# 5E3 Power Tubes



## vadsy

I did a quick search but couldn't find anything directly answering my question, which is; what would some of you amp building and playing guru's recommend power tubes and rectifier wise for a 5E3 Tweed Deluxe? If something like this has already been addressed here, I know it has countless times on other forums that I trust less, just help me find it and post a link to the thread. 

If not here's my thing, I have a preamp tube compliment that's good to go and I'm happy with it, NOS RCA 12AY7 in V1 and a new JJ ECC83 in V2. The power section has taken some abuse this last year as I dragged the working chassis around with me to play different places plus I'm after some different 6V6 tubes to try as I have 2 amps currently running JJ's. I know for a fact the rectifier is buzzing pretty bad and it's driving me nuts, if I'm buying a new rectifier might as well pick up a set of power tubes, besides its good to have spares. 

So, brands to try besides the JJ's I already have? Any brands to avoid? Who would say NOS all the way or avoid it because it's not worth it? 

Thanks in advance,
Vadim


----------



## vadsy

Continuing the research and reading it seems the 6V6GT JAN Philips keep coming up as a good choice. Anyone have experience with these?


----------



## WCGill

Smoked glass RCA's are very nice and you should be able to root some out somewhere.


----------



## Wild Bill

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!

There is no sound inside a tube! No maple or rosewood grids with different sonic characteristics!

Tubes handle ELECTRONS! They do NOT handle sonic waves!

There is no sound inside an amp! There is no sound until the speaker pushes AIR!

Why does this myth still persist?

I know, I know. Why do some folks believe in numerology?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## vadsy

Wild Bill said:


> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> There is no sound inside a tube! No maple or rosewood grids with different sonic characteristics!
> 
> Tubes handle ELECTRONS! They do NOT handle sonic waves!
> 
> There is no sound inside an amp! There is no sound until the speaker pushes AIR!
> 
> Why does this myth still persist?
> 
> I know, I know. Why do some folks believe in numerology?
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


How can that be true? Are all capacitors the same as well? Should I just roll up some tin foil and wax paper from the kitchen, jam a couple of sparklers in it and solder it to the board expecting it to sound like Astrons? I realize tubes don't make sound, unless the rattle, but they sure do help the speaker push air and even in my limited experience the same speaker has sounded different with a varied selection of tubes.


----------



## keto

They definitely sound differently once overdriven, emphasizing different frequencies and having different breakup characteristics (tighter, looser, rounder, rougher). Also true of preamp tubes (12AX7's in particular) but certainly true of power tubes.

I am loath to disagree with you, a respected tech, Bill. I just know what I hear with my own ears.


----------



## Lincoln

I would say it's reliability more than sound. Russian tubes are more reliable than Chinese tubes. NOS vintage are in some cases built better than modern Russian tubes and made out of better materials. 
I dunno. I've been using groove tubes lately.


----------



## WCGill

Wild Bill said:


> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!
> 
> There is no sound inside a tube! No maple or rosewood grids with different sonic characteristics!
> 
> Tubes handle ELECTRONS! They do NOT handle sonic waves!
> 
> There is no sound inside an amp! There is no sound until the speaker pushes AIR!
> 
> Why does this myth still persist?
> 
> I know, I know. Why do some folks believe in numerology?
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


This is the guy you should be telling:

http://web.archive.org/web/20080515121129/http://thetubestore.com/6l6costello.html


----------



## vadsy

I ended up going with a pair of Tung Sol 6V6GT tubes, new ones for the time being, just because they seem to get many good reviews, are fairly inexpensive and readily available. I wouldn't mind owning some NOS Philips or RCA's at some point but I'll wait for a deal to pop up. This will give me a chance to compare the JJ's I have with another new production 6V6 tube. On the rectifier I chose a 5Y3WGTA JAN, hopefully it does its job and outlasts everything around it.


----------



## StevieMac

Among current issue 6V6 tubes, the Tung Sols are probably my favourite in most applications...good choice IMO. I should dig around to see if I have any NOS I could provide you with. I know I had a pair of Visseaux 6V6GTs (supposedly high end NOS) somewhere...


----------



## Swervin55

vadsy said:


> I ended up going with a pair of Tung Sol 6V6GT tubes


This should bode well when we compare our amps as these are what are in my 5E3's as well.


----------



## vadsy

I'm really looking forward to A/B-ing them side by side. Do you still have 2 in your possession, or just the Trinity?


----------



## noman

StevieMac said:


> Among current issue 6V6 tubes, the Tung Sols are probably my favourite in most applications...good choice IMO. I should dig around to see if I have any NOS I could provide you with. I know I had a pair of Visseaux 6V6GTs (supposedly high end NOS) somewhere...


I'm pretty sure the Visseaux 6v6's were included in the pile you gave to me with that great little deluxe champ last year Steve, and yes, my favourite out of the whole bunch!!!


----------



## StevieMac

noman said:


> I'm pretty sure the Visseaux 6v6's were included in the pile you gave to me with that great little deluxe champ last year Steve, and yes, my favourite out of the whole bunch!!!


Thanks for that *noman*. To *Swervin55*: sorry if I got your hopes up! I've given away more stuff in the last year than I can possibly keep track of. If I find another nice pair, I'll send them out to you


----------



## Swervin55

Hey, no worries. Actually, I think I have some regrets not pulling the trigger on your Deluxe. It was a smokin' good deal but I couldn't justify having 3. I know how that sounds, but I'm running two in stereo.


----------



## gtone

WCGill said:


> This is the guy you should be telling:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080515121129/http://thetubestore.com/6l6costello.html


Damn that Alzheimers! Now where'd I leave all my old NOS tubes...


----------



## Wild Bill

WCGill said:


> This is the guy you should be telling:
> 
> http://web.archive.org/web/20080515121129/http://thetubestore.com/6l6costello.html


McGill, I knew that would come back to haunt me!hwopv

When I did that review it was as a favour to thetubestore.com. I understood that many people believed brands sounding different was true. 

When I did the tests, I could not hear any differences myself! So I used musician friends and went by their input! I trusted them and sincerely believed that their ears were better than mine. The tests we did were NOT blind tests! At the time I did not realize the necessity.

Meanwhile, I could not think of a single blessed reason rooted in physics or electronic theory to explain any differences. I had the experience of working with actual tube engineers from Canadian Westinghouse in the late 80's to draw on. They dismissed the very idea as equivalent to astrology or the I Ching! I should have taken them more seriously.

So I went from thinking there was something wrong with MY ears instead to using my BRAIN and looking for scientific evidence!

I started googling on the subject and right away I noticed that virtually every opinion from someone who was actually technically educated did NOT buy into this theory! However, virtually all those who did fervently believe tended to lack an actual electronics theory book in their home library.

As I have mentioned before, there is a whole new field called "psycho-acoustics" which explains a lot of why people believe in such things.

Again, I am perfectly willing to be PROVEN wrong! However, I would only accept true scientific blind testing as proof! That means that the subject claiming he can hear such differences would have to have no possible way of knowing which tube he is hearing or even if there were any change in tubes at all.

So far I have never seen any published results of such a test. Lots of tube "shoot outs" but they never are blind tests!

When and if I see some REAL proof, perhaps with some actual scientific explanation I will change my opinion but so far nothing like that has happened.

McGill, if you have some links or something you think I should look at that prove I'm wrong I will be glad to look at them, especially any blind test results.

Until then, I see no more reason to buy into the idea than the idea that the Universe is only a few thousand years old, having been created with zillion year old dinosaur fossils already in the ground.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just can't change mine without a better reason than any I have seen so far.

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## WCGill

It's all cool Bill. I take your rants with a grain of salt, but get the impression some don't, especially that "McGill". largetongue


----------



## Wild Bill

WCGill said:


> It's all cool Bill. I take your rants with a grain of salt, but get the impression some don't, especially that "McGill". largetongue



Talk about getting old and making slips, WCGill!

I have a William McGill relative down home!

Fine fellow, BTW! Bit of a successful ladies man!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Lincoln

way off topic, but all this talk of blind tube tests makes me think of the youtubes where they hand a blind-folded musician a bunch of Strats/tele's to play and he gets the Mexi and the US right but mixes up the Custom Shop with the Squire everytime.


----------



## jb welder

Wild Bill said:


> ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!


 Ok Bill, here's a pseudo-scientific explanation (opinion) of why the differences occur. You are careful to note SAME tube type. Well, maybe tubes labelled as the same type are just not really all the same type anymore. Like way out of tolerance. Or Russian "equivalents" that weren't designed to be. When you were in the sales end of things, the tolerances of tubes were pretty tight. Stuff that didn't make the cut were put aside somewhere. Many older guitar amps had fixed bias circuits with no adjustment, and didn't need it. All 6L6's would bias up pretty much the same in the same amp. My personal belief is any of the guitar greats from back when probably got their tubes from the local drugstore after checking theirs in the drugstores tube tester. Probably never heard of bias (in the electronic sense). Then the industry started shutting down production and the good stuff disappeared or got pricey. How to get rid of all those "b-spec" tubes? And tube matching and grading and "must have" adjustable bias was born. A 6L6 that is out of tolerance might have a bit different frequency response or bias requirement, but if we match them up and demand the amp be biased for them, well can't we charge extra for that? And a Russian 6P3S is close to a 6L6, so we'll just paint "5881/6L6" on the bottle. So different brand tubes of the same type will only sound the same within a certain spec., and I don't believe anyone meets those specs anymore.


----------



## Wild Bill

jb welder said:


> Ok Bill, here's a pseudo-scientific explanation (opinion) of why the differences occur. You are careful to note SAME tube type. Well, maybe tubes labelled as the same type are just not really all the same type anymore. Like way out of tolerance. Or Russian "equivalents" that weren't designed to be. When you were in the sales end of things, the tolerances of tubes were pretty tight. Stuff that didn't make the cut were put aside somewhere. Many older guitar amps had fixed bias circuits with no adjustment, and didn't need it. All 6L6's would bias up pretty much the same in the same amp. My personal belief is any of the guitar greats from back when probably got their tubes from the local drugstore after checking theirs in the drugstores tube tester. Probably never heard of bias (in the electronic sense). Then the industry started shutting down production and the good stuff disappeared or got pricey. How to get rid of all those "b-spec" tubes? And tube matching and grading and "must have" adjustable bias was born. A 6L6 that is out of tolerance might have a bit different frequency response or bias requirement, but if we match them up and demand the amp be biased for them, well can't we charge extra for that? And a Russian 6P3S is close to a 6L6, so we'll just paint "5881/6L6" on the bottle. So different brand tubes of the same type will only sound the same within a certain spec., and I don't believe anyone meets those specs anymore.


You are partially correct, JB. Tubes today are not made to the tight tolerances of the Golden Years. So differences DO appear, just not with tone!

The differences show up in build quality to resist developing mechanical noises and microphonics. They also show up with overall gain.

Tone is defined as changing frequency response across a passband of frequencies. If you cut some mids and boost some bass frequencies you are messing with the tone. If you change the amplitude of the ENTIRE signal you have changed the VOLUME! 

Changes in volume (overall gain) do not change the tone in any way. The signal just gets louder or softer.

A tube has no way of knowing or caring what frequency it is being asked to amplify, or in itself to amplifiy one part of the passband more or less than another. It simply amplifies frequencies exactly the same from 1 cycle per second all the way up to the limit the tube can add a constant gain factor, at which point the gain begins to fall off faster and faster until the amount is no longer useful.

A 12AX7 is normally used as a resistance coupled amplifier, which means its not a good performer at higher radio and television frequencies. However, it WILL work as high as shortwave radio frequencies, which are MILLIONS of cycles per second! I know this not just because I read books but because I have actually done it! I built my first tube receiver when I was 11 years old and spent many happy hours picking up stations from all over the globe.

Now an audio signal that even the best human ears can hear caps out at only 20,000 cycles per second. Would anyone like to claim that somehow a tube is going to treat that little sliver of a band of frequencies representing audio differently than all the other frequencies clear up into the shortwave bands?

The only thing that makes audio frequencies "special" to an amplifying device is that we human beings care about them! To electronic parts, they are just frequencies that are all the same. Some parts will have an upper or lower limit of what they can handle. Some, like inductors or capacitors, will have a slope to their response, where inductors pass low frequencies better than high ones and capacitors do the opposite. However, these effects happen over a broad range, especially with amplifying devices like tubes and transistors.

If a 12AX7 had different gain at audio mids than guitar treble then equalizers would be FAR simpler to build! They just don't!That is why we need complicated circuits with lots of other electronic parts to make equalizers and tone stacks work usefully for our application.

It's interesting that if you google frequency response for a 12AX7 you get only a few sites with the classic data sheet and application information that was around since the tube was invented just after WWII. None of this talks about different brands having different audio tone response. I worked with the last of the Canadian Westinghouse Tube Division employees. Those engineers laughed their heads off at such ideas, considering them on a par with astrology and voodoo.

It is also interesting that you will get pages of google responses for sites that DO claim tone differences but NONE of them are true technical sites! They are all audiophile or amplifier review sites, where none of the reviewers are actual engineers. They are all just laymen with experience at turning knobs and selling stuff. Few of them could even describe just how a vacuum tube actually works! They deal with other factors.

So I think you are right about how different brands may have different overall quality, with different hum levels, tendency to microphonics and length of useful lifetime. Still, that is not tone! A difference in overall gain might be noticed but that difference would be in volume, either up or down. Even then, the difference would be slight. Most amplifiers have many stages of gain that when multiplied out give an enormously high total gain figure. Small differences between different brands would wash out in the mix, if you will pardon the pun!

Again JB, before this idea of different brands sounding different in tone can hold merit we would have to see consistent proof from scientific testing, where the test subjects cannot possibly know which tubes are being used or even if the tube was changed.

So far, this has NOT happened! 

No one has proven astrology, either!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## StevieMac

Just putting this out there but...why would anyone bother trying to "prove" something that's entirely subjective, like "how an amp sounds"? I do agree that tolerance issues across tubes, especially as they relate to bias, can effect what the amp is putting out (and hence what you hear) but that's not _just_ a difference in volume IMO. Anyone who's heard an amp biased "cold" will recognize that it's lacking in both volume _and _frequency response...especially in the low frequencies, which may explain why so many folks describe that sound as "thin". A properly biased amp sounds "stronger" to my ears, with more volume obviously but also a pronounced bump in the low end. More "balls" I like to say...not mice nuts however. *;^)
*
I've not seen any frequency charts for when different makes of output tubes are used so there's no "hard data" I'm aware of...but I'd like to see it done. Until then, nobody could possibly disprove Bill's theory but, on the flip side, there's also no data to disprove what people's ears are telling them...especially when a group of them generally agree about the perceived differences. A "blind test" is always preferred in those instances of course but, for now, I'll stick with what my perceptions are suggesting.


----------



## Wild Bill

StevieMac said:


> Just putting this out there but...why would anyone bother trying to "prove" something that's entirely subjective, like "how an amp sounds"? I do agree that tolerance issues across tubes, especially as they relate to bias, can effect what the amp is putting out (and hence what you hear) but that's not _just_ a difference in volume IMO. Anyone who's heard an amp biased "cold" will recognize that it's lacking in both volume _and _frequency response...especially in the low frequencies, which may explain why so many folks describe that sound as "thin". A properly biased amp sounds "stronger" to my ears, with more volume obviously but also a pronounced bump in the low end. More "balls" I like to say...not mice nuts however. *;^)
> *
> I've not seen any frequency charts for when different makes of output tubes are used so there's no "hard data" I'm aware of...but I'd like to see it done. Until then, nobody could possibly disprove Bill's theory but, on the flip side, there's also no data to disprove what people's ears are telling them...especially when a group of them generally agree about the perceived differences. A "blind test" is always preferred in those instances of course but, for now, I'll stick with what my perceptions are suggesting.


Biasing hot or cold is only an issue if one brand of tube is biased differently than another, SM! If you rebias after you switch to a different brand then at the same idle current I believe things would sound the same.

As for going with your perceptions, I'm afraid that there is where we part company. Perception is SO easily fooled!

I REALLY would like to organize a jam night with some blind, scientific testing of some of these mojo myths! Perhaps when things warm up something could be organized. As I have said before, I would be willing to put up a bottle of scotch, assuming we could find others willing to be subjects who would do the same as a wager against me.

We could also do different brands of guitar cords and of course, different sizes of speaker wire. 

Would you be willing to wager on perceptions, SM? Can we count you in?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## nonreverb

Thought I'd wade into the mire while I'm here...The best way to make a difference in they way an amp sounds? Change the speaker and the output transformer. The speaker in particular, has a huge effect on the sound of an amp. I've bought amps from people who were convinced it sucked and all it took was a speaker change... 'poof'...the amp sounds completely different.
The only time I really notice a difference in the way a set of power tubes sound is when they're almost toast.(or rattley) It's pretty obvious too as the bottom end is farty and the overall sound is poor. Tubes at this stage don't bias well and are ready for the crusher...


----------



## StevieMac

I might be interested Bill, as long as others were playing and I was simply listening...in order to reduce _bias_ (sorry, couldn't resist!).

To my earlier point however, it seemed to me you were suggesting biasing can only affect volume, and not tone, which my ears _definitely_ disagree with. Example:

_So I think you are right about how different brands may have different overall quality, with different hum levels, tendency to microphonics and length of useful lifetime. Still, that is not tone! A difference in overall gain might be noticed but that difference would be in volume, either up or down.
_
Perhaps some clarifcation of this point is required then OR maybe I misunderstood OR the issue is really just one of semantics. We could both be correct however if we perceive an increase in gain/volume (following rebiasing) as an accentuation of certain frequencies (which the human brain does)...which we then label a "change in tone". Similarly, isn't the "Loudness" button on stereos based on the fact that we simply do not detect all frequencies equally at all volumes?

What I'm saying is, reducing it to an "electrons versus neurons" debate is too simplistic as "tone" is actually a combination of electrons AND neurons. The so called "signal chain" doesn't necessariy end at the speaker, which helps explain why an identical sound out of an amp's speaker can be both someone's "chime" and someone elses "icepick". 

Regardless, since I never actually asserted a "theory" here - I simply said "I believe I'm hearing something different" - it's not encumbent upon me to prove it. You will undoubtedly find variability within any group of listeners in a blind test and I'm the first to admit that perceptions do not always mirror reality. In any case though, you wouldn't need my participation Bill, or any listeners for that matter, to provide evidence for the theory you've espoused that "ALL brands of the SAME tube sound the SAME!". All that's needed is an analysis of frequency from the same amp - taken after the speaker and using the same input signal (perhaps a recording would work best) - when different brands of the same tubes are biased with identical plate voltages & idling current. If the frequency plots are identical, there's your evidence!


----------



## vadsy

My problem here is not science vs. what someone thinks they are hearing; it's that someone is putting down one extreme now vs. saying and putting their name to something completely different in order to help sell the same change in tone that apparently can't be changed using tubes. I can't take a tech seriously if he's peddling one thing and preaching another elsewhere, as for the Tubestore, they're worse off having that up on the site.


