EAT Tubes vs. NOS Tubes

If you look at the Herbies TD versus the EAT TD, the former has far less surface contact area with the tube perimeter than the latter.

More ventilation, cooler tube temp. Seems pretty simple.

Question is, does the increased contact area provide for better performance regarding attenuation of microphonic vibrations, etc.?

Anecdotally, one would think so.

GG
 
Hi Gordon,

I have, and use both. I found that the cool dampers were preferable on a tall tube such as my 6Ca4 rectifiers, but, I'm not convinced that they cool the tube at all, I should measure it before saying otherwise i guess. Herbies (Ultrasonic Rx) are better on my output 12Au7's (ECC802s to be precise), and I do prefer to use them there over the cool dampers. The differences however are fairly subtle, and one needs a well sorted system to fully quantify differences.
 
Thank you Paul. Very good to know.

Nice to read a post that is clear and comprehensible.

Out of curiosity, what mods did you do to your Spires?

Gordon
 
I am not sure I can give a good review of the Eat tube yet as I only picked up the CJ Preamp very recently. Getting used to the new sound.
So far it is sounding very good with the Eat tube.
Just put the MATSUSHITA back in to see how that goes and I am getting a little sound like soft static every now and then (every few seconds or so) with the NOS tube back in. No music playing. Comes and goes like a loose connection or the static from a dirty record. As I am typing this it seems to have gone away.
Here is some more pics of the Eat tube

I also notice with the NOS tube a clicking noise when adjusting the volume coming through the speakers. The CJ has a mechanical click every step of the volume.
Did not hear this at all with the EAT tube.
ADDED: Just put in the other NOS Mit tube and that does not have the little static coming and going like the first one. Brought 2 of them. Still hear the volume clicks through the speakers.
Sorry about all the pics. I hope I am not posting too many.


View attachment 13541View attachment 13542View attachment 13543View attachment 13545
Last Pic is the NOS tube

Very unusual plate structure on those tubes. Quite unlike any European or American 6DJ8/ECC88 I have seen.
Could you please advise on the cost per tube from EAT. Are the ECC 83/12ax7s the same price?
 
The cost is the same for the 6DJ8 and 12AX7. USD: $225 per tube.


$225 per tube!!!!!!! For real????
You guys do realize that for that kind of cash, you can have pretty much any NOS tube in the universe. $450 for a pair in a stereo amp? Good grief! I guess I won't be trying them. :eek:
 
$225 per tube!!!!!!! For real????
You guys do realize that for that kind of cash, you can have pretty much any NOS tube in the universe. $450 for a pair in a stereo amp? Good grief! I guess I won't be trying them. :eek:

Yes but what people say is NOS is usually absolute bull. Most nowadays are really OS pulls-or rejected crap from yesteryear. Or even counterfeit. They sound nice but have no balls. Buyer beware on NOS.
 
Thank you Paul. Very good to know.

Nice to read a post that is clear and comprehensible.

Out of curiosity, what mods did you do to your Spires?

Gordon

Hi Gordon and thanks for your reply. My Spires are on the MLO site (tweaks section Ps68 External crossovers etc), I think we may have corresponded there at some time perhaps..

I will measure the temps of the tubes with and without the dampers when I get time. And wow, $225 per tube? Really?
 
Yes but what people say is NOS is usually absolute bull. Most nowadays are really OS pulls-or rejected crap from yesteryear. Or even counterfeit. They sound nice but have no balls. Buyer beware on NOS.[/QU

Maybe so that most vintage is not NOS, but if you get old stock (OS) that passes all tests (gm, life test, shorts, gas) it will sound identical to NOS and have plenty of balls.
Sorry to hear you have gotten some duds, but those tubes probably failed the life or gas tests even though the gm may have tested high. If you have a good tester (I doubt it or you would not have made the above statement) try all these tests on some of your ballless tubes and you will no doubt find them lacking.
Frankly, most new issue tubes from China and Russia that I have tried sound good for a few months (or weeks) and then start to get noisy, sound bland or lose whatever balls they had. Buyer beware on new production!
Are you saying that the tubes sold as NOS by major tube dealers like Kevin Deal at Upscale Audio and Andy at Vintage Tube Services are fake? We are not talking about E-Bay here.
I prefer old stock (OS) small signal tubes (12ax7s,5751s, 12au7s, 6sn7s, etc.) from the best tube manufacturers of the past. Firms like Telefunken, Amperex, Raytheon, Sylvania, etc. These tubes were produced with materials and skilled labour that is very rare (or impossible) to find today. These small signal tubes had lifetimes ranging into the thousands of hours. I pick them up for $10 to $25 a piece. If your wonder how so cheap, read my post in the tube suppliers thread.
Some tubes I like more than others, but I can't honestly ever recall hearing a tube that was "ballless" (had lost its dynamics I assume you mean) because of too many hours of use. These small signal tubes are much more likely to get noisy or microphonic when they are approaching retirement.
Sorry to rant, but I think you are doing tube lovers a great disservice with comments like the above. The day will come when new production will be the only game in town. But until then, we have the opportunity to hear and use quality vintage small signal tubes (whether "NOS" or OS) from the great manufacturers of the past. And believe me, when it comes to small signal tubes, they don't make them like they use too. Not even for $225 a pop.
 
Yes but what people say is NOS is usually absolute bull. Most nowadays are really OS pulls-or rejected crap from yesteryear. Or even counterfeit. They sound nice but have no balls. Buyer beware on NOS.[/QU

Maybe so that most vintage is not NOS, but if you get old stock (OS) that passes all tests (gm, life test, shorts, gas) it will sound identical to NOS and have plenty of balls.
Sorry to hear you have gotten some duds, but those tubes probably failed the life or gas tests even though the gm may have tested high. If you have a good tester (I doubt it or you would not have made the above statement) try all these tests on some of your ballless tubes and you will no doubt find them lacking.
Frankly, most new issue tubes from China and Russia that I have tried sound good for a few months (or weeks) and then start to get noisy, sound bland or lose whatever balls they had. Buyer beware on new production!
Are you saying that the tubes sold as NOS by major tube dealers like Kevin Deal at Upscale Audio and Andy at Vintage Tube Services are fake? We are not talking about E-Bay here.
I prefer old stock (OS) small signal tubes (12ax7s,5751s, 12au7s, 6sn7s, etc.) from the best tube manufacturers of the past. Firms like Telefunken, Amperex, Raytheon, Sylvania, etc. These tubes were produced with materials and skilled labour that is very rare (or impossible) to find today. These small signal tubes had lifetimes ranging into the thousands of hours. I pick them up for $10 to $25 a piece. If your wonder how so cheap, read my post in the tube suppliers thread.
Some tubes I like more than others, but I can't honestly ever recall hearing a tube that was "ballless" (had lost its dynamics I assume you mean) because of too many hours of use. These small signal tubes are much more likely to get noisy or microphonic when they are approaching retirement.
Sorry to rant, but I think you are doing tube lovers a great disservice with comments like the above. The day will come when new production will be the only game in town. But until then, we have the opportunity to hear and use quality vintage small signal tubes (whether "NOS" or OS) from the great manufacturers of the past. And believe me, when it comes to small signal tubes, they don't make them like they use too. Not even for $225 a pop.

Disservice? Hardly! The key word that you seem to have missed is *most*. And please, do not put words in my mouth that I did not say! (Oh and Dan Schmalle has talked about the issue with "NOS" tubes for years!)

Yes many but not all original NOS are better than what's made today for a plethora of reasons. Sylvania 12AU7s, 12AX7, EL34, have despite their cheap price, done nothing for me. If someone need those, there's something wrong with the system. And no not just me, but many I know end up with OS tubes. Plus a quick perusal of the net will yield quite a list of fake tubes being foisted on the unsuspecting public. More so not even the public but dealers too who have been burned. The best were the fake Teles ECC83s a while back that looked identical and the only way you could tell the difference other than the sound, was that the logo wouldn't smudge like the originals.

I also find that for whatever the reason, many of these NOS tubes don't last in todays equipment. The most famous example is Art Ferris' Audible Illusions pre but I have found the same thing also say for my cj TEA 1bc phono stage. Most Tele ECC83s die in the TEA within 3-6 months. That of course brings us to the subject of dwindling quiet number of NOS tubes for phono sections period.

But more to the point is the dwindling supply of NOS tubes and that this supply is finite. Personally, and YMMV, I'd rather find a current source of tubes that are good and support them because without these companies, tube gear will go by the way of the dodo.
 
(...) Most Tele ECC83s die in the TEA within 3-6 months. That of course brings us to the subject of dwindling quiet number of NOS tubes for phono sections period.. (...)

Myles,
And what is the average life of other brands? As far as I remember Telefunken ECC83 are known to have a useful life of more than 5000 hours.
 
Myles,
And what is the average life of other brands? As far as I remember Telefunken ECC83 are known to have a useful life of more than 5000 hours.

That's a number that I have a problem with. You see this 2000, 3000, 5000 or 10,000 hour number bandied about all over the place but what does it actually mean? Under what conditions was it determined? To me, it means the tube will light for that amount of time in maybe a TV or radio. Remember in countries such as the UK, many people bought their TVs on credit with warranties. If that repairman had to come out and replace the sets tubes three or four times a year, there went the companies profit. So those tubes had to last under those conditions. But does that number have any meaning when it comes to sound?
 
Myles, if you are going through Telefunken ECC83s in three to six months in your preamp, then something is wrong with your preamp or your Teles are worse than any I have ever seen. They are universally acknowledged to be one of the finest built tubes of that type. Even though I don't particularly care for the sonics, I have collected many smooth and ribbed plate versions (over 2 dozen total) and except for 2 the rest all test very good under all tests. As good and consistant as a group as any 12ax7s. What do you use in that pre that doesn't get eaten? Russian? A tough tube the EH, but the sonics?
As far as your comments on Sylvania tubes, while I will admit their 12ax7 or 12au7 are unexceptional (but stll better than "regularly priced" new production IMO), Sylvania 5751 are some of the best and their early 6sn7s like the "Badboy" and 6sn7W are some of the finest. Different horses for different courses Sir.
As for fake tubes and the like, people just have to deal with a trusted dealer until they learn whats what. Not so hard with the internet these days. People who are a hobbiest, love tube gear and using vintage tubes, really should get some kind of tube tester. With a decent tester and a little knowleadge it is pretty easy to keep from getting taken. If people don't want that, then deal with a trustworthy dealer who has been around for a while. Like Vintage Tube Service or Upscale Audio or Doug's Tubes. There are many others. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth Myles, but you can buy real NOS tubes. I agree, not on E-bay.
Backed to what started this all, sorry but I think $450 for a pair of currently produced 12ax7 is beyond excessive. I would personally not pay that for ANY pair of 12ax7s, not even the vaunted Telefunken ECC803. And to people who will, I was just pointing out that at that price the options are many and include some of the most famous tubes ever made.
Yes we need modern production to continue and should support them, but I must say I am put off that many plants in China and Russia produce 2 or 3 different versions of the same tubes, some "regular" quality, some "premium" quality and some "super premium" with higher and higher prices. The gall rises more when we find out that the "super premium" tubes have 2 grades, A and B with the A stock going for even more because they have high gm figures. Really? The marketing to support these "premium" tube prices is of the charts. A tube should either meet its specs or be rejected!
I hope the EAT tubes work out for you. Are they going in the Telefunken eating preamp? If so, please report on the sonics and longevity. Lets us know how long it takes for them to lose their balls.
 
Hey Myles, just nudging...I know you're busy and not wont to opine til you've thoroughly tested the EATs...;) I am so happy with my Mullards from Brent Jessee and Alfred Kaysar...I am just enjoying music with nary a hiss...
 
I got a pair of EAT 6922s for my CJ GAT on Saturday morning. Huge disappointment . Tried to like them having spent nearly $ 400. On Sunday evening reverted to a pair of old used Amperex. No comparison. The EAT 6922s IMHO have all the refinement of the CJ supplied stock EH 6922s sans the gold pins.
I am looking forward to a pair of Amperex NOS 7308s from Brent Jesse.
Cheers
Pradeep
 
wow...good to know!!! I really like Brent a lot and have bought numerous tubes from him, including a whole new set of rectifiers last month (plus a backup set when the first arrived and absolutely amazed me).
 
I got a pair of EAT 6922s for my CJ GAT on Saturday morning. Huge disappointment . Tried to like them having spent nearly $ 400. On Sunday evening reverted to a pair of old used Amperex. No comparison. The EAT 6922s IMHO have all the refinement of the CJ supplied stock EH 6922s sans the gold pins.
I am looking forward to a pair of Amperex NOS 7308s from Brent Jesse.
Cheers
Pradeep

How long did you let them cook for before pulling the EATs out? What specifically didn't you like about the EATs?
 
Yes we need modern production to continue and should support them, but I must say I am put off that many plants in China and Russia produce 2 or 3 different versions of the same tubes, some "regular" quality, some "premium" quality and some "super premium" with higher and higher prices. The gall rises more when we find out that the "super premium" tubes have 2 grades, A and B with the A stock going for even more because they have high gm figures. Really? The marketing to support these "premium" tube prices is of the charts. A tube should either meet its specs or be rejected!
I hope the EAT tubes work out for you. Are they going in the Telefunken eating preamp? If so, please report on the sonics and longevity. Lets us know how long it takes for them to lose their balls.

Yes, present day super premium tubes grades A or B can be maddening, and even ridiculous. I've been using NOS or test NOS Teles and Mullards for the last 17 years or so and on my preamps they would last around 6-7 years and my key test is they should sound as good as when they were or when I got them. I notice when the sound becomes thin, lean, gritty and generally un-musical, the tube's magic has gone, and yes, they still light up, and even test above the minimum range (green bar and all) but when it sounds bad, it's bad. So, my preamp does not eat them after or within 3 months. The only exception was my ARC SP-14, which I consider a tube eater, and my Telefunken E88CC was 'gone' at about a years use. It was still lighting up, but, again, sound was lean, thin, and terrible, not the way it was when it was 'new'. This one, I had the fortune of getting it as sealed in a military box, and the tube itself was wax sealed. They came from a batch supposedly from the military base we had here before.
 
Myles
I had them in the GAT for nearly 6 hours over the weekend. IME the basic character of the tube doesn't change with burn in. The rough edges, if any, get smoother with more air and extension.

"What specifically didn't you like about the EATs?"
To put it mildly, there was not much to like. I found it pretty similar to the EH 6922, a tube , that to my mind does little justice to the GAT. The EATs were cold and clinical and an A/B with my used Amperex 6922s was a no brainer. Even with a 10% discount from MD, the USD 400 price is silly.
Since I have the EATs and not much I can do about them, will try and give them another go. I will be happy if my initial impressions are wrong.
Pradeep
 
Sir , 6 hours is too little a burn in , cook it for a minimum 100 hours, if not more for it to develop .
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu