[Renderman]

  Hi Renderman,
 
Wow! You are reading my mind with the only difference that I would be substituting the GEC for Chatham 6AS7 based on my own experience.
 
Went back to the above mentioned Sylvania 6080WC which were my favorites in the Little Dot MKIII. However, in the Elise they sounded too bright, but the late production Philips EEC 6080 sounded just like the above description.
 
Now I tried another variant: Sylvania Gold Brand 6080 tubes. These sound the same as the above description but a little more mellow - very good sounding tubes.
 
Another plus with these Sylvania/Philips tubes are that they are very easy to listen to. There is a sweetness to the sound. The Chatham 6AS7G bring out more detail but less punch in the bass, BUT, they are somehow tiring to listen to.
 
So if you don't want to spend the big bucks on the GEC A1834 (which I have not heard yet), and can't find the Chathams, by all means try a pair of the Sylvanias. You should be able to pick up a pair for $25 or less.

 
Yes mordy, based on our and others experiences the GEC 6AS7G seem to be high on everyone's list. I think we can reach a consensus about tubes, maybe a 'best sounding power tube' poll would be a good idea! I for one would not hesitate recommending the GECs if anyone asked me for the best sounding power tubes.
 
yes the sylvania/philips are easy to listen too, this is what i meant with smoother i think If you like the sound of the Chatham, try the GECs, similar sound signature but not at all tiring!
 
Will get back to you guys on the Philips 6080WA i'm trying now...

 

[mordy]

Here is a ranking chart of power tubes that I found on the 6AS7G tube rolling thread:
 

THE LIST
I.a) GEC Curved Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523
I.b) Western Electric 421A
I.c) GEC Straight Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523

II.a.i) Tung Sol 5998
II.a.ii) Tung Sol 421A
II.a.iii) Cetron/Tung Sol 7236
II.b.i) Bendix 6080WB with slotted graphite cross columns
II.b.ii) Bendix 6080WB with solid graphite cross columns
II.b.iii) Bendix 6080WB with solid graphite columns
II.c) Bendix 6080WB
II.d) Mullard (Telefunken/Valvo/GEC) 6080WA CV2984
II.e) Sylvania 7236

III.a) Sylvania Gold Brand 6080
III.b) Tung Sol Chatham 6AS7G
III.c) RCA 6AS7G
III.d) Tung Sol 6080 or 6080WA

Tubes not included in this review:
6H13/ECC230 (Various labels: Philips/Amperex/Svetlana/Winged-C)
5998A
6AS7GA
Sylvania 6AS7G
Any other 6080WA/WB/WC variant not listed
 
It is possible that not all of these tubes are well matched to the Elise.
 
But then I did not come across anybody using the C3g driver tubes yet (have read through half of the posts so far).

 

[hypnos1]

  Here is a ranking chart of power tubes that I found on the 6AS7G tube rolling thread:
 

THE LIST
I.a) GEC Curved Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523
I.b) Western Electric 421A
I.c) GEC Straight Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523

II.a.i) Tung Sol 5998
II.a.ii) Tung Sol 421A
II.a.iii) Cetron/Tung Sol 7236
II.b.i) Bendix 6080WB with slotted graphite cross columns
II.b.ii) Bendix 6080WB with solid graphite cross columns
II.b.iii) Bendix 6080WB with solid graphite columns
II.c) Bendix 6080WB
II.d) Mullard (Telefunken/Valvo/GEC) 6080WA CV2984
II.e) Sylvania 7236

III.a) Sylvania Gold Brand 6080
III.b) Tung Sol Chatham 6AS7G
III.c) RCA 6AS7G
III.d) Tung Sol 6080 or 6080WA

Tubes not included in this review:
6H13/ECC230 (Various labels: Philips/Amperex/Svetlana/Winged-C)
5998A
6AS7GA
Sylvania 6AS7G
Any other 6080WA/WB/WC variant not listed
 
It is possible that not all of these tubes are well matched to the Elise.
 
But then I did not come across anybody using the C3g driver tubes yet (have read through half of the posts so far).

 
Hi mordy.
 
Yes, a very useful post indeed (apart from the dearth of 'other' 6080s!) - and the one that encouraged me to splash out on the GEC CV2523s a long while ago now in our Little Dot days...deep down I must have had a premonition the Elise would be born, and thus do them proper justice lol!!
 
And I'm afraid I think you will have a fruitless search on that thread for any mention of the C3g as drivers...it was a real leap in the dark when adapting them for the LDs (an even longer while ago!) - I couldn't find much info at all about them, apart from the encouraging words at jacmusic and the fact that yamamoto used the C3m in some of his fabulous amps.
 
And to find they can work in the Elise, and pair even BETTER with the GECs than in the LD was more than I could ever have hoped for...made me a very happy chappie indeed!! (And am now not alone....anyone else going to join us? - you only live once!! 

.

 

[gibosi]

  Here is a ranking chart of power tubes that I found on the 6AS7G tube rolling thread:

 
This list was originally posted by a Crack user on the Bottlehead forum:
 
http://the-key.enix.org/~krystal/review-tube-bottlehead.html
 
At one time, it had pictures, but sadly, they have since been removed.
 
My take on this...
 
I.a) GEC Straight and Curved Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523
I.b) Western Electric 421A, Chatham/Tung Sol 5998, 2399, 421A
 
I have both the curved and straight based GEC and I cannot tell the difference. Perhaps others can, but since I can't, I cannot in good conscious state that GEC 6AS7 with curved bases are better than those with straight bases. After all, the bases are put on after the bottles have been evacuated and sealed. And therefore, the color of the base and the shape of the base have absolutely nothing to do with the sound. In my opinion, it is likely that the shape of the base has more to do with the intended end user than anything else.
 
Further, I sincerely doubt that the WE 421A sounds better than the 5998. I have four pairs of 5998 -- 1957, 1958, 1961 and 1968. Over the years, the construction is slightly different in all of these and sometimes I think I can hear a difference, but I certainly wouldn't claim that one pair is better than the other. In the end, I prefer the 1958s only because they seem to be a bit quieter than the others.
 
And likewise, over the years the WE 421 reveals the same construction differences, so I suspect that not all WE 421A sound the same either. The only way to reliably know if the WE 421A is better than the 5998 is to compare a pair of each manufactured at the same time. So again, I am unwilling to go out on a limb and state that the WE are better than the TS/Chatham. And for sure, I would never encourage anyone to pay the outrageous prices these currently sell for....
 
Further, both the GEC and the TS/Chatham are top notch tubes. In the end, I don't really think that either is better than the other sonically. It really depends on system synergy  However, as the 5998 has almost 3 times the gain of the GEC, it does tend to be a bit noisier. Further, the 5998 is not identical to the 6AS7, and therefore, while still sounding very good in a 6AS7 amp, it does not sound as good as it could with the proper bias. (My Glenn is one of the very few amps that can drive the 5998 properly). Because of these qualifications, I am comfortable in saying the GEC is the better tube in 6AS7-based amps such as the Elise. ON the other hand, the 5998s are usually considerably less money....
 
II.a) Bendix 6080WB with slotted graphite cross columns
II.b) GEC 6080
II.c) Mullard 6080
II.d) Cetron/Tung Sol 7236
 
To my ears, at least, the Bendix are superior to the TS 7236. The Sylvania 7236 is quite a nice tube, but rather lacking in bass.
 
"Mullard (Telefunken/Valvo/GEC) 6080WA CV2984"
 
These are not all the same! Telefunken manufactured a 6080 in Ulm. Mullard manufactured a 6080 in Mitcham. (And this Mullard tube was often sold under other Philip's brands, such as Valvo, Amperex and Philips.) And finally, GEC manufactured a 6080 in Hammersmith.
 
As one might expect, the GEC 6080 is very similar to the GEC 6AS7. And in my opinion, the GEC 6080 and the slotted Bendix 6080 are more or less equal, but different, with the GEC closer to the GEC 6AS7 and the Bendix closer to the 5998.
 
The Mullard, to my ears, is a refined RCA, with similar warmth and better detail. And the Telefunken, again to my ears, is too thin, too bright and too airy, as is often the case with Telefunken tubes, IMHO. Sometimes you will see a GE 6080 relabeled as a Telefunken. While I think the GE is a better tube, one should not pay more to buy a GE with a Telefunken logo! lol
 
I have not spent a whole lot of time with the Category III tubes, but I think I can say that I don't disagree with the original reviewer. Moreover, I think all of them are better than the Telefunken. And I would probably add the Sylvania 7236 to Category III as well.
 
Further, I have not spent enough time with the solid Bendix to rank it. But as best as I can recall it is very similar to the slotted Bendix, and better than any of the Category III tubes.
 
Cheers
 
Edit: A few additions and changes

 

[mordy]

Hi Gibosi,
 
What happened to category III? This is where I am rummaging - I happen to have the three first tubes listed in that category, and they all make me very happy. Am I missing a lot? Somehow I think that the C3g tubes make up for some of the shortcomings as compared to the first two categories, but I may be wrong...

 

[gibosi]

 
What happened to category III? This is where I am rummaging - I happen to have the three first tubes listed in that category, and they all make me very happy. Am I missing a lot? Somehow I think that the C3g tubes make up for some of the shortcomings as compared to the first two categories, but I may be wrong...

 
As I haven't spent much time with the Category III tubes, I do not feel confident in trying to rank them. But going on old impressions, I don't disagree with the original reviewer. And I have slightly revised my original posting to reflect this.

 

[K4RL]

  To lucky Elise owners, Did you get the tracking number prior to shipping from Feliks? I am on 7th weeks since the day I place the order. Waiting game and reading all tube rolling /impressions/ review are making me anxious.  

 

I ordered on June 10 and received my invoice on July 22 - a whole week after the promised 5 weeks wait. Apparently they are busier than anticipated, and it's starting to drive me crazy too 

. Can't rush perfection, I suppose. 

 

[hypnos1]

  I ordered on June 10 and received my invoice on July 22 - a whole week after the promised 5 weeks wait. Apparently they are busier than anticipated, and it's starting to drive me crazy too 

. Can't rush perfection, I suppose. 

 
Too right K4RL...I think you'll find the wait WELL worthwhile...er, no - I know you will!! 

. Hopefully your suffering is very nearly over, lol!
 
Lukasz did tell me once that because of the complex nature of the build, they do not let 'junior' employees touch them - which, along with all the special custom work they do, makes it all the more understandable that there is such a wait...in fact it amazes me they can manage the jobs even in this timeframe!
 
Cheers!
CJ

 

[Shaffer]

As I haven't spent much time with the Category III tubes, I do not feel confident in trying to rank them. But going on old impressions, I don't disagree with the original reviewer. And I have slightly revised my original posting to reflect this.

...showoff.

Mordy, we're in Cat3 together. lol

 

[agnostic1er]

Hello guys,
 
Somedody to explain me the ranking principle of the previous lists?
 
Thanks!
 

 

[Renderman]

 
Quote:

   
I.a) GEC Straight and Curved Brown Base 6AS7G A1834 CV2523
I.b) Western Electric 421A, Chatham/Tung Sol 5998, 2399, 421A
 
I have both the curved and straight based GEC and I cannot tell the difference. Perhaps others can, but since I can't, I cannot in good conscious state that GEC 6AS7 with curved bases are better than those with straight bases. After all, the bases are put on after the bottles have been evacuated and sealed. And therefore, the color of the base and the shape of the base have absolutely nothing to do with the sound. In my opinion, it is likely that the shape of the base has more to do with the intended end user than anything else.
 
Further, I sincerely doubt that the WE 421A sounds better than the 5998. I have four pairs of 5998 -- 1957, 1958, 1961 and 1968. Over the years, the construction is slightly different in all of these and sometimes I think I can hear a difference, but I certainly wouldn't claim that one pair is better than the other. In the end, I prefer the 1958s only because they seem to be a bit quieter than the others.
 
And likewise, over the years the WE 421 reveals the same construction differences, so I suspect that not all WE 421A sound the same either. The only way to reliably know if the WE 421A is better than the 5998 is to compare a pair of each manufactured at the same time. So again, I am unwilling to go out on a limb and state that the WE are better than the TS/Chatham. And for sure, I would never encourage anyone to pay the outrageous prices these currently sell for....
 
Further, both the GEC and the TS/Chatham are top notch tubes. In the end, I don't really think that either is better than the other sonically. It really depends on system synergy  However, as the 5998 has almost 3 times the gain of the GEC, it does tend to be a bit noisier. Further, the 5998 is not identical to the 6AS7, and therefore, while still sounding very good in a 6AS7 amp, it does not sound as good as it could with the proper bias. (My Glenn is one of the very few amps that can drive the 5998 properly). Because of these qualifications, I am comfortable in saying the GEC is the better tube in 6AS7-based amps such as the Elise. ON the other hand, the 5998s are usually considerably less money....
 
II.a) Bendix 6080WB with slotted graphite cross columns
II.b) GEC 6080
II.c) Mullard 6080
II.d) Cetron/Tung Sol 7236
 
To my ears, at least, the Bendix are superior to the TS 7236. The Sylvania 7236 is quite a nice tube, but rather lacking in bass.
 
"Mullard (Telefunken/Valvo/GEC) 6080WA CV2984"
 
These are not all the same! Telefunken manufactured a 6080 in Ulm. Mullard manufactured a 6080 in Mitcham. (And this Mullard tube was often sold under other Philip's brands, such as Valvo, Amperex and Philips.) And finally, GEC manufactured a 6080 in Hammersmith.
 
As one might expect, the GEC 6080 is very similar to the GEC 6AS7. And in my opinion, the GEC 6080 and the slotted Bendix 6080 are more or less equal, but different, with the GEC closer to the GEC 6AS7 and the Bendix closer to the 5998.
 
The Mullard, to my ears, is a refined RCA, with similar warmth and better detail. And the Telefunken, again to my ears, is too thin, too bright and too airy, as is often the case with Telefunken tubes, IMHO. Sometimes you will see a GE 6080 relabeled as a Telefunken. While I think the GE is a better tube, one should not pay more to buy a GE with a Telefunken logo! lol
 
I have not spent a whole lot of time with the Category III tubes, but I think I can say that I don't disagree with the original reviewer. Moreover, I think all of them are better than the Telefunken. And I would probably add the Sylvania 7236 to Category III as well.
 
