If you are OK with cans here's a crispy brew.Did you bring enough to share?
If you are OK with cans here's a crispy brew.Did you bring enough to share?
It looks reasonably good. Likely audibly transparent.This DIY tube pre amp seems to have been decent with low distortion, or? Tube pre amp with tube ECC88
thttp: //user.faktiskt.io/Morello/Tube-preamp/
You do not “roll” tubes in and out of their sockets. If that would even be possible, it would severely bend the pins. Instead, you pull them up and straight out, and insert them straight in. You might have to rock them back and forth a little to loosen them, but you do not roll them.
Sounds more like rofl to me.To me because it sounds like rolling the dice...
Personally even if I signed up for a tube product, I would not waste time "rolling tubes." You are likely to suffer more from "rolling placebo" by your brain than any variation in such tubes.
Tubes audiophiles won't call it suffering, they enjoy the placebo. Kind of paradigm shift we usually don't fulfill.Personally even if I signed up for a tube product, I would not waste time "rolling tubes." You are likely to suffer more from "rolling placebo" by your brain than any variation in such tubes.
Either a poor-quality tube to begin with or an old and tired sample (or both). One unknown variable here seems to be how much time the samples have on them which definitely affects performance although probably not by enough to rescue a broken design, If it's a twin type like a 'dual triode' it should be a close match (both channels should suck equally).I recently reviewed the Mhdt Pagoda tube DAC. Owner was kind enough to send me three other tubes to test with it. Here are the set of tubes I received:
View attachment 168967
Channel 1 is the same but channel 2 has 6 dB lower distortion. Is half the tube better or is there some asymmetry in the design?
That's all I have for you.
Conclusions
It is clear that by far the source of distortion is the design and not choice of tube. In three cases the difference is negligible and inaudible. In the forth example, the WE 396A, there is reduction of distortion in one channel. In the larger picture, there is so much distortion here that reducing it with this tube is not going to make a difference one way or the other.
Notice the level of instrumentation it takes to see the impact of the tube. You need to measure to see if there is a difference and not just assume there is.
Personally even if I signed up for a tube product, I would not waste time "rolling tubes." You are likely to suffer more from "rolling placebo" by your brain than any variation in such tubes.
----------
As always, questions, comments, recommendations, etc. are welcome.
Any donations are much appreciated using: https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/how-to-support-audio-science-review.8150/
I never understand why it's called "rolling tubes" as opposed to "changing tubes". It seems to imply some inherent skill involved in the process.
Either a poor-quality tube to begin with or an old and tired sample (or both). One unknown variable here seems to be how much time the samples have on them which definitely affects performance although probably not by enough to rescue a broken design, If it's a 'dual triode' it should match closely.
Another botched decision by the designers to use these oddball tubes instead of something readily available like the 12AX7 but they may have just been catering to the subset of tubefetishistshobbyists that believes that the more obscure / esoteric the tube is (directly heated triodes for example), the 'better' it must be.
Tubes audiophiles won't call it suffering, they enjoy the placebo.
Frank van Alstine, whose company makes SS, all-tube, and hybrid gear, has hypothesized that many of the differences people hear in tubes has to do with how hard the tube is being driven in the circuit (bias, operating voltages etc) and that some tubes behave differently at or close to their operating extremes, and that equipment in which tubes are operated more conservatively tend to show smaller differences between different tubes as a result. In a word, implementation. Where have we heard that before.Buy the quick and numerous reply’s to this topic I am guessing there are many opinions…
Just a thought…
I know very little of why I roll tubes , but that is true of most of what I do in audio. All the numbers make my head spin to be honest, but I have had a noticeable difference with gold lion 12ax7s. This was in amps and preamps. My question is …do tubes make more difference in this world then the dac world…would anyone else be interested in Amirm doing a baseline on how tubes rolling does or does not work on amps and preamps…because it is so much fun to put some of these myths to rest.
I googled that Kootenay 120 amp. It's a top shelf tube amp from what I gathered. My pic shows it off better.
My Octo-Purifi system lacks a wah-wah pedal.People would be better experimenting with putting different electric guitar pedals into their system if they like all their music to sound like it's being played by Edge from U2
Perhaps because of the way they roll off the tabletop if you don't keep an eye on them?I never understand why it's called "rolling tubes" as opposed to "changing tubes". It seems to imply some inherent skill involved in the process.