Why do some people like low powered tube amps???

[rudy sesztak]

Stereophile just tested a $10k 10watt tube amp.They claim it sounds so musical and great. It has 4% distortion at 10 watts( bad).How can a tube amp with a lot of distortion sound like the real thing?? A good Solid-State amp with less than .1% distortion and better transient response sounds much more like live sound, than a (piece of crap) tube amp.If you don't like the sound of a good Solid-Stateamp, then you don't like something closer to real live sound. Also a good jazz cd will sound much better then a typical distorted vinyl system!! Tubes and vinyl SUCK compared to a good cd and S.S. amps. If you don't agree with me ,tell me why-RUDY

[Sundown]

Wowzers, think I'll get a bag of popcorn and some beer; this thread should be interesting.

[JeffW]

I packed up all my SS amps because the consensus was that they sucked. So i bought some tube amps, and now they suck. Looks like I'm stuck with whistling to myself.

[richluvsound]

Wowzers, think I'll get a bag of popcorn and some beer; this thread should be interesting.



Hey Rudy ,

if you think that combo sounds best you ,then who am I to tell you any different ?

enjoy , Rich

[Sundown]

Hey Rudy ,

if you think that combo sounds best you ,then who am I to tell you any different ?

enjoy , Rich

Lol! I'm actually going to buy some steaks and do some grilling tonight

[richluvsound]

I packed up all my SS amps because the consensus was that they sucked. So i bought some tube amps, and now they suck. Looks like I'm stuck with whistling to myself.

Don't tell me you spent 10k to listen to 4% distortion ?

[JeffW]

Don't tell me you spent 10k to listen to 4% distortion ?
No, I spent a lot more than that to populate a shed. My tube amps are fairly affordable in comparison, but they're all 40+ years old. No idea of distortion figures, I guess it's a moot point as I'm rapidly running out of topologies.

[richluvsound]

I guess some like chicken mcNuggets and others like Caviar ..... "Please Pass me the fish eggs Jeff ?"

[SEAWOLF97]

Stereophile just tested a $10k 10watt tube amp.They claim it sounds so musical and great.


abt 90% of Stereopile is dumb crap. Suck it up at your own risk.

[rudy sesztak]

I agree with SEAWOLF97. The guys of stereophile are full of crap!!- RUDY

[Allanvh5150]

Most people dont understand the fact that in most tube amps, push pull, the nasty distortion products are cancelled in the output transformer. Many high quality tube amps can be around 10%THD but these distortion products are actually pleasing to the ear. Most will agree that tubes sound warmer and more musical than solid state and many will also agree that high powered solid state is also the best for bottom end. This assumption is only made because most audio people have not heard and never will hear any tube amp of more than a few hundred watts. There are many to be had at well over 500 watts. Pretty much though, it is all personal preference.
Allan.

[Maron Horonzakz]

" Most will agree" Where did you get that comment from,,, I dont agree,,,, I can hear harmonic distortion and dont like the distortion added to my music,,,

[hjames]

... Most will agree that tubes sound warmer and more musical than solid state and many will also agree that high powered solid state is also the best for bottom end.
Allan.

I like the sound of tubes that I've heard so far - I can say its not quite as crisp on abrupt-attack techno drums and such,
but its a subtle difference, and its more than made up for in the sound of acoustic bass & guitar, jazz horns and human voice.
That's with the custom 3 ways I have - 2234 woof with 2405 slot and smith horn mids --- a fairly efficient combo.

Buts that's just my old ears with a "cheap" Jolida amps (40w/ch) ...
I'm sure with a Manley amp or more high end gear, its even more subtle.

[spkrman57]

With very efficient spkrs good tube amps project a rather lush/romantic type of sound.

If you are of the rock and roll sound with high dynamics then SS would be the better route to follow.

I listen to classical/blues/jazz and then classic rock for my listening.

I use a 300B SET (single ended triode) for 8 wpc and I paid less than $2400 for mine. I use JBL 2226 midbass drivers with a JBL 2446 compression driver/Be phrams on a 500hz round wooden Edgar tractix horn with a modified Pi crossover(1.6khz) voiced to my liking!

