The Reference 6SN7 Thread

[theclipper]

Has anyone had a chance to compare Linlai E-6SN7 to Shuguang WE6SN7plus?

 

[Pastwa]

Has anyone had a chance to compare Linlai E-6SN7 to Shuguang WE6SN7plus?

In my setup I prefer the Shuguang tubes, it took them about 200-250hrs to fully break in, but I find them now more extended in bass and treble, with a better insight into the music (more holographic soundstage) and foremost with a better weight to the sound, especially the bass goes deeper and has more impact. Linlai are more ethereal, lighter, softer up top, very similar to the Psvane.
I would say the WE plus are technically on par with Sylvania 6SN7GT (VT-231) but with more meat on the bone, simply more musical.

 

[theclipper]

In my setup I prefer the Shuguang tubes, it took them about 200-250hrs to fully break in, but I find them now more extended in bass and treble, with a better insight into the music (more holographic soundstage) and foremost with a better weight to the sound, especially the bass goes deeper and has more impact. Linlai are more ethereal, lighter, softer up top, very similar to the Psvane.
I would say the WE plus are technically on par with Sylvania 6SN7GT (VT-231) but with more meat on the bone, simply more musical.

That is super helpful, that's all the encouragement I need to give a pair of these a shot

 

[Waffle Prime]

In my setup I prefer the Shuguang tubes, it took them about 200-250hrs to fully break in, but I find them now more extended in bass and treble, with a better insight into the music (more holographic soundstage) and foremost with a better weight to the sound, especially the bass goes deeper and has more impact. Linlai are more ethereal, lighter, softer up top, very similar to the Psvane.
I would say the WE plus are technically on par with Sylvania 6SN7GT (VT-231) but with more meat on the bone, simply more musical.

Pre fire Shuguangs? I am curious if they have changed at all with the resumption of production. Events like that are so disruptive, even with highly standardized products. Hopefully they got back on track quickly.

 

[Pastwa]

Pre fire Shuguangs?

If we go by the stamp on the included QA doc. it says July 2024.

 

[Waffle Prime]

If we go by the stamp on the included QA doc. it says July 2024.

That's a positive sign they are back! I might try a quad next year, if I get the itch...

 

[incredulousity]

That's a positive sign they are back! I might try a quad next year, if I get the itch...

Interesting. Link for the Shuguangs? I had one of the last of the older pairs, and they were great, but one became defective after about 20 hours.

 

[ceylon103]

That's a positive sign they are back! I might try a quad next year, if I get the itch...

i thought they had been for a bit now

 

[Waffle Prime]

i thought they had been for a bit now

Yes, by the calendar. Restarting any production process after a multi year break is a challenging endeavor. Hats off to them if they got to a fast and consistent output. Reports from 6sn7 lovers are so useful in this regard!

 

[Cognomen]

I've sorted hundreds of 6SN7's and other double triodes looking for pairs that look the same in terms of innards and the same or very close in terms of information on the glass and base. (I do not need tube tester matched pairs for my gear.) I wonder if I am too exacting, though. It seems to me that some of the tubes were hand assembled and the assembler could have probably oriented the parts in a variety of ways. If some were assembled by machinery, it also seems possible that one assembly line might not have oriented things the same way as another. Examples of what I have seen and rejected as matches include tubes that appear exactly the same, except 1) the pattern of holes on the upper mica are 180 degrees rotated or flipped over, 2) orientation of rectangular ladder plates: sometimes the rivets on both plates face outward, sometimes both inward, and sometimes one inward and the other outward. 3) side getters are on the opposite side of the tube (interacts with #3) 4) the same side getter flashing but subtly different flashing up top such as one tube is perfectly clear and the other has 2 getter flashes about the size of a grain of rice or one has two grains of rice and the other 2 pea sized flashes. Am curious to know how some of you respond to such things. Reject because not a match? Accept if there are only 1 - 2 differences? Much of this seems like it could be inert. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer and that it's subjective personal preference but am curious to know how other folks proceed.

 

[TheHipsterCow]

Still loving the PSVANE Art, it is an excellent tube. Like the TII but better.

Andrew

I was looking to pick up a PSVANE art for my Black Ice F360, currently I have just been using Shuguang Black Treasures for everything (got a killer deal on 16 of them a couple years ago) but have been thinking of experimenting a bit more. What do you like about the PSVANE Art tubes?

 

[WildPhydeaux]

I've sorted hundreds of 6SN7's and other double triodes looking for pairs that look the same in terms of innards and the same or very close in terms of information on the glass and base. (I do not need tube tester matched pairs for my gear.) I wonder if I am too exacting, though. It seems to me that some of the tubes were hand assembled and the assembler could have probably oriented the parts in a variety of ways. If some were assembled by machinery, it also seems possible that one assembly line might not have oriented things the same way as another. Examples of what I have seen and rejected as matches include tubes that appear exactly the same, except 1) the pattern of holes on the upper mica are 180 degrees rotated or flipped over, 2) orientation of rectangular ladder plates: sometimes the rivets on both plates face outward, sometimes both inward, and sometimes one inward and the other outward. 3) side getters are on the opposite side of the tube (interacts with #3) 4) the same side getter flashing but subtly different flashing up top such as one tube is perfectly clear and the other has 2 getter flashes about the size of a grain of rice or one has two grains of rice and the other 2 pea sized flashes. Am curious to know how some of you respond to such things. Reject because not a match? Accept if there are only 1 - 2 differences? Much of this seems like it could be inert. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer and that it's subjective personal preference but am curious to know how other folks proceed.

