2. amps-preamps
  3. 1154378997

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?
anacrusis
anacrusis OP
69 posts
 
My post is offered more as a contribution and less as a quest for a personal solution. I propose the creation of a logical methodology for determining the sound of individual tube brands and models. This post was inspired by Joe's Tube Lore and I hope would represent the next logical step.

If we can establish a minimum reference then we benefit the greatest number of people. If I only use my personal system as a reference, I benefit maybe only one or two others.

If it can be said that a tube has a house sound then surely there are characteristics latent to the sound of a particular tube in a given context. I really don't think that context has to be as exacting as -this preamp or that preamp- because we are looking at relative values here. But you do make a good point so let me ask what you feel the minimum reference requirements would be to make valid evaluations. Let's start with the above being used as preamp tubes, and that the participants would decide on reference recordings, and that there would be a reference tube from which comparisons can be made. Do you feel that we would have to be more specific than that for the experiment to have value? Once we establish the above, we can get a consensus on descriptions that are objective and quantifiable.
Post removed 
anacrusis OP
69 posts
 
My post is offered more as a contribution and less as a quest for a personal solution. I propose the creation of a logical methodology for determining the sound of individual tube brands and models. This post was inspired by Joe's Tube Lore and I hope would represent the next logical step.

If we can establish a minimum reference then we benefit the greatest number of people. If I only use my personal system as a reference, I benefit maybe only one or two others.

If it can be said that a tube has a house sound then surely there are characteristics latent to the sound of a particular tube in a given context. I really don't think that context has to be as exacting as -this preamp or that preamp- because we are looking at relative values here. But you do make a good point so let me ask what you feel the minimum reference requirements would be to make valid evaluations. Let's start with the above being used as preamp tubes, and that the participants would decide on reference recordings, and that there would be a reference tube from which comparisons can be made. Do you feel that we would have to be more specific than that for the experiment to have value? Once we establish the above, we can get a consensus on descriptions that are objective and quantifiable.
Post removed 
anacrusis OP
69 posts
 
Perhaps I should follow Dsremer's lead and invest in good wine and forget exotic tubes. Now you may like Chardonnays for reason of their peppery quality and I may dislike them for that same reason. The peppery quality remains.

Tubes too indeed have characteristic sonic qualities as does everything else in the component chain. For instance, in the 6DJ8 family, I have never heard a Telefunken that didn't have soft, warmish sounding bass relative to say a Mullard which I would characterize as quicker cleaner, with more dynamic impact. Then again Teles have those liquid mids and highs. Though you may like what you like and that's how it should be, I doubt any of you that have experience with the afore mentioned tubes would question my objective observations. We need a peoples point of reference and a common objective language.

My system:
Porter Ports (20 amp cryo)
Eichman Express Power
Denon 3910
Synergistic Research Designer Reference Interconnect 1m
DK VS-1 Mk III:
Synergistic Research Alpha Quad Active 4m

Synergistic Research Designer Reference FX Interconnect 4m
NuForce Ref 9s
Synergistic Research Designer Reference Spkr Cable 2m

Von Schweikert VR4 Jrs

I'm using Valvo E188CCs in the DK

If you still think I'm all wet (as opposed to lucid with great midrange sparkle), I'll discontine this thread.
More to discover