The Reference 6J5 Thread (L63, 6C5, 12J5, 6P5, etc.)

[triod750]

I haven't found any comments on this tube, is it an ugly duckling not worth mentioning? I don't have an adapter to try them in yet so I don't know how they sound.

 

[bcowen]

I haven't found any comments on this tube, is it an ugly duckling not worth mentioning? I don't have an adapter to try them in yet so I don't know how they sound.

Well, they are ugly on the exterior , but they may sound wonderful. Never judge a book by its cover...or something like that.

 

[Slade01]

I haven't found any comments on this tube, is it an ugly duckling not worth mentioning? I don't have an adapter to try them in yet so I don't know how they sound.

I would take the ugliest Brimar tube over many nicer looking tubes any day of the week.

 

[triod750]

Has anybody tried it? Or, rather, can you provide a listening impression?

 

[chrisdrop]

Has anybody tried it? Or, rather, can you provide a listening impression?

I have STC/Brimar 6C5 tubes that sound good. I don't have any "GT"-style Brimar 6J5s, but I imagine they'd be "good". Only 1 way to know...

 

[bcowen]

Has anybody tried it? Or, rather, can you provide a listening impression?

I only have one pair, and it's difficult to tell from the pic you posted how similar they might be internally. Nice sounding tubes if paired with a synergistic power tube. The Cetron 7236 pictured isn't it. They are much more enjoyable paired with a TS 5998 or a graphite plate 6080 output tube. Regardless of the output tube though they have a beautiful treble and lots of detail (without being hyped sounding). But they're a bit lean in the bass and need an output tube that has some whomp down low to compensate. Just my impressions, and only of this one particular vintage/construction though.

 

[Slade01]

Has anybody tried it? Or, rather, can you provide a listening impression?

I haven't tried Brimar 6J5GT, but other variants of it (6C5G, 6SN7, 12AU7) and are all great sounding. As @bcowen says "beautiful treble/great detail". In some cases with my setup, they are mid-forward emphasized tubes. They are lean on bass, but paired right with a power tube to fill out the lower end, and its right on the money. What Brimar tubes do, they do extremely well.

 

[triod750]

I only have one pair, and it's difficult to tell from the pic you posted how similar they might be internally. Nice sounding tubes if paired with a synergistic power tube. The Cetron 7236 pictured isn't it. They are much more enjoyable paired with a TS 5998 or a graphite plate 6080 output tube. Regardless of the output tube though they have a beautiful treble and lots of detail (without being hyped sounding). But they're a bit lean in the bass and need an output tube that has some whomp down low to compensate. Just my impressions, and only of this one particular vintage/construction though.

Mine are 6J5GT/G with 'ribbed flat plates', not like yours. On the internal glass, where it is pressed together, one is marked W23, one A43, one A4 and maybe 0 as in A40 and the last one A41. They are unused spares from an old cinema. I'm convinced they are younger than I am. I was marked on the umbilical cord that is lost somehow.
Adapters are ordered from Deyan.

 

[triod750]

This is how they look: https://www.ebay.com/itm/KEN-RAD-6J...55-0&campid=5337590777&customid=&toolid=10001

 

[Xcalibur255]

There is a fair chance that they're actually an American made tube re-branded as Brimar, although I admit that would be unusual given that the purpose of many Brimar tubes was for export. All the Brimars I have seen so far have had oval/round plates. It's certainly not impossible that they made a ladder plate version at some point but I think the odds are higher that somebody else made it.

 

[triod750]

How about the codes inked to the glass internals? Could they help with identification? They are made with prominent whitish 'ink'.

My only other Brimars, a 6SN7GT pair, have the oval plates you are talking about.

 

[Xcalibur255]

My date code-fu isn't as strong as it is for some others around here. It's not anything I recognize right away. I have a hunch they might be Japanese made, but take that with a grain of salt because it's just a hunch. I don't think it's very likely they are British though, they just don't share any of the usual STC construction techniques.

 

[Xcalibur255]

So it's time for part one of "A Tale of Two Raytheons" as it were.

First off these are branded Zenith just like the prior Sylvanias were but I'm pretty confident they are Raytheon made. The extra support rod (not visible in this photo, it's on the other side) and x-shaped top mica are Raytheon hallmarks, and it shares a sonic signature with other Raytheon tubes from the 30's and 40's I have heard. For the full description this is a 1937 Raytheon ladder plate 6J5G with engraved base and steel grid posts.

Some interesting differences here compared to the Sylvania from the last week, which is a very similar vintage tube to this one with it also being an engraved base G tube. The thing that strikes me right away, and really helps my understanding of the Sylvania sound too, is how the upper mids and lower treble are presented. The Sylvania sound is very "glossy" and places a lot of emphasis on the leading edge of the note. To my ears it is a very 'hifi' sort of sound, sort of like turning on the noise reduction on your TV. Squeaky clean but the little details are not there anymore. This Raytheon, on the other hand, comes off right away as a more organic and textured sound. I find that timbre is more authentic sounding on the Raytheon and the music just sounds more natural. Tonally the top end is not as aggressive but it is still somewhat forward in the upper mids overall. Vocals are very present and generally front-of-mix but the overall sound is a bit more cohesive and less aggressive than the Sylvania. Soundstaging is a bit smaller, a bit more tonally "dense" and substantially more layered. It's nicely dynamic but not in the big splashy way the Sylvania was. Bass doesn't kick as hard but it is better defined and more textured. There were a few instances where I found the midrange forward in a "nasal" kind of way but I didn't get this impression very often, it mostly sounded very nice and pretty well balanced. I still wouldn't call this a great match for the Beyers but it's a far better match than the Sylvania is.

I really like this tube. I think it is better balanced and produces a more authentic sound with more natural instrument timbres than the Sylvania does. I think it would come down to preference and genres. If you're okay with the treble the Sylvania is a rock and roll tube, big drive and big energy. This is more of a jack of all trades sound and comes off as a smaller but more layered sound overall.

Now here's the big question: tomorrow I'm going to swap over to the round plate version of this tube. What will I hear? Will it sound exactly the same or will there be differences? Tune in to find out!

 

[leftside]

The British Brimar 6SN7's that I've purchased are some of the warmest tubes I have. Let me dig out the Brimar 6J5's I have and take a look this evening.

 

[bcowen]

So it's time for part one of "A Tale of Two Raytheons" as it were.



First off these are branded Zenith just like the prior Sylvanias were but I'm pretty confident they are Raytheon made. The extra support rod (not visible in this photo, it's on the other side) and x-shaped top mica are Raytheon hallmarks, and it shares a sonic signature with other Raytheon tubes from the 30's and 40's I have heard. For the full description this is a 1937 Raytheon ladder plate 6J5G with engraved base and steel grid posts.

Some interesting differences here compared to the Sylvania from the last week, which is a very similar vintage tube to this one with it also being an engraved base G tube. The thing that strikes me right away, and really helps my understanding of the Sylvania sound too, is how the upper mids and lower treble are presented. The Sylvania sound is very "glossy" and places a lot of emphasis on the leading edge of the note. To my ears it is a very 'hifi' sort of sound, sort of like turning on the noise reduction on your TV. Squeaky clean but the little details are not there anymore. This Raytheon, on the other hand, comes off right away as a more organic and textured sound. I find that timbre is more authentic sounding on the Raytheon and the music just sounds more natural. Tonally the top end is not as aggressive but it is still somewhat forward in the upper mids overall. Vocals are very present and generally front-of-mix but the overall sound is a bit more cohesive and less aggressive than the Sylvania. Soundstaging is a bit smaller, a bit more tonally "dense" and substantially more layered. It's nicely dynamic but not in the big splashy way the Sylvania was. Bass doesn't kick as hard but it is better defined and more textured. There were a few instances where I found the midrange forward in a "nasal" kind of way but I didn't get this impression very often, it mostly sounded very nice and pretty well balanced. I still wouldn't call this a great match for the Beyers but it's a far better match than the Sylvania is.

I really like this tube. I think it is better balanced and produces a more authentic sound with more natural instrument timbres than the Sylvania does. I think it would come down to preference and genres. If you're okay with the treble the Sylvania is a rock and roll tube, big drive and big energy. This is more of a jack of all trades sound and comes off as a smaller but more layered sound overall.

Now here's the big question: tomorrow I'm going to swap over to the round plate version of this tube. What will I hear? Will it sound exactly the same or will there be differences? Tune in to find out!

Really nice info...thanks for the detailed impressions. I don't have any Raytheon 6J5's at all, but have a number of Raytheon 6SN7's of various vintages and plate construction. One plate style I really like, and the other I don't like at all...I mean really at all. I'll keep mum on which is which at this point. And of course these are 6SN7's so they're different animals to begin with, and I expect they are all of later manufacture ('50's and later) than what you have so any attempted comparison might be a fools errand.