Why are modern tubes not manufactured to old spec?

[tommy_is_here]

So, I'm perplexed. Why don't tube manufacturers (JJ, Sovtek, Chinese makers) make tubes as robust and musically rich as the NOS variants we all love (RCA, Visseaux army grade, Brimar, Bugle Boy, etc.)

I mean, there is cheap labor on the market. (ie. China) And when trained properly and having good quality control, China can manufacture amazingly high quality goods.

So, why isn't it happening? Lack of demand to justify costs, and thus no economies of scales? Parts too expensive/rare?

Seems like there's a definite niche market.

Perplexed,
Tommy

[guidedbyechoes]

So, I'm perplexed. Why don't tube manufacturers (JJ, Sovtek, Chinese makers) make tubes as robust and musically rich as the NOS variants we all love (RCA, Visseaux army grade, Brimar, Bugle Boy, etc.) I mean, there is cheap labor on the market. (ie. China) And when trained properly and having good quality control, China can manufacture amazingly high quality goods. So, why isn't it happening? Lack of demand to justify costs, and thus no economies of scales? Parts too expensive/rare? Seems like there's a definite niche market. Perplexed, Tommy

most of the old equipment produces chemicals that are really bad on the enviroment and use dangerous gases. Thats what I was told.

[thenakedarab]

So, I'm perplexed. Why don't tube manufacturers (JJ, Sovtek, Chinese makers) make tubes as robust and musically rich as the NOS variants we all love (RCA, Visseaux army grade, Brimar, Bugle Boy, etc.) I mean, there is cheap labor on the market. (ie. China) And when trained properly and having good quality control, China can manufacture amazingly high quality goods. So, why isn't it happening? Lack of demand to justify costs, and thus no economies of scales? Parts too expensive/rare? Seems like there's a definite niche market. Perplexed, Tommy

 

Some are being made to quality that meets or exceeds NOS tubes, (SED for example), but for the most part you hit on the right answer in your last two sentences. Add to that that you simply can't find metal and glass of the purity that was widely available in the first half of the 20th century.

 

You wouldn't know it by looking at them though. Most new tubes look bullet proof but aren't, while most old tubes don't look bullet proof but are.

 

My RFT and Mullard ECC83 look like they were made in some dude's basement glass shop next to the bongs, but they sound .

[Herald of Light]

most of the old equipment produces chemicals that are really bad on the enviroment and use dangerous gases. Thats what I was told.

That's part of it.

Another aspect is quality control. There pretty much is none, as far as the main factories go.

[tommy_is_here]

the control argument doesn't seem to jive with me. I've done production work in China (not for tubes, but all kinds of other stuff) and quality control can be done well. of course, you need good management/practices, etc. but it is doable.

-T

[BlackHive]

I would like to submit this theory: Good modern tubes sound just as good as good vintage ones.

 

*gasp*

[thenakedarab]

I would like to submit this theory: Good modern tubes sound just as good as good vintage ones. *gasp*

That's about where I stand.

Also, I can see dropping a pretty penny on preamp tubes, as they will last quite a while, but can't for the life of me see dropping a grand on a quad of Mullard XF2 when they could all be taken out by one bad two dollar resistor.

[tommy_is_here]

well, it could be that new tubes do sounds as good as old ones. however, I just put in for the first time a pair of 6v6 RCAs from 1940s in my DR. Amazingly smooth EQ balance across the board.

To my ears, there was quite a difference between my matched JJs/Tungsol modern and those RCAs.

As for the preamp variety, I am getting my first NOS by week's end. I'll see if it makes any difference with the modern stuff. (I have most of the good 12ax7 modern stuff)

[guidedbyechoes]

well, it could be that new tubes do sounds as good as old ones. however, I just put in for the first time a pair of 6v6 RCAs from 1940s in my DR. Amazingly smooth EQ balance across the board. To my ears, there was quite a difference between my matched JJs/Tungsol modern and those RCAs. As for the preamp variety, I am getting my first NOS by week's end. I'll see if it makes any difference with the modern stuff. (I have most of the good 12ax7 modern stuff)

 

 

It could be that rca did a better job of matching tubes.

[Valtiel]

I would like to submit this theory: Good modern tubes sound just as good as good vintage ones. *gasp*

 

 

Out of curiosity, which modern preamp tubes do you feel are at the top of the heap?

[Travisaurus Rex]

 

Add to that that you simply can't find metal and glass of the purity that was widely available in the first half of the 20th century.

 

 

That is simply not true! Todays modern smelting techniques are way ahead of what they were just 50 years ago. Modern purification tech. are able to produce

metals above 99% pure and alloys that were not remotely possible until now.

The problem is that they don't USE them.

[thenakedarab]

That is simply not true! Todays modern smelting techniques are way ahead of what they were just 50 years ago. Modern purification tech. are able to produce metals above 99% pure and alloys that were not remotely possible until now. The problem is that they don't USE them.

 

 

Those quality materials are not available on anywhere near the scale they were back then.

 

The smelting techniques have had to improve because the quality of the raw materials is declining.

