Tubes Asylum Questions about tubes and gear that glows. FAQ |
|
In Reply to: Re: NOS Vs. Used, and those DAMN boxes posted by Jimmy on February 13, 2006 at 13:48:50:
Yeah, new means new, but is "new" synonymous always with "way better for use in audio gear despite the extra expense?" (BTW I said used/tests good cost 60% of NOS on average, though I think NOS are easily double the cost) I mean this in a friendly way; this is absolutely NOT a word war, no heat, but W/experience dating to 1982, I can't say I fully buy your non-linear emission decay thing. I think an NOS Mullard EL34 that tests at 6500 mhos/98% max emission will last the exact same # of hours on an average of 1000 EL34s as ANY OTHER Mullard EL34 @6500mhos/98% emission--- REGARDLESS of NIB, ANOS, USED or "other" satus. In other words, if it says 92 octane, it's 92 octane. A tube can fail at ANY TIME as well, regardless of test #s, so I buy GOOD testing, good looking (clean plates, alignment of micas top/bottom--meaning the tube isn't out of whack physically--, of course no metal on the glass)used tubes and put the savings into my system.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: NOS Vs. Used, and those DAMN boxes - ARC 14:50:02 02/13/06 (3)
- Re: NOS Vs. Used, and those DAMN boxes, my humble experience - j rodney 15:24:54 02/13/06 (2)
- Re: NOS Vs. Used, and those DAMN boxes, my humble experience - ARC 16:01:57 02/13/06 (1)
- Re: NOS Vs. Used, and those DAMN boxes, my humble experience - Jimmy 08:48:27 02/14/06 (0)