[CorvetteGarage]

I also feel the Psvane EL3PH tubes are best with the BHSE.  Very balanced sound top to bottom with slightly softened treble, which may be a good fit with SR-009 (though I dont feel the headphones are bright like some report).
 
Ive tried NOS Mullard xf2 (still own) and Treasures (sold) as well.  

 

[Golfnutz]

  I also feel the Psvane EL3PH tubes are best with the BHSE.  Very balanced sound top to bottom with slightly softened treble, which may be a good fit with SR-009 (though I dont feel the headphones are bright like some report).
 
Ive tried NOS Mullard xf2 (still own) and Treasures (sold) as well.  

Never heard the xf2, how much better are the EL34PH in BHSE? I had the Treasures too, but it wasn't even close.

 

[CorvetteGarage]

IMO-
 
The difference between the stock Mullards (supplied with BHSE) and the PH's is subtle, but noticeable.
 
I think the PH's offer a more dynamic sound, more detail and a ever so slight tube sound.
 
Possibly the NOS xf2's are more accurate but thinner sounding.

 

[dude_500]

Has anyone attempted a double blind of these magical tubes that everyone thinks sound better? The Blue Hawaii circuit topology should be extremely resistant to expressing differences between various tubes. No point in even wasting the words of saying "No, but I'm very sure after hours of listening" 

 

[NoPants]

Not much of a point in dropping this kind of inflammatory remark since you'd need 2 BHSE's side by side, if you're going by some double-blind methodology.

 

[TheAttorney]

Not much point in talking about DBT at all, as it (and similar terms) are only allowed in Sound Science, as per the Terms of Service of this website. The reasons for this have been done to death in the past.

 

[Audio Jester]

A wild flame troll appeared!

 

[dude_500]

Sorry, no flame attempt was made here, I was legitimately curious. Didn't realize discussion of double blind was banned on the forum. Somewhat sad in my opinion. In that case, move on and ignore what I said.
 
 
Quote:

  Not much of a point in dropping this kind of inflammatory remark since you'd need 2 BHSE's side by side, if you're going by some double-blind methodology.

 
No, you'd just need a friend equally interested in the scientific method! I'd gladly dump a few hours of my life double blinding tubes with someone.

 

[David1961]

The only thing that concerned me about the PH's sometime before getting them, was the build quality, and when inserting them into my BHSE they are tight, but I just wriggle them a bit and they go in without a problem, I guess it's too early to know what their reliability is like.
As said, obviously the best way to test tubes is to do a blind test with two BHSE's, however I found it easy to hear the difference between the SED's I have, and the PH's.
The most important difference ( for me ) I found, was with the SED's the highs sound harsh, but with the PH's there's no such problem.
I haven't tried the stock Mullard's against the PH's, so I'll do that over the next few day's.

 

[Golfnutz]

  IMO-
 
The difference between the stock Mullards (supplied with BHSE) and the PH's is subtle, but noticeable.
 

What you're describing with the stock tubes and PH is more in line with how I felt about the stock Mullards, SED, RFT, and Treasures. I noticed subtle differences between them all, but there would be no way I could tell you which was which except for maybe the Treasures (between those 4 the Treasures sounded the best to me). On top of that, I couldn't even tell you what those differences were - other than they slightly sounded different from each other (which is what dude_500 was alluding too).
 
Not true with the PH's though - at least in my system. They are so easy to differentiate between those mentioned above, and I would guess the xf2 as well. The PH's have such a musical quality to them that's absent in the others. I also feel the sound is more forward which might account for the improved clarity.
 
I'm sure the source is also playing a role in this and to what level of differences other members are hearing. I don't think David expected the results to be so dramatic, but like he said, it's hard to believe. Again, it's all subjective and everyone will have a different experience.

 

[David1961]

Golfnutz is right, I didn't expect to hear the difference I do from using the PH's, in fact sometime ago I was thinking of selling my 009's because I wasn't completely happy with them, but since using the PH's, I'll never be letting my 009's go.

P.S. Those that are thinking on getting some PH's but are sceptical about what the PH's are claimed to do, then IMO just don't get any.

 

[Rico613]

IMO The road to better sound quality is to determine the weakest link in the signal chain and upgrade that.  For already strong systems, like Dave's and Golfnutz's, the PH's make a noticeable difference. 

 

[David1961]

Some posts have been written saying the 009 doesn't sound it's best when used with the BHSE, and before getting the PH's, I wasn't totally happy with my 009 / BHSE, but since using the PH's I couldn't be happier with what I'm hearing from my 009's.
I can only speak of what improvement I've heard from using the PH's with the BHSE, I obviously can't say there'll be such an improvement when using the PH's with a different amp.

P.S. Yes, quite a bit has been written about the PH's including from myself, but if I didn't hear the improvement I do, then I wouldn't be posting anything about them.

 

[preproman]

From all the post I ever saw from you - you seemed to be overjoyed with your 009/BHSE performance.  

 

[David1961]

From all the post I ever saw from you - you seemed to be overjoyed with your 009/BHSE performance.  

I've alway's been happy with my 009 / BHSE, but not with all the songs I have in my collection, but since using the PH's all the songs I listen to sound amazing, including Peter Gabriel's " SledgeHammer " and " Big Time ".