Does it pay off to put vintage MULLARD Power Tubes in my Marshall Super Lead?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ต.ค. 2024
- In this clip I compare a quartet of 1970s Mullard XF4 EL34 tubes (Phillips branded) to a quartet of new Marshall branded EL34 tubes (most likely Tung Sol). I'm playing both in a 1977 Marshall Super Lead/Bass amp with a Gibson Les Paul R9.
- เพลง
The vintage tubes I can smell a bit of oak overtones and an earthy vanilla aftertaste...
;-)
Smell...look...the issue today is people forget to listen...
Nah, smells like cheap booze and cigarettes
Thats the smell of burning rosewood
Yeah, that's the smell of "ToneValve tubes" (exotic tungsten inside them) haha!
Sound incredibly similar and for the price difference I would go for new ones in this case!
Darn I can actually hear a difference... was hoping I didn't. I doubt in a mix/after some EQ it would be game changing though.
It's there, but subtle. NOTHING to write home about.
DMSProduktions Yeah but hearing (actually) it in the room the difference can be pretty huge.
The noticeable difference was on the big chords at the beginning. The breakup was much more complex, harmonic, and aggressive. In single notes, not so much.
The Mullards are actually much easier to play. They have a nicely saturated low end that helps out without getting muddy
Johan Segeborn Hi Johan, in the video the top end sounds a little smoother with the Mullards too, not sure if that was the case live. If so I bet that would help when pushing the amp with an old-time overdrive like the MXR distortion+. Less harsh high end!
The difference is because of different Volt-Ampere-Characteristics of both tube models. Same will be with any other brand. Just impossible to build exact the same tubes.
Not worth to buy expensive NOS tubes at all.
Compared to vintage NOS tubes purchasing current/new production tubes saves enough money to change your tubes much more often.
The tonal differences may indeed be much more apparent to some with trained ears (and there are people out there who make a living using their trained ears). I'm pretty sure minute tonal and response characteristics do indeed exist, just maybe not noticeable to most people.
What is noticeable are tubes with many hours on them, I think best money spent is just changing them out more often. And most certainly try different brands as everybody is different in their preferences.
As to which sounded better in this comparison, there were characteristics of each I thought sounded good.
Totally agree!!
While I agree with that, I think preamp tubes affect more the final sound than power tubes.
@@rafaelpretto292 Yes indeed. With 12AX7 tubes having a gain factor of up to 100 they can't even be compared to a power tube.
That said, any small changes in the tube's characteristics or "tone" can potentially be amplified close to 100 times ( or there about).
Trying different kinds of preamp tubes is a great way to learn more about and help dial in your amplifiers tone.
Endless possibilities for sure, and that is exactly the reason this is so interesting/fun.
@@hkguitar1984 Agreed!
Almost doesn’t want to say.. I put NOS Blackburn Mullards to my 65’ AC-30, the difference was night & day. Like a “new” amp.
Yes I put an XF1 Mullard 34 in my Tone King Gremlin head and yes night and day
Can’t hear a difference man, using headphones too. Think a blind test would weed out some of the elitists who will “hear what they want to hear.” Personally I closed my eyes, listened, and couldn’t tell you which was which.
Weed always helps.
@@guitarocd9984 LOL
I live in a legalized state. There is a problem though. When you get to a four-way stop sign nobody wants to go.
@@guitarocd9984 Seriously, that is really funny Guitar ocd.
Give me a four-way stop over a roundabout any day!
@@guitarocd9984
I'm guessing that on the freeways, everyone drives 50 mph in the far right lane, and nobody's passing on the left.
The difference is very subtle but both sound AMAZING great video Johan
Thanks Jake, I’m glad to hear that!
The guy at specter studios made a huge video with 5 amps testing all these tubes, and concluded that none of them sounded different. Lol!
What I get from this is that the new Marshall-branded tubes do a really impressive job of sounding like vintage tubes.
The code on those Marshall tubes is "VLVE-00010" ? They should be winged C power tubes, but they've taken a fair amount of heat by the looks of it.
Otherwise now, most of the time white logo or gold logo is Shuguang.
As expected the difference is subtle but that could have as much to do with the range they are in electrically as much as the design themselves, a difference in low ends and low mids (through the YT video anyways) but nothing to really wow over, but as mentioned above, old production tubes last way more hours.
I think the mullards sounds more creamy and marshalls are harder sounding what you prefer is a matter of taste
Great comparison! I used to switch out my modern EL34's for XF2 Mullards when recording with my MetroAmp '67 SuperBass clone. But I had a few times where I recorded parts with my newer tubes and realized that both sets sounded great. I do still use old 6V6 tubes in my old 50's Gibsons just because I have so many in storage. Also, Philips 6l6wgb tubes were a great value a few years ago to use in amps that use 6L6 or 5881 tubes. I still have a bunch of matched quads that I bought for a good price. They last a lot longer than newer 6L6 tubes too.
Thanks!
BTW, Cheers/Thanks Johan!! I appreciate your dedication to great tone!
Thanks, I had a blast recording it! Cheers
My father was a TV repair guy in the fifties. When solid state TV's came out he found different work. I could not convince him that different brands or older tubes make a difference. I became a tube junkie at one point. But it got ridiculous. But know I just use whatever I have. With the high-gain amps I don't think it makes any difference. Have a good day.
You too man
Mullards have better bass and a lower noise floor. Plus they'll last for years. Great investment if you ask me. Especially for critical recording.
Both sound good, but reliability-wise, the Mullards will last much longer than any current production tube. I've had amps from the 60s that still had their original power tubes, they were still good after 50 years.
littlefury Obviously you have no idea whsa you are talking about.
@@ivanrohal7489 speak for yourself
Back when I was a young dude, I sent one of my Hiwatts to a tech to fix after a power supply resistor burned up, he couldn't fix it because it burned up part of the board too, so I stuck it on a shelf. Later on I went through it and all the tubes were pulled including the quartet of Mullards! That was the final straw and I learned to fix and build my own amps after that. An expensive lesson but worth it.
For a recording amp, it'd be worthwhile, I think. The difference was far greater than I thought it would be.
There’s a tad difference....I’d probably save the vintage Mullard quad for PP stereo hifi amp use and use the Rusky tubes for guitar
He ran the tubes cold. Tubes, especially vintage ones, LOVE to be abused, and they sound better the hotter you run them. You can't run tubes made today very hot, they'll crapout and die within weeks.
clear and obvious difference, i prefer the "creamier" mullards over the "sharper" marshalls. thanks for the vid.
Exactly what I heard also... I can’t believe that anyone would think that the Mullards were sharper in the high freqs
" YES!" It's nice to try different tubes and it's Great to have Vintage on hand for that flavor!
Thanks for sharing brother, Have a great weekend!
Thanks brother! You have a great one too!
The vintage Mullards sounded warmer , clearer and little more compressed.
It's all about the lower midrange. The newer tube sounds tighter, something like scooped on the eq versus the old mullard that makes the sound rounder and....my question is....what about bias settings? both drawing same amount of current?
In my opinion the vintage tubes have a richer bandwith, fuller all over the spectrum. Good demo!
Thanks! Both set to the same bias, which was slightly cold just under 30mA
In agree with U
@@JohanSegeborn crank the output section, and turn up the bias to 80% dissipation or more. You'll hear a helluva difference. They don't make tubes the way they used to because of all the environmental regulations we have now. They do sound a lot better if you're cranking an amp. If you don't push a back end hard then the differences will be negligible. Also, the tubes made now don't last nearly as long. I still have Mullards from the '60's that still work and sound great!
ps. never liked the XF4 (last version) Mullards. They do sound good still, but I found that the QC had gone down quite a bit by then and many of them were noisy.
Interesting reading everyone's comments about these sounds. I'm interested in this episode because I put NOS 70s GE 6L6s into a DR and had an amazing experience with the sound- it was night and day: my amp went from sounding 'pretty good' to sounding like the amp of my dreams with that change. The differences in this video are pretty subtle - my takeaway is that the Marshall-branded tubes are pretty decent!
Slight difference, but nothing I would put money on. I put new production Mullards in my '82 2203 recently (had to repair it!) and I'd recommend them. Sounding great as always Johann!
Thanks Stevie!
A subtle difference only. NOS a bit brighter, more treble but the basic sound footprint is the same! Rock on! \m/
Rock on! \m/
Funny how people hear different things, I actually heard more low mids in the N.O.S. tubes (could be the speakers we listen on?). But the difference is so small I wouldn't hesitate in buying the new tubes.
Yeah, that's what I heard too mainly. A bit more complexity in the high end (or simply just more higher frequencies coming through?) Other than that, maybe just a tad more fatness in the low end, but yeah, the profile is there. It's so hard to tell them apart. Not really worth the money unless you just want to get them for reliability in the future
@@TheChadPad I think this a good point. Reliability is worth quite a lot. Can I use the power tubes for 100 or 1000 hours? TCO is as relevant here as in any other purchase of lasting goods.
Nice comparison and timely too! I just ordered a new quad of EL34's and a preamp tube compliment for my '72 Super Lead. In your demo the new Marshall-branded (yeah, looks like Tung-Sol) tubes sound very close to the original Mullard's. The new tubes might have just a bit more extended highs while the originals might have a bit more complexity in the midrange. So, after much deliberation choosing replacement tubes, I decided on Tung-Sol EL34B's for the power section, a Mullard CV4004 for V1, a Mullard 12AX7 for V2 and a JJ ECC803s Gold Pin for the PI.
Great test. I always wondered if old stock tubes really make a difference. Those Mullards have a lot of KERANG!
Thanks Sir Vic!
The XF4's you demo'd here were made in 1980, in the Blackburn Factory. XF4's were made from late '75 until '80 I believe. The XF3's, '73-'75, XF2's were like '62 to '73 with the double getters dying out about '68 for cost cutting measures, and from then on you had the single getter versions. This is like the last dying gasp of production of tubes from that era. The market had pretty much been taken over by transistors and solid state amplifiers. Quality and also material supply lines were pretty much dead in the water by this time. These would be considered the least desirable tubes from the era. After 1968, the vacuum tube industry was pretty much collapsing.
Thanks so much for this one Johan! Now I don't feel so bad about saving the $300 by not buying those vintage EL34's. The modestly pricey =C= I have in my 1987 consistently make me smile. Tube rolling for me gets that last 1-5% in tone chasing. It's mostly extreme fine tuning in my experience, and probably wouldn't be heard in a band setting. It's just one of those things we do for ourselves, even if others wouldn't notice :) Have a great weekend Johan!!
It's just one of those things we do for ourselves, even if others wouldn't notice
So true Andy
I have a quad of original SED Wing C EL34's in my JCM 2000... I guess these are worth some coin?
I've used XF4 and Marshall - but also XF2 - the XF2 are really great and easily handle the super high plate voltages of 60's Marshall's (e.g. 580V)
Which do you prefer xf2 or xf4?
I sold my xf2. Loved it. Now considering xf4 to get that 70s tone. I've also tried CP Mullard and Tung Sol EL34B. I find there's somethings in each of them, comparing new production and NOS. The xf2 were louder. Solid distortion and rather compressed. Sounds better with distortion. The CP Mullard sounds clearer but doesn't have the ground shaking distortion with powr chords. Tung Sol has more headroom. I can get it to hover around break up to get the glassy sound. The xf2 can't. Thanks.
So is the FX1 an even earlier example ?
The advantage to NOS tubes is that they're usually built closer to spec than modern tubes, and may be more reliable in higher-powered amps. Whether this is worth the price is a calculation each individual will have to make for him or her self.
Yes, some tonal difference, nothing worth paying a premium for IMO.
Favorite comment
The Marshall branded tubes are actually Svetlanas and are great sounding tubes so save your money.
This gonna save a lot of money to a lot of people... almost no difference, unbelievable. Great video as always! Cheers.
Thanks brother! As always, great information! I just swapped power tubes (three different sets) in my new Marshall SV20. The stock Marshalls, new Groove Tubes, and some older Groove Tubes I'd had in a mid-'80's Musicman amp that has el34's. I found both sets of Groove Tubes to be a little "brighter" but not quite as loud as the Marshall Tubes. I left the new Groove Tubes in for a week and just yesterday put the Marshalls back in. No big difference for sure and nothing dialing the EQ and volume on both the amp and guitar couldn't compensate for. So I'd agree there's a difference in tubes and it's pretty subjective.
Thanks brother! It’s subjective indeed!
I could not hear any difference, maybe because of TH-cam compression. Both sets made the old Marshall sing.
There is much more to the sound of an amp than tubes. A lot of the magic of old or elder Marshall amps comes from the well aged caps and resitors.
Your old Superbass has a killer sound.
Thanks!
Great video! Finally, power tube comparison done with a nonmaster volume amp! If those new tubes are Tung sols el34b that would explain why they sound so good. The Tung Sols compare very well to Nos tubes. Thanks again for the great video.
I think Marshall vintages sounds darker, warmer; but new marshalls sounds a little bit more clean in chords of 3 or more notes... I would prefer the new marshalls, but however, and as it was said, it's a matter of taste.
during the first riff, i could hear a pretty significant difference, with extra oomp in the Mullards, but as the clip went on i really couldn't tell a lot of difference. I like that you do many of the tests we gearheads agonize over. And you do them with good gear with an objective presentation
Thanks, I’m glad to hear that
Johan I recently bought a brand new 1959HW, it came stock with marshall branded Tung Sols. they started to sound bad after about 10 hours, I replaced them with new Tung Sol el34s from a good tube seller who burns them in and matches them properly and the difference was significant. It seems that they really skimp on the quality of the tubes.
I’m listening through my iPhone 6 using Shure se215 earbuds. I’m definitely hearing more presence in the Mullards. I have several sets, enough to last the rest of my life, of FX2s. Some bought NOS, some raided from old amps. All test very strong and sound great. I have lots of 12ax7 as well including one date stamped 08/60, my birth month. I’ve never had a modern 12ax7 last more than 2-3 years.
As an engineering electronics tech, I measure the amp with test signals. For clipping and distortion I use sine waves from 30HZ to 10 KHZ for a tube amp. For step response, I use square waves between 30HZ and 200 HZ. This test runs between low levels and clipping. In particular looking for rise times, instability, oscillations, ringing, etc. Saying it sounds a little different can be quantified with measurements. Saying tube X has more ringing after clipping and a tendency to oscillate can define that slight fuzzy sound. Creamy and Harder sound mean different things to different people. Showing a tube has less current capacity and clips at a lower level is measurable.
Would certainly be interesting to map qualitative criteria against quantitative parameters. A tech often has a mental image of this mapping implicitly, but it’s often hard to articulate it such that players in general can understand it. Cheers
Found some Matsushita el34's (Made for Dynaco) which are Japanese that are tooled on the old Mullard gear. They're a fraction of the price. I think the reissues sound decent as well. I am under the impression that most of the tone is coming from the preamp section I also found someone selling off a cache of mullard 12AX7's that are listed as 'butt ugly', are NOS and work great, at around 70 bucks. Just installed one in V1 of my JTM50 along with the Matsushitas. Found a couple old Ampirex AX7's that were pulled from a Hammond organ and they're basically used Ampirex Bugle Boys costing the same as mullard reissues. Installed those next to the Mullard NOS and they sing. It takes some hunting these days.
Hi, Johan!
I think, Mullard have more overall sound, while Marshall's are not bad, but a little more simple and the sound is not so deep. But with some equalisation will be ok too.:-)
HAVE A NICE WEEKEND!
Zigfrid
Have a nice weekend Zigfrid!
Fanboy No 1 :-)
My ears could barely detect any difference, but maybe that's just the 'Johan makes everything sound good' effect !?! Personally, I'm all-in with the current JJ tubes: not expen$ive & sound F'ing Great. Over the past year I've put them in 4 different amps (5 to 100 watters) and none have ever sounded better. Biggest transformation was my '66 Harmony H420 1-15 combo (Valco made, near-twin of Supro Thunderbolt). That amp's outer limit went from dimed Fender Deluxe breakup to near JCM800 gain levels. To say I was SHOCKED is an enormous understatement !!!!
Cheers Byron
*Thank you* Johan! Yet again, another "I wonder if..." mystery you kindly take the time to tackle, record, edit, compile and share. As others have stated, the sound we are hearing is, if anything, so subtle that any price difference for "vintage" vs. contemporary is not justified. However, as others have stated, we wonder what it was like in the room since it may be possible sonic qualities worth mentioning have been lost in reaching us YTers. What say you, sir? What do you think? Thank you very much - cheers!
Thanks Chris! The Mullards were much easier to play actually. More low end and overtones it seemed. Cheers
To my ears and good headphones, they sound very similar but what I notice is the 70s tubes sound a little bit richer, more present, and slightly hotter. The modern tubes sound a little more rounded and balanced not quite as much bite. But these differences are so slight. My vote would be for the vintage tubes if price was not a factor. Well made video as usual. Your production is incredible. And the subject matter impeccable. Kudos and thanks!
The new tubes sounded slightly brighter to me, but honestly, they are very close, nothing a little knob twisting wouldn't cure. I'm listening on studio nearfield monitors.
One nice thing about the Mullards... Even though there isn't a huge sound difference, they would probably last substantially longer because of the quality of the tube compared to the new ones...
I do believe I prefer the new Mfg set based on this comparison. Slightly more sizzle (which is not necessarily a good thing), but better separation (clarity?) based on what I’m hearing. I think they would definitely work better for dropped tuning and fast/heavy stuff. The old Mullards sounded smoother and not quite as in-your-face. Both sounded great, but I think I would lean to the Marshall branded set.
The Mullards are a LITTLE bigger and more animated...that amp sounds great btw. I have a 1976 2203 and its my favorite.
My favorite EL34 tubes for Marshall amps are Svetlana. They just sound better than all the other new tubes I've tried.
The tubes that came in my origin 20c amp are JJ'S branded Marshall el34's. Took em out and put new mullard's in it and it sounds better to my ears. Tried a pair of winged C's with the double getters and I like the mullard's better.
There is no meaningful difference. At all. I listened blind with headphones. Other than the occasional little 'click' I couldn't even tell when the audio changed from one tube to another. Thank you again, Johan!
The New Tubes sound better to me, a bit more crisp and fresh sounding. Not a huge difference and if you’d want less crispy top you can always use the tone knob or turn down the treble.
Marshall branded sounded uninspiring in comparison. Mullard sounded more alive less muddy more articulate notes jumping out. Great test Johan. (Used akg headphones)
Thanks James!
We recently made comparisons as in the opposition to a lost vintage sound and im glad someone took notice of the diffrenciation within the glass amp tubes used way back when rock n roll reigned in its supreme beginnings.now its a sleight flat frequency without real fire which is missing its a damp flame it has no real fire.a certain emptiness & the thrill is gone from the stage these days incomparison as a result.i just remember the reg and blue flames in the tube as a kid and waiting till it turned blue & when it got hot throw a pillow inside the back of the amp box to cool it down whilst jammin' in sessions.
New tubes clearly feedback easier. I assume In a mix no one would know the difference which set were used. Both sound good.
I am sure changing pickups will have a much greater impact and the ability to shape the tone you want with the newer vacuum tubes. It’s funny because tubes in of themselves don’t produce anything, they just regulate the B+ supply to match the signal on the grid.
In my case, I like to use new power tubes and maybe invest on a good tested NOS for the preamp. NOS for power tubes doesn't worth it, imho.
I think the “new” EL34s you use are Svetlanas. They are good tubes indeed.
the mullards have a very very slight bump in the 400hz range and a slight dip in the 4k range from what i heard. did it blind the first time too.
New ones sounded better than expected but the mullards have it
I like both Johan, no sitting on the fence for me😂🎸🔥🎶✌cheers!
Marshall branded tubes are 1990's Svetlana EL34's from st.petersburg, russia, no longer made, factory is now shut down. There is still some around but they are getting rare now!, cost is around £70-100 each.
From what I can see, they look like xf4 EL34s from the 1976 - 1980 production years...
