[tako_tsubo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmish /img/forum/go_quote.gif I rolled the tubes in my upgraded GES after less than a week. I used Sylvania 12ax7wa. There was a very dramatic improvement and after 200 hours even more. I have had it for a month now and I love it.

gimmish, what exactly did improve? bass impact, mid/upper midrange? Not having any experience in tubes... I presume that the sylvania's handle voltage swings better than the stock tubes...so how does that translate to sound?

oh and what earspeakers are you using?

 

[ironbut]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tk3 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I changed the stock EH12AX7 for some New Sensor new production Mullard 12AX7, and couldn't hear much of a difference. At least, I doubt I'd be able to tell the difference in a blind test.

The Mullard (relabel) and the Electo Harmonics 12ax7 are pretty much the same tube. It's the same with the EH and the Tung-Sol relabel ef86/ef806s. Both are distributed by New Sensor, made in the same factory, same internal design.

Probably 1/4 of the tube amp manufacturers official stand is that different tubes make no difference in sound. Some reviewers used to say the same thing but most of them agree that there is a difference. For designers, there's lots of reasons that they might say this but I believe the main reason is repairs and the warranty issues that bad tubes lead to. Another is that the designers made decisions on the tube "type" used in a particular position. The differences in sound is very subtle compared to the sound of a 6sl7 compared to a 12ax7. And when a design goes into production, they are off to the next design. It may be an upgrade of a current amp with maybe some different power supply regulation and the differences here would not be subtle either. So, when a designer says that changing tubes don't make a difference, ask them " compared to what?" and they might say, "well, more than changing cables of course,.." ( which I've heard a couple of times). Just remember that during the design process, there may have been 10 prototypes or there may have been 100 variations of 1 prototype. Either way,each one of these changes resulted in huge sonic swings. After all that, it's no wonder that some of them say that tube rolling doesn't result in a significant change in the sound.
The last major reason is cost. Or rather, relative cost. What I mean by that is designers are constantly trying to build gear to meet a price point. The better designers do their best to give you more goodness per buck than their competitors. But, to meet that price point, they have to cut back on that teflon cap or bigger/better iron. So when you start talking about spending $120 on a pair of NOS tubes all they can see is that MagnaQuest transformer that they had to downgrade ( lowering the parts cost $100) to meet the price point. So, in that case, the difference in sound is insignificant compared to the improvement that the big iron would have made.
So, you might ask why they can't hear some improvement and admit that it helps the sound. I mean, don't these guys tube roll too? Not if you don't have an amp to do that with. Lot's of small builders can't afford to keep any of their production models and the ones that do, are sending them all over the world for demos and the only time they see it is when it gets broken.
Just remember, tube rolling voids warranties. If the designer recommends it, than he has to honor the warranty ,..right?

 

[gimmish]

Quote:

Originally Posted by tako_tsubo /img/forum/go_quote.gif gimmish, what exactly did improve? bass impact, mid/upper midrange? Not having any experience in tubes... I presume that the sylvania's handle voltage swings better than the stock tubes...so how does that translate to sound? oh and what earspeakers are you using?

I am listening with O2s. I heard a major improvement in overall detail,bass,extension and open air in the highs and soundstage. In general I would say there was an improvement in all aspects of the sonic signature of the amp.

 

[ktm]

My experience with tubes is they all sound different. And there are many
slightly different versions of tubes(different part numbers).
They have different specs, hence a different sound. It's measurable!
Now why did Kevin Gilmore say that it didn't make a difference?
Good question. Maybe his original design negated most of the differences between tubes.
But I'm sure there was some difference. The question was,
was it enough to justify big bucks?
Next up- if the Woo design is different, which appears to be the case,
then tube changes may have more effect. Has anyone been able to
map one out to see what is and is not the same?

 

[aaron313]

It looks more and more like I will end up with the 007 + GES upgraded. I just like it that there appears to be a little bit of stability in the electrostat aftermarket amp market. Now, I just need $4300!

 

[peeradonn]

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilCox /img/forum/go_quote.gif When Kevin Gilmore was commenting on the prototype, he stated: "I have listened to these units for literally thousands of hours, trying various kinds of tubes, ranging from NOS Mullard, RCA, GE and Raytheon to current-made junk. The feedback makes all these tubes sound virtually alike. Not at all like some tube preamps that sound dramatically different depending on the tube you use." I am interested to hear from GES owners who have done some tube-rolling to see how Woo's implementation of Kevin's design responds to different tubes.

Dear Wilcox,

This is mail tahat I and Jack talking about Woo GES's Tube rolling, hope it helps!

Dear jack,

Now I'm looking to Tube rolling the GES, I heard that the stock 12BZ7 can be replace with 12AX7 and 5751. I looking at Sylvania 5751 Blck plate triple mica ( some people in Head-fi told that it'll improve GES Substantially ) or some Mullard 12AX7. But today I read one of the GES's owner comment that Dr. Gilmore told that tube rolling won't chang thing in his design and he said that he changes 12AX7 Electro harmonic ( stock ) to Mullard and he can't notice any change. Since you're the one who build this GES do you have comment about this issue? If you think tube rolling will improve GES performance, do you recommend any tube?

Thanks

Kim


Kim,

I would disagree largely that tube rolling doesn't improve sound quality. Maybe it was the case for the original design. However, thew GES was re-engineered. Also, the implementation is completely different. In fact, in all our design, we utilize the tube.

Mullard 12AX7 is a very good choice. However, there is no absolute answer to this as people have different taste.

Jack

 

[WilCox]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peeradonn /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kim, I would disagree largely that tube rolling doesn't improve sound quality. Maybe it was the case for the original design. However, thew GES was re-engineered. Also, the implementation is completely different. In fact, in all our design, we utilize the tube. Mullard 12AX7 is a very good choice. However, there is no absolute answer to this as people have different taste. Jack

Thanks for sharing this info. I think that most of us Head-Fiers will be rolling tubes to get to the next level of performance, whatever the claims of the designer/manufacturer.

 

[aaron313]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aaron313 /img/forum/go_quote.gif It looks more and more like I will end up with the 007 + GES upgraded. I just like it that there appears to be a little bit of stability in the electrostat aftermarket amp market. Now, I just need $4300!

Heh, how things change.

 

[Sanderman]

Full payment made 5/15. Now estimated end of July (but before that it was mid June, then the end of June)....is this typical?

Joe