To my ears SS sounds too sterile for my liking!

Just my 2 cents worth!

Regards, Ron

[SEAWOLF97]

There are many to be had at well over 500 watts.
Allan.

plse clue us in to "the many" well over 500 watts

[Ducatista47]

Buts that's just my old ears with a "cheap" Jolida amps (40w/ch) ...
I'm sure with a Manley amp or more high end gear, its even more subtle.
Your JoLida almost certainly sounds better than the Manley gear, in my experience. This is a pretty common example of price being a poor indicator of good sound. Some gear just costs a lot. Sometimes high end equals hind end.

Clark

[JeffW]

Then my Dynacos must be SOTA.


And while they don't sound as good as what I had, I find the transients and attack like rimshots and drums to be surprisingly good. Last night I was listening to some Gil Evans and was actually startled by the pop of a drum after a quiet passage. Now if I could just get the reliabilty down, I'd be a lot happier.

[Allanvh5150]

plse clue us in to "the many" well over 500 watts

I shouldn't have to tell but as an example, a quartet of 845's will run around 1000 watts without to much bother. There are fare more powerful tubes out there.

Allan.

[hjames]

Then my Dynacos must be SOTA.


And while they don't sound as good as what I had, I find the transients and attack like rimshots and drums to be surprisingly good. Last night I was listening to some Gil Evans and was actually startled by the pop of a drum after a quiet passage. Now if I could just get the reliabilty down, I'd be a lot happier.

Oh, Real drums are great - but - I was listening to The Blue Nile and Deacon Blue's Raintown CDs over the weekend
and they use some drum machines (Linn maybe) with really crisp attacks - 80s kinda stuff ... darn Glaswegians (grin)!

Then again,"Shhh Peaceful" from the extended In a Silent Way sessions is just lush and fabulous ... more than I imagined.

So its not that I'm complaining ... its just a comment.

And yeah, I still have a most of 2 year warranty on that Jolida.

[BMWCCA]

I packed up all my SS amps because the consensus was that they sucked. So i bought some tube amps, and now they suck. Looks like I'm stuck with whistling to myself.

I grew up with tubes. My first mono system was a Pilot with one JBL 030. Then I went to a Mac C20 and Fisher SA1000 with two 030s. Both tube components needed constant attention with the Mac Clinics eventually replacing everything in the C20 . . . for free . . . just to keep it within specs. I got so tired of replacing teh unique RCA tubes on the Fisher that I traded it on a Crown D150—which is still working fine and sounding great now some forty-years later, and so are the 030s. :dont-know:

[SEAWOLF97]

I shouldn't have to tell but as an example, a quartet of 845's will run around 1000 watts without to much bother. There are fare more powerful tubes out there.

Allan.

not that I don't believe an expert like you, but I did a little online checking abt the 845 ...

over and over I find the specs saying "22-28" watts for an 845

Every 845 or 211 vacuum tube amplifier has power, so what makes this 845 amplifier design stand out? It is the sonic beauty. This Sophia Electric™ 845 amp can match a 845 tube amp for purity and musicality, while putting out 22-25 watts of glorious single ended tube amplifier power.

Specifications:
Power: 25 Watts RMS into 8 Ohms
MFR: 20 Hz - 35 kHz � 3 dB
Tube Complement: 6SN7 Input, 6AV5 Driver, 845 Output (One Each)
Size: 10" H x 12" W x 18" D
Weight: 60 Pounds Each
MSRP: $4,995/Pair USA


845 Class A1 power amplifier
----------------------------------------------
DC plate voltage(V) 750 1000 1250
DC Grid voltage(V) -98 -155 -209
DC Plate current(mA) 95 65 52
Load resistance(K ohm) 3.4 9.0 16
Power output(W) 15 21 24

New Audio Frontiers 845 SE Special Edition Integrated Tube Amplifier 25+25 Glorious Watts RMS

845 is a pure class A with tube regulated power supply tube amplifier, which produces 25 watt output continuous into 16/8/4 Ohms.

regarded directly-heated 845 power triode for an output of up to 25 watts It uses a single 845 triode tube per channel and the power output is 24 watts.