This is my own personal opinion and not intended as criticism on another way of doing things or looking at things...

I personally think you're being too exacting in your matching efforts. Some of the differences you mention are entirely visual and cannot possibly affect the sound character vs another tube with similar construction from the same era. I think the mild OCD tendencies we audiophiles often have can lead into audio nervosa pretty easily and tube "matching", tube "lore" and the greed of others feed that condition immensely. I would concentrate more on putting together pairs/quads that are definitely the same manufacturer with identical construction from the same era. When I say identical construction I don't mean identical twins, right down to the last freckle. If you get the manufacturer and the era right, the variances in how the getter material flashed or how the same shape mica was oriented won't mean a thing in terms of performance (electrical or audible). I think we've all heard tubes that were mind-blowingly good and rushed out to grab another pair of the same, only to find that the new ones - identical though they may be - didn't sound as good. This may be down to break in, or how it was used in its previous life, but it's also clear they can just sound different for no apparent reason. Give them some time and let your ear decide. If we're searching for good sounding pairs, we probably want ones that - shock alert - sound good paired up in our gear. If one has a tester it's also worthwhile to get a general idea of health, but being too pedantic about matching electrical performance isn't going to buy much audible joy either. Or at least its not going to insure it.

So when you say matched pairs are not too important for your gear it tells me you're: 1) Not selling them on to people who care about the electrical matching and 2) you are more concerned about cosmetics. This is an entirely acceptable and a valid activity if, as part of the hobby, you get enjoyment out of the process. But where you draw the line on what defines a match is your own comfort level. I get that you're just asking what others do, and fair enough. Are you asking to gauge where your own level of OCD falls on the spectrum? I say that in a gently kidding manner.

Cheers,
Robert

 

[Designsfx]

I've sorted hundreds of 6SN7's and other double triodes looking for pairs that look the same in terms of innards and the same or very close in terms of information on the glass and base. (I do not need tube tester matched pairs for my gear.) I wonder if I am too exacting, though. It seems to me that some of the tubes were hand assembled and the assembler could have probably oriented the parts in a variety of ways. If some were assembled by machinery, it also seems possible that one assembly line might not have oriented things the same way as another. Examples of what I have seen and rejected as matches include tubes that appear exactly the same, except 1) the pattern of holes on the upper mica are 180 degrees rotated or flipped over, 2) orientation of rectangular ladder plates: sometimes the rivets on both plates face outward, sometimes both inward, and sometimes one inward and the other outward. 3) side getters are on the opposite side of the tube (interacts with #3) 4) the same side getter flashing but subtly different flashing up top such as one tube is perfectly clear and the other has 2 getter flashes about the size of a grain of rice or one has two grains of rice and the other 2 pea sized flashes. Am curious to know how some of you respond to such things. Reject because not a match? Accept if there are only 1 - 2 differences? Much of this seems like it could be inert. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer and that it's subjective personal preference but am curious to know how other folks proceed.

If you examine “EIA Code” documents listing all of the parties that were involved with tube assembly/manufacture (especially war time era) you’ll see why the results are totally plausible. While tubes were produced to meet a specification there were many shops/assembly houses playing their part prior to the final assembly.

 

[leftside]

I've sorted hundreds of 6SN7's and other double triodes looking for pairs that look the same in terms of innards and the same or very close in terms of information on the glass and base. (I do not need tube tester matched pairs for my gear.) I wonder if I am too exacting, though. It seems to me that some of the tubes were hand assembled and the assembler could have probably oriented the parts in a variety of ways. If some were assembled by machinery, it also seems possible that one assembly line might not have oriented things the same way as another. Examples of what I have seen and rejected as matches include tubes that appear exactly the same, except 1) the pattern of holes on the upper mica are 180 degrees rotated or flipped over, 2) orientation of rectangular ladder plates: sometimes the rivets on both plates face outward, sometimes both inward, and sometimes one inward and the other outward. 3) side getters are on the opposite side of the tube (interacts with #3) 4) the same side getter flashing but subtly different flashing up top such as one tube is perfectly clear and the other has 2 getter flashes about the size of a grain of rice or one has two grains of rice and the other 2 pea sized flashes. Am curious to know how some of you respond to such things. Reject because not a match? Accept if there are only 1 - 2 differences? Much of this seems like it could be inert. I don't believe there is a right or wrong answer and that it's subjective personal preference but am curious to know how other folks proceed.

I'm happy to see this. Someone has worse OCD than me If the parts are the same, I don't worry about the orientation/rotation. Honestly, it can be difficult enough just matching up a 6SN7 construction due to the continual changes over the years. Even worse with power tubes like EL11.

And it doesn't help that companies like GEC would run out of getters sometimes and you'd see "old/rectangle" getters appearing in "newer" tubes (that should have circle getters) just to mess with us collectors 60+ years later

 

[Cognomen]

I'm happy to see this. Someone has worse OCD than me If the parts are the same, I don't worry about the orientation/rotation. Honestly, it can be difficult enough just matching up a 6SN7 construction due to the continual changes over the years. Even worse with power tubes like EL11.

And it doesn't help that companies like GEC would run out of getters sometimes and you'd see "old/rectangle" getters appearing in "newer" tubes (that should have circle getters) just to mess with us collectors 60+ years later

Very interesting to hear! Thank you!