Quality of the tubes you're using plays a role. That's why people pay a lot more money for new old stock. Presumably they made tubes a lot better a while back than they do now.
Replace tubes yearly?
I just watched a Paul McGowan video (PS Audio) about the wisdom of leaving your gear powered on all the time. I get that. He also said that vacuum tube gear is the exception and not to leave it on all the time. I get that too.
But he also mentioned that it didn’t make a huge difference since you probably should replace your tubes every year.
Is that true? I have an Audio Research LS-16 tube preamp from the late 90s or early 2000s. I don’t think the tubes have ever been changed. I’m not really a ’tube’ guy but this unit was given to me 6 or 8 years ago. As far as I know these tubes are original.
At one point I got curious about the different sound quality potential of different tubes and another Audiogon member lent me a set of tubes to try out. I could definitely tell a difference but did not think the new ones sounded better than the original ones. I mention this because at that time the original tubes were quite old and still sounded quite good. And still do.
So, bottom line is, is there any real need to replace tubes on a schedule of some sort. Maybe its different if it is an amp versus a pre-amp?
- ...
- 80 posts total
@rar1 This is exactly what Paul said: "Honestly, if you have tube equipment you’re used to replacing the tubes. I do it every year [gesturing toward his equipment], you know, you just have to. That’s kind of a given when you have vacuum tubes." So no need to smugly lecture everyone else about how we misconstrued things. Fine, if you’re a hi-fi expert you may have understood that Paul was making a generalization. But in the context of this video, and many of his others, he positions himself as the authority on the matter and addresses questions from people who do not seem to be experts and the videos are clearly being watched by people who aren’t experts, like me. We see him as the expert he is and it is not "going off" to take him at face value. And no one is really "pissing" on anyone. Paul puts himself and his videos out there as a presumed expert, if not the expert. If his opinions and even his off-the-cuff remarks are seen as off the mark by other experts or misunderstood by us "sports fans" who aren’t, it is hardly "pissing" on him to point it out. |
@n80 - Hi. I wasn't smugly lecturing anyone. I remembered Paul's comments differently than the way you originally presented them. I provided links to 2 of his videos for people to judge for themselves. Some of the comments made were taking swipes at Paul and others. I didn't think it was warranted. Rich
|
@rar1 Okay, this is what you posted: "Some folks rush to opine, some rush to smear, some rush to offer conspiracy theories, but no one rushes to go back to what Paul actually said." So that's not smug? Whatever. I went back to what Paul actually said as you suggested. I quoted it for you verbatim. I took him at face value. My initial impression stands. As far as I can tell no one else here seriously misunderstood him either. Any 'swipes' taken were perfectly reasonable even if possibly mistaken. |
- 80 posts total