Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Schiit Lyr - The tube rolling thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Schiit Lyr - The tube rolling thread - Page 495  

post #7411 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb2013 View Post


Hi ckc,

 

How much did you pay for the pinch waists?  They are rated on the tubeworld site as the best of the vvery best of the 6922/6dj8 tubes. Any mirco-phonic issues?  These tubes are notorious for noise issues.

 

Thanks,

 

Bob

 

The NOS ones I got are dead quiet, non microphonic.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Scott Ireland View Post

 

Is there a source that has these tubes available?

 

They pop up every once in awhile on ebay, just like the Lorenz Stuttgart.

 

I'll have to warn though, YMMV depending on your chain. I currently still prefer the Lorenz 3-mica when using HE-500. On the T1, the pinched waist is the clear winner for me.

 

ckc

post #7412 of 8735
Fellow HeadFiers,



Recent posts mention rolling the S&H E88CC CCA grey plates. Has anyone experience with the 1960s S&H E88CC CCA silver shields NOS as disclosed by jellofund in post #7204 offered by Lil' Knight and priced at $280 for a MP? Anyone heard a difference or know the difference between the grey and silver shields?

I had a bit of a holy schiit moment earlier when I spotted this listing in trading: http://www.head-fi.org/t/663708/matched-pairs-or-quads-of-nos-siemens-halske-cca-e88cc-6dj8-silver-shield-1960s-superb-condition

Thanks,

Mc
post #7413 of 8735

I'm thinking of trying some GE 6DJ8 Smoked tubes in my Lyr, but I have a question about buying on eBay. What the the test number's they're listing? I'm assuming higher is better... but do I want both the numbers to be the same? For example:

 

 

Quote:

Tested on a Hickok 6000A   

Micromhos NOS 7000/7000  

Min = 4200/4200

8400/8500 

8600/7500

When he says 8400/8500 is that good? Is 8600/7500 worse? Are these not matched? I'm a bit confused about the whole rating system.

post #7414 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by guitarlp View Post

I'm thinking of trying some GE 6DJ8 Smoked tubes in my Lyr, but I have a question about buying on eBay. What the the test number's they're listing? I'm assuming higher is better... but do I want both the numbers to be the same? For example:

 

 

When he says 8400/8500 is that good? Is 8600/7500 worse? Are these not matched? I'm a bit confused about the whole rating system.

 

8400/8500 for example is just one tube, those are the values of each of the triodes in that tube, 8400/8500 is a pretty good match. 8600/7500 not so good.

 

Lyr uses both triodes (so i'm told) so triode balanced tubes aren't really necesary, we just need to average both triodes so 2 tubes work out similar.

 

if we take 8400/8500 and add them together and divide by 2, we get an average for that tube, so 8400+8500/2=8450 Now we do the same for the other tube 8600+7500/2=8050

 

So one tube is 8450 and other is 8050, so not really a very good match, There is a roughly 5% difference in these tubes, some people may not notice, others with better hearing might notice.

 

If you can get that pair cheap enough they could be worth a go.

 

As for the figures, around 10,500/10,500 would be what we call "NOS" or "New old stock", so those numbers you posted would be between 70-80% of what a NOS tube would test, they still have plenty of life, but they have been used quite a bit.


Edited by ilikepooters - 5/24/13 at 3:48pm
post #7415 of 8735

The Gm numbers also differ from tester to tester.   I'm still learning the ropes on this maxipreamp tester I picked up, and a NOS 6DJ8 tube reads around 4500 Gm, based on where in the tube curve the tester takes the reading, according to the creator of the tester.    I'm still reading/learning the right way to plot that so that I know the best way to interpret the results from this - and in turn explain it the right way to people who ask why the tube's numbers look low in comparison to other testers.

 

    -Mike

post #7416 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilikepooters View Post

 

8400/8500 for example is just one tube, those are the values of each of the triodes in that tube, 8400/8500 is a pretty good match. 8600/7500 not so good.

