[Bonesy Jonesy]

Just listening to Jamie Cullum - Twenty Some-Thing on CD with my Chord Blu Mk1 and Chord QBD76 DAC set at "Min" Buffer and 176kHz sampling signal (twin XLR's from Blu). And the sound is just sublime, mesmerising and addictive.

 

[joseph69]

Yes the treble and mid range are cystal clear. You will find with more burn in time they get a wee bit warmer and the bass gets deeper with more texture.

Yes agree with Joseph69 different tubes do make a difference to how the BHSE sounds in some cases quite prominent especiallt with a high quality digital source.
I have heard some BHSE's some years back which sounded terrible i.e. no power, no bass, no big sound stage. They were fitted with NOS tubes which I think were off making the BHSE sound like it did.
It was that bad I decided not to buy a BHSE and couldn't understand why everybody was raving about it.
Then last year I heard BMichels BHSE at CANJAM London with the Ayre QB9 DAC and 009's. I was blown away. It was the best sound I heard in the show (didn't get to hear the Senn HE1 !). So I ordered a BHSE ASAP. Now I have one myself I can genuinely say its the best headphone amp I have ever heard period.

What tubes were in @bmichels BHSE?

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

Stock tubes

 

[Ali-Pacha]

Maybe some of the claimed NOS tubes out there are not that NOS and/or past their use-by date.
What would remain is kinda non-offensive / mellow tone which could lure people on SQ, especially when jazz and classical are the most listened to genres and when price AND reputation influence our brains.

Ali

 

[VandyMan]

Fake NOS tubes were a big problem twenty years ago. I can't see how the issue would have gotten better over time.

I'm also dubious that there was some magic to tube manufacture sixty years ago that has been lost. Manufacturing techniques and materials have gotten much better. It is hard to understand why modern tubes are not superior. Some are made for lowest possible cost, but there must be new high quality tubes available...

 

[David1961]

Deleted.

 

[Whitigir]

Fake NOS tubes were a big problem twenty years ago. I can't see how the issue would have gotten better over time.

I'm also dubious that there was some magic to tube manufacture sixty years ago that has been lost. Manufacturing techniques and materials have gotten much better. It is hard to understand why modern tubes are not superior. Some are made for lowest possible cost, but there must be new high quality tubes available...

I agree with you here, Tubes technologies are not hard to understand. However, it must be very costly to reproduce high quality tubes that can perform and reliable . I think within a couple years we will see these modern tubes

 

[deuter]

We should move the discussion to the Blue Hawaii now.
Enough in the tubes.

 

[JimL11]

[QUOTE="VandyMan, post: 13483675, member: 170811"}
I'm also dubious that there was some magic to tube manufacture sixty years ago that has been lost. Manufacturing techniques and materials have gotten much better. It is hard to understand why modern tubes are not superior. Some are made for lowest possible cost, but there must be new high quality tubes available...[/QUOTE]

Well, yes and no. Yes, materials have gotten better. However, you have to remember that in the 1950s, tubes were the ONLY amplifying devices (transistors were restricted to military and high cost electronics, not consumer grade electronics, even lab grade). Furthermore, tube manufacturers were large companies, RCA, GE, Sylvania in the US, Telefunken, Siemens in Europe (a factory so large it had its own train station), and a lot of research was devoted to making them as reliable as possible, because there was no alternative, and mass consumers don't like stuff that blows up or stops working. I grew up in that era, and I can tell you that a even a cheap tube radio would run for years without touching anything other than the on-off switch and the volume control. Moreover, some of that research on reliability and durability was never written down, for example, using trace elements to improve reliability/durability in filament heaters, improving cathode emissions, etc. Most of the modern tube manufacturers are based in Eastern Europe, Russia and China. They bought the machinery, but not necessarily the expertise.

Name a modern tube manufacturer that is as large as GE or RCA was in their day - you can't, because it's a much smaller market. Much less resources for R&D. They can duplicate the machinery and make tubes that LOOK the same as the old stuff, but may not perform the same, or do it for as long. So quite a few tube aficionados report that NOS tubes sound better and last longer than modern tubes.

 

[astrostar59]

Well, yes and no. Yes, materials have gotten better. However, you have to remember that in the 1950s, tubes were the ONLY amplifying devices (transistors were restricted to military and high cost electronics, not consumer grade electronics, even lab grade). Furthermore, tube manufacturers were large companies, RCA, GE, Sylvania in the US, Telefunken, Siemens in Europe (a factory so large it had its own train station), and a lot of research was devoted to making them as reliable as possible, because there was no alternative, and mass consumers don't like stuff that blows up or stops working. I grew up in that era, and I can tell you that a even a cheap tube radio would run for years without touching anything other than the on-off switch and the volume control. Moreover, some of that research on reliability and durability was never written down, for example, using trace elements to improve reliability/durability in filament heaters, improving cathode emissions, etc. Most of the modern tube manufacturers are based in Eastern Europe, Russia and China. They bought the machinery, but not necessarily the expertise.

Name a modern tube manufacturer that is as large as GE or RCA was in their day - you can't, because it's a much smaller market. Much less resources for R&D. They can duplicate the machinery and make tubes that LOOK the same as the old stuff, but may not perform the same, or do it for as long. So quite a few tube aficionados report that NOS tubes sound better and last longer than modern tubes.

Great post Jim. The 'mystery' or the 'wandering path' to finding the best sounding NOS tube for a particular amp or DAC is part of the interest in this hobby TBH. Yes, can be frustrating and expensive if big power tubes, but get the right combination of tubes (in a regulated power supply and line stage combo for example) and wow, pure musical pleasure. It is a bit like cooking, just the right ingredients make a fine feast indeed! And jot gives the owner of said amp or DAC a buzz, like we have created something unique, or at the very least achieved a sonic improvement. With SS gear, you don't have that 'luxury', it's how it comes, that's it.

Back to modern efforts in tube production, besides the sonics in many cases being disappointing, the reliability of many of those tubes is a bit suspect. There has been posts on this thread about it. I did find however, when I had my SET mono blocks that there are some very good modern alternatives, such as the Western Electric 300B re-issues that had a 5 year warranty, and the TJ Full Music 300B mesh proved excellent, some of the magic 300B midrange but improved dynamics and lower bass. They lasted about 2 years in my amps.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

My Svetlana Winged C 1999-2000yr production from Watford Valves.

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

I re-installed my Philips Miniwatts Xf2's back into my BHSE yesterday to get a comparison with the Svetlana tubes. I had to re-bias two of them twice (two front tubes) i.e. after 5mins as per Justin's recommendation on his You Tube video and then again after letting the amp play for a few hours. Listened to a variety of music genre last night. My conclusion between the two is as follows;

The Svetlana's have a far more clearer sound, more sparkle to the treble, more detail and separation to the mid range, more texture and clearer bass.

The Xf2's are a much warmer forgiving tube i.e. are well suited to poor quality recordings with screechy ear piercing treble and mid range.

If my Svetlana's are not the original Winged C's made between the years 1999 and 2000 i.e. they don't have the Winged C logo on the tube just the box they are still a great sounding tube. I need to investigate more regarding their authenticity as being Winged C's though ! And I will buy some more Svetlana's with the Winged C logo on the tube and compare.

 

[joseph69]

I re-installed my Philips Miniwatts Xf2's back into my BHSE yesterday to get a comparison with the Svetlana tubes. I had to re-bias two of them twice (two front tubes) i.e. after 5mins as per Justin's recommendation on his You Tube video and then again after letting the amp play for a few hours. Listened to a variety of music genre last night. My conclusion between the two is as follows;

The Svetlana's have a far more clearer sound, more sparkle to the treble, more detail and separation to the mid range, more texture and clearer bass.

The Xf2's are a much warmer forgiving tube i.e. are well suited to poor quality recordings with screechy ear piercing treble and mid range.

If my Svetlana's are not the original Winged C's made between the years 1999 and 2000 i.e. they don't have the Winged C logo on the tube just the box they are still a great sounding tube. I need to investigate more regarding their authenticity as being Winged C's though ! And I will buy some more Svetlana's with the Winged C logo on the tube and compare.

I pretty much agree with your differences between my NOS Amperex "Bugle Boys" and the Svetlana's. As @mulveling mentioned, the "Holland" Amperex tubes are much more richer sounding and I also find the Amperex to have much more depth as well. Keep in mind that these comparison are at a very early stage for the Svetlalna's and I would think they'll fill out more and have more depth and sound richer with sufficient burn-in.

Also, @mulveling and @Whitigir as well as Watford have confirmed, these are the same Svetlana Winged C EL34's…just with the "S" logo.

 

[Whitigir]

Well, in my GG, the EL34-M for Groove tubes with dual getter just suck as much as the re-issues El34 from Mullard. The only different is that these were made by Sugang or so in China and not from Russia. My best and favorite so far is still RFT and then Winged C. Now, I have many quad sets to throw around lol.....

 

[Bonesy Jonesy]

A++
Ive been listening to my music with re-inserting the Philips Miniwatts Xf2's since Saturday will them to sound much better than my Winged C's.......but......noooo they don't no matter what genre of music I throw at them. Too smooth for me on the verge of being dull and boring. They certainly don't bring out the best of my BHSE, 009's Chord QBD76 & Blu Mk1 CD Transporter. !

Going to have to try some RFT's from what Whitigir says about them....problem is there are so many varieties of them....which is the best one to choose ???

Well, in my GG, the EL34-M for Groove tubes with dual getter just suck as much as the re-issues El34 from Mullard. The only different is that these were made by Sugang or so in China and not from Russia. My best and favorite so far is still RFT and then Winged C. Now, I have many quad sets to throw around lol.....