Thanks Steven
they are from 1980, last year of production
Informative as always Johan 👍
Super fun channel
Thanks Brian, I’m glad to hear that!
The newer mullards are just a shade different ..I always liked Phillips tube..in the 78 Marshall at that time they were easy to get without killing your wallet. Great sounds Johan. My P-90S would feed back worse than my DiMarzios..good job!!!!!
Sitting here listening through my trusted AKG studio headphones and there is only a marginal difference and i may even prefer the new Marshall tubes myself. Definately not worth putting more money on the Mullards to me.
akg won't help with a crappy dac or amp and a plastic usb cable made for a printer.
Which model AKG's ?
@@GlennMarshallRocks AKG K270 Studio.
@@Stefan- Excellent... Thx ! ;-)
Once you start hearing the tones of the old tubes. Ur pretty much done with the new ones.
Sad but true.
The array of tones that are heard while using the old ones are more. Plus it’s clearer. There’s also no unpleasant fizz like is heard whilst using the new ones. More tone with mullards. That’s all.
U would think the new ones would be better.
Not enough difference to worry about in terms of a working guitarist getting the best sound live and recorded. Would love to hear same comparison with pre amp tubes :)
My main take away is the difference is minute and both sound good. So not a question of better necessarily although some may have a preference... but now I can rest easy not worrying about it
Definitely a subtle smoother quality to the vintage. You could probably just tweak the eq and gain and get the same results
As far as tubes go, the biggest sound difference is achieved switching tubes in the V1 preamp stage, most everything else is hard to put a finger on. I think keeping NOS tubes for hifi tube amp use is a much better way to hear the subtleties in those valves, in my opinion. Don't forget, the guitar is very frequency specific, therefore the hifi tube amp will better reveal the tubes true character.
There is a distinct difference in both. For my money and for my tone preference I would prefer the newer tubes. Then you get into the various different causes, such as age, temperature of the area they were stored, elevation of the area they were stored.
The Millard sound out of control like a concert ending jam, the feedback sweet, reminiscent of live at Leeds, raw,
There's a different texture. The Mullards sound like they're tearing/shredding the signal a little more. I first watched this on my phone earlier today and it was even apparent through the tiny crap speaker. Now that I've heard it on good speakers, I think both of them sound good.
NOS tubes sound a little more detailed perhaps, probably a bigger difference live though. I have some brown base 60's EL34 which someone gave to locally, I'm going to check them out over the weekend in a Univalve.
Johan great video as always. After close listening, in my humble opinion the differences were not that big. The newer EL34 tubes to me sounded slightly flatter and the vintage Mullard EL34 tubes had slightly more midrange. To be honest the differences to me were small and not significant enough to say "wow." In my opinion, I tend to notice more differences in tubes when it comes to preamp tubes like the 12ax7 tubes. I have a vast collection of old stock and new stock 12ax7 tubes and the differences are more noticeable. There are old stock and new stock 12ax7 tubes with long plates and short plates. Others with Black plates (mostly old stock) and Grey plates. To me the differences in tone are more noticeable when it comes to 12ax7 tubes. But still not significant enough for a member of an audience to notice.
Thanks, yeah Preamp tubes influence character more indeed
Tonally, there is very little difference between them - though the Mullard tubes seem to have a little more gain.
Personally, i have found that Mullard pre-amp tubes make a more noticeable change to the sound of the amp over the stock ones usually fitted.
I've been camping in the "vintage sh!t is always better" forest for quite some time now so it's easy for me to be prejudice against the new sh!t, but all bias aside (bias. get it?) I think the new ones are just as good sounding as the old ones. Cheers, my man!
Cheers my friend!
The base tones for each is similar but when they break up the originals sound better, the harmonic distortion really sounds noticeably better even the feed back.. doesn’t justify the price difference to me personally but I’m sure they last a whole lot longer than current production tubes.
The newer tubes seem a lot sharper like a little fizzier maybe on the high end? Liked the Mullard's better but they're not that different. Different tubes never make that big of a difference to me, thanks Johan!
I think the Mullards sound a bit creamier and more harmonically rich, but not by a significant margin. I'd be happy with the stock tubes. Thanks for the comparison!
You can hear big differences swaping different brands of valve over in my cathode bias power-scaled amp: for instance JJ E34L has a super tight hard rock tone and Tung-Sol EL34B has loads of fat lower mids. These characteristics are most prominent when the output valves are overdriven so output valve swaping in amps that are mainly preamp distortion running the power section clean maybe is less worth doing...
The Marshall's EL34 looks like Svetlanas Winged C.
Very good tubes. That's why the sound is not ridiculous compared to the "holy" Mullards !
my Burman 502 ahead was made with Mullards, but i have used a pair pf Pinnacle for a few years and loved them- Watford Valves sold them I think. I think the Mullard sounds less harsh than the Marshall in this video, but that's just me.
The Marshall EL34-B tubes are most likely Chinese Shuguang EL34B-STR tubes which cost around 50€ for a matched quartet.
That is not even 1 Mullard EL34 tube 😉
The Chinese tubes also sound a little stiff because they need some more play time perhaps to get burned in.
I hear the slight difference but am pretty happy with the Chinese EL34’s (and 6l6gc brothers).
Good video. They sound almost the same.
Personally I’ve found ,The big difference when changing output valves is the match. You could have a quad that averaged high or low draw that may sound similar but put a set in not perfectly matched and that’s where the fun begins .
So how did the difference sound?
I hear a bit of a chunk to the low end that I don't hear quite as much as the new ones, and in the high end, I think it has to do with either how complex or how much high end is coming through. Either way, when I closed my eyes, I really couldn't tell when the shift happened at first, but I took a guess that the first sample was the new ones, and I was right
HOORAY!!! They still make damn good sounding and responding EL34 tubes.....in China
Wow, just listened. I wasn't going to bother. I'm a mid '60's XF2 guy, I don't care as much for the single getter XF2's, so I didn't think I'd like those at all. Now I'm going to keep a more open mind. Those XF4's sounded so much better than the new ones. The new ones were just grating on the ear in comparison. I know which one I'd rather record with. I don't think you need to post your impressions. I could hear it the way you played and see it , in your body language. But, I'm glad so many people think these are overrated.
I know this is not good for the amp but I think you can get away with it just for a test. I would like you to stick some 6L6's in a el34 Marshall.
Would be interesting indeed
If you do it don't send me the bill. LOL
The Mullards sounded maybe slightly nicer but I couldn't heard much of a difference. Sometimes it comes down to a bit of dynamics when you play that you notice more of a difference. Johan, you should do a comparison of a set of new Mullards with that NOS set. I just chuck JJ's in mine because they're easy to get a hold of. They even do a couple different types (EL34, EL34L and EL34ii) - apparently there's a difference?
I preferred the top end and mids of the XF4 blind, but the difference really isn't worth the extra money for a guitar. Leave the Mullard for the hi-fi types. I prefer the RFT "Siemens" EL34 over Mullard. The first 12AX7 makes a bigger impact on the tone of an amp than a power tube. Another cool demo.
Vintage tubes sound way better and last much longer than current production!
Yes, because the new ones are made with the 'customer oriented' mindset. Thus they are made to break or fail easily, so that the player can buy new ones in a shorter period of time resulting in more sales and then, more money for the company. However, I don't think the difference is something that EQ-ing a bit (on the amp) can't fix. Or put an EQ pedal in the loop or even in front for a more subtle changes. There are many ways to craft tone today.
What is better than a Marshall Super Lead and a Les Paul? Not much! A Plexi and a R58 Les Paul? Maybe... can't get enough! No matter what Johan does, there's always a something to take away. An idea, a riff, a melody, a technique, excellent demos.
Thanks Mark! I’m glad to hear that!
If you can afford NOS Mullard EL34 tubes why not? I have 6 new Mullard tubes, in case one fails, I have spares. They sound very good, and I run them slightly cool.
Great video / demo as always/ I'm listening through good studio monitors. To my ears, the Mullards have a softer attack and sweeter high end. The Marshall branded tubes sharper/robust attack - would be better suited to modern rock. Personally I wouldn't pay the extortionate price for a set of Mullards. Money would be better spent on speaker upgrades.