 

Lyr uses both triodes (so i'm told) so triode balanced tubes aren't really necesary, we just need to average both triodes so 2 tubes work out similar.

 

if we take 8400/8500 and add them together and divide by 2, we get an average for that tube, so 8400+8500/2=8450 Now we do the same for the other tube 8600+7500/2=8050

 

So one tube is 8450 and other is 8050, so not really a very good match, There is a roughly 5% difference in these tubes, some people may not notice, others with better hearing might notice.

 

If you can get that pair cheap enough they could be worth a go.

 

As for the figures, around 10,500/10,500 would be what we call "NOS" or "New old stock", so those numbers you posted would be between 70-80% of what a NOS tube would test, they still have plenty of life, but they have been used quite a bit.

 

I've been trying to get my head round how to meaningfully interpret these sorts of readings too so that's really helpful.

 

One thing with the tubes in question though. You mention 10,500 / 10,500 being "NOS" levels but is that the case with this particular seller's tester as he states "Micromhos NOS 7000/7000"? In which case these tubes could be considered to still be at "NOS" levels in terms of their strength?

 

Is the "Min 4200/4200" quoted the level below which tubes would be considered not to be in usable condition?

 

Cheers.


Edited by jellofund - 5/24/13 at 5:01pm
post #7417 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by HK_sends View Post

I don't have any pinched-waist D-Getters, but I have a couple sets of Amperex Bugle Boys 1959 D-Getter ECC88 (and one PCC88) tubes that I can part with.  I just got them recently from Mercedesman on Ebay.  They only have a couple of hours on them.  I also have a matched set of Amperex Orange Globe ECC88s and a matched set of Amperex Orange Globe 7308s.  PM if interested

 

I'll cut interested folks a deal (i.e. $100 for the Amperex Bugle Boys 1959 D-Getter ECC88)...

 

Cheers!beerchug.gif

-HK sends


You now have ONE LESS pair for sale, my friend!!!  $150 D-getters for $100? Yes, please smile.gif

post #7418 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchmarkGrado View Post

Fellow HeadFiers,



Recent posts mention rolling the S&H E88CC CCA grey plates. Has anyone experience with the 1960s S&H E88CC CCA silver shields NOS as disclosed by jellofund in post #7204 offered by Lil' Knight and priced at $280 for a MP? Anyone heard a difference or know the difference between the grey and silver shields?

I had a bit of a holy schiit moment earlier when I spotted this listing in trading: http://www.head-fi.org/t/663708/matched-pairs-or-quads-of-nos-siemens-halske-cca-e88cc-6dj8-silver-shield-1960s-superb-condition

Thanks,

Mc


Mc - you want to be careful in your terminology on these tubes, it can get confusing.  There are S&H CCa and there are S&H E88CC 6922s.  They are different tubes.  The CCa was a ruggedized version of the E88CC, has longer life, and is less prone to mirco-phonics. 

If you go to www.tubeworld.com they do a good job of documenting the different tubes with close-up pictures.  Just look under pre-amp tubes for 6922.

 

The Siemens CCa is much more expensive then the Siemens E88CC, is much better sounding.  In fact the Siemens CCa is considered to be one of the best 6922 variant tubes around (some say only excelled by the 1950s Amperex Pinch waists). 

 

Of course the Siemens CCa was made over a period of years with some design changes.  The earlier version had a gray shield and "U" getter - these are rarest and most prized and date from the 1950s.  Later versions had the gray shield and "o" getter - these are ones you usually see for sale on Ebay.  They date from the 1960s - they are excellent.  Then there were the later 1970s version with silver shiny shields - these are good but not great in my experience and are probably worth avoiding due to high cost.    The Siemens E88CC whether the Halske version or not, is really not that exceptional in my experience.  They are not bad - but can be bland and a bit harsh - and not really cheap.  Best to look elsewhere.

 

 

From tubeworld

 

------------------- CCa was a E88CC specially selected for "Post Germany"; special low noise, low microphonic, long-life 6922. Philips had similar selections for the "Dutch Post", some tubes are selected had "PTT" etched. The "German and Dutch Post" = telephone, telegraphie, telex, and the postal system. Much of the telephone centrals used tube equipment and for telephone equipment you want a "noise-free" enviroment. The letters "CC" probably equates to "double triode", and/or a for special design.

 

As far as which CCa is the best - again from tubeworld:

 

The Best Sounding CCa=6922 ever made
TOP 5:
-----
1) CCa Siemens & Halske 1950's "U" getter halo and 1960's "O" getter halo
   "Rarest and most sought after CCa, has "gray shield" between plates, 
    Most realistic sounding holographic soundstage, pure seductive sonic joy,
    complex symphonic images emerge effortlessly"
 
2) CCa Telefunken West Germany 1960's 
   "excellent neutral holographic soundstage, vast vocabulary of tone
    establishes remarkable layers of harmonics, very rare"

3) CCa Siemens & Halske A-FRAME construction late 1960's - early 1970's
   "beautiful open air holographic images, low microphonic tube construction, rare"

4) CCa LORENZ West Germany early 1960's
   "beautiful open air holographic images, very rare"

5) CCa VALVO Heerlen Holland 1960's
   "real sonic holography, extremely rare"

6) CCa Siemens Rohre A-Frame early 1973-1974 (in stock, silver shield)

 

Hope this helps!~

post #7419 of 8735

Just a word of caution to those out there looking to buy NOS 6DJ8/6922s.  Buyer beware!~

 

From Brent Jesse's website:

 

A Note About Amperex 6922 and Bugle Boy Tubes:

Because the trade names of "Amperex" and "Bugle Boy" have been sold to a USA electronics firm, there is much confusion in the tube world about Bugle Boy tubes. I will try to clear up the confusion as briefly as possible. This company bought the rights to the name Amperex, the name Bugle Boy, and the rights to the cartoon tube logo. This new owner is NOT Dutch Philips or North American Philips, who originally owned Amperex and made the 1950s to 1970s vintage tubes that audiophiles want. When I mention "Amperex Holland" or "Amperex USA", I refer to the original Dutch and North Amperican Philips owned companies (now defunct) that made the vintage tubes, now in demand by audiophiles, up until the late 1970s. There are 6922 tubes being sold today under the name Amperex Bugle Boy, and they even come in a green and yellow box like the original Amperex tubes. THESE ARE NOT AMPEREX TUBES AT ALL, AND THEY ARE NOT NOS. They are either relabeled new Chinese or late production JAN Sylvania tubes. These fakes contain several errors:

1. Genuine NOS Amperex Holland or Amperex USA NEVER used the words "Bugle Boy" on their tubes or boxes.

2. Genuine NOS Amperex tubes NEVER had the cartoon Bugle Boy printed on the tube box.

3. Philips/Amperex Holland or North American Philips/Amperex USA NEVER made a 6922 (E88CC) tube with the Bugle Boy cartoon on the box. They also NEVER made a 7308 or E188CC with the Bugle Boy on the box OR glass. In this family of tubes, only the 6DJ8 had the cartoon tube on the glass, but again, never on the box.

4. Again, there IS NO SUCH THING as a genuine NOS Amperex "Bugle Boy" 6922 or 7308 tube. This bears repeating!

5. We stock the real NOS 1960s and 1970s Amperex (Holland and USA made) 6922 and 7308 tubes. They either used the white label or the orange (or later green) globe logo label, with either the PQ (premium quality) logo, or were military USN/CEP or JAN labeled. We also stock the real NOS Holland 6DJ8 Bugle Boy tubes from the 1960s. Amperex did not make these in the USA. These DO have the cartoon boy on the label, but NEVER had the words "Bugle Boy" printed on the box or the tube glass.

6. Nearly all of the NOS 1960s and 1970s real Amperex tubes have the factory date codes on the side of the glass. The fakes do not.

7. Please call or e-mail us if you have any questions about these tubes or our stock, and what may be the right tube for your needs. Thank you!

post #7420 of 8735

Looking at Brent Jesse's website - I have been buying from him for years - he has really expanded his offerings!

 

Stuff I have never seen before!  Tubeworld doesn't even list them.

 

"7DJ8 / PCC88 RARE Pinched Waist, 1950s D-Getter, Philips Holland made."  Never heard of a 7DJ8/PC88!  and they are compatible!  Whoa!  Got to try a pr of these!!

 

Jesse says they are equivalent and will work in 6DJ8 amp...anyone tried them??

 

Well $1000/pr for the 6DJ8 pinched waist vs $299 for the 7DJ9 pinched waist - quite a difference!

 

But he also notes a Siemens E88CC is considered a "civilian" version of the CCa.  So to add to the confusion - I guess I stand corrected. 

 

Although Brenden at tubeworld does not say anything about that.  It looks like they have similar plate structure. Do these sound as good as real CCas - well tubeworld does not think so.  But I guess Jesse does.

 

I wish Jesse would post photos like tubeworld.


Edited by rb2013 - 5/24/13 at 7:14pm
post #7421 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by rb2013 View Post

Looking at Brent Jesse's website - I have been buying from him for years - he has really expanded his offerings!

Stuff I have never seen before!  Tubeworld doesn't even list them.

"7DJ8 / PCC88 RARE Pinched Waist, 1950s D-Getter, Philips Holland made."  Never heard of a 7DJ8/PC88!  and they are compatible!  Whoa!  Got to try a pr of these!!

Jesse says they are equivalent and will work in 6DJ8 amp...anyone tried them??

Well $1000/pr for the 6DJ8 pinched waist vs $195 for the 7DJ9 pinched waist - quite a difference!

I have some experience with those tubes.

No sonic diff between PCC88 and 6DJ8 for tubes of the same variety.

PCC88 pinched waist versus 6922 Pinched waist.
6922 has less sonic veil.
PCC88 has slightly more bass emphasis.
PCC88 has slightly wider soundstage.
The mids and treble of both are sweet sounding.

I'm more of a sonic transparency guy so my vote goes to the 6922 pinched waist version.
IMHO, the $$$ pricing reflects this correctly.
post #7422 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchmarkGrado View Post

Fellow HeadFiers,



Recent posts mention rolling the S&H E88CC CCA grey plates. Has anyone experience with the 1960s S&H E88CC CCA silver shields NOS as disclosed by jellofund in post #7204 offered by Lil' Knight and priced at $280 for a MP? Anyone heard a difference or know the difference between the grey and silver shields?

I had a bit of a holy schiit moment earlier when I spotted this listing in trading: http://www.head-fi.org/t/663708/matched-pairs-or-quads-of-nos-siemens-halske-cca-e88cc-6dj8-silver-shield-1960s-superb-condition

Thanks,

Mc

 

Wondering myself if anyone here had bought these...

post #7423 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSkool View Post


You now have ONE LESS pair for sale, my friend!!!  $150 D-getters for $100? Yes, please smile.gif

Actually I wasn't counting yours...wink_face.gif

 

These are what I was talking about (I have two sets):

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/221209236824?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

 

Cheers!beerchug.gif

-HK sends


Edited by HK_sends - 5/24/13 at 8:42pm
post #7424 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by jellofund View Post

 

I've been trying to get my head round how to meaningfully interpret these sorts of readings too so that's really helpful.

 

One thing with the tubes in question though. You mention 10,500 / 10,500 being "NOS" levels but is that the case with this particular seller's tester as he states "Micromhos NOS 7000/7000"? In which case these tubes could be considered to still be at "NOS" levels in terms of their strength?

 

Is the "Min 4200/4200" quoted the level below which tubes would be considered not to be in usable condition?

