|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
70.180.87.145
I am trying to decide which tube to use in my anthem phono amp, it takes a pair of 12AT7's and a pair of 6DJ8's or 6922's. Any opinion
on these tubes?
Follow Ups:
This tube is show !!!
I use a pair in my cd player. I started out with 6dj8's and worked my way up through E188CC/7308's to CCa's. In each category, I found that Siemens and Valvos are the clearest, most detailed and most open of many brands I've tried.
nt
I've used 12AT7s primarily in the AudioPrism Debut II amp, but also in the Earmax and Sonic Frontier SFL-1. And we've even subbed 12AT7s into the Cary CD 303/300.Be aware that "Amperex" 12AT7s don't always come from Holland, as do their 12AX7 and 12AU7 counterparts. By checking the date codes, we've had "Amperex" 12AT7s come from Great Britain and France. In fact, we never could get 4 Dutch Amperex 12AT7s, for use in the Debut II. So we do not know what they truly sound like.
I've had "Mullard" 12AT7s come from both the Mitcham and Blackburn UK plants. They also come in a variety of styles. The most common for us is the CV4024 from the early 80s.
The worst-sounding 12AT7 we've ever heard is the Mullard gold pin 6201. Basically, if you want your music to be the aural equivalent of melted ice cream, use this tube.
The CV4024 is a competent, kind of slow and boring tube.
The French-made "Amperex" was okay. Images were kind of warped, like squeezing silly putty. But the music "breathed" a little more freely than the Mullard 12AT7s.
In a phonostage, ideally, you want tubes to be free of noise, hum, and microphonics. I've had no noise problems with the West German Siemens ECC81, Sylvania Gold Brand 6201, and Telefunken ECC801S. I've also had some quiet RCA black plates, GE 5-Star 6201s, East German RFTs, and Telefunken ECC81s, but didn't like their sound.
nails on a chalk board in my Bottlehead power amps (similar sound to a 60's transistor radio).Quite different to the slow/boring description you mention.
And, I've got CV4024s in my VTL ST-85 driving EL-34s. When I first dropped them in, they sounded like the worst 12AT7 I'd ever heard: congested, shrill but dull, all jumbled together...I felt a twinge of vertigo just listening to them, almost as if I were spinning or something. Very disconcerting.I let them break in, and after about 20 hours, I listened again. Holy Cow...now they sounded absolutely wonderful! Deep and clear, with a lot of bass and weight. I've never heard such a dramatic break-in difference.
Such a strange experience.
Personally, I feel that it is difficult to "characterize" the sound of a driver tube. They are *SO* dependent on the driver circuit, amount of feedback, operating point, etc. A particular 12AT7 that sounds "open and airy" in one circuit could sound "dull and tubey" in another.
12at7 type (or any other tube for the matter) that I have found to have total crap sonics.Sent them to 2-3-4 people a few years ago and they were returned with the same opinion.
As they are still for sale (by one, or two, online dealers) I respond everytime I read something about them, as I feel they are a major rip.
Again, this is regarding then mid 80's (military labeled/fancy packaged/Mitchum production) Mullard CV4024/12AT7.
Hopefully, Jim will not respond with another hissy fit post, as he has done in the past.
Also, before anyone here takes DeKay's comments as gospel, please look at his system. He uses single driver speakers, and 2A3 SE open loop amplification.I find it amazing that on the basis of a tube's performance in that system he would assume it sound the same in a push-pull amp with NFB. Or a preamp that uses common cathode and anode follower gain stages. And so on.
It is entirely possible that a CV4024 would not perform well in his setup. Having a 12AT7 drive an SE output is a bit of a special task, no doubt. 12AT7s have high even order THD compared to most small dual triodes. In a push-pull amp the output stage cancels much of the even order distortion. In an SE stage that's not the case. In other words I believe it's unrealistic to say that based on performance in a setup like his that any 12AT7 is either bad or good - outside of his own system.
If indeed the CV4024 Mullards were as bad as he says, why would there be so many reports of people who really enjoy and like them? The answer is they aren't bad tubes, they apparently aren't the right tube for his system.
I use CV4024s in the first stage of my "McShane" amp. Ask anyone who's heard it how it sounds... Go check the "El-Cheapo" thread on the Decware forum. The CV4024 is outstanding in the El-Cheapo amp... Jayme and many VTL owners love them... etc., etc...
So keep that in mind when you read his comments.
.
.
-------------------------------------------------------
Tin-eared audiofool and obsessed landscape fotografer.
http://community.webshots.com/user/jeffreybehr
Just mentioned how they suck in my system, suggesting that caution is advised.As to why this is I don't know, unless I purchased two pairs, from different reputable tube dealers, which are all defective in a specific way. (their sound was exactly alike).
If Jim can see, as he states, how they would not perform well in my amp's circuit he's not been "informative" as to why this would be.
Used many 12at7 types with different sonics, and all have been fine/listenable (many meaning: many, many, many).
As the 4024's would seem to be exactly the same as 12at7wa (per Duncan), I'd expect them to @ least be listenable.
Tried the remaining pair this evening (with the thick/sloppy sounding Ken-Rad/RCA dual/separate flat plate 2A3's my wife loves) and the results were again unlistenable.
When I get around to upgrading the iron/adding chokes to my amps I will take measurements with the 4024's operating in circuit (compare such to other 12at7's) as this may shed some light on the problem.
Jim's second post is indeed hissy.
"Just mentioned how they suck in my system, suggesting that caution is advised."That's not true, in your second post you said:
"As they are still for sale (by one, or two, online dealers) I respond everytime I read something about them, as I feel they are a major rip."
That's a far cry from "they suck in my system" or "caution is advised".
"If Jim can see, as he states, how they would not perform well in my amp's circuit he's not been "informative" as to why this would be."
I pointed you in the right direction if you were interested. If you aren't able to pick up on that from my post that's your problem. But you seem to be more interested in proving how "cute" you can be with your little slams against me and Jeffrey. And honestly at this point I really have no desire to help or inform you at all.
BTW, if you are a measuring kind of guy like you say in your post, why don't you tell us about the measurements you made on your Peter Belt Foil that proved that was a good investment? Go ahead, I'll watch for your measurements. I can't wait to see them.
$75 for 4 unlistenable tubes sucks.How exactly did you point out/explain how the CV4024's differ drastically from every other 12at7 (and 12at7 type) I've tried in this circuit, as they are the ONLY tubes that sound like crap? Yes, guess I missed that.
Seems you are implying (other post in the thread) that the Paramours design is unsound in using the 12at7 as a driver.
Doesn't explain why only the mid 80's 4024 (so far) is the only 12at7 that does not work, as all others have sounded just fine.
My "slams" as you call them have been responses to your hissy posts most every time I comment on these tubes.
If I wanted to "slam" you I would simply rant upon your numerous "send me an email and I can help you out" posts.
You seem to have an AA Wild Card which allows you to disregard the posting rules other dealers are bound by. How nice for you.
-End rant.
If you are truly interested in the PWB Foil (though I suspect it's simply an ignorant cheap shot on your part) then ask Thorsten Loesch.
His findings pretty much parallel mine (we both ended using CD "rider" mats treated with the product).
Oh, and the foil was free, though I did later give other packets (from the 9/11 auctions) away as gifts.
Not really interested in your help Jim, so don't sweat it.
"If I wanted to "slam" you I would simply rant upon your numerous "send me an email and I can help you out" posts."I forgot to mention - many times the help I gave was pointing out OTHER people who had what they wanted. I do that quite a bit.
"If I wanted to "slam" you I would simply rant upon your numerous "send me an email and I can help you out" posts.You seem to have an AA Wild Card which allows you to disregard the posting rules other dealers are bound by. How nice for you."
If you feel any posts I've made are inappropriate then please report them to the moderator for review. They will take whatever action they deem appropriate, and whatever they decide is fine with me.
This is what I would recommend to anyone who feels any post is inappropriate.
"Hopefully, Jim will not respond with another hissy fit post, as he has done in the past."I wasn't aware that you are the only one entitled to post whatever you want about it, and that neither I nor anyone else who disagrees is entitled to respond. Is that what you are saying?
The facts remain - for many applications the tube does a wonderful job. They are the 12AT7 tube of choice for the Citation I, and they work quite well in many other applications.
Paraphrasing your own words provides the best response... as they are still being unfairly maligned by one particular inmate, I respond everytime I read something about them from him.
I feel they are a very nice NOS tube at a nice price, and work well in many applications.
.
Lummy right now in my phono amp, I have a pair of Mullard 12AT7's date code 1968. These are kinda sweet, and smooth sounding. Also in the phono amp is a pair of Amperex 6DJ8's date code 1972. These are a
little more open, and airy sounding. Overall a pretty nice match, I am always looking to try different tubes to compare the sounds.
For me that is part of the fun, but for now I will just listen.
Could be that they came out of the same factory anyway - and if really NOS then both will be wonderful and you'd be totally anal to fuss around choosing between them - IMO...
Allen do you know of any sonic differences in the two? I am told that the Mullards are sweet, and dark, and the Amperex are more open, and airy.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: