V1 Tube Comparison

tekbow

Something i made a while ago. Still getting my recording and, well, video making chops together but it was fun to do, and there's plenty worse sounding on YT.

Anyways, here we have a mix of current production and NOS tubes. I've removed which tubes are which from the comments, to try to make this objective-ish. Let it run for a few days and i'll post which is which.

So, which do you like, which do you not like, could any be said to sound objectively "bad" or "good"?

00:01 - NOS Beijing 6N4-J

00:10 - Sovtek 12AX7 LPS

00:20 - Watford Valves Harma 7025 DR270

00:30 - Watford Valves Harma Retro ECC83

00:39 - NOS Mullard ECC83 I63

00:49 - NOS RFT ECC83

00:59 - NOS SED Winged =C= 12AX7

01:09 - TJ Full Music 12AX7

uncledick

FWIW, I liked 5 closely followed by 7.  4 was meh, 3 had a poor bass response and 2 sounded like listening over the phone. YMMV etc.

tekbow

Interesting, thanks @uncledick !

uncledick

Worth adding that none of them were actually terrible and that I rarely use that much overdrive so would select a valve at a much lower gain level.  I look forward to the answers though...

tekbow

@uncledick PM me as I can't seem to initiate PM's Yet

ICBM

1 - the most even-sounding
2 - a tiny bit more midrangy than 1 but very similar
3 - less top-end, a bit more bottom
4 - similar to 3 but marginally duller
5 - much less top-end, a bit muddy
6 - much less bottom-end, a bit brash
7 - midrangy and a bit flat-sounding
8 - a bit more mid and less top-end than 7

I liked 1 and 3 best I think. Didn't like 5 (too muddy) or 6 (too brash). The others were OK.

Not huge differences, but you can hear it. I'll be interested to know the answers - no doubt I will have liked the ones I normally don't . (This isn't a type of sound I would normally use though.)

Interested to see uncledick thought 3 had poor bass response - I thought it had more, but lower down (which I like).

Modulus_Amps

Preferred 7 over 5 myself, the palm mutes are tighter, I assume you did not move the mic/speaker guitar levels?

tekbow

@ICBM, if you want the same comparison at different gain levels, go to my channel on YT where that vid is uploaded, there's also a mid gain and cleanish comparison. I've removed the tube list from those too

tekbow

@Modulus_Amps, I'll go find the testing parameters I posted on FB a while back, but as far as possible, the only thing that changed was the valve. levels, EQ, mic position etc etc all remained the same, even down to the 5 mins i left the amp in standby between each take.

The Mic wasn't the best TBH, but I did the best with what I had. Ideally I'd have had a DI box, impulse responses, and a USB interface, re-amping etc

Modulus_Amps

well as long as the set up did not change it is a fair comparison, I do wonder if the ones that sound best recorded also sound best in the room??

uncledick

ICBM said:

1 - the most even-sounding
2 - a tiny bit more midrangy than 1 but very similar
3 - less top-end, a bit more bottom
4 - similar to 3 but marginally duller
5 - much less top-end, a bit muddy
6 - much less bottom-end, a bit brash
7 - midrangy and a bit flat-sounding
8 - a bit more mid and less top-end than 7

I liked 1 and 3 best I think. Didn't like 5 (too muddy) or 6 (too brash). The others were OK.

Not huge differences, but you can hear it. I'll be interested to know the answers - no doubt I will have liked the ones I normally don't . (This isn't a type of sound I would normally use though.)

Interested to see uncledick thought 3 had poor bass response - I thought it had more, but lower down (which I like).

Whilst 3 might have actually had more bass, it was the quality which struck me as poor.  Of course, despite the OP's best efforts in providing a level playing field, most of us on here have varying degrees of hearing damage, wildly differing computer/sound setups and an even wider variety of personal taste.  I use - because I had them lying around - an old Rotel HiFi amp feeding some Mission speakers so I'm sure a set of studio grade monitors would give me a very different experience.

Modulus_Amps

uncledick said:

ICBM said:

1 - the most even-sounding
2 - a tiny bit more midrangy than 1 but very similar
3 - less top-end, a bit more bottom
4 - similar to 3 but marginally duller
5 - much less top-end, a bit muddy
6 - much less bottom-end, a bit brash
7 - midrangy and a bit flat-sounding
8 - a bit more mid and less top-end than 7

I liked 1 and 3 best I think. Didn't like 5 (too muddy) or 6 (too brash). The others were OK.

Not huge differences, but you can hear it. I'll be interested to know the answers - no doubt I will have liked the ones I normally don't . (This isn't a type of sound I would normally use though.)

Interested to see uncledick thought 3 had poor bass response - I thought it had more, but lower down (which I like).

Whilst 3 might have actually had more bass, it was the quality which struck me as poor.  Of course, despite the OP's best efforts in providing a level playing field, most of us on here have varying degrees of hearing damage, wildly differing computer/sound setups and an even wider variety of personal taste.  I use - because I had them lying around - an old Rotel HiFi amp feeding some Mission speakers so I'm sure a set of studio grade monitors would give me a very different experience.

listening volume levels and room will make a difference too, 7 still sounds best to me at all levels, but then I like a lot of midrange and midrange clarity.

guessing here, but

2 is harsh at full volume, betting that is a Electro Harmonix?? (edit: said Sovtek, meant EH)

5 is probably a JJ

7 is a Chinese 12ax7 ???

ICBM

uncledick said:

Whilst 3 might have actually had more bass, it was the quality which struck me as poor.

Aha - I think we do hear it the same. I like that loose, slightly boomy low-end .

uncledick said:

I use - because I had them lying around - an old Rotel HiFi amp feeding some Mission speakers

Very similar here - a Pioneer hi-fi amp driving a pair of Wharfedale speakers. I've had them since 1983 .

tekbow said:

@ICBM, if you want the same comparison at different gain levels, go to my channel on YT where that vid is uploaded, there's also a mid gain and cleaning comparison. I'm removed the tube list from those too

Yes, I've done that now - interesting. Same basic results except that 3 is actually my favourite - it not only has the very deep bottom-end, it has a real sparkle that jumps out on the clean sound compared to any of the others. 7 is also surprisingly good, given that I didn't like it on the high-gain. 5 is still the worst by a wide margin - very muddy on the clean.

Modulus_Amps said:

5 is probably a JJ

I'm guessing that too.

tekbow

 Hi Guys, Just back from a run, glad it's provoking so much conversation.

Part of the setup i forgot to mention. I used TAD tonebones converters in the amp (Soldano HR50+), so 2 x EL84's and had the master running at 7 when i recorded.

None of them is a JJ

VERY interesting results, a somewhat anecdotal confirmation of something i've hypothesised for a while.

Modulus_Amps

To he honest I am surprised for such a big change from changing one valve and it is not even the distorting valve.

Whatever your hypothesis is. Its wrong. There is always a logical counter argument when it comes to guitar tone

tekbow

@Modulus_Amps

The reason i changed V1 is because it's generally regarded to impart the biggest single change in sound tonally, and of course in terms of noise.

V2 in this setup was Mullard ECC83 I61. V3-V5 were all Watford Harma DR250's which I'm pretty sure are gain selected EHX's

That being said, I've recently come to suspect, after some experimenting with some NOS tubes that came in, that V2 can have a significant effect on the tonal character as well.

I tell you what though, I've got another vid with one of the tubes used in this test, and 3 other well regarded NOS tubes which was recorded with 5881's in the power section and the MV on 4.

If you and the folks that have posted can get more people in to give their opinions over the next couple of days, because this is a topic that really interests me and i'd love to hear from a wide range of people, I'll post the list of tubes tomorrow night plus the vid with the 5881 power section.

EDIT: The Hypothesis is actually more of a musing on the subjectivity of tonal preferences with a comment about the supposed Mojo of NOS thrown in. you may not disagree, but i'll leave that for later.

ICBM

tekbow said:

The reason i changed V1 is because it's generally regarded to impart the biggest single change in sound tonally, and of course in terms of noise.

V2 in this setup was Mullard ECC83 I61. V3-V5 were all Watford Harma DR250's which I'm pretty sure are gain selected EHX's

That being said, I've recently come to suspect, after some experimenting with some NOS tubes that came in, that V2 can have a significant effect on the tonal character as well.

All the valves can make a big difference, depending on the exact circuit - it's a total myth that it's only (or even always mostly) V1. Even assuming V1 is the first gain stage, which is isn't always! (In some Mesa/Boogies, for example.) It can be the culprit for noise, but mostly because any it produces is then re-amplified by the others.

tekbow said:

None of them is a JJ

In that case I guess it's a Sovtek 12AX7WB, which is the other muddiest valve I know.

tekbow

We shall have to wait and see

tekbow

OP edited with tube identities

tekbow

And a further vid with the Mullard used above compared against another Mullard (I61) a Brimar 12ax7, and RFT ECC83.

ICBM

tekbow said:

OP edited with tube identities

Interesting, but there's something not right with that Mullard. They're never muddy like that if they're working properly.