----------



## Wild Bill

StevieMac said:


> I might be interested Bill, as long as others were playing and I was simply listening...in order to reduce _bias_ (sorry, couldn't resist!).
> 
> To my earlier point however, it seemed to me you were suggesting biasing can only affect volume, and not tone, which my ears _definitely_ disagree with. Example:


For the record Steve, I absolutely agree that large differences in bias WILL change the tone!

My argument is solely about how different BRANDS of the same tube do NOT change tone!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Wild Bill

vadsy said:


> My problem here is not science vs. what someone thinks they are hearing; it's that someone is putting down one extreme now vs. saying and putting their name to something completely different in order to help sell the same change in tone that apparently can't be changed using tubes. I can't take a tech seriously if he's peddling one thing and preaching another elsewhere, as for the Tubestore, they're worse off having that up on the site.


Vadsy, I did that review for thetubestore.com years ago. At the time, I was not totally convinced that there might not be some subtle tone differences between brands. I have already admitted I could not hear any myself and that I used the ears of some of my musician friends for input. Since I wrote that review I have done a LOT more research and have become totally convinced the idea is sheer bunk!

That's what science does! It makes and takes premises and then tests them to see if they hold true. If they don't, they are discarded.

As for peddling, I'm not selling tubes! As a tech, I get my tubes from thetubestore.com at a (very) small discount. Frankly, it doesn't cover the gas or the time to go get them! I supply EH and JJ for the most part because I believe in their overall quality vs. their price.

I do not push any brand, more expensive or otherwise. I will cheerfully put in whatever the customer insists, if he has a preference.

So how the hell do you think I am "peddling"? It's not ME pushing expensive tubes!

Frankly, it's hard to take some customers seriously when they can't fix their own amp but they think they know what is wrong and how much I should charge them to fix it!

If you want to believe, go right ahead! However, if you want someone technical to believe you, then you had better come up with real technical evidence!

If you know that much then you should be perfectly capable of fixing any and all problems in your amps anyway.

Incidently, the people at thetubestore.com are good people and have never taken a stand on this issue themselves. They simply don't fight about it! They will tell you what many customers have reported but will not actually back any opinion. What can be more fair than that?

I think all this brand mojo comes from people trying to impress people (or themselves!) in order to enhance their own rep to get people to buy tubes from them. Or, to buy their audiophile magazine. Studying electronics and learning how things actually work is hard. Anyone with hair in their ears can repeat mojo read on the InterNet! 

"Use the Force, Luke! Ignore that incredibly sophisticated targeting computer and just go with your feelings!"

Now I'm fired up! We just GOTTA have some real tests! I want some of the people who are pushing this mojo to put their money where their mouth is by wagering a bottle on a true scientific test!

Or forever hold their peace!

We talked about this idea some years ago and I remember how some of the biggest champions of different brands having different sounds wussed out about participating in a real test. Let's hope this time they have some more integrity.

How about you, Vadsy?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## loudtubeamps

I would be in on the patch cable blindfold test. A 10' length of george L against a 10' length of whatever.
I'm confident that the test shouldn't take very long and a unanimous decision is reached. Can't wait for my prize.............. BTW,


I drink










I'll be looking forward to a jug from Hamilton. For the record.
Cheers, d

Vadsy, I believe you are correct. Opinions are one thing, but when one starts expressing their's as fact, cred soon diminishes.


----------



## Lincoln

what about Groove Tubes and thier "early breakup" "medium" "late breakup" tubes/sets they offer? Are they just rating them by the amount of gain each tube has?
I imagine the early breakup tubes would be the ones with the most gain, late tubes would be the least amount of gain?
Or are they rating them on the bias requirements?


----------



## Wild Bill

Just for the record, if we do get a jam night set up where we do some testing I am NOT going to be the only guy putting up a bottle!3dgrw

I've made my position on the subject quite clear and am willing to defend it with some good Scotch whiskey! 

I expect that those who disagree will be willing to pony up to defend their beliefs as well!

So I would expect that if someone wants to be a test subject and show us how he can hear differences between different brands of the same tube then he can put up a bottle of his own!

Only those with skin in the game can win!

I have no problem with folks just watching for the entertainment! I just don't intend to give up a bottle for someone who risked nothing, who is likely to go away and still insist that he is right!

If you believe in something you should be prepared to defend it. 

If we don't get anyone putting up anything before hand then my bottle stays home! I would still be willing to conduct the tests but NOT pay for any prizes! LOL

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## gtone

Don't think I'd want a tech putting hands on my amp that can't discern a difference between the tone of an RCA 6L6GC and an equivalent modern Russian production model. Just sayin'...


----------



## Wild Bill

gtone said:


> Don't think I'd want a tech putting hands on my amp that can't discern a difference between the tone of an RCA 6L6GC and an equivalent modern Russian production model. Just sayin'...


Really! Then you would be one of the first to volunteer for a true scientific test?

You have the right to trust any tech you choose, for whatever reasons.

Me, I won't peddle snake oil! 

If you are so certain you are right then you should have no problem passing a blindfold test.

Too bad you are so far away 'cuz I would dearly love to bet a bottle with you! :food-smiley-004:

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## gtone

If I were to choose the amp, the tubes, the guitar and the tone settings used for the test, I'd be willing to put my bottle up against yours. 

Probably somewhat of a moot exercise, however that wouldn't prove much. If I fail, it hardly constitutes absolute scientific proof of anything however and quite on the contrary, it suggests only that I personally couldn't notice the difference. That's not saying much, however - I've lost a fair amount of hearing over the years due to working around turbines, playing and listening to loud music, etc. 

If you have a blind taste test where 2 out of 3 people can't discern the difference between a wine from a box and a fine wine, does that mean that there is no difference in absolute terms? Of course not, it merely implies that some people can't tell which is which for whatever reason, some of those which could be predicated on or otherwise affected by the test subject's background, experience, physiological limitations, cultural biases and so on. The important point is this - there will be some people who can discern a difference between the boxed wine and the fine wine with reasonable consistency. Those are the people I want to recommend wine to me if/when I seek out such expertise. 

Having said all that, in spite of my somewhat impaired/aged senses, I still think I can discern the difference between RCA 6L6GC and say Fender/Groove Tube Russian 6L6's in my BF Bassman. The RCA has a HUGE friggin' bottom end that no other tube I've rolled through that amp comes even close to. As such, I'd be down to try your little "Pepsi challenge" if we were able to A/B the tubes back/forth a couple of times.


----------



## Wild Bill

gtone said:


> Having said all that, in spite of my somewhat impaired/aged senses, I still think I can discern the difference between RCA 6L6GC and say Fender/Groove Tube Russian 6L6's in my BF Bassman. The RCA has a HUGE friggin' bottom end that no other tube I've rolled through that amp comes even close to. As such, I'd be down to try your little "Pepsi challenge" if we were able to A/B the tubes back/forth a couple of times.



Well, at least you are willing to try a true test! As I said, it's telling how many who champion this mojo slither away when a real test is proposed.

Please understand, I am not saying people are stupid or crazy. It's a "psychoacoustic" thing and most folks are perfectly sincere. They are just wrong!

That is why we need scientific testing.

If you are that confident, perhaps you can help with the debate. So far I have not been able to come up with any true scienfific testing results from the Net, or anywhere else for that matter. All kinds of purely subjective reports where the tests are obviously not scientific in any way, shape or form but NOTHING that would satisfy a true tech or engineer!

Can you provide us with something? The closest I have found is one about the merits of different speaker wire with Monster Cable versus coat hangers:

http://consumerist.com/2008/03/03/do-coat-hangers-sound-as-good-monster-cables/

This of course is not about tubes but it is indicative of how people can fool themselves with sound.

I would have thought that if there was anything provable to the idea of different brands of tubes having different tone there would be blind and scientific tests coming out our yingyang to prove the premise. Yet all we have is unscientific advertising audiophile mojo.

Truly, if you've got something I would appreciate seeing it.

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## StevieMac

Unless you can convince several dozen people (at minimum) to participate Bill, there'll be nothing "scientific" whatsoever to such an experiment....and certainly nothing that's statistically significant. There are just TOO Many confounding variables to call it science I'm afraid.

I still stand by my original suggestion however, which is to simply examine frequency from the speaker, with the same input signal, after each tube swap. IMO, that's the ONLY way to prove your theory Bill, and also demonstrate that anything people claim to be hearing in terms of a difference must be false.


----------



## Wild Bill

StevieMac said:


> Unless you can convince several dozen people (at minimum) to participate Bill, there'll be nothing "scientific" whatsoever to such an experiment....and certainly nothing that's statistically significant. There are just TOO Many confiunding variables to call it science I'm afraid.
> 
> I still stand by my original suggestion however, which is to simply examine frequency from the speaker, with the same input signal, after each tube swap. IMO, that's the ONLY way to prove your theory Bill, and also demonstrate that anything people claim to be hearing in terms of a difference must be false.


Perhaps you're right, Steve. However, gtone made the point that even if he failed that only would prove that HE couldn't hear differences. 

Surely, if the idea had merit we would have evidence of at least SOME people being able to hear differences?

To me, I cannot think of any explanation rooted in electronic physics as to how the idea of different brands of the same tube can have different tone. I also cannot find any published results of a scientific test proving such a premise.

Meanwhile, the people who believe the idea offer ZIP ALL in the way of a technical explanation as to why their premise is true! What's more, the only physical evidence they offer is their own subjective opinion, without any scientific test of any kind to back it up.

I'm sorry, but that is less than I get from the Jehovah Witnesses who bang on my door!

I just can't buy it. That's why I'm suggesting those who believe put their money where their mouth is.

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## greco

StevieMac said:


> Unless you can convince several dozen people (at minimum) to participate Bill, there'll be nothing "scientific" whatsoever to such an experiment....and certainly nothing that's statistically significant. There are just TOO Many confounding variables to call it science I'm afraid.
> 
> I still stand by my original suggestion however, which is to *simply examine frequency from the speaker, with the same input signal, after each tube swap. *IMO, that's the ONLY way to prove your theory Bill, and also demonstrate that anything people claim to be hearing in terms of a difference must be false.


This seems like a great idea! 

The input signal could be controlled/maintained consistent with a function generator and a frequency counter...correct?

Would measuring/viewing the characteristics of the output signal require a spectrum analyzer (or spectrum analysis software) ? 

Would a spectrum analyzer "capture" subtle differences in "tone" with the tube swaps? 
(no offence intended here StevieMac...just curious).

At least with this approach, the only variables would appear to be the tube swaps...correct?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Wild Bill

greco said:


> This seems like a great idea!
> 
> The input signal could be controlled/maintained consistent with a function generator and a frequency counter...correct?
> 
> Would measuring/viewing the characteristics of the output signal require a spectrum analyzer (or spectrum analysis software) ?
> 
> Would a spectrum analyzer "capture" subtle differences in "tone" with the tube swaps?
> (no offence intended here StevieMac...just curious).
> 
> At least with this approach, the only variables would appear to be the tube swaps...correct?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


Well, I would use a sweep generator, to put out a signal of constant amplitude across the entire audio frequency range. 

Then I would use a spectrum analyser to see the signal. At that point we could start swapping.

However, have you ever priced an audio sweep generator or a spectrum analyser, Dave?

Far more expensive than a politician's loyalty! What's more, not something useful for everyday amp repair work. Not worth the investment.

Perhaps if we could coax some reputable engineers somewhere...

Still, I'm not sure if testing is even worth it. Most people WANT to believe! 

How many horoscopes are read every day?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## nonreverb

I've found after years of offering tech service, that some will always insist on using certain brands of tubes and others couldn't care less. That is just fine with me. If I'm asked what tubes to use, I usually base it on proven reliability rather than some unique tone. The whole tone thing is a moot argument when many customers are loading up the front end of their amps with a myriad of pedals or are using multi channel amps with high gain settings.
As for 6V6's, I've played around with dozens of different brands as I'm a complete Deluxe Reverb fanatic and you know which is my favourite choice in my go-to Deluxe? 5881's....





Wild Bill said:


> Well, I would use a sweep generator, to put out a signal of constant amplitude across the entire audio frequency range.
> 
> Then I would use a spectrum analyser to see the signal. At that point we could start swapping.
> 
> However, have you ever priced an audio sweep generator or a spectrum analyser, Dave?
> 
> Far more expensive than a politician's loyalty! What's more, not something useful for everyday amp repair work. Not worth the investment.
> 
> Perhaps if we could coax some reputable engineers somewhere...
> 
> Still, I'm not sure if testing is even worth it. Most people WANT to believe!
> 
> How many horoscopes are read every day?
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## gtone

An interesting discussion, to say the least, and one that has probably raged on and been debated _ad nauseam _for years.

I'm not saying you're wrong Bill - after all the psycho-acoustic thing is plausible, as the mind can/does play little tricks on us at times. Having said that, I do question scientific methods and their resulting conclusions at times. IMO, Steve has the right idea in that graphing/analyzing the frequency response is probably the only way to discern if there is any tonal difference between tubes.

Still, the "Pepsi challenge" idea would be fun, wouldn't it? I have the balls to put my bottle up because I believe I can tell a difference in sound/feel. A while back, I posted a thread here about my Bassman making me feel woozy and gave me an odd feeling in the diaphragm. It wasn't until I changed out the speakers and the power tubes that I could stand in front of it without getting that feeling (blackplate RCA's were the worst offender out of them, Sylvania's, GE's and two kinds of Russian 6L6's). So I not only believe the RCA's stand out sonically, but also in a way that I can feel. Not sure how/why, only that I feel in my gut (literally) that there's a difference. Perhaps varied production tolerances and materials used by power tube manufacturers accounts for slight changes in frequency response, who knows.

If I lost the challenge, I'd be out a bottle of hooch, but I might be a little wiser for it. Besides that, it'd be good entertainment, wouldn't it? Heck, I might even have to eat humble pie and apologize to you for the tech comment (guess other techs I've worked with have been similarly self-deluded - ha ha). Sheesh - we can't have that now, can we?? 

Again, at the end of the day, the "Pepsi challenge" blind test wouldn't be conclusive of much and certainly wouldn't be scientific. I'd really like to see a power tube frequency analysis done by someone to lay the debate to rest, however. If anyone wants to do this, I have some RCA's, Sylvania and GE's 6L6's to lend (running JAN Philips 6L6WGB's in Bassman now), probably should throw two or three modern production tubes in the mix also.


----------



## StevieMac

I considered the scenario of simply recording output from the speaker (again, with the same input signal) following each tube swap/rebias (say 4 or so) and sending out the audio files to willing participants. Before further consideration however, the obvious confound is playback as every participant would have to be listening on identical equipment/software etc at identical volumes...which really isn't a practical solution either. I suppose everyone with an i-phone could use their Apple-issued earbuds to standardize but those conditions, along with "who-knows-what" from digital conversions, seem so far removed from real-world/live listening that it would almost seem pointless. My original proposal _should _put the matter to rest but, as Bill points out, there'd be some high-end tech gear required. Any audio engineers out there with the necessary equipment???


----------



## loudtubeamps

StevieMac said:


> I considered the scenario of simply recording output from the speaker (again, with the same input signal) following each tube swap/rebias (say 4 or so) and sending out the audio files to willing participants. Before further consideration however, the obvious confound is playback as every participant would have to be listening on identical equipment/software etc at identical volumes...which really isn't a practical solution either. I suppose everyone with an i-phone could use their Apple-issued earbuds to standardize but those conditions, along with "who-knows-what" from digital conversions, seem so far removed from real-world/live listening that it would almost seem pointless. My original proposal _should _put the matter to rest but, as Bill points out, there'd be some high-end tech gear required. Any audio engineers out there with the necessary equipment???


Unless u want to get into calibrated mics., pre amps and anechoic chambers, etc the simple approach would be as StevieMac has suggested,
by recording the event.
A series sample of scales and cords, riffs, whatever into a looper.
A quality mic. into a board with the e.q. flattened/bypassed and all levels set and untouched throughout the tests.
Recorded to a digital recorder with sound clips and a visual waveform to compare.
Nothing really high tech so far. Just getting the time and willing participants to do the deed.
The sound clips could then synced up, and A/B 'ed.
It shouldn't really matter what you are listening through as long as the freq. range of your system is reasonably full range.
Goes without saying, the better the reproduction, the better the results you will be able to hear for yourself.
If the differences between tube audio clips are that obvious, we will all hear the results. 

It's ALL about the psychoacoustics isn't it! How we perceive and process sound vibration in a given enviornment: fletcher munson curve ,doppler effect, phase, amplitude, modulation,time, distance, near field, far field, monaural, binaural, the term encompasses it all.


----------



## greco

StevieMac said:


> .......My original proposal _should _put the matter to rest but, as Bill points out, there'd be some high-end tech gear required. Any audio engineers out there with the necessary equipment???


I wonder if Pete (faracaster) knows anyone through his "Juno" connections who has (or has access to) the required "gear" ?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## Wild Bill

loudtubeamps said:


> It shouldn't really matter what you are listening through as long as the freq. range of your system is reasonably full range.


Ah, but here is where we part, LTA! The very frequencies in question are NOT anywhere near the full range of the tube!

I have run a 6L6 as a transmitter power tube in a shortwave rig and used it to send a signal all over the world. We are talking as high as 28,600,000 cycles per second.

A guitar tops out at about 5000 cycles per second.

THAT is mice nuts in comparison, by definition!

To the tube, the entire audio spectrum is a mere sliver of its range.

"Measure with a micrometer, then cut with an axe!"

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## loudtubeamps

I thought we were comparing vacuum tubes in the frequency range for the human ear, not R. F. ??
The guitar may top out at 5k as U say, I believe that's a bit high for the fundamental freqs. As I'm sure u are aware, the harmonics go much higher.
To clarify , I was referring to the freq. range of the playback monitors, yes?
The test would work well with a Hi Fi audio amplifier, like a Mac or Dynaco, along with a musical instrument amp, agreed?
Input and power amp distn. will yield some interesting results, no doubt.
Should we include pre-amp tubes as well as outputs in the proposed tests?
A sweep gen. is one way to test, agreed,a pink noise gen. would be my choice but the complex waveforms generated by a musical instrument would yeild real world results, that we could all relate to.
Just a thought........... bear with me, I don't have them that often anymore..........
To simplify matters and remove some more of the variables, I would suggest that the output from the amp be connected directly to the input of the recording device. A simple line out pad should do the trick, wudda' think' boys and girls?


----------



## loudtubeamps

greco said:


> I wonder if Pete (faracaster) knows anyone through his "Juno" connections who has (or has access to) the required "gear" ?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Dave


 I have most and access to all the test gear required, but I do not believe it's necessary to see the results as much as it is to hear.
As mentioned, most recording software has a waveform display for A/B ing the clips and I'm sure an overlay of the various clips would not be too much of a stretch for some out there, iaresee, where a ya'?


----------



## loudtubeamps

loudtubeamps said:


> I have most and access to all the test gear required, but I do not believe it's necessary to see the results as much as it is to hear.
> As mentioned, most recording software has a waveform display for A/B ing the clips and I'm sure an overlay of the various clips would not be too much of a stretch for some out there, iaresee, where a ya'?


 I found this Vintage RCA 6550 Vacuum Tube #2.MOV - YouTube as well as......

