REALLY small number. My RC-12, RC-30, and Mullard, Sylvania and other
tube manuals are in storage or I'd do it for you. But I already know
the answer. I even have a rare book from Phillips on tubes for audio.
I'll bet that as a percentage of the total tubes listed the audio-
specific types are at 5% or (probably) less.
As I recall most of the the 12A*7 series are not audio tubes. The only
audio-specific signal tubes I recall are 6267, 5879, 7199 and 6EU7.
As I said earlier, companies that use 6SN7, 6U8 (Scott used these a
lot), 6GC7/6FQ7, 12A*7 and the like are "phooey".