Why do NOS tubes sound better than new production tubes?

ZLS · « **on:** 16 Oct 2010, 04:33 pm »

A general question;
Why is it that NOS tubes sound sooo much better then tubes made today?
Regardless of the tubes, from EL84s to 12AX7s, it has been my experience that the improvement in sound almost approaches the outrages prices charged for NOS tubes.
Time and again, merely by putting in a NOS tube(s), it has taken a component that I was mildly interested in to that that sounded spectacular.

woodsart · « **Reply #1 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 02:32 pm »

Quote from: ZLS on 16 Oct 2010, 04:33 pm

A general question;
Why is it that NOS tubes sound sooo much better then tubes made today?
Regardless of the tubes, from EL84s to 12AX7s, it has been my experience that the improvement in sound almost approaches the outrages prices charged for NOS tubes.
Time and again, merely by putting in a NOS tube(s), it has taken a component that I was mildly interested in to that that sounded spectacular.

I can't answer that question, but I wonder too why they are.

If you don't mind my asking which tubes have you replaced with NOS? A sample or 2 would be great.

I am replacing 6J1s with 5654w GE NOS. Just waiting for the 6J1s to finish burn in first.

Thanks,
Rob

bregez · « **Reply #2 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 04:22 pm »

Quote from: ZLS on 16 Oct 2010, 04:33 pm

A general question;
Why is it that NOS tubes sound sooo much better then tubes made today?
Regardless of the tubes, from EL84s to 12AX7s, it has been my experience that the improvement in sound almost approaches the outrages prices charged for NOS tubes.
Time and again, merely by putting in a NOS tube(s), it has taken a component that I was mildly interested in to that that sounded spectacular.

Somebody once told me that the plating process they used back then was different. There was virtually no restrictions as to the chemicals and/or heavy metals they could use for the process. Today we have the EPA, OSHA, etc.. and other agencies that work to keep a healthy and safe work environment. I am not sure which agencies regulate current tube production factories in Yugoslavia, Russia, and China. I also don't know how true this is, but it sounds like a logical reason.
Brad

JakeJ · « **Reply #3 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 05:04 pm »

Hi Gang,

This is an interesting subject and so I broke it out into its own thread. Would love for anyone with more knowledge to chime in.

I do think bregez has at least part of the puzzle plus a few dozen other parameters. I have also had experience with certain pieces of gear that did well with new production tubes and not so hot with NOS. So there is something to be said for circuit design and tube implementation.

Bigfish · « **Reply #4 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 05:12 pm »

Based on my experience I would claim that most old production tubes sound superior to new production tubes. However, The Shuguang Black Treasure Tubes may be an exception. When I owned a ModWright Transporter I (and many others) found the Black Treasure CV181-Z to sound superior to the Tung-Sol 6SN7 round plates (considered to be the holy grail of 6SN7 tubes).

Ken

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #5 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 06:04 pm »

I've found the same...by and large the NOS tubes sound better and have a lesser tendency for (initial) failure.

Fortunately, I'm not a tube manufacturer that has to source dozens/hundreds/thousands at a time to make production runs...my 2 or 4 tubes at a time can handle wading thru the inventory of NOS out there.

Yup, there are exceptions certainly (the TungSol 6V6 re-issues sound fine indeed and haven't blown up), but by and large NOS is a better bet for sonics and durability.

As for why? Probably a few reasons, but one may be greater levels of competition in the 60's and prior improved the breed. Kinda' like vinyl records today...there's only 12 plants pressing vinyl and demand outweighs supply. In too many instances, today's records are plagued by warps and bad pressing quality. Back in the 70's and 80's...that phenomenon was a rarity.

Competition improves the breed - cheaper, better, stronger, et al.

John

nonoise · « **Reply #6 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 06:11 pm »

When I got a 6922 tube from Brent Jessee, he told me that the he'd put the Mazda RTC he sold me up against any of the new tubes out there, including the EAT tubes. He said it was that no one can use the same, exotic metals anymore that were originally used in the older tubes. It had something to do with the AEC to keep exotic metals out of the hands of the wrong people.
Anyway, no matter how exacting the manufacture and how tight the tolerances, they will never sound the same.

BobRex · « **Reply #7 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 07:02 pm »

Quote from: TheChairGuy on 18 Oct 2010, 06:04 pm

Kinda' like vinyl records today...there's only 12 plants pressing vinyl and demand outweighs supply. In too many instances, today's records are plagued by warps and bad pressing quality. Back in the 70's and 80's...that phenomenon was a rarity.
John

Not to steal the thread, but SAY WHAT!!!!!! Dynaflex, bad fill, remix,.... Pressing quality for most of the major plants was awful in the late 70's early 80's. What do you think drove most people to early adoption of CD? Sure there were some labels that forced quality pressings (ECM comes to mind), but I've got a bunch of noisy WBs, Capitols, MCAs... This was pretty much the sole reason for the popularity of early MoFi and Nautilus.

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #8 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 07:20 pm »

The new Genalex Gold Lion sound pretty darned good! Haven't heard the Black Treasures or the Pavane tubes but the days of new production not rivaling the NOS may be over soon.

FullRangeMan · « **Reply #9 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 08:41 pm »

Hi,
I was told the alloy formulae of some tube metals elements are unknow today, it was lost in the tubes factories archives or some alloys had no writen formulae and when the tube factories engineers died, the exact alloy composition was lost.
Hope this not true, Gustavo

>Never go to a psychiatrist, adopt a cat or dog from the street. On the streets they live only two years average.

some young guy · « **Reply #10 on:** 18 Oct 2010, 08:41 pm »

I've read that a lot of the old production was made without noting the process. The time and method used for evacuation was kept secret. There's also the mystery of metalurgy and aging of the tubes that factor in.

jazzcan · « **Reply #11 on:** 20 Oct 2010, 01:30 am »

I've always been biased towards NOS tubes (pun intended) and have payed lots of $s.

BUT I've tried the Genalex KT88, 6922, 12AX7, and 12AU7 and am so impressed that I'm thinking of trying the psvane and fullmusic tubes.

kyrill · « **Reply #12 on:** 20 Oct 2010, 01:15 pm »

Quote from: bregez on 18 Oct 2010, 04:22 pm

Somebody once told me that the plating process they used back then was different. There was virtually no restrictions as to the chemicals and/or heavy metals they could use for the process ... I also don't know how true this is, but it sounds like a logical reason.
Brad

YEs I heard from peter van Wijngaarden a Delft engineer and tube specialist that this is the main reason plus the remark of Gustavo that the mixing process of the liquid metals used as coating for the inner elements, was an intuitive process done by that single operator based on his experience and the knowledge in his head and experientally and verbally given to his successor. When the last one left the factory, the recipe left the factory as well, and when he died, it became lost. Truly sad actually but no one had any idea that he hype of transistors was just like that, a better sounding hype, at least in the domain of audio high end.

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #13 on:** 20 Oct 2010, 11:21 pm »

It would seem that with modern science, that mixture could easily be determined. If the process of plating is unique, well, that may truly be lost.

bregez · « **Reply #14 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 04:37 am »

Quote from: Ericus Rex on 20 Oct 2010, 11:21 pm

It would seem that with modern science, that mixture could easily be determined.

There are a handful of ways to determine components of metallic alloys both destructively and nondestructively. The most common NDE (nondestructive evaluation) technique is using XRF (X-ray fluorescence).
I think the unknowns would be the alloy production processes such as type of heat treatment and time / temperature of treatment, etc…
Brad

Tyson · « **Reply #15 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 04:42 am »

It's not always true. The Black Treasure KT88's are superb sounding and match any NOS stuff I've heard. Power tubes seem to be an exception to the rule. Small Signal tubes and Rectifier tubes do seem to be better NOS. Or.... at least there a LOT of different brands and vintages to try out for different types of sounds. Maybe that's the real key - you can choose from the entire history of tube production to get the perfect "flavor" for your particular system.

kyrill · « **Reply #16 on:** 22 Oct 2010, 07:08 am »

Ah Tyson
that is bad news : "Small Signal tubes and Rectifier tubes do seem to be better NOS"
as they as well become more rare by the day. When I read that the black treasures were so good i also hoped their signal tubes would match up ..
Ericus you are right, it is exactly that

TheChairGuy · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Oct 2010, 01:31 am »

Quote from: BobRex on 18 Oct 2010, 07:02 pm

Not to steal the thread, but SAY WHAT!!!!!! Dynaflex, bad fill, remix,.... Pressing quality for most of the major plants was awful in the late 70's early 80's. What do you think drove most people to early adoption of CD? Sure there were some labels that forced quality pressings (ECM comes to mind), but I've got a bunch of noisy WBs, Capitols, MCAs... This was pretty much the sole reason for the popularity of early MoFi and Nautilus.

Another experienced vinylphool agrees with me...today's vinyl isn't stamped with the same care as yesteryear. Not to mention, so many enhanced mp3 recorded masters, too, makes of miserable listening.

http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=87242.msg852937;topicseen#new

I find 1 in 4 new pressings have warps...that is a sum far larger than anything experienced 25+ years ago.

What drove folks to CD was it's utter convenience..no one needed special skills to operate it and the same discs worked in your car, too.

Sorry for the diversion from the topic...John

iGrant · « **Reply #18 on:** 31 Oct 2010, 03:09 pm »

Quote from: bregez on 22 Oct 2010, 04:37 am

There are a handful of ways to determine components of metallic alloys both destructively and nondestructively. The most common NDE (nondestructive evaluation) technique is using XRF (X-ray fluorescence).
I think the unknowns would be the alloy production processes such as type of heat treatment and time / temperature of treatment, etc…
Brad

I have seen and heard new tubes that are incredible sounding, there is a trade off in current production between new tubes surviving shipping and sonics. A major difference today is that tubes have to be able survive Fedex, UPS etc (mis)handling, where in the good old days there were dealer networks for tubes.

The owner of TJ FullMusic showed me tubes that would not survive a walk out the front door, he starts from there and works backwards to a tube that hopefully will survive NA shipping, China still has a tube dealer network. Signal tubes even have this problem, but to a much lessor extent. The new Pavane 12A series tubes are starting to get positive feedback as being as good as any fav NOS.

Cheers,
Ian

Berto · « **Reply #19 on:** 4 Nov 2010, 03:49 pm »

+1 on new production Black Treasures outshining all NOS including Tung Sol round plates (circa 1944). Also my EML rectifier unseated all NOS I'ver tried including the expensive High Wycombe (spchk).

These findings make me feel good about lovin my tube setup and not having to chase down NOS which are getting harder to find