Schiit Lyr Tube Rollers
Mar 9, 2018 at 3:12 PM Post #16,937 of 23,493
It’s a tough call among my top tubes. You could throw a blanket over them depending on what mood I’m in. But if you put a gun to my head I’d go Tele E188CC’s #1, tie between your JW WE’s and the TS 2c51’s and then the PW’s.

Edit: And I shouldn’t forget Ivan’s 7L4 D-getter Holland Valvos. They are right in there.
Have not heard my 6922 tubes in at least 6 months, my top 5
WE 396A 47/49
58 Amperex 6922 D-getter Heerlen
53/55 Grampas Tung Sols
Valvo CCa 1956 Heerlen PW
Siemens CCa
honorable mention 59 Foton`s
Siemens CCa I liked way better with the Lyr 2

Got a bunch of pairs not in my audio wheelhouse may sell off/trade in the future
 
Last edited:
Mar 9, 2018 at 3:19 PM Post #16,938 of 23,493
Have not heard my 6922 tubes in at least 6 months, my top 5
WE 396A 47/49
58 Amperex 6922 D-getter Heerlen
53/55 Grampas Tung Sols
Valvo CCa 1956 Heerlen PW
Siemens CCa
honorable mention 59 Foton`s
Siemens CCa I liked way better with the Lyr 2

Got a bunch of pairs not in my audio wheelhouse may sell offt/rade in the future

A list any mother would be proud of. And you a bad mother.
 
Mar 9, 2018 at 6:37 PM Post #16,941 of 23,493
I was watching this too, and was curious if they were really worth that. . .

We have all asked the same question about various high priced tubes in the beginning. So let me offer my opinion/experience.
As recent as two years ago, if you were seriously exploring the best sound available from tubes, you were on track to spending at least a couple thousand dollars, usually more. But there were no alternative approaches to the buy'em and try'em method. You became familiar with the legend and lore, purchased the tubes, and then exchanged notes with others.

With regards to the value of that legend and lore, note that many here have found the inexpensive 2C51 group at least the equal of, sometimes surpassing, the expensive 'legendary' tubes. The rest is commonsense. The most highly regarded tubes in this thread vary in price from a few dollars to several hundred, but the differences in SQ are subtle, not extreme. None stand head and shoulders above the others. So are you missing something important if you only explore the less expensive tubes? My answer would be No. (You will miss the disappointment of spending $400 on a pair of tubes only to find you prefer another $4 pair to be superior.)

About the PWs specifically, factory specs are not available, but here's is what we do know about the PWs and the tubes that followed immediately afterwards:
In both versions the cathode/grid/anode amplify the signal, and these components, materials and tolerances determine the SQ. As with all tubes.
With the PWs, after assembly, the glass tube is heated and pressed against the top mica plate, which is smaller in diameter than the glass tube inside diameter.
With the tubes that followed immediately after, the mica plates are slightly larger in diameter than the inside diameter of the glass tube, no heating and pressing required.
Neither of these glass/mica arrangements affect the performance of the cathode/grid/anode directly.
So the important question would be, did the cathode/grid/anode assembly change in some significant way that affects the SQ in some significant way?
Possible... But there is no consensus or objective evidence.
 
Mar 9, 2018 at 10:14 PM Post #16,942 of 23,493
Thank you @TK16 for always recommending these WE396a tubes. I finally landed a pair and just in time because the adapter came in yesterday. They sure look funny in this amp, but I'll tell you what..... they don't sound too funny!

20180309_221006.jpg
 
Mar 9, 2018 at 11:06 PM Post #16,944 of 23,493
What is their SS like to your ears?

Keep in mind this is in a totally different amp then what I ran before and what you guys are typically running in this thread.

When I first received the adapters I was hellbent on finally being able to try the LME. Wow, they sound great. The top end isn't extended like a lot of people say just the detail retrieval is insane. To be honest I wasn't too shocked on how good they sounded because I had already heard so much from you guys. It's just that I got to listen to them myself.