Lots of comprehensive testing goin' on here.

ElPaso TubeAmps - YouTube


----------



## jb welder

I'm going to try and narrow in on a few things here. The original proposition was that there are no electronic differences (between tubes of the same type) that would cause a difference in tone. 
We are NOT debating about who has ears good enough to do what. To prove electronic differences we don't even need to listen (sorry LTA, bear with me)
. All we need to do is run an amp into a load and measure the output on a scope. Measure at various frequencies (that are in the range produced by guitars) and record the results. Now change the first preamp tube, and recheck. 
If there is no difference aside from gain, we will see a perfectly linear increase or decrease across all the measured frequencies. If a certain 12AX7 has x amount more gain at 400hz, then it should have the same (x) amount more gain at all the frequencies we measure. 
Also we can run a square wave and look at the waveshape. It should be identical shape for any 12AX7 plugged into that first spot. 
It sounds like some here have never done this, I'm kind of shocked. 
I think that we can all agree that if there are measurable frequency response differences between different 12AX7's, that would create a tonal difference, and someone would have good enough hearing to hear it. And we haven't even considered harmonics due to clipping yet!


----------



## loudtubeamps

jb welder said:


> I'm going to try and narrow in on a few things here. The original proposition was that there are no electronic differences (between tubes of the same type) that would cause a difference in tone.
> We are NOT debating about who has ears good enough to do what. To prove electronic differences we don't even need to listen (sorry LTA, bear with me)
> . All we need to do is run an amp into a load and measure the output on a scope. Measure at various frequencies (that are in the range produced by guitars) and record the results. Now change the first preamp tube, and recheck.
> If there is no difference aside from gain, we will see a perfectly linear increase or decrease across all the measured frequencies. If a certain 12AX7 has x amount more gain at 400hz, then it should have the same (x) amount more gain at all the frequencies we measure.
> Also we can run a square wave and look at the waveshape. It should be identical shape for any 12AX7 plugged into that first spot.
> It sounds like some here have never done this, I'm kind of shocked.
> I think that we can all agree that if there are measurable frequency response differences between different 12AX7's, that would create a tonal difference, and someone would have good enough hearing to hear it. And we haven't even considered harmonics due to clipping yet!


 right on........ gotta' love the K.I.S.S. method. God love ya' JB!
I still want some impartial 3rd party to do a conclusive A/B on patch cables, won't take rocket science and 30 seconds of someone's time should do it. My supply of hooch is running dangerously low.
Cheers, d
P.S. It would be interesting though, to hear which tubes are accepted by most for their "sonic superiority."
Found this little ditty as well...........Very interesting!! or not!
Joe's Tube Lore


----------



## Wild Bill

jb welder said:


> I'm going to try and narrow in on a few things here. The original proposition was that there are no electronic differences (between tubes of the same type) that would cause a difference in tone.
> We are NOT debating about who has ears good enough to do what. To prove electronic differences we don't even need to listen (sorry LTA, bear with me)
> . All we need to do is run an amp into a load and measure the output on a scope. Measure at various frequencies (that are in the range produced by guitars) and record the results. Now change the first preamp tube, and recheck.
> If there is no difference aside from gain, we will see a perfectly linear increase or decrease across all the measured frequencies. If a certain 12AX7 has x amount more gain at 400hz, then it should have the same (x) amount more gain at all the frequencies we measure.
> Also we can run a square wave and look at the waveshape. It should be identical shape for any 12AX7 plugged into that first spot.
> It sounds like some here have never done this, I'm kind of shocked.
> I think that we can all agree that if there are measurable frequency response differences between different 12AX7's, that would create a tonal difference, and someone would have good enough hearing to hear it. And we haven't even considered harmonics due to clipping yet!


JB, you're brilliant! This sounds great to me! I think that if we do indeed measure non-linear differences then I would have to retract my words!

This is what science is all about!

Still have to wonder, though. How come there's no record of anyone doing it before?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Beach Bob

Wild Bill said:


> How come there's no record of anyone doing it before?
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


Because once we know the answer, we lose the ability to debate the subject ad infinitum 9kkhhd9kkhhd


----------



## greco

jb welder said:


> I'm going to try and narrow in on a few things here. The original proposition was that there are no electronic differences (between tubes of the same type) that would cause a difference in tone.
> We are NOT debating about who has ears good enough to do what. To prove electronic differences we don't even need to listen (sorry LTA, bear with me)
> . All we need to do is run an amp into a load and measure the output on a scope. Measure at various frequencies (that are in the range produced by guitars) and record the results. Now change the first preamp tube, and recheck.
> If there is no difference aside from gain, we will see a perfectly linear increase or decrease across all the measured frequencies. If a certain 12AX7 has x amount more gain at 400hz, then it should have the same (x) amount more gain at all the frequencies we measure.
> Also we can run a square wave and look at the waveshape. It should be identical shape for any 12AX7 plugged into that first spot.
> It sounds like some here have never done this, I'm kind of shocked.
> I think that we can all agree that if there are measurable frequency response differences between different 12AX7's, that would create a tonal difference, and someone would have good enough hearing to hear it. And we haven't even considered harmonics due to clipping yet!


This interests me and would be fun and very educational to try.

If a group of GC members want to meet in the K-W area to try this concept, I could (hopefully) supply the electronics test/measurement equipment needed (and a tube amp).

However, I would need to know more details of what is needed. 

Is the "load" required a simple power resistor (dummy load) or could a speaker be used?

How sophisticated does the scope need to be? Mine is very old and quite basic.

Also, I don't have the electronics skills to know exactly how to set up all and use all the test/measurement equipment...so we would need someone with these skills to attend. 

I would prefer not to do this at my home...so finding a space to get together would be essential. 

Lastly, I don't have a selection of 12AX7 tubes. 

Any thoughts?

Cheers

Dave


----------



## StevieMac

Just to clarify, the debate was originally around output, not preamp, tubes. I think Bill's statement of the null hypothesis i.e. "no discernible tonal differences across tubes of same type" would remain the same with this new scenario however. Assuming those who believe there are tonal differences across same-type output tubes also believe there are differences across same-type preamp tubes (a reasonable assumption I think), then that hypothesis also remains the same. If this last bit is presumptuous however, then speak up, otherwise we''ll assume you're in agreement. The experiment should be easier to conduct as well, swapping only preamp tubes (no rebiasing required). I say...go for it!


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Interesting proposal. I would be interested in the resulting data. I may be off track here, but I have a question. If there is a difference in gain from one tube to another, and that gain difference is equal at all tested frequencies, would it not indeed sound different as we are not built to perceive all frequencies equally?


----------



## loudtubeamps

loudtubeamps said:


> right on........ gotta' love the K.I.S.S. method. God love ya' JB!
> I still want some impartial 3rd party to do a conclusive A/B on patch cables, won't take rocket science and 30 seconds of someone's time should do it. My supply of hooch is running dangerously low.
> Cheers, d
> P.S. It would be interesting though, to hear which tubes are accepted by most for their "sonic superiority."
> Found this little ditty as well...........Very interesting!! or not!
> Joe's Tube Lore



Just to add to the mix........ A digital/ newer scope with image hold capabilities would be an asset for conducting a few signal gen. burst tests.
I think transient response comparisons would be as important as steady state sine/ square wave tests.
yay/ na?? 
IMHO. If this all comes together, would it be an advantage to go the extra mile for all interested parties??
The "right brain" group would benefit from audio examples, the "lefties" would be fine with the scope findings, the rest would be interested in both sets of results.........input please??


----------



## Wild Bill

Jim DaddyO said:


> Interesting proposal. I would be interested in the resulting data. I may be off track here, but I have a question. If there is a difference in gain from one tube to another, and that gain difference is equal at all tested frequencies, would it not indeed sound different as we are not built to perceive all frequencies equally?


I don't think so, Jim. The amount of gain in a string of 12AX7s is approximately 100 (real world a bit less) for each section. Since there are 2 sections inside the tube that means 10,000 for each tube. Then you multiply by the number of tubes in the signal string.

That is so much gain that it swamps out any differences in individual tubes. You lose tons of that gain in things like the tone stack. That's also why a lower gain 12AY7 will make a bigger difference in headroom with simpler amps like Champs. You only have ONE 12AX7! With an amp like a 5150 its a different story.

Also, it is true that we are not built to perceive all frequencies equally but that is much more true at low volume levels than at higher ones. That's why bright switches were invented, after all. Once the volume is cranked up at least midway the bright cap does nothing audible.

So if we run the amp at at least 5 on the volume I don't think it will matter.

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## WCGill

http://billmaudio.com/wp/?page_id=1234


----------



## greco

loudtubeamps said:


> Just to add to the mix........ A *digital/ newer scope with image hold capabilities would be an asset for conducting a few signal gen. burst tests.*
> I think transient response comparisons would be as important as steady state sine/ square wave tests......


It would seem that my offer to try and do some experimenting locally is not going to work..based on my outdated scope....unless someone can bring a scope.

Is anyone (thinking of the amp techs in particular) going to pursue this testing on their own? 

Cheers

Dave


----------



## JHarasym

I hope someone can make this happen, preferably in SW Ontario so I can be there to observe the test (and the opening of the scotch bottle).


----------



## gtone

I don't drink Scotch, so Bill would have to put up some top drawer rye... ;^)


----------



## nonreverb

I don't know guys...Is it really that important? What's the final outcome of such a test? Bragging rights, ego feed?
Even if you can prove conclusively that there are in fact no differences, who's to say that the believers will ultimately agree?
Some here may believe in God, some not. Even if you could prove there is no God, you won't stop some from having faith that God exists.
Part of forums like this is to have differing opinions which is a good thing. However, I think I'm going to stay away from this one....it's loaded.