Further, I have not spent enough time with the solid Bendix to rank it. But as best as I can recall it is very similar to the slotted Bendix, and better than any of the Category III tubes.
 
Cheers
 
Edit: A few additions and changes

 

  Hello guys,
 
Somedody to explain me the ranking principle of the previous lists?
 
Thanks!
 

The revised list as per gibosi's findings would be:
 
Tier 1.
1. GEC 6AS7G, A1834, CV2523 Straight and Curved Brown Base 
2. Western Electric 421A, Chatham/Tung Sol 5998, 2399, 421A
 
Tier 2.
1. Bendix 6080WB with slotted graphite cross columns, GEC 6080, Mullard (Philips) 6080WA
 
Tier 3.
1. Tung Sol 7236, Sylvania 7236
2. Sylvania (PhilipsECB) 6080WC
 
Disclaimer; this is how I read it, if anyone would like to alter this list feel free. It would be awesome to get a consensus on a list of best sounding power tubes.
 
I can personally agree with the list, and i concur with gibosi that the Mullard (Philips) 6080WA sound very good, close to the GEC 6AS7G but missing just a touch of refinement. Am listening to them right now, a very fine tube, very natural and neutral sounding.
 
Hope this helps your understanding agnostic1er

 

[agnostic1er]

   
The revised list as per gibosi's findings would be...
 
Hope this helps your understanding agnostic1er

Yes, thanks Renderman!

 

[gibosi]

 
Somedody to explain me the ranking principle of the previous lists?

 
It is important to remember that rankings are based on very subjective and personal opinions. Everyone has different ears and different gear. A tube that sounds great to one person may well sound just OK to another.
 
So my advice is not to take any one person's rankings too seriously. After all, my ears and gear, my likes and dislikes, may very well be different than yours. In the end, the only way to learn which tubes are your favorites is to try them all! lol. Or at least, as many as your budget will allow. And then we hope that you will post your "rankings" here.
 
Cheers

 

[hypnos1]

   
I had been looking at that QTL tube, wondering if it was a real Mullard, and soon I shall know! lol. And of course, I will be very interested to read your impressions of the ECC31.
 
But so sorry.... I am always looking for new tubes to try.

 
Hi g...EUREKA!...the Mullard arrived today (and a very impressive looking tube it is too!), and on close inspection the QTL branded one I think I can now safely say, with 99.99% confidence, must be a Mullard also - in addition to the other clues, the central copper rods also look to be identical. In fact the lovely brown, midi-sized base and slightly more translucent coating looks more like a $300 ECC32 on offer!!
 
So, at last I think I've hit the 'rebrand' jackpot...and if they do indeed perform as well as the 32 -  which would appear to be a VERY sought-after tube - my $49 could just be the bargain of the century...perhaps! Can't wait to see how they perform - when #2 arrives that is, and I manage to get the adapters made!
 
Cheers!

 

[gibosi]

  Hi g...EUREKA!...the Mullard arrived today (and a very impressive looking tube it is too!), and on close inspection the QTL branded one I think I can now safely say, with 99.99% confidence, must be a Mullard also - in addition to the other clues, the central copper rods also look to be identical. In fact the lovely brown, midi-sized base and slightly more translucent coating looks more like a $300 ECC32 on offer!!
 
So, at last I think I've hit the 'rebrand' jackpot...and if they do indeed perform as well as the 32 -  which would appear to be a VERY sought-after tube - my $49 could just be the bargain of the century...perhaps! Can't wait to see how they perform - when #2 arrives that is, and I manage to get the adapters made!
 

 
Great news! While the picture was lousy, it sure looked like a Mullard. Can you make out the production code? The pre-1955 code on mine is "1029.1 1MV", where "1029" seems to indicate ECC31 and the remaining digits likely indicate factory, date and perhaps batch, but I have no idea how to go about deciphering this code. And after 1955, Mullard adopted the Philips codes, with EM (ECC31) plus a numerical change code on the first line, and on the second line, B (Blackburn) plus year and month.
 
And with a little bit of luck, it would be great if your second tube is of similar vintage. While I have no idea how an early 1940s ECC31 might compare to one from the mid 1950s, it is likely that they would sound somewhat different....
 
To the best of my knowledge, the only difference between the ECC31 and ECC32 is below the bottom mica spacer. On the ECC31, the two cathodes are tied together with a small metal strap. However, as I don't have an ECC32 to closely compare, I can't be positive.....
 
Anyway, what I find most noticeable about the ECC31 is the bass. It is almost as if a subwoofer has been added to my headphones! WoW!