Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby jonzguitar » Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:00 pm

I've been procrastinating this post for a while now... finally decided to get it on here for some opinions. I thought I had Tung-Sol 12AX7's, but they're actually Hungarian made Tungsram's. They occupy V1, V2 and V3. I know that these particular tubes are from the 70's-early 80's era, and are supposedly very good pre-amp tubes. If you look at the pic, you can see it has the Yellow stamp on it with the winged T and says Made in Hungary on the bottom. I really like the sound of these tubes ALOT. However, I haven't changed them out for any other tubes yet to try different tones. Any suggestions? Again, I am happy with the sound of my amp with these tubes, but I'm willing to mix them with Tung-Sol's or Raytheon Blackplates if it would be a good combination. Any suggestions would be much appreciated...
Attachments
Tungsram.jpg
User avatar
jonzguitar
Experienced
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 8:46 pm

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:38 am

I think Tungsrams make a really great V1 tube in a Marshall. Sound a little funny at first, but break in nicely. Real strong sounding, thick tubes. I only have the one. :( But it's mint.
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby ClassicGain » Wed Oct 31, 2012 12:52 pm

Are they expensive?
Amps: '95 1987x Rebuild, '87 2550 Jubilee, '97 JCM2000 DSL50, '83 JCM800 2204. Vox AC30CC2.
Cabs: '79 1960b Blackbacks, '86 1960a G12T-75/Century, '82 1960a G12-65, '90s 1960a G12M/G12H 70th, '80s Rebuilt silver V30s.
User avatar
ClassicGain
Experienced
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Wed Oct 31, 2012 2:43 pm

I picked mine up for about $20. Absolute NOS, in original box.
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby wakjob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:32 am

Not a bad price at all.

Being 'thick' sounding, do they still retain solid pick attack when used in V1?
User avatar
wakjob
Experienced
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:57 pm
Location: Where kindness is currency.

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby ClassicGain » Thu Nov 01, 2012 12:42 pm

wakjob wrote:Being 'thick' sounding, do they still retain solid pick attack when used in V1?


and are they q u i e t (low noise floor)?
Amps: '95 1987x Rebuild, '87 2550 Jubilee, '97 JCM2000 DSL50, '83 JCM800 2204. Vox AC30CC2.
Cabs: '79 1960b Blackbacks, '86 1960a G12T-75/Century, '82 1960a G12-65, '90s 1960a G12M/G12H 70th, '80s Rebuilt silver V30s.
User avatar
ClassicGain
Experienced
 
Posts: 1527
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2012 5:50 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:03 pm

They're quite similar to Mullards in most ways except maybe a bit more growly, and not as fat. They're as quiet as any other good quality tube.
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby wakjob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:34 pm

ClassicGain wrote:
wakjob wrote:Being 'thick' sounding, do they still retain solid pick attack when used in V1?


and are they q u i e t (low noise floor)?


Would you oust a 7025 for one? :think:
User avatar
wakjob
Experienced
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:57 pm
Location: Where kindness is currency.

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby wakjob » Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:42 pm

demonufo wrote:They're quite similar to Mullards in most ways except maybe a bit more growly, and not as fat. They're as quiet as any other good quality tube.


I might have to pick a couple of these up.

I just a small batch of pre's from Alan (RiverRatt). RCA, Sylvania, Raytheon Black Plate, RFT, old Tung-Sol, Amperex, 12BZ7, and a 12AZ7. Still rolling when I have the time.

I will say, they are better in a lot of ways than the CP tubes I've been using. So, I'm relieved that all the NOS talk isn't just hype. Money well spent.

I also got a pair of RFT el34's. Jury is still out on those. I need more 'loud' time with them. So far at the volume I've tried them at, I hear no big difference from the =C=.
User avatar
wakjob
Experienced
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:57 pm
Location: Where kindness is currency.

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:28 pm

There are RFT's and there are RFT's. Same with Tesla's. Those made in the 60's are way WAY superior. Short base RFT's have it over the long based RFT's by quite some margin, and RFT's from the 80's are strong and robust, but tonally nothing to write home about.

These days there are an awful lot of substandard RFT's about. Originally, many of these tubes will have had a number in a triangle. 0 would be top notch. 1 would be tested good. 2 would be passable, but not for export. Also I believe there was an S but I can't recall what this was for. No number would be untested/ungraded. Those that still have the triangle visible would be the ones to buy.