Nobody claims "a quartet of 845's will run around 1000 watts without to much bother" , except you.

so that's 1 bad example, can you give us some more of the " many to be had at well over 500 watts"
units ?

(mebbe you fat fingered an extra zero ? 100 watts for 4 seems do-able)



I shouldn't have to tell
Allan.

yeah, just make bogus statements and then don't back them up..you shouldn't have to ...

[jerry_rig]

plse clue us in to "the many" well over 500 watts

OK, I'll take the bait... The Atma-Sphere MA-3 Mk.III.1 is an output transformer less (OTL) tube amp rated at 500 watts per channel. Obviously, it is a monster and not your typical tube power amp.

Generally speaking, traditional push-pull tube amps with transformers are limited to 100 watts per channel or lower. The single-ended triodes often run as little as 3 watts per channel. However, if you can afford it, WAVAC makes a number of 150 watt per channel single-ended designs.

In my experience, high efficiency horn-based speakers can sound their best with properly matched tube power amps. Massive solid state amps are great for bass and for low-efficiency speakers. I, personally mix the two (tubes for highs and SS for the lows). That's having your cake and eating it!

[JeffW]

I grew up with tubes. My first mono system was a Pilot with one JBL 030. Then I went to a Mac C20 and Fisher SA1000 with two 030s. Both tube components needed constant attention with the Mac Clinics eventually replacing everything in the C20 . . . for free . . . just to keep it within specs. I got so tired of replacing teh unique RCA tubes on the Fisher that I traded it on a Crown D150—which is still working fine and sounding great now some forty-years later, and so are the 030s. :dont-know:

My tube amps run common tubes, and my SS amps weren't in the same league as the Crown. If I decide to get back into SS, I'll keep an eye out for some Crown gear.

[hjames]

I grew up with tubes. My first mono system was a Pilot with one JBL 030. Then I went to a Mac C20 and Fisher SA1000 with two 030s. Both tube components needed constant attention with the Mac Clinics eventually replacing everything in the C20 . . . for free . . . just to keep it within specs. I got so tired of replacing teh unique RCA tubes on the Fisher that I traded it on a Crown D150—which is still working fine and sounding great now some forty-years later, and so are the 030s. :dont-know:

Yep - the Chinese built Jolida amp I have doesn't have the issues of many tired older tube amps with aging cap and such -
its nicely made, has a clean 40 watts and a decent warranty, and tubes are pretty cheap and plentiful. Not that I've needed any yet.
Plus I still have plenty of Adcom amps laying around if I need that bracing SS woofer power.
That's kind of the best strategy - have plenty of spares for whatever mood strikes you - flexibility.

[JeffW]

Yep - the Chinese built Jolida amp I have doesn't have the issues of many tired older tube amps with aging cap and such -
its nicely made, has a clean 40 watts and a decent warranty, and tubes are pretty cheap and plentiful. Not that I've needed any yet.
Plus I still have plenty of Adcom amps laying around if I need that bracing SS woofer power.
That's kind of the best strategy - have plenty of spares for whatever mood strikes you - flexibility.

My tired old tube amps all have brand new caps from some pretty high end cap manufacturers, modernized power supplies, and upgraded, modern input driver boards.

The only trouble I've had was with cheap Chinese tubes.

[Allanvh5150]

not that I don't believe an expert like you, but I did a little online checking abt the 845 ...

over and over I find the specs saying "22-28" watts for an 845

Every 845 or 211 vacuum tube amplifier has power, so what makes this 845 amplifier design stand out? It is the sonic beauty. This Sophia Electric™ 845 amp can match a 845 tube amp for purity and musicality, while putting out 22-25 watts of glorious single ended tube amplifier power.

Specifications:
Power: 25 Watts RMS into 8 Ohms
MFR: 20 Hz - 35 kHz � 3 dB
Tube Complement: 6SN7 Input, 6AV5 Driver, 845 Output (One Each)
Size: 10" H x 12" W x 18" D
Weight: 60 Pounds Each
MSRP: $4,995/Pair USA


845 Class A1 power amplifier
----------------------------------------------
DC plate voltage(V) 750 1000 1250
DC Grid voltage(V) -98 -155 -209
DC Plate current(mA) 95 65 52
Load resistance(K ohm) 3.4 9.0 16
Power output(W) 15 21 24

New Audio Frontiers 845 SE Special Edition Integrated Tube Amplifier 25+25 Glorious Watts RMS

845 is a pure class A with tube regulated power supply tube amplifier, which produces 25 watt output continuous into 16/8/4 Ohms.

regarded directly-heated 845 power triode for an output of up to 25 watts It uses a single 845 triode tube per channel and the power output is 24 watts.



Nobody claims "a quartet of 845's will run around 1000 watts without to much bother" , except you.

so that's 1 bad example, can you give us some more of the " many to be had at well over 500 watts"
units ?

(mebbe you fat fingered an extra zero ? 100 watts for 4 seems do-able)




yeah, just make bogus statements and then don't back them up..you shouldn't have to ...

Geez dont get of your bike, I'll pick up your pump!

I meant to say 813 and I was not talking about class A.

But to continue:

The humble EL34 will happily run 100 watts per pair

A pair of 813's will run 500 watts without issues.

A pair of 5CX1500's can doddle along at 3000W

A pair of 5CX3000's will go past 10,000w

The humble 4CX1000 will quite happily tootle along at 3000w +

A pair of 4CX300Y's will be good for a smaller amp at around 900 watts

For some serious power, grab a pair of 4CM500s. Good for 550Kw!

And if you cant be bothered with puny 500Kw circuits get yourself a couple of 8974's: 2,000,000 watts +

Although tube data books were fine as a guide 40 years ago, tube have changed a lot over the years and their ratings far exceed those stated in the RCA tube manual and others.

All bogus to you I guess, I think not.

Allan. :)

P.S. Would you want to build any of these?

[4313B]

"In my experience, although the most powerful amplifiers are also usually the most expensive, they only rarely offer the best sound. Clearly the single-ended triode valve amplifier doesn't figure on JBL's radar, but i spent many delightful hours enjoying the Everests with a pair of three watt rated PX-4-based monoblocks, via a passive Music first pre-amplifier. Simplicity has its advantages."

[hjames]

My tired old tube amps all have brand new caps from some pretty high end cap manufacturers, modernized power supplies, and upgraded, modern input driver boards.

The only trouble I've had was with cheap Chinese tubes.
No Chinese tubes in mine either - it came with Russian tubes (Electroharmonix)
- tho I swapped in some NOS just for grins. I stayed away from the bottom of the pile Chinese amp makers.

When I first learned electronics in high school, we did work on a lot of tube gear -
and although I haven't used that info for many years and have forgotten most of it, I did grow up with that stuff.

For my "first" tube amp I considered an overbuilt & restored Dynaco - there are a lot of them around,
and lots of folks do go that route. They are kind of pricey tho, for used gear.
But a very valued friend had one, and said every couple of years his need some kind of expensive repair,
and after a couple of those expenses, he bit the bullet and sold it off, and he recommended against that route.

He loaned me his older Jolida for a demo around Christmas, we tried that for a couple months,
Emma and I both liked the sound but decided we wanted a bit more power, so I wound up buying a more powerful Jolida amp
new with part of my tax refund this year. Plus, if I have any problems, the Jolida US distributor is about an hour away in Md.

To get back to the original topic - "Emma and I both liked the sound" - THAT's why we got a tube amp this year!

[Mannermusic]

Just to put some actual (measured) data on all this, my 95 db spl rig produces 90 db output at 1 watt. So, as Giskard's post indicates, you can listen to normal music at normal levels easily with 10 watts. You just have to expect that the peaks are gonna go "off scale" and create distortion. But, that's up to the user, depends on what kind of "music" you listen to. See Nelson Pass DIY web site - a lot of useful engineering articles on why and how, tubes/SS, class A vs AB, etc. There is no "magic bullet."

[richluvsound]

I love the sound of tubes and Pass Class A on horns . I have owned both ,but now with Pass and very happy . Vocals and more delicate details sparkle with both types of amp . I would not rule out using tubes again should the right thing come along . If I wanted uber power, then I'd bi-amp with SS on the LF just because of the work load ,not because they would sound better .

Rich

[Mannermusic]

I love the sound of tubes and Pass Class A on horns . I have owned both ,but now with Pass and very happy . Vocals and more delicate details sparkle with both types of amp . I would not rule out using tubes again should the right thing come along . If I wanted uber power, then I'd bi-amp with SS on the LF just because of the work load ,not because they would sound better .

Rich

Yes, exactly. Also did the SS/tubes on bass/mids for a number of years (tube pre as well). Those complex systems are pain to keep operating at full potential - something always degrading. Not sure it's worth it for a home rig. I think your current solution is an excellent idea.

[JeffW]

But a very valued friend had one, and said every couple of years his need some kind of expensive repair,
and after a couple of those expenses, he bit the bullet and sold it off, and he recommended against that route.



Right, the multi-cap can is the weak point. That's why one of the nice upgrades is to completely eliminate it and go with an unobtrusive bank of modern caps that fit inside the chassis. This allows you to increase the amount of available capacitance as well as increasing the voltage rating of the capacitors. And it's an inexpensive mod, to boot. Other simple mods can significantly increase the life of the rectifier tube, the only other even mildly expensive part on one of them. The input board upgrades are for sonic improvement, the ability to run a greater variety of driver tubes, and little conveniences like being able to individually bias each output tube.

I think many people would agree that in their stock form they are lacking.

[hjames]

Right, the multi-cap can is the weak point. That's why one of the nice upgrades is to completely eliminate it and go with an unobtrusive bank of modern caps that fit inside the chassis. This allows you to increase the amount of available capacitance as well as increasing the voltage rating of the capacitors. And it's an inexpensive mod, to boot. Other simple mods can significantly increase the life of the rectifier tube, the only other even mildly expensive part on one of them. The input board upgrades are for sonic improvement, the ability to run a greater variety of driver tubes, and little conveniences like being able to individually bias each output tube.

I think many people would agree that in their stock form they are lacking.

yeah - his first expensive full refresh, recap update should have done it, but stuff still went wrong.
Don't know much more except after multiple expensive rebuilds he got out from under and was happy
I don't know much more than that - I don't have have a fish in that fight and I didn't go that way.
My first tube amp purchase was actually a rebuilt/refreshed Stromberg Carlson around Thanksgiving.
New caps, new resistors, nice wood trimmed chassis and all of that stuff.
It was a pretty thing - but it didn't quite sound quite right - apparently one of the solder joints came apart during shipment to me.
I shipped it back and decided I didn't want to own someone else's refresh job, and was lucky he gave me a full refund (nice guy!!)
I documented the whole darned thing in a thread that's here - http://www.audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?32124-Tubes-and-horns

Just after I shipped it back, it my friend loaned me his Jolida 102, we liked it a lot and it was worry free,
so I did some checking, found Jolida importers were local, I found I could get a new Jolida with 40w/ch and
remote volume control for less than a fully refreshed bespoke Dynaco of uncertain reliability, and so I did.

I have no wish to argue back and forth further - glad you like your gear -
some folks like old tube gear and thats a cool thing.
All I can say is I made the right choice for us, we like the way it sounds, and I am happy with what I have now.

[Ruediger]

... I switch in my dbx boom box or my Behringer Ultrabass Pro (a dbx clone), and my dbx 3bx dynamic range enhancer or mx Pioneer EX-9000. I am still looking for a 'harmonizer' (which adds nothing but distortion).

And when I want to listen to plain music, I turn that stuff off, and listen to my Yamaha CX-1 (with those un-musical 5532-OpAmps in it :)

Ruediger

[pathfindermwd]

Stereophile just tested a $10k 10watt tube amp.They claim it sounds so musical and great. It has 4% distortion at 10 watts( bad).How can a tube amp with a lot of distortion sound like the real thing?? A good Solid-State amp with less than .1% distortion and better transient response sounds much more like live sound, than a (piece of crap) tube amp.If you don't like the sound of a good Solid-Stateamp, then you don't like something closer to real live sound. Also a good jazz cd will sound much better then a typical distorted vinyl system!! Tubes and vinyl SUCK compared to a good cd and S.S. amps. If you don't agree with me ,tell me why-RUDY


So I guess I'll beat the tube processor drum. I have not heard tubes amps much and even when I have not on my gear in my home. But I have used the tube processor and as it has already been stated about tubes amps, results are a bit mixed. Do they make dance music better? No. But when it comes to guitar and vocal pieces I think it's an improvement. I agree with those that say music can sound too sterile with SS amps. A tube processor in front of an SS amp can offer some of the benefits of both types, richer sound with all the power.

I find myself listening to music at lower to mid volumes with the tube processor since that's where it sounds best. I think that suggests some distortion involved but I'm not 100% sold on distortion-less sound. I was listening to rock on FM the other day on a pair of Missions, it was very enjoyable. I also like old rock music on AM radio, there's just something about that AM rock sound.

My nephew likes my L100T3's better than my new PS Stacks. I hooked up the processor for the first time in awhile and my nephew came over. I told him I hooked it up and asked what he thought of it and surprised he asked if it was the Stacks playing, he was shocked when he learned it was, he thought it was the T3's. I guess some kinds of distortion sound good. I still love my T3's for example even though they can wear on you, many here still like their old L100's. I think this is testament that good sound is to an unknown degree what sounds good to you.


Edit: To clarify, I think that digital music with an SS tube sounds sterile. Digital music may be for some what is appealing about tubes.

[timc]

In my opinion this discussion is missing the point. You can make superb low AND high power amplifiers using both tubes, normal SS and Class D/H ++. It is the way each product is designed that makes the difference, not necessarrily the concept of the active component.

When it comes to low power amplifiers (both Tube and SS), it is easier to make a low noise, superlinear amplifier at 10W than 100W (or higher). This means that if you use high sensitivity speakers, like horns with active filters, it can be beneficial to have a low-power amplifier (and yes, you can make tubes with very low distortion).

-Tim

[4313B]

Nicely done Tim :)

[Ducatista47]

Yes, very nicely done. A point I am much in favor of is that it is not only easier but gains better results if high efficiency transducers are used, be it speakers or headphones with lighter, more responsive diaphragms and powerful motors. Stax electrostatic headphones are a great example. There are other headphone systems that yield high dB/watt, but the moving element in Stax headphones has a tiny fraction of the mass of the other approaches. Tight as a drum and almost zero mass. Sound is produced with a lot of voltage and a wild capacitance demand, but almost no power at all.

So not only does high efficiency allow for better sounding amplification because of lower power requirements (that goes for solid state as well as tubes, ask Nelson Pass), but the high efficiency transducers have more potential to provide high fidelity. I can hear the chorus of nay saying about that, but I will stand by it.

[speakerdave]

To reduce the piles of electronics in the LR I put the Halo woofer amp, the White passive equalizers, the Bryston crossover and DAC and the Conrad preamp in a rack case and draped a cloth over it to hide some of the hardware. The Audio Research tube amp would not fit, so my horn amp right now is a Crown PL One which did. It's playing through a bypassed protection cap and a fixed L pad into the TAD's and is probably operating in Class A almost all of the time, and it is not objectionable at all. The tube preamp is probably warming things up a little. It all makes quite a nice balance.

[speakerdave]

Stereophile just tested a $10k 10watt tube amp . . . .

It's axiomatic in sales that it's the sizzle you're selling, not the steak. Audio lends itself to that idea more than any other I can think of, especially with the help of magazine writers who can make you think you know what a piece of audio gear sounds like by reading about.

[SEAWOLF97]

appears to be a ham or FM transmitter tube

[QUOTE=Allanvh5150;333507
A pair of 813's will run 500 watts without issues.

The 813 beam power tube (http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phys/latta/ee/wing813amp/beampower.jpg) was very popular with amateur radio operators following WW II. The tube remained a staple of amateur radio until single sideband became a popular operating mode in the late 1950's and early 1960's.




A pair of 5CX3000's will go past 10,000w

appears to be a ham or FM transmitter tube again.



The humble 4CX1000 will quite happily tootle along at 3000w +

A pair of 4CX300Y's will be good for a smaller amp at around 900 watts

For some serious power, grab a pair of 4CM500s. Good for 550Kw!

And if you cant be bothered with puny 500Kw circuits get yourself a couple of 8974's: 2,000,000 watts +

Although tube data books were fine as a guide 40 years ago, tube have changed a lot over the years and their ratings far exceed those stated in the RCA tube manual and others.

All bogus to you I guess, I think not.

Allan. :)

P.S. Would you want to build any of these?


you prolly hadn't noticed, but this is a home audio forum , not a commercial FM transmitter forum. If that's what you have to dredge up to prove a point, then things seem rather sad. 2 million watts + ?? :rotfl:


This assumption is only made because most audio people have not heard and never will hear any tube amp of more than a few hundred watts. There are many to be had at well over 500 watts. Pretty much though, it is all personal preference.
Allan.

seems answering home audio questions with "There are many to be had at well over 500 watts." then reference to non-home audio gear is really very bogus.

[Allanvh5150]

appears to be a ham or FM transmitter tube



The 813 beam power tube (http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phys/latta/ee/wing813amp/beampower.jpg) was very popular with amateur radio operators following WW II. The tube remained a staple of amateur radio until single sideband became a popular operating mode in the late 1950's and early 1960's.



appears to be a ham or FM transmitter tube again.




you prolly hadn't noticed, but this is a home audio forum , not a commercial FM transmitter forum. If that's what you have to dredge up to prove a point, then things seem rather sad. 2 million watts + ?? :rotfl:



seems answering home audio questions with "There are many to be had at well over 500 watts." then reference to non-home audio gear is really very bogus.

Oh give it up. All the tubes I listed are rated at AF at the powers stated.

Most tubes that are used for audio were designed for RF. Not sure I would use an 813 for FM though.

Here is a link for a 1000 watt audio amp using 813's

http://www.chambonino.com/construct/const9.html

807's were used for RF and have found there way into audio use and are used by many.

I am not really sure what "your" problem is but I will quite happily stand behind any of my comments as accurate.

Quite obviously you are using google to find pages from very old tube manuals. You will also find that these manuals will spec a pair of EL34's at only a few dozen watts but they will run 100 per pair at their rated plate voltage.

And please, if you use quotes, please use quotation marks.

Allan.

prolly?

[Allanvh5150]

Some into about the 845:

"The 845 power triode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triode) is a radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_frequency) transmitting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter) vacuum tube (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_tube) which can also be used as an audio amplifier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valve_audio_amplifier) and modulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation) tube. Typically, the plate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plate_electrode) is machined from solid graphite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite) in order to accommodate high current (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_current) dissipation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissipation) (up to 100 watts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watt)) and voltage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage). Some current production 845 tubes have metal plates.The 845 tube has a bayonet mount (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayonet_mount) and thoriated (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_dioxide) filaments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_filament) which glow like lightbulbs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightbulb) when powered up. The glass envelope is about 2-5/16" in diameter and 6 inches tall, with the a total tube height of about 7-7/8 inches. It was first released by RCA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RCA) in 1931. It saw extensive use in RCA AM radio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AM_radio) transmitters"

So I guess all those high end amp guys should give up on audio and go over to hi frequency. DOH!

Allan.

[Ducatista47]

Agreed. I had to get a Transmitting Tube Manual to keep up with what some of my friends are talking about. And to refresh my memory of the 811A, a tube I used for something a long, long time ago. When I could drive to Allied Radio and buy one.

I also remember Steve Schell mentioning that his cohorts were into using DHT transmitting tubes for their audio amplifiers. To be more precise, his "fellow solder sniffers."

"Prolly." I have taken it to be semi shorthand for "probably" and haven't bothered to look it up. I was surprised to see its use in these forums expanding. It seems to me to belong in the class of RU and B4; usage I expect from forums populated by those too young to be able to drop out of high school, the eventual fate of many such users. Then again, I am almost certainly Old School. I still wince when "impact" is used as a verb. I know English is a vital language by virtue of its ability to evolve and adapt (unlike Latin, for instance), but that was an ignorant mistake by one person in the media and should have died rather than have been parroted until it caught on. Journalists and politicians should know the difference between effect and affect. Not knowing said difference causes a discomfort that most likely spawned the misuse of the innocent "impact" as a verb.

Even if Prolly were a legitimate word in Esperanto, and I do not believe it is, Esperanto in an artificially developed universal language. It does not therefore qualify as a foreign language, as it is foreign to nowhere. Well, some would say to everywhere. So inclusion as a foreign word would not have been valid anyway.

[Allanvh5150]

Prolly is lzy shrthnd for Probably.

The 811 was another directly heated triode and although designed for RF is quite capable at audio. 15 watts or so in single ended class A mode.

There are many boutique tube companies out the making tubes for audio but most started life in transmitters because no one had the use for anything more than a few watts of audio. Times have changed somewhat. Tubes have no equal in power output, they are easy to make, generally do not need heat sinking, additional circuitry is minimal and very easy for the novice constructor to build from scratch.

However, slip ups in the power supply sections can be somewhat more deadly than the bite from a 100v rail on a solid state amp. Many high powered audio amps using RF tubes can run well over 1000 volts plate voltage!!

Allan.

[Mr. Widget]

"Prolly." I have taken it to be semi shorthand for "probably" and haven't bothered to look it up. I was surprised to see its use in these forums expanding. It seems to me to belong in the class of RU and B4; usage I expect from forums populated by those too young to be able to drop out of high school, the eventual fate of many such users. Then again, I am almost certainly Old School. I still wince when "impact" is used as a verb. I know English is a vital language by virtue of its ability to evolve and adapt (unlike Latin, for instance), but that was an ignorant mistake by one person in the media and should have died rather than have been parroted until it caught on. Journalists and politicians should know the difference between effect and affect. Not knowing said difference causes a discomfort that most likely spawned the misuse of the innocent "impact" as a verb.I don't particularly like to see that sort of "cute speak" here as we have members from all over the world with varying levels of command of English. We certainly don't need to make it even more difficult for them by tossing in a few word grenades.

On to the topic at hand:

I don't think anyone outside of amplified musicians going for a particular sound really likes massive distortion. A small amp rated at 10% distortion is probably doing so because they want to sound like they have more power than they have. If the amp has 10% distortion at 10 watts, it may have a good clean 2-3 watts. With moderately sensitive speakers that are 90dB/watt/meter 2-3 watts may be enough for many listeners, and a high efficiency speaker rarely needs more than that. If you want High SPLs, short of a <100dB/watt/meter speaker you will certainly need far more undistorted power.

Why do people like these amps? There are probably as many reasons as listeners, but some probably appreciate the sound produced by a very simple circuit. I am sure others simply like the idea. I have used some of these amps on tweeters and found them quite pleasing. I have never tried one on a full range system.


Widget

[Sundown]

I don't particularly like to see that sort of "cute speak" here as we have members from all over the world with varying levels of command of English. We certainly don't need to make it even more difficult for them by tossing in a few word grenades.

On to the topic at hand:

I don't think anyone outside of amplified musicians going for a particular sound really likes massive distortion. A small amp rated at 10% distortion is probably doing so because they want to sound like they have more power than they have. If the amp has 10% distortion at 10 watts, it may have a good clean 2-3 watts. With moderately sensitive speakers that are 90dB/watt/meter 2-3 watts may be enough for many listeners, and a high efficiency speaker rarely needs more than that. If you want High SPLs, short of a <100dB/watt/meter speaker you will certainly need far more undistorted power.

Why do people like these amps? There are probably as many reasons as listeners, but some probably appreciate the sound produced by a very simple circuit. I am sure others simply like the idea. I have used some of these amps on tweeters and found them quite pleasing. I have never tried one on a full range system.


Widget

I have THD univalve SET class A, self biasing amp thats 15 watts. This little thing will sound so clean that you'd swear a reverb pedal was hooked up but has enough gain to get nice crunch distortion. W a two 12 cab w Eminenance woofers, the setup will rock the house.

For home stereo would I use a SET for hip hop and metal, no but for jazz, classical and light rock you bet!! Tubes sound so damn sweet!!