A few years ago, I replaced flat-plate 6J5s with round-plate 6J5s in a 6J5-45 power amp I built and noticed immediately more pleasant sound.
Hard to describe magnitude of improvement, but certainly noticeable.
Can’t draw general conclusion from one observation, but want to share this experience…
Hard to describe magnitude of improvement, but certainly noticeable.
Can’t draw general conclusion from one observation, but want to share this experience…
That's your level of contribution and knowledge. I swear I have never met anyone at such low level, including those who you liked your post.
Last edited:
''Sounds better''... two essentially like devices contrasted by their scientifically measured characteristics that are within the recognized range of human perception, with one that has agreed upon specifications that would indeed translate to an audible difference being sought.
Start with frequency response, noise, and distortion. Anything else that the brain can sense..., put the numbers in a table of tube types compared each to its own type. Don't come back to class without this assignment completed.
Start with frequency response, noise, and distortion. Anything else that the brain can sense..., put the numbers in a table of tube types compared each to its own type. Don't come back to class without this assignment completed.
Sounds better is NOT the subject! You and few other cannot get past that, sorry. That's the point.
I made comments about noise and distortion. Prove me wrong, please.
Ideal cases: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspa.1937.0151
Then add the boundary conditions with stray fields to the planar and cylindrical types (especially taking into account how much surface is involved in relation to the ideal one) and see which one looks better. Can you understand the maths? While for planar types the ratio between ideal field and stray field is highly variable (there are very flat types and "box" types) this is much less variable with cylindrical types.
This should also hint at why the tubes Thomas Mayer has developed have very long plate in relation to the diameter....
This you don't find it in today's tube books that only talk about useless stuff kind of derived "obtorto collo" from SS theories or paste and copy with some make up of other's work. The only exception is Morgan Jones' book which is instead very useful.
Then add the boundary conditions with stray fields to the planar and cylindrical types (especially taking into account how much surface is involved in relation to the ideal one) and see which one looks better. Can you understand the maths? While for planar types the ratio between ideal field and stray field is highly variable (there are very flat types and "box" types) this is much less variable with cylindrical types.
This should also hint at why the tubes Thomas Mayer has developed have very long plate in relation to the diameter....
This you don't find it in today's tube books that only talk about useless stuff kind of derived "obtorto collo" from SS theories or paste and copy with some make up of other's work. The only exception is Morgan Jones' book which is instead very useful.
Last edited:
At least he's adding some fun to this nonsense thread, you are bitter intolerant like all fanatics and don't accept any opinion not blindly accepting yours.
I much prefer some Humour instead of spreading Technical myth and nonsense.
What is YOUR contribution to Tube knowledge and Technology?
@JMFahey the only nonsense is in your posts where you say NOTHING! You have nothing to say except "this is nonsense"!! What a genius!!! ROTFL
Now I will also be evil and state that you always say you cannot afford this and that so you surely have less knoledge than me. I can bet you don't understand a single equation of those in the article I have just posted. What do you want to talk about? Nonsense of course!
Now I will also be evil and state that you always say you cannot afford this and that so you surely have less knoledge than me. I can bet you don't understand a single equation of those in the article I have just posted. What do you want to talk about? Nonsense of course!
That's the way to go, but sadly many threads which could be very useful are corrupted by "it is this or that way, because I say so"
Outlandish claims with zero proof.
And bitter anger against those who do not are servile.
No, I do not want to "afford" what you suggest.
Why spend good money on obsolete outdated technology where a humble LM1875 is WAY cleaner, flatter, has less distortion, beats it in every single aspect, only to meet your magic/religion type beliefs?
The whole World has advanced, only some hardcore fanatics stick to a distant past.
Only if you know they are in circuit. Matters not what all the other toobz,
Rs, Cs, Ls, OPTs, Lautsprechers, space we are in & what color of wine is being consumed.
Why not sit back & simply enjoy the performance. Leave all the concerns with such things to others.
Who know more that the rest of us.
TonyTecson,
Correct!
You have come upon one of the reasons why some designers go to all the trouble that is required to use RF tubes for Audio.
Many of those RF tubes Do have circular cathodes, circular g1 grids, circular g2 grids if present, and circular plates.
And then there is another type of construction that has equidistant electron paths, the planar triodes such as the 416A, and many pencil triodes.
GE made some small, squat triodes for deep space service, some radio amateurs were interested, they appeared in at least one "Ham" magazine such as CQ or QST.
Take a look at most of the EiMac RF tubes.
Very interesting construction.
Correct!
You have come upon one of the reasons why some designers go to all the trouble that is required to use RF tubes for Audio.
