E182CC @ 5687?
jan bundgaard
Is E182CC as good as 5687?
Please comment!
Best Regards Jan Bundgaard
P. de R. L.
many will disagree with me, but no it is not.
On paper E182CC/7119 looks superb: mu of 24, low ra etc. But I have tried
them as straight drivers, as mu-followers as SRPP and as cathode follwers -
they have a nasty strident edge to them.
5687 is much better although you have to run real current through it for
best results.
Other type worth looking at in this class are 6463 (mu 20) 6350 (18) and
E288CC which has mu of 25 and gm of up to 18. Sadly E288CC is not as linear
as the others but choose your operating point carefull and it sounds nice.
regrds,
Paul Leclercq
jan bundgaard <janbun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8i8blm$5tc$2...@news.inet.tele.dk...
Sergey Gurevich
Could you talk more about 5687 please.
I'm working on line stage that uses 5687 as an output driver.
What current and voltage levels would you recommend for this tube?
Thanks
Sergey
Dayton, OH
mikesrc
smoother, higher drive voltage, more gain, much cleaner sounding than the
5687s in my circuit. 5687s harsh and edgie.
Mike"P. de R. L." <tri...@bow-tie.org.uk> wrote in message
news:8i8hov$4uo$1...@gxsn.com...
John Harper
tube was a revelation, just like in the magzaines: I heard detail I'd
never heard before, etc. I am running it (from memory) at about 7mA,
more would almost certainly be better. And the system is no less
musical than it was before (with AtmaSphere M60s, also heavily
modified).
I would say, go for it!
John
jan bundgaard wrote in message <8i8blm$5tc$2...@news.inet.tele.dk>...
Andrej Deticek
One SE power amp and the E182CC (I used USA Amperex and Mullard) wins in
every respect, sonically. This is an SRPP driver circuit.
Andrej Deticek
P. de R. L.
actually they are not as linear as I recalled when i wrote my first response
to this posting; in fact they are not much better than E288CC's; this one
sounds much better, but I would say, if you do not need the gain, then go
for 5687.
I should add that 6350 is arguably the most linear of the lot.
Paul
jan bundgaard <janbun...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8i8blm$5tc$2...@news.inet.tele.dk...
doctorjohn
Andrej Deticek
If one looks at the plate curves for an E182CC and a 5687, one would see
that they are fairly close. If anything, a 5687 would bias higher
(drawing more plate current) than an E182CC, at the same grid voltage.
So, I would say in a circuit where the tube is not DC coupled to another
tube (where exact current draw would be more important), one can replace
a 5687 with an E182CC. If it is desired to achieve exact current draw,
this can be done by rebiasing the tube, of course.
I do not have the AN Kit One schematic with the measured DC points at
hand (as I recently moved and can't find the schematic right now), so I
can't say what the grid voltage/plate current draw is, but I think I
remember the plate current was about 10 mA, when I measured it.
Andrej Deticek
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
doctorjohn wrote on June 17:
Richard S. McCown
the government, and there were not any US manufactured ones? They should
have broke Richardson up and divided their tube stocks between us
taxpayers. And the EEC and the IEC and Doris Day.
------------------------ From:
andrej....@amis.net (Andrej Deticek) Re: E182CC @ 5687?
doctorjohn
Andrej Deticek wrote:
> A quick answer would be - no, doctorjohn.
>
> If one looks at the plate curves for an E182CC and a 5687, one would see
> that they are fairly close. If anything, a 5687 would bias higher
> (drawing more plate current) than an E182CC, at the same grid voltage.
>
> So, I would say in a circuit where the tube is not DC coupled to another
> tube (where exact current draw would be more important), one can replace
> a 5687 with an E182CC. If it is desired to achieve exact current draw,
> this can be done by rebiasing the tube, of course.
>
> I do not have the AN Kit One schematic with the measured DC points at
> hand (as I recently moved and can't find the schematic right now), so I
> can't say what the grid voltage/plate current draw is, but I think I
> remember the plate current was about 10 mA, when I measured it.
>
> Andrej Deticek
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> doctorjohn wrote on June 17:
> >
> > Doesn't it draw more current than the 5687?
> >
> > Andrej Deticek wrote:
> >
> > > I have listened to both tube types as a driver tube in an Audio Note Kit
Danny Bekhor
Go ahead and try it.
Danny
P. de R. L.
they were mad in the US by Amnperex (7119).
I still insist that 5687, 6463 and 6350 are better!
Paul
doctorjohn <docto...@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:394B7E86...@my-dejanews.com...
Richard S. McCown
to Kurt Strain about US labled 7119's he had. All Amperex US made tubes
I have seen have USA marked the same as the Philips code. I pulled out a
few 7119's the other and they all had the triangle factory code. I've
got others that I got at different times and they were all European
made. I'm not saying it's impossible but the codes on the tube will tell
the story.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
"They are the same tubes. The ones labeled made in usa are used,
washed, and relabeled. never ever buy a 7119 made in USA unless you
get it cheap.
Even if the are in "Military box". That was a fairly famous scam that
was laid on the US gov..but the perp got "busted" "
Regards,
Kevin Deal V (909) 931-9686 F (909) 985-6968 10-6 pst
M-Sat Upscale Audio 2504 Spring Terrace, Upland, California 91784
www.upscaleaudio.com
---------------------- Paul
wrote, By the way they were mad in the US by Amnperex (7119).
P. de R. L.
that's interesting; I cannot remember what mine said on them - as you know I
gave them away. I have a number of Amperex 8233s (=E55L_. These state
"Made in USA" and are quite different from the (gold-pinned) Mullard
examples I have.
Regards,
Paul
Richard S. McCown <P-...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:16875-39...@storefull-124.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Ron Selberg
>> Andrej Deticek wrote:
>>
>> > I have listened to both tube types as a driver tube in an Audio Note
Kit
>> > One SE power amp and the E182CC (I used USA Amperex and Mullard) wins
in
>> > every respect, sonically. This is an SRPP driver circuit.
I use the 7119 in my redesigned Citation II. I use them with the sections
paralleled as drivers. The circuit is a Williamson w/o global feedback.
The one thing I have noticed with the 7119 is that they are quite
michrophonic. Some much worse than others. The 5687 which I also use there
aren't.
They do bias a little different, but in an auto bias circuit, this isn't a
big issue.
Ron
Andrej Deticek
How do they compare sonically (was originally the question, if I
remember correctly)?
Andrej Deticek
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Grant
alternative. My preference is for the Bendix or TungSol (Cetron) 6900.
I used to have a Wavelength Preamp that came with Philips Jan 5687's
which I first upgraded to TungSol 5687's for a nice improvement.
However, on Kevin Deal's recommendation I went for Amperex PQ 7119's and
boy did they make a noticeable improvement. In the end, a pair of
6900's blew all the rest away. There was simply no comparison. If you
can find them, you owe it to yourself to try a pair of 6900's, they are
the ultimate 5687 sub!