A semantic paradox in tube terms.
Why is it that military spec tubes made to be very durable and to withstanding extremely violent enviroments. Also said to be built tougher and "quote" more rugged than tubes used in peaceable applications. They turn out to be, in general, to be a better audio tube that simply sound better. They are often a very detailed tube that is also transparent, holographic, crystaline, having a palpably fragile treble.
In effect the workhorses end up sonically in many cases end up as the more delicate sounding variant instead. It makes such tubes a very good deal better sound and longer lasting what more could you want except low priced wich I can tell you again in general they are not.
Take the 7316 sub for a 12AU7 as an example, or the 5751 for 12AX7 or the Jan CHS 6SN7"W". Shouldn't rugged mean thick, tough, heavy,and utilitarian.
Not with tubes.
I can't attribute it to the lack of microphonics which would be the obvious upside of a reinforced structure.
In effect the workhorses end up sonically in many cases end up as the more delicate sounding variant instead. It makes such tubes a very good deal better sound and longer lasting what more could you want except low priced wich I can tell you again in general they are not.
Take the 7316 sub for a 12AU7 as an example, or the 5751 for 12AX7 or the Jan CHS 6SN7"W". Shouldn't rugged mean thick, tough, heavy,and utilitarian.
Not with tubes.
I can't attribute it to the lack of microphonics which would be the obvious upside of a reinforced structure.