 

You simply aren't going to find them in tubes as all that {censored} pretty much goes into super conductor tech for creating stuff like the large hadron collider and such. Think about how expensive pure copper wiring is, now imagine how expensive tubes would be if they actually used the best materials. I don't know about you, but the reason I don't buy NOS power tubes is because I can't see dropping that much coin on something that a simple fried resistor or short might take out.

[Travisaurus Rex]

 

Those quality materials are not available on anywhere near the scale they were back then.

 

 

How so? That makes no sense considering that modern tech. demands better quality materials I.E. computers, communications, space program etc.

 

 

The smelting techniques have had to improve because the quality of the raw materials is declining.

 

 

O.K.....Think about what you just said. Raw materials are raw materials. They have been in the ground for 1000's of years and the copper, iron, aluminum, lead etc is the same as it was 1000 years ago! In their raw state they are THE SAME!

 

 

The smelting techniques have had to improve

 

So you agree that they did improve which means the quality of metal being produced is better. You just proved my point.

[soc_monki]

How so? That makes no sense considering that modern tech. demands better quality materials I.E. computers, communications, space program etc. O.K.....Think about what you just said. Raw materials are raw materials. They have been in the ground for 1000's of years and the copper, iron, aluminum, lead etc is the same as it was 1000 years ago! In their raw state they are THE SAME! So you agree that they did improve which means the quality of metal being produced is better. You just proved my point.

 

 

not to mention that even recycled materials can be brought back to their pure states, and be just as good as they were before. otherwise they wouldnt be using recycled steels in so much construction and in other areas...it HAS to be of good quality because it has to stand up to the stress of the elements.

 

as for tubes...who knows. quality control, strict guidelines for environmental safety (people can agree that lead-free solder isnt as good as the old leaded stuff...but its being used because it is environmentally friendly...just an example of things changing and not being as robust as they were 50 years ago), and COST. its common knowledge that most manufacturers use the cheapest materials that will get by...hell even in the space program. the lowest bidder ends up building whatever needs to be built. thats why my father lost his job after we moved to mississippi...the new rocket motors "werent needed" and the project funding was cut.

 

i think that maximum profit is the culprit. make it cheaply, price it high.

[thenakedarab]

How so? That makes no sense considering that modern tech. demands better quality materials I.E. computers, communications, space program etc. O.K.....Think about what you just said. Raw materials are raw materials. They have been in the ground for 1000's of years and the copper, iron, aluminum, lead etc is the same as it was 1000 years ago! In their raw state they are THE SAME!

 

 

First point:

Modern manufacturing does not demand better quality materials, and in fact much of it makes use of lesser material. Look at the automobile industry for example. Are you trying to tell me the steel in cars today that start to rust after a few years is better than the steel in cars that lasted 40 years.

 

Second point:

Not so, much of the good veins have been pilfered, and often they are dealing with much more difficult to extract and lower quality ore. Raw materials. are not as you say raw materials, they are of differing quality, and much of the best was taken a long time ago.

 

Third point:

Nope, I definitely did not prove your point, and in fact just refuted it again.

[thenakedarab]

not to mention that even recycled materials can be brought back to their pure states, and be just as good as they were before. otherwise they wouldnt be using recycled steels in so much construction and in other areas...it HAS to be of good quality because it has to stand up to the stress of the elements. as for tubes...who knows. quality control, strict guidelines for environmental safety (people can agree that lead-free solder isnt as good as the old leaded stuff...but its being used because it is environmentally friendly...just an example of things changing and not being as robust as they were 50 years ago), and COST. its common knowledge that most manufacturers use the cheapest materials that will get by...hell even in the space program. the lowest bidder ends up building whatever needs to be built. thats why my father lost his job after we moved to mississippi...the new rocket motors "werent needed" and the project funding was cut. i think that maximum profit is the culprit. make it cheaply, price it high.

 

 

Actually recycling is lossy, and you lose massive amounts of quantity if you desire purity, thus making it prohibitively expensive to recycle something to its purest state.

[guitarman967]

The answer is that all the old guys that new how to make those tubes are dead..

[knucklefux]

it's not a matter of material availability. that's simply ignorant. the technology is better, and it's cheaper now to make a precise alloy than it was in the 40s or 50s. that's not to say that less than ideal materials aren't used, but to say that ideal materials aren't available is just plain ludicrous. and glass? please. you honestly believe that 1) the glass has an affect on the "tone" of the tube, and 2) that today's glass is somehow "less pure" than the glass of old? (sorry TNA, but we both know you're full of {censored} on that one)

 

back when EVERYTHING used tubes (you know, before transistors) it was important for them to meet specification. deviation from spec was a flaw that got the part removed from stock. now, since tubes are used exclusively in amplifiers (with a few exceptions) it isn't as important that specifications be rigidly adhered to. this just means that tubes that deviate further from spec are kept in stock and sold to consumers.

 

this is why i've always (once i educated myself) said that an in spec chinese 12ax7 will sound just as good (or bad) as an in spec NOS 12ax7. spec is spec, no matter when the part that adheres to it was made.

 

just because you don't understand a thing doesn't make it magic:idea:

[Travisaurus Rex]

 

Modern manufacturing does not demand better quality materials

 

I disagree. Much of the modern tech. today would not be possible w/out better materials.

 

 

and in fact much of it makes use of lesser material.

 

 

That has nothing to do with the material available. It has to do with what the manufacturer CHOOSES to use to meet the price point and what they consider acceptable.

 

 

Are you trying to tell me the steel in cars today that start to rust after a few years is better than the steel in cars that lasted 40 years.

 

 

No, but again, that has to do with the maker CHOOSING to use cheaper materials to increase profits, not what would be best for the quality. Case in point, look at the thickness of steel used. Today it is thinner for several reasons other than weight, its cheaper.

 

 

Not so, much of the good veins have been pilfered, and often they are dealing with much more difficult to extract and lower quality ore.

 

 

I disagree. The earth is a big place and they are ever increasing productivity and efficiency to reach new deposits. If you look up the statistics on known ore/mineral deposits, we have just scratched the surface on whats available. In fact, with todays mining methods, we are able to get more in a lesser time.

 

 

they are of differing quality, and much of the best was taken a long time ago.

 

 

Again, not so once they have been refined. 99% copper is still the same 99% copper it was 50 years ago. In fact, it is better because today they are able to refine it(and other metals) even more and reach purity levels that were once unatainable. You can't argue with chemistry. Copper(for example) is copper is copper. You can argue purity but according to the periodic table, it is still copper.

 

I don't think that you can use specific things like cars to dispute ore/mineral quality because the driving point in todays society is money, not quality. Manufacturers use sub-standard materials by choice to make money, not because thats only whats available.

[thenakedarab]

it's not a matter of material availability. that's simply ignorant. the technology is better, and it's cheaper now to make a precise alloy than it was in the 40s or 50s. that's not to say that less than ideal materials aren't used, but to say that ideal materials aren't available is just plain ludicrous. and glass? please. you honestly believe that 1) the glass has an affect on the "tone" of the tube, and 2) that today's glass is somehow "less pure" than the glass of old? (sorry TNA, but we both know you're full of {censored} on that one) back when EVERYTHING used tubes (you know, before transistors) it was important for them to meet specification. deviation from spec was a flaw that got the part removed from stock. now, since tubes are used exclusively in amplifiers (with a few exceptions) it isn't as important that specifications be rigidly adhered to. this just means that tubes that deviate further from spec are kept in stock and sold to consumers. this is why i've always (once i educated myself) said that an in spec chinese 12ax7 will sound just as good (or bad) as an in spec NOS 12ax7. spec is spec, no matter when the part that adheres to it was made. just because you don't understand a thing doesn't make it magic:idea:

Ok, so you are saying that the quality of the glass used does not have any affect on the integrity of the envelope, and that cheap Chinese companies are using quality alloys for their innards?

I'm sorry, but with the demand for tubes as slight as it is, and the quality materials with limited supplies in high demand for high tech uses you are never going to see the highest quality materials end up in tubes again. This {censored} was went over here years ago, hell I believe Aspen Pittman even weighed in if I remember correctly.

[knucklefux]

yeah, the thickness of the steel is definitely the difference. in addition to being cheaper to produce cars with thinner steel, they are lighter (thus more fuel efficient), stiffer due to the use of unibody construction, and SAFER because the thinner metal will crumple and therefore absorb energy from impacts. case in point...i wrecked my 67 F100 15 years ago and spent a few days in ICU and had to have a few surgeries. last week i wrecked an 04 focus, and i have a minor fracture to a vertebra that probably wouldn't have happened if i'd have worn my seatbelt.

 

so yea, straw man argument, because using your logic i just explained why modern tubes are more durable.

[knucklefux]

Ok, so you are saying that the quality of the glass used does not have any affect on the integrity of the envelope

i'm saying that the best glass in the world won't hold the gases in a tube any better than glass that's just barely good enough.

what you're effectively saying here is that edison lightbulbs are better than modern ones because they were made with thicker glass:freak:

and i can't believe that you'd name drop AP here. he says nothing that doesn't promote the sale of his product.

[Travisaurus Rex]

you are never going to see the highest quality materials end up in tubes again.

 

 

Again, by choice to meet a price point and increase profits.

[Travisaurus Rex]

 

i'm saying that the best glass in the world won't hold the gases in a tube any better than glass that's just barely good enough. what you're effectively saying here is that edison lightbulbs are better than modern ones because they were made with thicker glass

 

 

+1!

 

 

and i can't believe that you'd name drop AP here. he says nothing that doesn't promote the sale of his product.

 

 

+1000

[thenakedarab]

I disagree. The earth is a big place and they are ever increasing productivity and efficiency to reach new deposits. If you look up the statistics on known ore/mineral deposits, we have just scratched the surface on whats available. In fact, with todays mining methods, we are able to get more in a lesser time.

 

 

If that's the case why has the mining industry claimed that greater difficulty in finding and extracting good veins as it's chief reason in utilizing environmentally dangerous chemical mining techniques?