ScottieB
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2007
- Posts
- 648
- Likes
- 21
So I do have Sonotone EF91's but the ones I was enjoying all this week were actually Ediswan CV138's, which I believe are an EF91 equivalent. I could be wrong. I've now got the M8161's in there, and they sound much better than I recall on my MKIII. (I'm using my HD600s for all of this by the way). The Mullards (M8161) are a bit more controlled, while the Ediswans were more 'fun' especially with rock music. They really brought out the lower end like the EF95's usually didn't, though they sacrifice some detail. So, it could be that the MKIV se is better with these tubes, or maybe my ears have simply evolved lol.
Can someone tell me the basic differences between the EF92/91 and EF95's? Is it true the EF92/91 require more current? I thought I read that somewhere. That's what I'm basing the assumption that the MKIV works better with them on... it certainly has more oomph that the MKIII did.
There's not a ton of info out there on these tube, and what there is isn't the most easily approachable, so I appreciate any info!
edit: according to this the CV138 is the military version of the EF91: http://www.mullardmagic.co.uk/cv138-military-variant-of-the-ef91-6am6-z77-valve-for-little-dot-amp
Can someone tell me the basic differences between the EF92/91 and EF95's? Is it true the EF92/91 require more current? I thought I read that somewhere. That's what I'm basing the assumption that the MKIV works better with them on... it certainly has more oomph that the MKIII did.
There's not a ton of info out there on these tube, and what there is isn't the most easily approachable, so I appreciate any info!
edit: according to this the CV138 is the military version of the EF91: http://www.mullardmagic.co.uk/cv138-military-variant-of-the-ef91-6am6-z77-valve-for-little-dot-amp