Many of those RF tubes Do have circular cathodes, circular g1 grids, circular g2 grids if present, and circular plates.
And then there is another type of construction that has equidistant electron paths, the planar triodes such as the 416A, and many pencil triodes.
GE made some small, squat triodes for deep space service, some radio amateurs were interested, they appeared in at least one "Ham" magazine such as CQ or QST.
Take a look at most of the EiMac RF tubes.
Very interesting construction.
"Rounded anode sound is better than boxed..."
Hmmm
.
It is actually irrelevant to the vacuum tube topic at all? Why?
1. Because the statement it is coming from the manufacturer who just brought out to the market - rounded pieces?
2. Statement is out of the context. Yes the anode shape is the factor. BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE and not for every type of vacuum tube purpose...
Materials, mixture of metals, cathode tension, Getters, micas, glass, very specific technology, and many other things are probably bigger factor for "sound" than shape?
One thing is for sure - contemporary vacuum tube brands do not have the same quality and consistance of materials like that was the case for instance with earlier big brands...
3. Unpublished datasheets. Measurements exists 100%. Why manufacturer didnt publish? Few major reasons for that is.
3a) Production is inconsistent. If the measurements are published, than so many DIYers can check and trace the anode chrs? So manufacturer want to avoid "discussion" about it and to avoid potential confrontation with public domain...
3b) Manufacturer don't want to publish specs to create a "mystical" narratives in public media.
3c) Campaign will go in direction - give the specs to "listening", BUT the listening and coments are also irrelevant. The goal is to made some photographies in "wealthy" listening spaces. Because the indoctrination trough the public media is the target. That is opperates as "life style" not for everyone. And price is follow that of-course.
It is not new praxis many brands are totally into this. (like famous DAC brand from Poland, and others)
It is not even a economic exclusivity of "other" it is a sort of "ideological" confrontation, and as it is, conducting trough the indoctrination... Public Visual-Textual media is the field of the "activities".
And that is exactly what we participating in, now in this topic.
.
One fact is also important giving the momentum. Old NOS tubes, audio types slowly decreasing in numbers, prices are much more higher and many "almost dead" tubes are offering as NOS to find customers. People think in simple way: Better to by NEW piece, from known brand, advertized and censored by the certain group of listeners. We will trust them. If they soend a lot of money in the audio systems and space for that, it is the truth. Everybody else is just malicious...
.
It is simple reflex of the public media, few facts and psychology...
Does a little with technical or other things from importance.
.
Or maybe I am wrong and these arguments are not standing? I am honest really it is not auto-cynical...
Hmmm
.
It is actually irrelevant to the vacuum tube topic at all? Why?
1. Because the statement it is coming from the manufacturer who just brought out to the market - rounded pieces?
2. Statement is out of the context. Yes the anode shape is the factor. BUT NOT THE ONLY ONE and not for every type of vacuum tube purpose...
Materials, mixture of metals, cathode tension, Getters, micas, glass, very specific technology, and many other things are probably bigger factor for "sound" than shape?
One thing is for sure - contemporary vacuum tube brands do not have the same quality and consistance of materials like that was the case for instance with earlier big brands...
3. Unpublished datasheets. Measurements exists 100%. Why manufacturer didnt publish? Few major reasons for that is.
3a) Production is inconsistent. If the measurements are published, than so many DIYers can check and trace the anode chrs? So manufacturer want to avoid "discussion" about it and to avoid potential confrontation with public domain...
3b) Manufacturer don't want to publish specs to create a "mystical" narratives in public media.
3c) Campaign will go in direction - give the specs to "listening", BUT the listening and coments are also irrelevant. The goal is to made some photographies in "wealthy" listening spaces. Because the indoctrination trough the public media is the target. That is opperates as "life style" not for everyone. And price is follow that of-course.
It is not new praxis many brands are totally into this. (like famous DAC brand from Poland, and others)
It is not even a economic exclusivity of "other" it is a sort of "ideological" confrontation, and as it is, conducting trough the indoctrination... Public Visual-Textual media is the field of the "activities".
And that is exactly what we participating in, now in this topic.
.
One fact is also important giving the momentum. Old NOS tubes, audio types slowly decreasing in numbers, prices are much more higher and many "almost dead" tubes are offering as NOS to find customers. People think in simple way: Better to by NEW piece, from known brand, advertized and censored by the certain group of listeners. We will trust them. If they soend a lot of money in the audio systems and space for that, it is the truth. Everybody else is just malicious...
.
It is simple reflex of the public media, few facts and psychology...
Does a little with technical or other things from importance.
.
Or maybe I am wrong and these arguments are not standing? I am honest really it is not auto-cynical...
Last edited: