|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2019 14:51:19 GMT -6
Got an NOS Mullard from Christian (Bowie)...He had suggested it for my previous 251 and I think it really mellowed it out nicely. Seemed to do a similar thing here too...but the EH sounds really good too. The EH sounds more smiley faced IMO and the Mullard more frowny in comparison. I thought the Mullard might have handled the transients a little better, but I kind of wonder if it takes too much sparkle out. Not totally sure. Gonna keep the Mullard in for a while and see how it does in the real world. It sounds more "vintage" sounding to me - which is probably just code for more 300-900Hz. The only reason I might ultimately end up choosing the Mullard is for sibilance reasons. Seems to deal with it a little better. But I could go with either. EH - drive.google.com/open?id=16-PODU9K9kQ3lQ8kvwlisq0FrRYKYr_JMullard - drive.google.com/open?id=1V3J2HPGtkhgGYFGcBrk7MF1G5kJHwx9D |
|
|
|
Post by lordalvin on Jul 22, 2019 14:54:02 GMT -6
Try an Amperex PQ tube. Or a Valvo gold pin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 22, 2019 15:20:45 GMT -6
bowie - you want to weigh in?
|
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Jul 22, 2019 18:18:26 GMT -6
I might be biased or something, tube pun, but I don't know, I kind of preferred the EH in the clips.
I'm not sure if I have a bias, but I will try to describe. I have two identical mics, one with an EH tube, and another with a vintage GE tube. 6072A in this case. The GE tube is a little more thick and vintagey, more of the mids like you said. But the EH tube sounds just fine it's a tiny bit brighter and cleaner overall, just a little less of that mid push. I have a hard time picking a favorite, but I like them both a lot. The decision was to either seek out another NOS tube for the second mic, because the tube died, or to continue using the $15 EH tube along side the other mic with the NOS tube (that hasn't died yet.) I decided to use the EH tube side by side with the GE NOS tube, and I haven't really suffered for it.
My main vocal mic, which is a 251 style, uses the EH tube, and I don't begrudge it at all.
That said, if I had a nice old tube on hand I would probably put it in there and use it. Just doesn't seem urgent. Which I guess is a compliment to the EH tubes.
I also don't worry at all about NOS vs modern tubes in my guitar amps. It just seems like one of those things that doesn't need to be a big concern.
At least one of my vintage amps has some old tubes in it that have lasted for years. That is a great thing about NOS tubes in guitar amps. In microphones, I have had failures from both modern and vintage tubes. It just hurts a little more when a $50 tube goes down.
There was a Peluso 2247 SE that I recently sold, the RCA "Red Meanie" tube was a definite improvement over the stock Russian tube. I also tried some old RCA tubes from the 1940s that didn't sound that great.
So I guess it really is a case by case, tube by tube evaluation that needs to happen. I would say the EH tubes pass the test in the microphones I have used.
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 23, 2019 2:40:40 GMT -6
Prefer the Mullard here. Fits a Ballad song better. I'd put the EH back, on a Rocker. (yes, we're fanatics) NOS Mullard seems inevitable, for my V69 too. I can tell that's the better tube on my-even brighter-voice. Again John, killer Pipes!  Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Jul 23, 2019 10:57:20 GMT -6
Holy hell that mic sounds great John. Both tubes sounds right. Intellectually, the Mullard is a little warmer, but the EH tube knocked my head back, and that's the one I'd choose. Sometimes what some folks describe as vintage warm sounds a little muffled to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 23, 2019 11:03:28 GMT -6
Yeah - I’m not totally sure I don’t prefer the EH. But it has been a little more prone to sibilance.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jul 23, 2019 16:12:30 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind is that the tubes are different models. The Mullard is a 12AT7, the EH is likely a 6072(?). The 6072 is going to be a little brighter and have more headroom. I recommend the Mullard when someone wants a warmer tone with a more mellow top end. I'm not someplace where I can hear the clips right now but most find the EH 6072 to be a little gritty up top and undefined in the low-mids. A GE 6072 was the standard upgrade for a long time but they are very expensive now so alternatives like the Mullard 12AT7 are offered as they are a fraction of the price of a mic grade GE 6072. When the Mullard is too warm, the GE is often worth the investment, though there are some other alternatives as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 23, 2019 17:00:20 GMT -6
One thing to keep in mind is that the tubes are different models. The Mullard is a 12AT7, the EH is likely a 6072(?). The 6072 is going to be a little brighter and have more headroom. I recommend the Mullard when someone wants a warmer tone with a more mellow top end. I'm not someplace where I can hear the clips right now but most find the EH 6072 to be a little gritty up top and undefined in the low-mids. A GE 6072 was the standard upgrade for a long time but they are very expensive now so alternatives like the Mullard 12AT7 are offered as they are a fraction of the price of a mic grade GE 6072. When the Mullard is too warm, the GE is often worth the investment, though there are some other alternatives as well. Interesting! You kinda nailed the tone of the EH. I might be interested enough to try the GE. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 23, 2019 17:50:56 GMT -6
Bowie, how would you compare the NOS 5751?
Thanks, Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 23, 2019 19:29:39 GMT -6
I thought the GE 5 Star was too bright in my last iteration of the Upton...I don’t think the EH is too bright, but like I said it can be a little bit sibilant on females - although not nearly as much as the last one. Anyway, I wonder if the tube would affect the quality of the top? Probably not necessarily - maybe just the amount of it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vincent R. on Jul 23, 2019 20:45:54 GMT -6
I really like the Mullard here, but I wouldn’t be disappointed with that EH take either. The EH would work really well in a busy mix, but for a ballad like this where the voice is king, the Mullard would be my choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jul 23, 2019 21:11:44 GMT -6
Bowie, how would you compare the NOS 5751? Thanks, Chris The 5751 will be the next step up in gain. You will have slightly less headroom and a little more midrange push/compression. There are a few types of 5751s. The RCA black-plate 5751 will sound a little like the Mullard 12AT7 from the clip, as will the 1950s GE 5751. Both have a wide soundstagw in the mids and "warm" sound, rich in overtones. Early Sylvanias are a little more airy but they've become so overpriced that I think there's better options right now. Later GE and RCA 5751s are reasonably balanced, with a little more emphasis on the mids. Later Sylvanias are pretty rough. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 23, 2019 21:40:40 GMT -6
Thanks Tube Master! Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 26, 2019 6:51:27 GMT -6
bowie, isn't the GE6072 considered to be 'THE' tube for any 251?
|
|
|
|
Post by bowie on Jul 26, 2019 17:56:56 GMT -6
bowie , isn't the GE6072 considered to be 'THE' tube for any 251? Yes and no. It's a very desirable tube for vintage 251s but there's a number of factors that might make another tube preferred. One being that modern clones never sound exactly like the originals (and some originals have drifted a bit in sound) so the tube is a great way to fine tune the sound to your liking. And, even if a mic sounds original or is an original, many vintage mic owners find themselves liking tubes that are not the original types used. So, I encourage people to think of tubes in terms of being individual personalities and not so much in terms of a scale of quality. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Jul 26, 2019 22:47:11 GMT -6
There are some places that do the Cryo thing to these tubes and I've heard the difference. It's pretty cool. They'll take like a $20 tube and make it sound like a $100 tube. There's one out there called a Brimar 12AU7 that they do that to and they have really great sounding mids and the top is very silky.
With the stock getting depleted on the GE 5 stars companies are coming up with ways to tailor tubes for folks. Most of these places that do the Cryo stuff, you can tell them what kind of mic you have and what you'd like to have it focus more on and they'll find some NOS or new tube they Cryo and it's pretty damn incredible what they can do. Just google "Cryo vacuum tubes" and there are several sellers out there doing this nowadays.
Also, if you ever find the right sauce on a mic and it's giving off too much sibilance or does sometimes, that can be distortion that's masked seeming like sibilance, since that harsh Esss gets treated way differently by the circuit than a forward midrange or soft low-end. On 251's you can experiment by changing out the DC output cap with larger values, usually they're anywhere from 1uf to 3uf, you can drop like a 3.3uf high grade in and see what how you like it, very easy to change on most of these mics. Also the bypass cap, changing that around with different types and small values can give you a softer bottom end or tighter, just however you want your mic to sound for you. I used to fine tune those circuits for customers and the Tube, Output cap and bypass cap were always what I started with first, in that order. If you can fix a mic cable you can change the output cap, bypass is usually strapped with a 1.8k resistor, sometimes that's different too, a lot of fine tuning can be done on that 251 circuit to fine tailor it.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluegrassdan on Jul 27, 2019 1:47:29 GMT -6
I'm one of those hyperfocused nit-pickers with vacuum tubes...
The Mullard wins, hands down. "That you don't looooooove...." is the spot. Notice the EH stops sounding like music on that strong note?
|
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 27, 2019 8:30:26 GMT -6
Yep. Chris
|
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jul 27, 2019 10:30:18 GMT -6
Mullard for me. Last night I put the NOS Mullard Bowie recently provided me into the ADK Z-251 I'm demoing. While ADK sells it stock with a Mullard and it sounds really nice, there's definitely a noticeable improvement in smoothing out my own voice with the NOS from Bowie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 27, 2019 19:27:47 GMT -6
I'm one of those hyperfocused nit-pickers with vacuum tubes... The Mullard wins, hands down. "That you don't looooooove...." is the spot. Notice the EH stops sounding like music on that strong note? Yeah - it seems more consistent across the frequency range and dynamic range. |
|
|
|
Post by chessparov on Jul 27, 2019 19:36:42 GMT -6
The good news for me, is that now my MXL V69 will sound just like a primo C12, with that NOS Mullard!  (well it would sound much better) Chris |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jul 28, 2019 7:54:53 GMT -6
The good news for me, is that now my MXL V69 will sound just like a primo C12, with that NOS Mullard! (well it would sound much better) Chris One would think that, by now, a new microphone design would come along to not only rival but surpass the venerable ELAM251, C12, U67 and U47/48 microphones. Perhaps the C800 has come close to that . . . perhaps some of the Josephson offerings? |
|
|
|
Post by damoongo on Jul 28, 2019 8:40:54 GMT -6
Mullard for me. Last night I put the NOS Mullard Bowie recently provided me into the ADK Z-251 I'm demoing. While ADK sells it stock with a Mullard and it sounds really nice, there's definitely a noticeable improvement in smoothing out my own voice with the NOS from Bowie. I’m assuming the ADK comes with a “new Mullard”. These tubes have nothing to do with the Mullard tubes we know and love, except the trademark name purchased by the current manufacturer. It’s like if I bought the name “Stradivarius” and started making violins in my garage. Not the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Jul 28, 2019 8:57:27 GMT -6
I still think vintage mics more often than not have a depth and smoothness advantage over new ones. I don’t know if it’s the metals/materials they have to use now due to eco laws, or the quality of said parts, or the craftsmanship of the capsules, the mellowing - whatever it is...but they usually deal with stridency better than new ones. I’ve heard some that I wouldn’t buy too - so maybe I’m just remembering the good ones more than the bad ones.
|
|