Likewise, the Tesla's from Vrchlabi (32 code) would be the ones to buy (Vrchlabi production stopped sometime around '72/'73, and again, 60's production is better). Early Trinec ones (37 code) are pretty good, but they went downhill quite quickly.

With all things NOS tubes-wise, it's always a crap-shoot unless you really trust your seller. And if you do trust your seller, it's worth paying the premium. Of course, many trustworthy sellers DON'T charge a premium at all. Many people who are talked about ad nauseum as being righteous trustworthy sellers are not always that. Fortunately, none of those guys are around here, that I am aware of. Alan I look forward to dealing with in the future. Marty is a stand up guy. We've a nice community here, albeit a little quiet, and are surrounded by people who I feel can be trusted 100%.
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby wakjob » Fri Nov 02, 2012 12:23 am

^
I couldn't agree more.

Not only did Alan use his tube tester, he actually put every tube in his Class 5 and played with them for a bit just to make sure that they were tonally up to snuff. Great guy. A true asset to our community, all present company included also. You guy's are the best.
User avatar
wakjob
Experienced
 
Posts: 693
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:57 pm
Location: Where kindness is currency.

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby mickeydg5 » Fri Nov 02, 2012 4:13 am

I am not an expert by any means but find that both RFT and SED =C= EL34 tubes to be excellent tubes and similar sounding in a lot of ways. Now Demonufo has got me wondering about 60's or short base RFT tubes, I have to check my stash.

Notice that EL34 SED =C= prices are catching up to old stock RFT tubes. :o :lol:
User avatar
mickeydg5
Experienced
 
Posts: 437
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:50 am
Location: US of A

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:25 am

mickeydg5 wrote:Notice that EL34 SED =C= prices are catching up to old stock RFT tubes. :o :lol:


Yes, and that IS more than a little insane as well.

I still like Winged C's, but at the current prices, I'm not so sure anymore. If they go higher I will have to stop recommending them. Again, the current ones are not as good as the two pairs from '99 and the two pairs that I have from '00 remaining. Just my opinion, of course...
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby demonufo » Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:31 am

wakjob wrote:
ClassicGain wrote:
wakjob wrote:Being 'thick' sounding, do they still retain solid pick attack when used in V1?


and are they q u i e t (low noise floor)?


Would you oust a 7025 for one? :think:


Um, you know I don't have one to try... :oops:

Or do I, lemme check my drawer...

Nope. And my 5751's and other JAN Philips 12AX7's seem to have disappeared... :?


As for pick attack, well, they don't have the clarity going on that say Sylvania's do, and they might be a little more squashy than some others...
Burn not your house, to fright away the mice...

A life spent making mistakes is more useful than a life spent doing nothing...

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts...
User avatar
demonufo
Experienced
 
Posts: 734
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 11:40 am

Re: Tungsram not Tung-Sol

Unread postby MartyStrat54 » Sat Nov 10, 2012 2:48 am

I try to buy tubes made before 1965. 1964 was the last year for Raytheon Black Plates. All the big companies wrote off their tube manufacturing divisions and no new money came in to repair ailing equipment. If you follow me, you will probably recall that I stated that most modern tube lines were in full production in 1935. These same lines were making tubes 30 years later. This would be 1965. Most of the equipment needed to be replaced, but due to the transistor, no new equipment was purchased. That means a 1974 GE tube was made on worn out equipment. RCA completely stopped tube production by 1977. They were the first major company to pull out. They got into a little trouble with the FED's over how they advertised the tube on the box. At first they said, "Made in USA," but the tube was some foreign made tube like an Ei. RCA later put in micro print, "Country of origin is printed on tube." This is why I stay away from RCA tubes. Their best tubes were made in the late 50's. By the late 60's, a lot of tubes were relabeled for the major manufactures and were made in Japan.

Isn't it funny that Jim Marshall decided to gamble with debuting an all tube amplifier when everyone else was coming out with solid state. Don Randall thought he had Leo Fender convinced to dump the Fender tube amps for his new solid state models. Leo changed his mind and Don left to start Randall. Some of his most popular amps were supposed to have been Fender's. However, early Randall's did not outsell Fenders.
Lots of Marshall gear and guitars. Tube talk and speaker recommendations.


http://mmtubes.com


ImageImage
User avatar
MartyStrat54
Experienced
 
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:23 am
Location: Muskogee, OK

Next

Return to Tubes

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron