Supratek Tubes and Tube Swappin' for Everybody

Bwhite, you are a genius.

I tried the 6106 months ago and I think I was the first to slam the tube for having weird timing. Didn't like it at all.

I took your advice and let it burn in for three days. Wham! This tube rocks. Clearly better than the venerable 5AR4/GZ34. No contest. I didn't realize the 5AR4 was muddy until I put the 6106 in. And the 3D palpability is much increased.

Once again, thanks for the inspiration to give this tube another try. It's now my reference rectifier.

Aloha Brian,

If you can make it over to Maui, I would love to have you in as guests to my show. The only night I am dark is Sunday nights. Any other night its two shows per night. If you can't make it this trip, let me know next time you are headed this way.

Can anyone recommend a reliable source for Tungsol Round Plates. I figure I have to try a pair if everyone says they are so great.

Thanks in advance.

Interesting Jazzdude, I also run the Sylvania 6SN7GT 1952 "bass kings" in my Chardonnay and I have noticed no drop in bass performance with the 6106s. Actually, to the contrary. The bass quantity hasn't increased with the 6106s over the 5AR4/GZ34s, but the bass quality has improved. The bass seems tighter and more focused. Actually, everything is more focused. There was always a very slight fuzz that I couldn't find, but with the 6106 the notes are very crisp and clean. No more fuzz.

When I first plugged the 6106s in months ago, I hated it. But with burn-in, it really transformed. Unlike the GZ33 & GZ37 which remained total dogs.

Mick gave me a GZ32 to try, but it pop and crackled from day one so I took it out immediately.

Jazzdude, a quick question. Have you compared the Tung Sol Round Plates to the '52 Sylvanias? If so, I would be really interested in your opinion of the two. I may try a pair of Tung Sols, but I am thrilled with the '52s.

If any of you guys have a NOS Bendix 6106 that you have tried and don't like. I would be interested in purchasing it.

Mine just died !

I turned my system on earlier today and let it warm up for about an hour and when I hit play....nothing. The tubes in the linestage were glowing, but the 6106 was cold.

Just drop me an email and I will get back to you asap.

Thanks in advance.

PS - I've got to go back and see who I purchased this tube from. It was a retail tube seller and it was sold to me as NOS. The tube base looked really discolored when I got it (I know that doesn't always mean anything), but I bought this tube as NOS. It can't have more than 100 hours on it.

Could have just been infant mortality or it could have been a used tube to begin with.

Raytheprinter, thanks for the info. One is on the way!

Jazzdude, before I ever tried the 350B, I emailed Mick and asked him if it was okay. He said it was okay and his only caution to me was to guard against unscrupulous tube dealers selling counterfeit 350B's.

I have had no problem with my power supply that I know of and I have been using the 350B's for 1 1/2 to 2 years.

BTW, I just got in two more 6106's and I got the music back. No doubt about in my Chardonnay. The bass is much tighter and the soundstage is incredibly more focused. The difference between the Mullard 5AR4 and the 6106 is rather dramatic. No going back for me. The 5AR4 has boomy bass and less defined edges all the way around compared to the 6106. But Bwhite may be correct in implying that there is a synergy between the 6106 and the 350Bs.

Can anyone recommend a good, reliable source for Tung Sol 6SN7 "round plates". My '52 Syls are becoming microphonic and one is starting to spit quite a bit.

Thanks Larryi.

Anyone tried the EH 6SN7 gold pins? Or the non-gold pins?

Geez, Wc65mustang, why dump on Ecclectique?

He has been very helpful to many of us here with tube rolling. And I personally have corresponded with Mick several times about tube rolling and his only advice to me, aside from offering appropriate substitutions, was to beware of unscrupulous tube dealers selling counterfeit NOS tubes. Didn't need the warning, but I appreciated it none-the-less.

And I find it interesting that you are bustin' on Ecclectique about tube rolling when I came across this thread initiated by you:

http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1081292815&openusid&zzWc65mustang&4&5#Wc65mustang

It seems in the case of the "Aesthetix Rhea" YOU are asking "amateur audiophiles with mid-fi knowledge and components" for their advice, but with the Supratek you are hammering Ecclectique for trying to help the rest of us. Don't you think the "owner and designer" of Aesthetix also knows what's best for the Rhea? Why is it anymore inappropriate to change the stock tubes that the designer chose in a Supratek than the stock tubes the designer chose in the Aesthetix?

As long as Ecclectique's advice is correct regarding the electrical characteristics of tube substitutions, where's the beef, especially in light of *your* thread which I linked above.

Nice dodge, Wc65mustang!

How about answering the question regarding the Aesthetix vs. the Supratek.

Only a "lady" would weasel out when she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar!

And yes, "Knowledgable" is "relative"...especially when it is spelled wrong.

Either find a legitimate reason to criticize tube rolling in the Suprateks or go waste other people's time. Virtually every tube product made benefits from rolling tubes from stock tubes to NOS. The Supratek is no different.

Raytheprinter - that wasn't directed at you. You spelled it correctly. It was Wc65mustang I was referring to in my post. Check his post.