|
Tube DIY Asylum Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders. |
|
|
|
Tube DIY Asylum Do It Yourself (DIY) paradise for tube and SET project builders. |
|
In Reply to: 1626 versus 45 posted by Sasquatch on December 5, 2005 at 08:57:24:
I'll second Larry there. My kluged main amp has multiple parallel wired output sockets, so I can roll all kinds of tubes with minor fuss. In the very same amp 1626 and 45 sound VERY different. 1626 is a great sounding tube, for an idht, but from my experience whether triode or pentode a direct heated tube sounds better than an indirect heated. I haven't tried triode wired 1624s yet, but could quickly enough tonight, sounds like fun. I run my pentodes as pentodes with partial feedback (ala Gary Pimm) normally.
I hate to say it, and some may kill me for doing so, but you could consider the 46. It's cheaper than the 45 and i find the sound to be somewhere between a 1626 and a 45. It also has operating points close to a 1626, so a 46 Darling could be built. I just ask, never use a 47 as a triode, its a waste of a darn good pentode, the 46 sounds better as a triode.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: 1626 versus 45 - ottoamps 12/8/0516:43:25 12/8/05 (2)
- Re: 1626 versus 45 - Sasquatch 19:43:22 12/8/05 (1)
- Re: 1626 versus 45 - ottoamps 18:33:39 12/9/05 (0)
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