 

Cheers.

 

It would depend which scale they are reading.

 

 

Processed By eBay with ImageMagick, R1.1.1.||B2||T0JKX0lEPTRmNjc4MmQ3YTc0NzI0NzQwNTE2MGI5ZWZlODkzYTA1MTllMjU5ZmE3MjE1fHxTRUxMRVJfTkFNRT1lLWluZHlzdXJwbHVzfHxPUklHSU5BTF9FQkFZX1FVQUxJVFlfU0NPUkU9NHx8Q1JFQVRJT05fREFURT01LzIzLzEzIDExOjQ2IEFN

 

If they are interpreting using the middle one, then yes tubes would be "NOS" and going well outside the meters readings, if they interpret with the bottom one, then the tubes would just about scrape into "good"

 

What we are basically measuring is transconductance, if you look at a tube data sheet for ECC88/6DJ8 they specify 12.5mA/V or 12,500 mmhos.

 

I've seen claims on ebay that 11,500 mmhos is 107%, depends how the reading was taken.

 

From a post i stole from another forum, interesting reading...

 

 

Quote:
I'm afraid such numbers are essentially meaningless. 
 
Attempting to describe the health of a complex component with one number is doomed to failure. Valve tolerances are such that one new valve might easily have 50% more transconductance than another new valve. As anatech says, transconductance falls over the life of a valve. How will you distinguish between a new valve with lowish transconductance (but plenty of life in it) and a very tired but initially high transconductance valve?
 
Secondly, any measurement is only of value if you know the circumstances under which the measurement was made. I can obtain wildly different values of transconductance for a single valve simply by changing the point at which I make the measurement. A more helpful measurement might give the conditions: Va = 250V, Vgk = -4V, then the results might be Ia = 8mA, gm = 2.5mA/V. Note that the units of measurement have been specified. If you had a series of measurements like this, you might be able to decide which valves were the out and out clunkers. But it's still not ideal because...
 
There are various ways in which valve testers work, and some make some pretty amazing assumptions/approximations. Thus, the same valve could easily test completely differently on different testers. A better measurement might say: Va = 250V, Vgk = -4V, Ia = 8mA, gm = 2.5mA/V, measured on an AVO VCM163.
 
But even that's not ideal. How do you know that the geriatric test equipment is reading correctly? Remember that any valve tester is likely to be at least forty years old, so there's plenty of scope for it to be at the very least out of calibration, and possibly faulty. (My AVO had four independent faults when I first acquired it.) What you want to see is: Va = 250V, Vgk = -4V, Ia = 8mA, gm = 2.5mA/V, measured on a recently calibrated AVO VCM163.
 
Are we out of the woods yet? Not quite. Did the person making the measurement know how to use the tester correctly? You'll have to make your own judgement about that by looking at any supporting evidence.
 
Now you see why I say that such numbers are essentially meaningless. But you'll be able to recognise numbers that might be helpful...

 

mmhos rating can only really be used as a guide for matching tubes, not testing their outright condition it would seem. The readings we ideally want from tube sellers is the Ia and gm values.

post #7425 of 8735
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Soth View Post


I have some experience with those tubes.

No sonic diff between PCC88 and 6DJ8 for tubes of the same variety.

PCC88 pinched waist versus 6922 Pinched waist.
6922 has less sonic veil.
PCC88 has slightly more bass emphasis.
PCC88 has slightly wider soundstage.
The mids and treble of both are sweet sounding.

I'm more of a sonic transparency guy so my vote goes to the 6922 pinched waist version.
IMHO, the $$$ pricing reflects this correctly.


Thanks!  I may give the PCC88s a try.  At some point with the tube cost one might be better off with a WA22 or WA5LE.


Edited by rb2013 - 5/25/13 at 8:55am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Headphone Amps (full-size)
This thread is locked  
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Headphone Amps (full-size) › Schiit Lyr - The tube rolling thread