Tube 'Characteristics' - EL-34 and 845 and 211


At the risk of getting slammed by those that think all tubes should sound the same in a properly designed circuit, I was wondering if anyone can comment on their experiences and the differences they have heard between the EL-34 tubes and the 845's and 211's. I've used the EL-34 for many years but have been advised that I should seek out a good 845 mono block to use with my super sensitive KHorns. Is the 845 more powerful sounding? Does it have or can it match the natural 'beauty' inherent to the EL-34?
stickman451
Dopogue

Not trying to change the thread, as it interests me too, but would you mind indicating the diffs from 34's to 77's?

I use the CED winged C 34's presently in my mono blocks.
Thanks.
Actually the common wisdom is that triodes are more 'beautiful' and truthful than pentodes (or anything else), and directly-heated triodes doubly so. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with EL34s (especially strapped triode) but you aren't going to lose "beauty" with a good DHT amp (of basically any sort).

It seems to me that the closer you get to an 'ideal' amp the more tubes sound similar, the more single-ended sounds like push-pull, tubes sound like transistors, having output tranformers sounds like OTL, and so forth. For example, a Viva Solista 845 SET amp would be hard to nail as an 845 SET since it doesn't sound fuzzy, rounded, or rolled-off like most of them (excluding top brands). At all. But it still does have a bit of DHT glow, which is why I suspect the designer uses DHTs.
I've been looking at an Art Audio Quartet (50 watts class A with two 845's per side); haven't brought it home for an in-house audition yet but I probably will. At the dealer driving some Usher floor standing speakers I thought the Quartet sounded quite good.
The Gold Lion KT77s surprised the heck out of me. I had earlier tried JJ KT77s TWICE (the first pair plagued by various well-known teething problems) and assumed the Gold Lions would be similar. Instead, they took all the best qualities of the Mullard xf1's and bettered them -- better dynamics, clarity, openness, with no downsides I can find. I should point out, though, that my Mullards were not exactly fresh tubes (unknown hours) and tested just barely into the "good" range on my Eico tester.

Paul, I've never heard an 845 SET amp sound "fuzzy, rounded, or rolled off," but I guess if you say so, they must be out there. Wimpy trannies maybe?
"can it match the natural 'beauty' inherent to the EL-34?"

I won't say that the 845 isn't a quality tube capable of making beautiful music in the right design, but to answer your question very specifically, and with the understanding that "beauty" is in the ears of the listener: When I hear someone ask for a beautiful sounding tube, the 845 doesn't spring to the forefront of my thoughts. One might call it a different beauty, somewhat akin to the difference between incandescent light and the flickering light of a fire.