6SN7 Tube Addicts
- Thread starter rosgr63
- Start date
Jozurr
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Posts
- 2,920
- Likes
- 321
Isnt the Brimar CV1988 the 6SN7GTY? Also having a brown base and not a black base with BVA on it
leftside
Headphoneus Supremus
I really like the Brimar CV1988 with brown base.
Mechans1
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2013
- Posts
- 496
- Likes
- 80
I would have to dig through a couple of storage boxes to be certain. I recall the Brimar black glass brown base CV1988 is also designated 6SN7GTY but not in every case. The other tubes may not have CV1988 however.
As for sound quality preference I agree that the Brimar GTY is a very good tube and one of my favorites. I also really like the Sylvania W, Tung Sol RPs and the Mullard ECC32 and 33 . I see no need to declare one above the rest unless you are pushing something. I don't know the Treasures personally, but a good friend of mine whose opinions I regard highly sold his, ( pretty quickly but did run them in.) I don't understand the almost ebullient over the top review. When I see that kind of thing I get suspicious. Maybe that's just me, but these tubes have been around for years now and aren't seen in friends set ups, or forum posts.
As for sound quality preference I agree that the Brimar GTY is a very good tube and one of my favorites. I also really like the Sylvania W, Tung Sol RPs and the Mullard ECC32 and 33 . I see no need to declare one above the rest unless you are pushing something. I don't know the Treasures personally, but a good friend of mine whose opinions I regard highly sold his, ( pretty quickly but did run them in.) I don't understand the almost ebullient over the top review. When I see that kind of thing I get suspicious. Maybe that's just me, but these tubes have been around for years now and aren't seen in friends set ups, or forum posts.
leftside
Headphoneus Supremus
I quite like the Treasures, but it doesn't deserve that glowing review. The ECC32, 33, TS RP and Sylvania W are all better.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/1pcs-5670-396A-2C51-Replace-6SN7-Tube-Amplifier-Socket-Adapter-Suzier-D11-/281960489973?hash=item41a627a3f5:g:VkEAAOSw0JpV5re3
Anyone try this 396a in place of 6sn7?
Anyone try this 396a in place of 6sn7?
gibosi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Posts
- 6,432
- Likes
- 4,838
Using a similar adapter, I've rolled a number of 396A in my Glenn OTL with absolutely no problems. I would expect that they will be fine in your WA5LE as well. For what it is worth, I like the Bendix and the Sylvania best.
Edit: I should probably add that while I am quite sure they will work fine in your amp, I have no idea if they will sound good....
Mechans1
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2013
- Posts
- 496
- Likes
- 80
It sounds like a very expensive tube replacement choice. There are a lot of adapters switching XXXX tubes into 6SN7 tubes because of the great abundance of high quality NOS and OS 6SN7s. I have personally purchased an adapter of that sort, in order to use 6SN7s in a Garage 1217 "project Ember" . The adapter itself is a 1217 product. It is the only such adapter I own.
gibosi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Posts
- 6,432
- Likes
- 4,838
And I am just the opposite....
I have adapters to enable me to use many different double triodes in my 6SN7-based Glenn OTL. For example, ECC31, ECC40, ECC88, E182CC, E80CC, FDD20, 396A, 6463, 7N7, a pair of 76, and most recently 6AH7. They all work fine and sound great.
I have adapters to enable me to use many different double triodes in my 6SN7-based Glenn OTL. For example, ECC31, ECC40, ECC88, E182CC, E80CC, FDD20, 396A, 6463, 7N7, a pair of 76, and most recently 6AH7. They all work fine and sound great.
Mechans1
100+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2013
- Posts
- 496
- Likes
- 80
I hope you are not saying that I said that a 396A would not work well in this amp or that amp, just expensive if my memory serves me correctly. I also roll a lot tubes, the raison d'etre for the Ember.
As for your love of adapters for all causes I will now make the statement I hadn't of late. Understand that these are not my words, but those of many other audio engineer people, thus no specific attribution. That there are strongly held 'audiophile' tenets which hold that a minimum number of interfaces is desirable and that circuit paths be as short as possible. Obviously, you don't hear any artifact or appreciable negative SQ differences, and must consider these old ideas to be of limited value.
I find that the amps I am currently using demonstrate little about the 'rollable' tubes I use now, compared to rolling tubes in amps that I have used previously.
However I never said 396As or other tubes with adapters won't work please recognize that.
As for your love of adapters for all causes I will now make the statement I hadn't of late. Understand that these are not my words, but those of many other audio engineer people, thus no specific attribution. That there are strongly held 'audiophile' tenets which hold that a minimum number of interfaces is desirable and that circuit paths be as short as possible. Obviously, you don't hear any artifact or appreciable negative SQ differences, and must consider these old ideas to be of limited value.
I find that the amps I am currently using demonstrate little about the 'rollable' tubes I use now, compared to rolling tubes in amps that I have used previously.
However I never said 396As or other tubes with adapters won't work please recognize that.
gibosi
Headphoneus Supremus
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2012
- Posts
- 6,432
- Likes
- 4,838
Logically, this makes sense to me. However, these adapters typically add less than an inch of wire to the circuit path and I seriously doubt that this small amount of wire is of any consequence in regard to SQ...
Hi g....all depends on the quality of wire used IMHO!..and some would also add solder, lol..
Hi g....all depends on the quality of wire used IMHO!..and some would also add solder, lol.....
Yeah, quality and quantity.
Users who are viewing this thread
