It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
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"?
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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).
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
Very similar here - a Pioneer hi-fi amp driving a pair of Wharfedale speakers. I've had them since 1983 .
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.
I'm guessing that too.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
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.
Whatever your hypothesis is. Its wrong. There is always a logical counter argument when it comes to guitar tone
@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.
In that case I guess it's a Sovtek 12AX7WB, which is the other muddiest valve I know.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein
OP edited with tube identities
And a further vid with the Mullard used above compared against another Mullard (I61) a Brimar 12ax7, and RFT ECC83.
"Take these three items, some WD-40, a vise grip, and a roll of duct tape. Any man worth his salt can fix almost any problem with this stuff alone." - Walt Kowalski
"Only two things are infinite - the universe, and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein