And a special adapter at that, with different resistor values to the rgn2004 family as the PV200/600 runs stronger, measuring closer to rgn4004I prefer it over TakaLess than 100€, but you need to use an adapter.
LampizatOr Horizon - Tube Rolling Paradise
- Thread starter Golum
- Start date
Thanks @takacs75 and @Sablon Audio. I briefly tried the VU71 a few days ago and enjoyed what it's warmth did with jazz. @takacs75 have you tried the VU71 and is it just as warm as the Tak 274B since you chose it as a comparison?
Have a look at some of my posts on the baltic 3 thread Etor, have covered maybe 20 different rectifiers. Different dac I realise but you can pick up some relative differences, both objective and subjective, between the various tubes.
I had it custom made but if you order an ax50 adapter off the chinese ebay seller (xulingmrs?) then you can specify the exact tube to be used and he will deploy the appropriate resistor values.
Ah, that's where the discoveries are hiding these days. Consider it bookmarked.
Talking of adapters, what we really need is the Yamamoto genius ux4 / b4 combined socket which allows both regular 5u4g and pre ww2 B4 type tubes to be used in the same socket. Great materials and shake off lossy adapters. @Lukasz "Lampizator" Fikus - would this be a viable build option for you to incorporate?
My conversation with Lukasz when asking about Visseaux 6n7gt;
My question; Is it possible to use Visseaux 6n7gt when using balanced outputs?
Lukasz answer; Yes.
My reply; Despite the common cathode?
Lukasz reply; OOps, I read 6SN7 not 6N7, in this case - you can not
Anyway, since you are using them with XLRs connected I assume it's possible.
Thank you for your help!
I believe there may be double adapters for 6n7 to enable differential signal but you will need to check with the factory about the aggregated current draw. Based however on my experience of the visseaux 6n7gt, I wouldn’t be inclined to pursue.
YES YES YES YES - great proposal!!!
@adamaley - post 448 covers the VU71. It’s quite decent but I feel the pv200/600 and bo-188 are on a higher performance level whilst maintaining a similar presentation
whatsbestforum.com
LampizatOr Baltic 3
GEC U52, RCA/Raytheon 6F8G (Woo adapter), Tungsram nickel E80CC
whatsbestforum.com
I am now rocking the new kids on the block: the Tungsram tubes all the kids are raving about…. I was using the 6384 so competition is stiff. Still no verdict. I couldn’t get the ECC32 to work just right with the 6384. There was a loss of detail. So I was using the adapted ECC31, which sounded perfect. I have real nice Military grade ECC32 labeled 181. I will throw them back in and see if they pair well with these Tungsram, as others have suggested….
So far, the Tungsram are very full bodied. A bit more bass than the 6384. More power, it seems.
Let’s let em run in and see what we see. I trust the Gollum. He has the precious.
So far, the Tungsram are very full bodied. A bit more bass than the 6384. More power, it seems.
Let’s let em run in and see what we see. I trust the Gollum. He has the precious.
The OS1 tubes and the adapters need a lots of time to burn-in. 150-200 minimum
I use them with Mullard ecc32 with great result.
This is not a surprise. I'm often asked, which is better the 31 or the 32? The truth is that technically they should sound the same but it's important to remember that no pair of 70 year of tubes is guaranteed to sound identical even if they are the same exact model. So if a particular pair of 31s sounds better than 32s, it does not mean one is "better" than the other. The difference could easily have gone the other way. It is true, adapters might (or might not!) contribute some to the equation but it will be relatively insignificant compared to the bigger picture.
Agree that the KT170's were just an OK good tube but again, these things are always system related and personal preference dependent. I sold mine a long time ago. For me, nothing does piano like the Mullard ECC31/32 - Mullard EL34 combo with a great rectifier. Re rectifiers I have tried all the usual suspects. I sold my WE 274b because while the mids and highs were mucho splendido, the bass was a bit of a disappointment. It's plummy and full rather than tight and reminds me of the kind of tube sound people with horns aspired to 30 years ago and that's just not for me (Uh Oh, incoming...
). The Takatsuki 274b is in some ways the opposite of the WE in that the bass is full and tight, but it is overly dark with my current other tubes (although I loved it with the Sylvania B65 metal base 6SN7 for example or the chrome domes- yes, pairing matters! The Tak is also a good fit for the TungSol BGRP since it helps fill out that tube's bottom end and helps warm up the top as well). My Tak (like new) is looking for a good home and is for sale at a great price (see classifieds!). I currently love the GEC U52 but only the staggered plate version (like the Cossar K53) which is extremely hard to find. However, the GEC U52 is very expensive ($600+) and the truth is there are so many wonderful rectifiers (all under $100 i.e., American Amperex 5U4G, Brimar 5U4G, RCA 5U4G 4V AZ1 mesh, with adapter) I could be happy with any of them. FYI- a wonderful Horizon tube set at a great price with many of these tubes can be found here: https://www.usaudiomart.com/details/649979380-lampizator-horizon-tube-set/I've got some pentode EL50's and EL51s to try pending shelf surgery. (With adapters, these are tall tubes and I need to lower the shelf for my Horizon to accommodate them so my cabinet does not burst into flames.). And finally, I'm going to try some high end 4V mesh rectis (RGN 2004) because Goran doesn't think I'm spending enough money on tubes
.
Great report Marty. You are very articulate and should write reviews. I can always follow your experiences.This is not a surprise. I'm often asked, which is better the 31 or the 32? The truth is that technically they should sound the same but it's important to remember that no pair of 70 year of tubes is guaranteed to sound identical even if they are the same exact model. So if a particular pair of 31s sounds better than 32s, it does not mean one is "better" than the other. The difference could easily have gone the other way. It is true, adapters might (or might not!) contribute some to the equation but it will be relatively insignificant compared to the bigger picture.
Agree that the KT170's were just an OK good tube but again, these things are always system related and personal preference dependent. I sold mine a long time ago. For me, nothing does piano like the Mullard ECC31/32 - Mullard EL34 combo with a great rectifier. Re rectifiers I have tried all the usual suspects. I sold my WE 274b because while the mids and highs were mucho splendido, the bass was a bit of a disappointment. It's plummy and full rather than tight and reminds me of the kind of tube sound people with horns aspired to 30 years ago and that's just not for me (Uh Oh, incoming...
I've got some pentode EL50's and EL51s to try pending shelf surgery. (With adapters, these are tall tubes and I need to lower the shelf for my Horizon to accommodate them so my cabinet does not burst into flames.). And finally, I'm going to try some high end 4V mesh rectis (RGN 2004) because Goran doesn't think I'm spending enough money on tubes
I think the power tubes influence the use of 31 or 32. I have just put my 32 into the system and they sound great, but they didnt sound good at all with the 6384. The OS1 and 32 is a spectacular combo. I dont understand why, but it is thus.
Follow the leaders in the Horizon tube rolling thread, folks (Marty, Takacs & Golum). You won’t be disappointed.
This is the way.
Samapjanna,
I agree with you about the ECC32 and 6384 not being an ideal pairing for me, but I think this goes to show how opinions like this are really system and preference dependent, For example, we both agree that Golum has exceptional taste and advice when it comes to Lampi tubes, and he enjoys that combo in his system very much! So it should always be remembered that "recommendations" by others should really be just a starting point for our own exploration. Sometimes, we'll agree and other times, we won't.
Also don't forget @dminches who has dropped a few excellent recommendations of his own. I'm looking forward to trying some EL-51's he spoke of recently, as soon as I can figure out how to fit them on my shelf.
Where I''m having some difficulty with are the EL-50 tubes such as the OS-1 and 4654s. Finding info on the OS1 has been difficult at best, and I keep wondering if that is some sort of abbreviated nomenclature for the OS 18/600 since both tubes are made by Tungram. @Golum likes these very much so like the EL-51's I'm eager to try them once I re-arrange my shelving as they too are tall with their adapters. (I need to perform a "shelvectomy" and some cabinet reconstruction. The post-op period will require little but resettling the CMS footers!)
FYI both the EL-50 and EL-51 were precursors of the famed EL-34. But they have some differences that might be worth the effort to try them. Here's some background from Pasquale Russo's EL-34 "bible".
4654
"Philips introduced this pentode in 1939 ca. As reported in the official bulletin, the tube was “designed especially for Class AB push-pull stages. To avoid risk of arcing at the pinch, the valve has its anode connected to a top cap. The suppressor grid is taken in a separate contact on the base and the valve may accordingly be used as a transmitter. As an amplifier the 4654 offers various possibilities.” Its production continued until to 1945 circa. This one is considered still today a very interesting tube, suitable also as substitute of the EL34, especially in push-pull operation, if you are willing to modify the amp’s circuit. Moreover, you may use special adapter which allows to put the tube directly in the EL34 socket. Jac van de Walle (www.jacmusic.com) declares himself enthusiastic about 4654 and EL50. Both tubes have less plate dissipation (less heating thanks to the anode connection on cap) but in push-pull configuration are capable of greater outpower and overall with considerably less distortion than EL34. In conclusion he claims that 4654 and EL50 represent “the better choice if you want operate at medium voltage” His very interesting analysis is available on-line: Portrait of a tube EL50/4654 is here: https://jacmusic.com/nos/EL50/index.htm"
(By the way, I asked Lukasz about the potential lower distortion of the 4654 vs EL-34 and his reply was that he's running them at much lower voltages than max for either, so the differences in distortion should not be significant)
TUNGSRAM 4654 and 0S18/600 (COKE BOTTLE)
"As previously mentioned, the Hungarian Tungsram Company by the end of WWII became independent again, but retained Philips machineries and know-how. It seems certain that they decided to make their own pentode, similar but not identical to the Philips 4654, named 0S18/600. You may find even other exemplars, labelled Tungsram but looking identical to the Philips version. In both tubes you may see the date-codes, consisting generally in two lower case letters, according to the Tungsram code (see further on: Tungsram date-codes). Russo says he can’t find reasons for Tungsram to mark with its own code tubes made outside by Philips, thus it’s possible that the Hungarian Company made both versions, their own, called 0S18/600 and the other named 4654, this latter in accordance to the Philips directives."
The remaining mystery is, what exactly is an OS1 tube by Tungsram and is it the same as an OS18/600? Does anybody know the answer to that? On Radiomuseum.com it seems the OS1 was offered with a 7 pin base as well as a P8 side base whereas the OS18/600 has a P8 base only so they I'm not sure they are truly different tubes or the same tube (both have 6.3v, 1.3amp indirect heated filaments).
The good news is that the OS-1, 4654, EL-50 and EL51 are very modestly priced pentode tubes (all? under $100) and apparently quite good sounding. Therefore they could be stellar values in a market whereby rare, great sounding tubes are becoming more expensive by the day.
Marty
I agree with you about the ECC32 and 6384 not being an ideal pairing for me, but I think this goes to show how opinions like this are really system and preference dependent, For example, we both agree that Golum has exceptional taste and advice when it comes to Lampi tubes, and he enjoys that combo in his system very much! So it should always be remembered that "recommendations" by others should really be just a starting point for our own exploration. Sometimes, we'll agree and other times, we won't.
Also don't forget @dminches who has dropped a few excellent recommendations of his own. I'm looking forward to trying some EL-51's he spoke of recently, as soon as I can figure out how to fit them on my shelf.
Where I''m having some difficulty with are the EL-50 tubes such as the OS-1 and 4654s. Finding info on the OS1 has been difficult at best, and I keep wondering if that is some sort of abbreviated nomenclature for the OS 18/600 since both tubes are made by Tungram. @Golum likes these very much so like the EL-51's I'm eager to try them once I re-arrange my shelving as they too are tall with their adapters. (I need to perform a "shelvectomy" and some cabinet reconstruction. The post-op period will require little but resettling the CMS footers!)
FYI both the EL-50 and EL-51 were precursors of the famed EL-34. But they have some differences that might be worth the effort to try them. Here's some background from Pasquale Russo's EL-34 "bible".
4654
"Philips introduced this pentode in 1939 ca. As reported in the official bulletin, the tube was “designed especially for Class AB push-pull stages. To avoid risk of arcing at the pinch, the valve has its anode connected to a top cap. The suppressor grid is taken in a separate contact on the base and the valve may accordingly be used as a transmitter. As an amplifier the 4654 offers various possibilities.” Its production continued until to 1945 circa. This one is considered still today a very interesting tube, suitable also as substitute of the EL34, especially in push-pull operation, if you are willing to modify the amp’s circuit. Moreover, you may use special adapter which allows to put the tube directly in the EL34 socket. Jac van de Walle (www.jacmusic.com) declares himself enthusiastic about 4654 and EL50. Both tubes have less plate dissipation (less heating thanks to the anode connection on cap) but in push-pull configuration are capable of greater outpower and overall with considerably less distortion than EL34. In conclusion he claims that 4654 and EL50 represent “the better choice if you want operate at medium voltage” His very interesting analysis is available on-line: Portrait of a tube EL50/4654 is here: https://jacmusic.com/nos/EL50/index.htm"
(By the way, I asked Lukasz about the potential lower distortion of the 4654 vs EL-34 and his reply was that he's running them at much lower voltages than max for either, so the differences in distortion should not be significant)
TUNGSRAM 4654 and 0S18/600 (COKE BOTTLE)
"As previously mentioned, the Hungarian Tungsram Company by the end of WWII became independent again, but retained Philips machineries and know-how. It seems certain that they decided to make their own pentode, similar but not identical to the Philips 4654, named 0S18/600. You may find even other exemplars, labelled Tungsram but looking identical to the Philips version. In both tubes you may see the date-codes, consisting generally in two lower case letters, according to the Tungsram code (see further on: Tungsram date-codes). Russo says he can’t find reasons for Tungsram to mark with its own code tubes made outside by Philips, thus it’s possible that the Hungarian Company made both versions, their own, called 0S18/600 and the other named 4654, this latter in accordance to the Philips directives."
The remaining mystery is, what exactly is an OS1 tube by Tungsram and is it the same as an OS18/600? Does anybody know the answer to that? On Radiomuseum.com it seems the OS1 was offered with a 7 pin base as well as a P8 side base whereas the OS18/600 has a P8 base only so they I'm not sure they are truly different tubes or the same tube (both have 6.3v, 1.3amp indirect heated filaments).
The good news is that the OS-1, 4654, EL-50 and EL51 are very modestly priced pentode tubes (all? under $100) and apparently quite good sounding. Therefore they could be stellar values in a market whereby rare, great sounding tubes are becoming more expensive by the day.
Marty
Last edited:
Similar threads