----------



## greco

nonreverb said:


> I don't know guys...Is it really that important? What's the final outcome of such a test? Bragging rights, ego feed?
> Even if you can prove conclusively that there are in fact no differences, who's to say that the believers will ultimately agree?
> Some here may believe in God, some not. Even if you could prove there is no God, you won't stop some from having faith that God exists.
> Part of forums like this is to have differing opinions which is a good thing. However, I think I'm going to stay away from this one....it's loaded.


From my personal perspective, I am viewing it as an educational and interesting electronics "investigation"/experiment. 

Could the results be deemed as 100% conclusive...I have my doubts. However, the testing/experimentation does add some "science" to the discussion.

Cheers

Dave


----------



## loudtubeamps

greco said:


> From my personal perspective, I am viewing it as an educational and interesting electronics "investigation"/experiment.
> 
> Could the results be deemed as 100% conclusive...I have my doubts. However, the testing/experimentation does add some "science" to the discussion.
> 
> Cheers
> Dave


 Agreed.
I think it's a great way to get the forum members to interact and with the right attitude, could and should be enlightening.
For those who are interested and want to take part, a project like this could be something where we should all feel free to contibute, at any level.
Whether the outcome is conclusive or not, it's all good, right?
Personally, I don't worry too much about bragging rights. I'm thinkin' everyone here is above and beyond that kind of crap.
FWIW
Cheers, d:food-smiley-015:


----------



## Jim DaddyO

or a good opportunity to get together, sit around, yak, and kill a bottle.


----------



## vadsy

Science is important, without it we wouldn't have a tube or an amp to put it in but music to me is about feel most of the time. I play by feel and write what I feel and for that to happen I need to feel comfortable for a positive result, some of you might agree some not. If I like the sound of my amp I have an easier time being productive and even if it's all in my head I'd rather believe that than go by a chart that tells me my tone doesn't matter whatever tube I use.


----------



## StevieMac

nonreverb said:


> I don't know guys...Is it really that important? What's the final outcome of such a test? Bragging rights, ego feed?
> Even if you can prove conclusively that there are in fact no differences, who's to say that the believers will ultimately agree?
> Some here may believe in God, some not. Even if you could prove there is no God, you won't stop some from having faith that God exists.
> Part of forums like this is to have differing opinions which is a good thing. However, I think I'm going to stay away from this one....it's loaded.


I'm with the others on this one. While egos may have been running amok at the beginning, I think the mood has changed considerably and see "team building" written all over this one. As a researcher, I want it to be a truly _worthwhile _experiment and, while I'm genuinely intrigued to see the results, I'm not invested in any particular outcome. As a musician, I probably fall more into the mojo camp in the debate but I'm also entirely open to having those "beliefs" challenged, especially by valid empirical evidence. 

On the upside, if Bill is correct and no differences are found, I could save a ton of money every time I retube an amp! *;^) *


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Sounds a little like the cable debate. Lets get it arranged and have some fun


----------



## Wild Bill

nonreverb said:


> I don't know guys...Is it really that important? What's the final outcome of such a test? Bragging rights, ego feed?
> Even if you can prove conclusively that there are in fact no differences, who's to say that the believers will ultimately agree?
> Some here may believe in God, some not. Even if you could prove there is no God, you won't stop some from having faith that God exists.
> Part of forums like this is to have differing opinions which is a good thing. However, I think I'm going to stay away from this one....it's loaded.


Well, it's sorta like evolution, NR! If you are just an ordinary person you can believe any cockamamie thing you want, with no real harm.

If you want to have a career in medical research or associated sciences and you don't believe in evolution then you are not likely to be able to be any good at the job.

The same with the premise that different brands of the same tube can have different tone. If you never intend to be a very GOOD tech, then you can believe in fixing amps or designing them with a ouiji board, for all the difference it will make!

Electrons don't give a damn what magic you believe in. They work the way they are going to work and if you want to be good at working with them then you had better accept that notion!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## nonreverb

Ok ok, I get it. I'm almost certain what the outcome will be..............I did say almost ;-)




Wild Bill said:


> Well, it's sorta like evolution, NR! If you are just an ordinary person you can believe any cockamamie thing you want, with no real harm.
> 
> If you want to have a career in medical research or associated sciences and you don't believe in evolution then you are not likely to be able to be any good at the job.
> 
> The same with the premise that different brands of the same tube can have different tone. If you never intend to be a very GOOD tech, then you can believe in fixing amps or designing them with a ouiji board, for all the difference it will make!
> 
> Electrons don't give a damn what magic you believe in. They work the way they are going to work and if you want to be good at working with them then you had better accept that notion!
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## vadsy

I sure hope my super educated medical scientist doesn't change his mind on his own findings because someone offered him a better deal on beakers and bunsen burners.


----------



## nonreverb

It's funny how this subject gets dredged up every few months like an endless cycle of deja vu...


----------



## WCGill

Fabulous idea, testing and comparing tubes with a scope. It absolutely removes all doubt in everyone's mind as to what is really happening. Empiricism rules! For my upcoming "Cyborg Ceries" (sic) of amps I will be designing the circuits strictly with an oscilloscope, not even listening to them. That way I won't be influenced by atmospheric changes in pressure, light, emotions (that's the bad one), etc. Actually, I'm not even planning on looking at the scope traces but will distill them down to a single number so that I won't be influenced by the curves I see on the screen, lest I be beguiled by certain shapes that appeal to my more "Id" compulsions. I'm certain that I'll probably be able to even surpass the current crop of digital and modelling amps that you hear on the airwaves day after day. In fact I'm even thinking of using transistors in these amps so I won't have that predominant 2nd harmonic distortion that tubes produce, even more so when builders design around the knee of the curve. 

:smilie_flagge17:


----------



## gtone

WCGill said:


> Fabulous idea, testing and comparing tubes with a scope. It absolutely removes all doubt in everyone's mind as to what is really happening. Empiricism rules! For my upcoming "Cyborg Ceries" (sic) of amps I will be designing the circuits strictly with an oscilloscope, not even listening to them. That way I won't be influenced by atmospheric changes in pressure, light, emotions (that's the bad one), etc. Actually, I'm not even planning on looking at the scope traces but will distill them down to a single number so that I won't be influenced by the curves I see on the screen, lest I be beguiled by certain shapes that appeal to my more "Id" compulsions. I'm certain that I'll probably be able to even surpass the current crop of digital and modelling amps that you hear on the airwaves day after day. In fact I'm even thinking of using transistors in these amps so I won't have that predominant 2nd harmonic distortion that tubes produce, even more so when builders design around the knee of the curve.
> 
> :smilie_flagge17:



:food-smiley-004:


----------



## Wild Bill

WCGill said:


> Fabulous idea, testing and comparing tubes with a scope. It absolutely removes all doubt in everyone's mind as to what is really happening. Empiricism rules! For my upcoming "Cyborg Ceries" (sic) of amps I will be designing the circuits strictly with an oscilloscope, not even listening to them. That way I won't be influenced by atmospheric changes in pressure, light, emotions (that's the bad one), etc. Actually, I'm not even planning on looking at the scope traces but will distill them down to a single number so that I won't be influenced by the curves I see on the screen, lest I be beguiled by certain shapes that appeal to my more "Id" compulsions. I'm certain that I'll probably be able to even surpass the current crop of digital and modelling amps that you hear on the airwaves day after day. In fact I'm even thinking of using transistors in these amps so I won't have that predominant 2nd harmonic distortion that tubes produce, even more so when builders design around the knee of the curve.
> 
> :smilie_flagge17:


Well, will you be abiding by the results of proper tests?

:food-smiley-015:

Wild Bill/Busen Amps

Founding member of the Flat Earth Society


----------



## Wild Bill

StevieMac said:


> I'm with the others on this one. While egos may have been running amok at the beginning, I think the mood has changed considerably and see "team building" written all over this one. As a researcher, I want it to be a truly _worthwhile _experiment and, while I'm genuinely intrigued to see the results, I'm not invested in any particular outcome. As a musician, I probably fall more into the mojo camp in the debate but I'm also entirely open to having those "beliefs" challenged, especially by valid empirical evidence.
> 
> On the upside, if Bill is correct and no differences are found, I could save a ton of money every time I retube an amp! *;^) *


I dunno about that, Steve. The customer has the right to choose any brand of tube he wants and to believe anything he wants. Somehow I don't think any real proof will change a lot of minds.

I'm reminded of what I saw back in the late 70's, when I had first started selling electronic parts. Those were the days when the old, bulky home hifi units were replaced with the newer separate component systems. Instead of everything being all inside one big piece of furniture people were buying separate tuners, amplifiers, speakers and all the other pieces.

This of course meant a need for patch cords and we began to see "blister packs" of patch cords for the uneducated user to choose for himself, pulling the package off a hook fastened to the wall.

Immediately there was a marketing problem. How do you get a non-technical user to buy YOUR patch cord instead of your competitor's? Putting impressive specs on the package was a waste of time - the buyer wouldn't understand them!

It took a bit but finally some genius got an idea. They put a flash of gold plating on the connectors! Even a non-technical user would be impressed. After all, if it was gold it had to be good, right?

Meanwhile, one of my accounts was the local TV station. I knew the engineers there quite well. They thought the whole idea was ridiculous! They had literally thousands of connectors for RF and audio all through their station and studio. NOBODY in their industry bothered with gold-flashed connectors!

In fact, sometimes gold flashing could cause problems, due to dissimilar metal reactions when plugged into a connector that was NOT gold plated! Also, the reason industrial users had used what were called solder/tin plated connectors was that such connectors were "self-wiping". The coating was soft enough that every time the connectors were plugged together the surfaces wiped themselves clean of any oxidation layer.

So those who were educated enough knew it was all just marketing but so what? Try and sell a patch cord today that is NOT gold plated! See how well that works!

Meanwhile, I am heartened to see the enthusiasm for a testing night but I am a bit concerned. I'm sure we will have no shortage of people wanting to share a bottle but how many are prepared to put up a bottle of their own?

My original intent was to have those who insist that the idea of tubes having different tone not only participate in the testing but put up a bottle of their own! I really am not interested in just donating a prize to those who want to play for free!kkjuw

I expect those who champion a belief to be ready to stand behind it!

I'm also having second thoughts about scrounging test gear. While I and others might have more faith in a scope pattern it would make rather a boring time for others who came out for a jam night along with such a test. The original idea was for those who believed in an idea to personally be test subjects, listening to someone actually play while tube substitutions were made behind some screen so that there would be no way to tell which tube was in use, or even if a change had been made at all.

Wouldn't this be more entertaining? If we make this too techy, with a signal generator instead of a guitar, should we really take up time at a jam night? The socializing alone would likely be the most important thing about such a gathering and of course, it should be all about PLAYING MUSIC!

What do you guys think? Am I off base? Are we likely to have a shortage of those who claim to be able to hear differences actually show up?

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## loudtubeamps

Input please!!
O.K. so........How bout' we forget the bottle bet, leave our attitudes at the door and approach this as a group forum kinda' project.........thingie' ....watsit's. 
Ya' never know, we could end up in the







book for most views in a tech. forum, plus the definitive answer on the tube debate. 
Seriously, for those who are into this kinda' stuff, it would be an interesting project.
Make the experiment as good as it can be, however u want to approach it and leave the jammin' till' later.
I'm in and would contribute in any way that I can from my shack in the boonies.
Cheers d
Ok now, everbody................group hugs all round!!sigiifa











:sSig_ImSorry:


----------



## loudtubeamps

WCGill said:


> Fabulous idea, testing and comparing tubes with a scope. It absolutely removes all doubt in everyone's mind as to what is really happening. Empiricism rules! For my upcoming "Cyborg Ceries" (sic) of amps I will be designing the circuits strictly with an oscilloscope, not even listening to them. That way I won't be influenced by atmospheric changes in pressure, light, emotions (that's the bad one), etc. Actually, I'm not even planning on looking at the scope traces but will distill them down to a single number so that I won't be influenced by the curves I see on the screen, lest I be beguiled by certain shapes that appeal to my more "Id" compulsions. I'm certain that I'll probably be able to even surpass the current crop of digital and modelling amps that you hear on the airwaves day after day. In fact I'm even thinking of using transistors in these amps so I won't have that predominant 2nd harmonic distortion that tubes produce, even more so when builders design around the knee of the curve.
> 
> :smilie_flagge17:


*I bet you say that to all the girls.*
















Cheers, d


----------



## nonreverb

Be sure to use Monster cable to connect to the load AND gold connectors for all jacks, test leads and scope probes for the most accurate results...




WCGill said:


> Fabulous idea, testing and comparing tubes with a scope. It absolutely removes all doubt in everyone's mind as to what is really happening. Empiricism rules! For my upcoming "Cyborg Ceries" (sic) of amps I will be designing the circuits strictly with an oscilloscope, not even listening to them. That way I won't be influenced by atmospheric changes in pressure, light, emotions (that's the bad one), etc. Actually, I'm not even planning on looking at the scope traces but will distill them down to a single number so that I won't be influenced by the curves I see on the screen, lest I be beguiled by certain shapes that appeal to my more "Id" compulsions. I'm certain that I'll probably be able to even surpass the current crop of digital and modelling amps that you hear on the airwaves day after day. In fact I'm even thinking of using transistors in these amps so I won't have that predominant 2nd harmonic distortion that tubes produce, even more so when builders design around the knee of the curve.
> 
> :smilie_flagge17:


----------



## loudtubeamps

nonreverb said:


> Be sure to use Monster cable to connect to the load AND gold connectors for all jacks, test leads and scope probes for the mose accurate results...


Goes without saying, absolutely. I'll contribute a filling to the cause.


----------



## Option1

Wild Bill said:


> Well, it's sorta like evolution, NR! If you are just an ordinary person you can believe any cockamamie thing you want, with no real harm.
> 
> If you want to have a career in medical research or associated sciences and you don't believe in evolution then you are not likely to be able to be any good at the job.
> 
> The same with the premise that different brands of the same tube can have different tone. If you never intend to be a very GOOD tech, then you can believe in fixing amps or designing them with a ouiji board, for all the difference it will make!
> 
> Electrons don't give a damn what magic you believe in. They work the way they are going to work and if you want to be good at working with them then you had better accept that notion!
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


Couldn't resist:

http://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0

Neil


----------



## WCGill

Another tale to relate: Once upon a time (the best fables always start like this), someone brought me a new Dr. Z Carmen Ghia to have a go with for a few days unmolested. I thought it was a totally crappy-sounding amp, couldn't understand what all the buzz was about. Just for a laugh I thought I'd take out the stock Sovtek EL84's and throw in a pair of ANOS Mullards I had in my wall safe. Since it was 2pm I hadn't been imbibing but when I heard that amp, I almost thought I should get a blood-alcohol test. It was dramatic, no, it was DRAMATIC! Night and Day difference in tone and yes, it was an improvement. I still wasn't sold on the amp but at least I'd made some progress in finding what it really could sound like. After that little audition I knew I could be more than a refrigerator repairman and the rest as they say, is history. ;-)


----------



## dradlin

So the original Sovtek's were in some state of degraded capacity and not functioning within specification?


----------



## WCGill

Entirely possible kind Sir, but as I described the amp as new, unlikely to be probable, especially knowing how Mike Zait screens his tubes.


----------



## Roryfan

WCGill said:


> Another tale to relate: Once upon a time (the best fables always start like this), someone brought me a new Dr. Z Carmen Ghia to have a go with for a few days unmolested. I thought it was a totally crappy-sounding amp, couldn't understand what all the buzz was about. Just for a laugh I thought I'd take out the stock Sovtek EL84's and throw in a pair of ANOS Mullards I had in my wall safe. Since it was 2pm I hadn't been imbibing but when I heard that amp, I almost thought I should get a blood-alcohol test. It was dramatic, no, it was DRAMATIC! Night and Day difference in tone and yes, it was an improvement. I still wasn't sold on the amp but at least I'd made some progress in finding what it really could sound like. After that little audition I knew I could be more than a refrigerator repairman and the rest as they say, is history. ;-)


+1

I recently spent an interesting afternoon with an amp tech/builder north of Toronto. I took up all of my amps (1962 Princeton, 1966 Vibrolux Reverb, Victoria 5112, Clark 5E3 Beaufort, 18W Marshall & Vox AC4TVH) & pulled the JJs, EXH etc. & plugged various NOS tubes into both the power & preamp sockets on all of these amps. This took several hours & we tried several tubes in each socket. I could hear a difference (i.e. improvement) in each amp with the NOS tubes, some were better than others. I won't try to explain why the NOS tubes improved the tone of each amp, however based on the direct comparisons & sample size I highly doubt that it's all voodoo/in my head. I wouldn't have opened my wallet if there was no audible difference.


----------



## gtone

Like steak and baloney - if _you_can't tell the difference, why pay more right? Trouble is, I believe I can tell the difference between some tubes of the same type and I want amp tech who can also tell the difference in tone and/or feel. This is not to say that I'm a cork sniffer who believes flat out that NOS tubes are far superior in all cases, as there are some very good modern production tubes just as there are some pretty marginal NOS tubes also. But the NOS to modern production comparison can sometimes yield the some of the biggest tonal differences IME. Some modern Russian tubes and many Chinese tubes, for instance, seem to have a ratty or fizzy quality to them that is not often found in NOS tubes (some older Russian, especially milspec, and Eastern European tubes are absolute gems, however).

I'm highly skeptical about WildBill's claim that all power tubes of the same type sound the same if not for any other reason than they don't manufacture them to the same tolerances, standards as they used to, nor employ the same assembly methods and in some cases, don't even use the same materials. While electrons might not lie, they can certainly perform and react differently in a slightly different environments. Larger plate structures, for instance, may very well accentuate bass response in ways that some ears may be able to detect. Different materials might be able to react slower/quicker than others in ways that may affect the frequency response.

IIRC, WildBill also believes that tone caps in guitars cannot possibly sound different from one another either (and if I'm out to lunch on this Bill, I apologize btw and the rest of you should dismiss this). The YouTube demos using a variety of tonecaps where the frequency responses were graphed out using a few different tone pot roll-off settings demonstrated ample graphic proof that there were some subtle, yet discernable tonal differences between types of tone capacitors in a guitar. Discernable to a majority of test subjects in a double blind test? Probably not, but perhaps different enough in feel and possibly sonically to those few blessed with great ears to be worthy of consideration. I don't make this point in order to open another point of debate, but to merely offer why I'm not buying Bill's general "psycho-acoustics" theory whereby many of us are imagining what we perceive to be differences in tone or feel in components. 

I honestly don't know how anyone that's rolled a few sets of tubes through a few different amps can possibly deny that there's not sonic differences between SOME of the tubes. Granted, I have one modern amp that you'd be hard-pressed to hear any differences in power tubes, but I have three others where those differences are much more apparent. Try it some time - it might open your mind up a bit more and have you forming your own conclusions on the subject.


----------



## dradlin

Steak and baloney... good one.


----------



## Wild Bill

Roryfan said:


> +1
> 
> I recently spent an interesting afternoon with an amp tech/builder north of Toronto. I took up all of my amps (1962 Princeton, 1966 Vibrolux Reverb, Victoria 5112, Clark 5E3 Beaufort, 18W Marshall & Vox AC4TVH) & pulled the JJs, EXH etc. & plugged various NOS tubes into both the power & preamp sockets on all of these amps. This took several hours & we tried several tubes in each socket. I could hear a difference (i.e. improvement) in each amp with the NOS tubes, some were better than others. I won't try to explain why the NOS tubes improved the tone of each amp, however based on the direct comparisons & sample size I highly doubt that it's all voodoo/in my head. I wouldn't have opened my wallet if there was no audible difference.


When you tried different tubes, did you know which tubes you were listening to? Did you see each one changed in the socket?

Unless you were blind not only to which tube you were listening to, but also blind to knowing if the tube had even been changed, then your test is scientifically worthless.

Of course, you are entitled to your opinion. However, if the drug industry ever adopted your methods then millions of people around the world would likely die!  

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## vadsy

If people are dying it's probably from not enough tone and too much baloney. Good tone adds years to your life and counteracts the preservatives in the questionable meat substitute known as baloney. It's not scientific but I have a pretty good feeling about this.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Baloney is my favorite kind of fish. It don't got no bones in it! largetongue


----------



## Wild Bill

Jim DaddyO said:


> Baloney is my favorite kind of fish. It don't got no bones in it! largetongue


It's the mustard! Lots and lots of mustard!

Subway and the others are missing the boat! They should offer a baloney submarine sandwich!

I'd buy it!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Beach Bob

The only way baloney is any good is if its fried first...


----------



## WCGill

Here's a guy that actually measured power tube output, Randall Aiken, another one of my poser friends. 

http://www.aikenamps.com/JJ_EH_tube_tests.html


----------



## Wild Bill

WCGill said:


> Here's a guy that actually measured power tube output, Randall Aiken, another one of my poser friends.
> 
> http://www.aikenamps.com/JJ_EH_tube_tests.html


Mr. Aiken is also one of my heroes, WCGill! I'll bet you also were as impressed as I was when I first read his articles on the long tailed phase inverter.

Looking at all his graphs, I think he is proving my point! While there are some power differences between the two brands, when you look at the scale of the graphs of frequency response, the differences while measurable amount to mice nuts!

Certainly, well below the threshold of the human ear!

I can grant that our ears might notice a VOLUME difference (although not perhaps after a beer or two) I don't see how they would pick up a TONE difference!

Randall must have had a very EXPENSIVE scope indeed to even be able to show any difference! I can't believe even bat ears like Obama's could ever tell any difference in frequency response!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Beach Bob

Wild Bill said:


> Mr. Aiken is also one of my heroes, WCGill! I'll bet you also were as impressed as I was when I first read his articles on the long tailed phase inverter.
> 
> Looking at all his graphs, I think he is proving my point! While there are some power differences between the two brands, when you look at the scale of the graphs of frequency response, the differences while measurable amount to mice nuts!
> 
> Certainly, well below the threshold of the human ear!
> 
> I can grant that our ears might notice a VOLUME difference (although not perhaps after a beer or two) I don't see how they would pick up a TONE difference!
> 
> Randall must have had a very EXPENSIVE scope indeed to even be able to show any difference! I can't believe even bat ears like Obama's could ever tell any difference in frequency response!
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps



I can't comment on anything technical in this thread, but "measurable amount to mice nuts", "bat ears like Obama's"... you sir, are a modern day poet:bow:


----------



## Wild Bill

Beach Bob said:


> I can't comment on anything technical in this thread, but "measurable amount to mice nuts", "bat ears like Obama's"... you sir, are a modern day poet:bow:


Well, perhaps I shouldn't pick on Obama. I saw him sing "Sweet Home Chicago" with B B King so he can't be all bad!

As for talking about measuring in mice nuts, this is one of my pet peeves. So many people throw something out without specifying the amount involved. There will be a newspaper report of a chemical in the drinking water. The chemical has a scary name and the story sells a lot of papers but when you dig deeper you find that the amount is so small as to have needed a NASA lab full of equipment to find it in the first place and you would have to drink the entire city's water supply yourself before you MIGHT be hurt!

That's what Mr. Aiken's graphs are doing. You see two different curves of frequency response for two different tubes. The curves are identical, which in itself means there are no tonal differences, only a slight difference in gain. Still, when you refer to the scale you see that even the gain difference is mice nuts, too small for a human ear to detect.

Figures lie and liars figure, I guess.

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Bill, I bet I know your opinion on Monster Cable being so superior and the value of gold plated jack plugs too.....lol. kkjuw


----------



## Wild Bill

Jim DaddyO said:


> Bill, I bet I know your opinion on Monster Cable being so superior and the value of gold plated jack plugs too.....lol. kkjuw


Of course, Jim! 

I guess I just have too much hippy in me. Because I understand many of these things I can't help but feel that the people spreading the BS are likely in it for the money. They are taking advantage of ordinary folks who don't have the technical background to decide for themselves.

To me, they must be crooks, pure and simple!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Lincoln

I wondered into an Ebay Audiophile tube amp store the other night looking for deals on filter caps. Can't remember the name of the place but there wasn't one capacitor listed for under $60 ea. Most of them were over $100 each. I don't mean multi-cans either. Single caps.....20uf, 40uf, .1 uf, etc.

Bunch of those would make an awesome guitar amp lofu


----------



## vadsy

Wild Bill said:


> Of course, Jim!
> 
> I guess I just have too much hippy in me. Because I understand many of these things I can't help but feel that the people spreading the BS are likely in it for the money. They are taking advantage of ordinary folks who don't have the technical background to decide for themselves.
> 
> To me, they must be crooks, pure and simple!
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


I can't believe that after nearly 100 posts in this thread you're still chirping. I mean really!! You came into this arguing against the same "BS" that you've put your own name to. You, the super scientific amp scientist, you are the guy spreading it! Look back to post #8, http://web.archive.org/web/200805151...6costello.html, as long as I know this exists I can't take you or anything you say seriously and I can't believe others do. Using all this "It's all the same" and "I won't believe it until you prove it scientifically" talk and turning around to help sell NOS to "ordinary people who don't have a technical background", wtf? I'm sure you're a fine tech and have tons of happy customers but I have no respect for someone who talks loud, big and non-stop when his opinions don't actually add up. Is it because of the discount? Are you a crook or just a shill helping?


----------



## Milkman

Jim DaddyO said:


> Bill, I bet I know your opinion on Monster Cable being so superior and the value of gold plated jack plugs too.....lol. kkjuw


He's not alone in his opinions Jim.

Million dollar cables = snake oil IMO


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Not alone in opinion for sure. I am no techie, but I share the same disdain for snake oil and hype. I like facts and specs that mean something. Lucky for us we have some great knowledge available to us on this forum.


----------



## WCGill

Wild Bill said:


> Mr. Aiken is also one of my heroes, WCGill! I'll bet you also were as impressed as I was when I first read his articles on the long tailed phase inverter.
> 
> Looking at all his graphs, I think he is proving my point! While there are some power differences between the two brands, when you look at the scale of the graphs of frequency response, the differences while measurable amount to mice nuts!
> 
> Certainly, well below the threshold of the human ear!
> 
> I can grant that our ears might notice a VOLUME difference (although not perhaps after a beer or two) I don't see how they would pick up a TONE difference!
> 
> Randall must have had a very EXPENSIVE scope indeed to even be able to show any difference! I can't believe even bat ears like Obama's could ever tell any difference in frequency response!
> 
> Wild Bill/Busen Amps


You know I must have had a frontal lobotomy before I read that article, not having come to the aforementioned conclusions at all. My bad. I'll have to go back and read it much more slowly, especially the part where significant frequency response differences were measured and the other part whereupon he *heard* frequency response differences.


----------



## Wild Bill

vadsy said:


> I can't believe that after nearly 100 posts in this thread you're still chirping. I mean really!! You came into this arguing against the same "BS" that you've put your own name to. You, the super scientific amp scientist, you are the guy spreading it! Look back to post #8, http://web.archive.org/web/200805151...6costello.html, as long as I know this exists I can't take you or anything you say seriously and I can't believe others do. Using all this "It's all the same" and "I won't believe it until you prove it scientifically" talk and turning around to help sell NOS to "ordinary people who don't have a technical background", wtf? I'm sure you're a fine tech and have tons of happy customers but I have no respect for someone who talks loud, big and non-stop when his opinions don't actually add up. Is it because of the discount? Are you a crook or just a shill helping?


Well, I did think I addressed this point in post #17 of this thread. If that wasn't satisfactory to you...oh well!

Anyhow, if you want me to believe YOU it will be an easy thing to do! Just show me a scientific test where someone in a blind study can hear these claimed differences.

I won't accept claims from some so-called guru in an audiophile magazine! Or the same from an internet vendor like "Cletus the Tube Man".

I won't accept the claims of someone who just plugged in a few different tubes while knowing exactly which ones were in the socket.

You are entitled to believe whatever you want. That's freedom! 

However, if you expect others to believe you then you need actual scientific proof.

As a matter of interest, would YOU be willing to participate in a true scientific test? AND put up a bottle of the good stuff to put your money where your mouth is?

I have already stated I would be willing to do that. If you feel that actual real world scientific testing is not necessary, then I leave you to your astrology books and your copies of Awake magazine.

I won't stoop to your level and imply you are a crook. I will simply say, 

Put up or shut up!

Wild Bill/Busen Amps


----------



## Percy

So,what ever happened,did someone get a bottle of Scotch.Myself being a deaf tone freak will never really know the diff between this tube and that tube,,,,,,,hey Wild Bill the parts for my amp came in,lol Bill's thinking''what amp what parts''..................


----------

