[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

Could you provide me with a list of tubes that were specifically
designed for audio? I'm finding that very, very few of the tubes used
in audio circuits were designed with audio in mind.

TIA!

[Boon[_2_]]

On Jul 12, 1:01*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"
wrote:
Could you provide me with a list of tubes that were specifically
designed for audio? I'm finding that very, very few of the tubes used
in audio circuits were designed with audio in mind.

TIA!

LoL!

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 12, 2:32*pm, Boon wrote:
On Jul 12, 1:01*pm, "Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!"

wrote:
Could you provide me with a list of tubes that were specifically
designed for audio? I'm finding that very, very few of the tubes used
in audio circuits were designed with audio in mind.

TIA!

LoL!

Well, so far I find that unless an amp uses 6L6, EL34, 2A3 or a few WE
numbers, or 6BQ5 (or variants thereof) for outputs it ain't using
audio tubes, people!

And the signal tubes better be 6267, 6EU7, 5879 or ECC808 or a very
few others or they ain't using audio tubes, people!

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.

Note to 2pid: I am killing you on audio-related posts this year.
You're at what, zero? LoL.

[Bret L]

****ter:


wrote:
Could you provide me with a list of tubes that were specifically
designed for audio? I'm finding that very, very few of the tubes used
in audio circuits were designed with audio in mind.

TIA!

LoL!

Well, so far I find that unless an amp uses 6L6, EL34, 2A3 or a few WE
numbers, or 6BQ5 (or variants thereof) for outputs it ain't using
audio tubes, people!

And the signal tubes better be 6267, 6EU7, 5879 or ECC808 or a very
few others or they ain't using audio tubes, people!

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,
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.

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,
and operating the screen grid at close to full anode voltage is a
design simplifier. In the case of triodes, the mu or amplification
factor should be high enough for easy driving but low enough to permit
the range of voltage swing to stay well over ground. On the other hand
really rugged plate structures, desireable in pi-section coupled RF
amplifiers to permit tuning by plate color is not really needed.

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.

In the case of rectifier tubes there never was any reason to design
one specifically for audio.

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.

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.

The best thing to do to determine what are "audio tubes" is to read a
tube manual. Unfortunately, tube audio does attract some illiterate
people, and others simply too stupid to make sense of the information
found therein. The next step is to study some classic circuits and
commentary thereon. Many good print references exist. However, the
same issue applies there too.

[Shhhh!!!! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Jul 12, 6:59*pm, Bret L wrote:
****ter:







wrote:
Could you provide me with a list of tubes that were specifically
designed for audio? I'm finding that very, very few of the tubes used
in audio circuits were designed with audio in mind.

TIA!

LoL!

Well, so far I find that unless an amp uses 6L6, EL34, 2A3 or a few WE
numbers, or 6BQ5 (or variants thereof) for outputs it ain't using
audio tubes, people!

And the signal tubes better be 6267, 6EU7, 5879 or ECC808 or a very
few others or they ain't using audio tubes, people!

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.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.

snip autistic ramble

* 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".

Add the 5687 to the list.

*In the case of rectifier tubes there never was any reason to design
one specifically for audio.

*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.

*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.

*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.

I do have a fairly rare government manual that will tell you that
information but I don't have it with me.

Anyway, it was fun to make an ass of you, Bratzi. Thanks for playing.
LoL.

[Bret L]

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.

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

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

* 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.

*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.

*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.

*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.