I also feel that one of the pleasures of tube rolling is the variation of different nos tubes in different applications. Many nites are spent in trying different brands and or different "levels" of tubes CCa's, PQ's 7308's and so forth in my tube equipment, with friends who may or may not agree with my favorite. One thing is for sure the tubes all start to sound better by the second bottle of wine.
Tube Characterization: 6DJ8, 6922, 7308, CCa, etc
Does anyone agree with me that there should be detailed descriptions of the sonic characteristics of each of the popular versions of each of the above tubes. I've read Joe's Tube Lore and a number of manufacturers web-sites which are great general direction guides but they really don't tell us what we need to know in specific and defined terms. Perhaps starting with an overall sonic characteristic like liquid, or warm, or dry or transparent then their response at the frequency extremes (since this is always an issue with tubes), then perhaps individual characteristis with say female voice, piano etc. and then imaging. We would all purchase a set of cheap base line tubes that are known for consistancy and have clearly defined caharacteristics so that comparisons could be made to this benchmark. Then use benchmark recordings. Even better if we had the same equipment best yet if we benchmarked every component in the chain but not necessary because we would be dealing in relatve values.
Of course there is the question of synergy with existing equipment and the fact that we all don't hear exactly the same and so on and so forth, but again, it would all be relative. "Tube "A" has has better defined bass than the benchmark by a factor of 3 on a scale of 1-10 IMO" for instance. Of course this wouldn't be an exact science but it would give us real direction and be more useful than "this is a really great tube or this is a really, really great tube" or slavishly depending on the opinion of the tube specialty store who may be as honest as the day is long but does have to move what he has in stock. If we can bring this evaluation process closer to science we could spend less time playing this silly expensive guessing games and spend more time exploring the kind of sound we like and buying the kind of sound we want (not to mention, listening to more music) Thoughts?
Of course there is the question of synergy with existing equipment and the fact that we all don't hear exactly the same and so on and so forth, but again, it would all be relative. "Tube "A" has has better defined bass than the benchmark by a factor of 3 on a scale of 1-10 IMO" for instance. Of course this wouldn't be an exact science but it would give us real direction and be more useful than "this is a really great tube or this is a really, really great tube" or slavishly depending on the opinion of the tube specialty store who may be as honest as the day is long but does have to move what he has in stock. If we can bring this evaluation process closer to science we could spend less time playing this silly expensive guessing games and spend more time exploring the kind of sound we like and buying the kind of sound we want (not to mention, listening to more music) Thoughts?
- ...
- 46 posts total
- 46 posts total