The WE are another animal altogether. Not better, but different. In my amp they're not warmer at all. The top end is a bit more extended next to the LME's but with that it brings more authority in the bass and mid-bass (not mids so much). Overall the WE tubes have ZERO bad habits. Nothing to complain about. It's almost as if they vanished beneath my amp. I didn't get a whole lot of time ( less than 5 min ) because I also received some killer 6C8G Marconi tubes I've been waiting to listen to. You cannot compare this tube to the 396a so I won't even start. Am I on point with the WE @TK16 ? Just asking because I'm listening through a different amp.

20180309_230014.jpg
 
Mar 9, 2018 at 11:30 PM Post #16,945 of 23,493
@Autostart , your other tubes in your amp may be influencing the sound of the WE, I know when I ran non warmish tubes in my dac especially the 2C51 variants. Those variants account for at least 50% of the tube sound. The WE did not have their signature warm sound. Bendix, CBS, LM E's, GE's were the main culprits. Putting in 6922 variants helped things with the WE's and other warm sounding tubes. The 6922 variants accounted for much less of the total tube sound, maybe 25% Now tthat I run the gumby full time I do not have that problem.
 
Mar 10, 2018 at 9:36 AM Post #16,946 of 23,493
Great stuff rnros! Thanks for the great info. I am having blast tube rolling and learning all I can about tubes.

Wes
 
Mar 10, 2018 at 9:45 AM Post #16,947 of 23,493
To all you WE396A lovers, I have been rolling back and forth between 3 sets of WE's, a pair of perfectly match 1959 JW's , a pair of 1951 2c51 WE 396A, and a pair of 1955 WE396A and they all sound amazing. The JW's seem to have a bit stronger bass and maybe just a tad bit less on top, but I am still determining that, as I continue the rolling of the 3 sets. This is so much fun!
 
Mar 10, 2018 at 10:29 AM Post #16,948 of 23,493
Keep in mind this is in a totally different amp then what I ran before and what you guys are typically running in this thread.

When I first received the adapters I was hellbent on finally being able to try the LME. Wow, they sound great. The top end isn't extended like a lot of people say just the detail retrieval is insane. To be honest I wasn't too shocked on how good they sounded because I had already heard so much from you guys. It's just that I got to listen to them myself.

The WE are another animal altogether. Not better, but different. In my amp they're not warmer at all. The top end is a bit more extended next to the LME's but with that it brings more authority in the bass and mid-bass (not mids so much). Overall the WE tubes have ZERO bad habits. Nothing to complain about. It's almost as if they vanished beneath my amp. I didn't get a whole lot of time ( less than 5 min ) because I also received some killer 6C8G Marconi tubes I've been waiting to listen to. You cannot compare this tube to the 396a so I won't even start. Am I on point with the WE @TK16 ? Just asking because I'm listening through a different amp.


Nice looking tubes and photo. I enjoy what the WE 396A offers, but I agree that the 6C8G group is another level. Haven't tried the Marconi RCA yet, currently have Ken Rad/NU/Tung Sol/Sylvania. Don't know why the 6C8G has been overlooked, prices are so low. Some of these are $15 a tube vs $60 for the WE 396A. What would a 6C8G cost if it were manufactured today? $100?
 
Mar 10, 2018 at 11:15 AM Post #16,949 of 23,493
To all you WE396A lovers, I have been rolling back and forth between 3 sets of WE's, a pair of perfectly match 1959 JW's , a pair of 1951 2c51 WE 396A, and a pair of 1955 WE396A and they all sound amazing. The JW's seem to have a bit stronger bass and maybe just a tad bit less on top, but I am still determining that, as I continue the rolling of the 3 sets. This is so much fun!
Found no evidence to the JW`s being better than the non JW`s of the same era, may be tube variance. Of the 5 pair I had (4 still have), my non JW 47/49 pair is my favorite. Could be the perfectly matched 1959 JW coming into play.. My other sets fit in to the too close to tell any difference.
 
Mar 10, 2018 at 11:48 AM Post #16,950 of 23,493
I agree. I just popped my JW's in and I am listening now, and they really do sound the same as the regular WE's. It was just my mind playing tricks on me.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top