• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Genz Benz Streamliner Tube Rolling

#441
I had a 5751 in my 900 for a very short time. It was humming. Reinstalled the original tube and all's well. This brings up a question for @agedhorse : besides lower gain, how else would a 5751 affect the Streamliner's performance? I know you designed it for a 12AX7, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say about that.
 
#442
ahc said:
I had a 5751 in my 900 for a very short time. It was humming. Reinstalled the original tube and all's well. This brings up a question for @agedhorse : besides lower gain, how else would a 5751 affect the Streamliner's performance? I know you designed it for a 12AX7, but I'm curious to hear what you have to say about that.
Click to expand...

While I will always defer to agedhorse's greater learning(by FAR), I can say the putting a 5751 in the V1 slot of both my Streamliners(I've owned both the 600 and 900) tightened up their low end, and brought the mids out a bit... I made up for any gain loss with the Gain Boost button and Gain knob - totally changed the amp for the better, by a long shot...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ahc
#443
mesaplayer83 said:
While I will always defer to agedhorse's greater learning(by FAR), I can say the putting a 5751 in the V1 slot of both my Streamliners(I've owned both the 600 and 900) tightened up their low end, and brough the mids out a bit... I made up for any gain loss with the Gain Boost button and Gain knob - totally changed the amp for the better, by a long shot...
Click to expand...

Yup. For the time I had it in there I did notice some reduction in the "fatness" but not a lot. Then again I did have an unhealthy tube. I did the same as you re: gain. I didn't notice much difference in the mids.
 
#445
I haven't tried this tube in any testing, but there are so many defective or misrepresented tubes being sold on the internet that even the experts that think they know it all are often fooled... OR they are the ones doing the fooling and making good money in the process. Some are nothing more than lower gain 12AX7's because the supposed increased structural robustness is often invisible (even on some versions of genuine tubes).

This is a good example of BUYER BEWARE.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BassBeginer64, JimmyM, ahc and 2 others
#446
agedhorse said:
I haven't tried this tube in any testing, but there are so many defective or misrepresented tubes being sold on the internet that even the experts that think they know it all are often fooled... OR they are the ones doing the fooling and making good money in the process. Some are nothing more than lower gain 12AX7's because the supposed increased structural robustness is often invisible (even on some versions of genuine tubes).

This is a good example of BUYER BEWARE.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was an old Sylvania 5751 that was obviously past it's freshness date.
 
#449
ValeriusCrow said:
I'm curious - is there any obvious replacements for JJ ECC83S that you guys use with JAN 5751? I like what I have now but there's a room for improvement
Click to expand...

Didn't I just see you post that you lost a bunch of mids with a 5751?

If that's the case, there is something wrong with that tube, because I tried 3 different NOS 5751s in my Streamliners, and every time they had the effect of tightening up the lows and bringing out the mids a bit...

As for the rest of the tubes - I left the stock ones in, which were a mix of JJ and Ruby Select, IIRC...
 
#450
mesaplayer83 said:
Didn't I just see you post that you lost a bunch of mids with a 5751?

If that's the case, there is something wrong with that tube, because I tried 3 different NOS 5751s in my Streamliners, and every time they had the effect of tightening up the lows and bringing out the mids a bit...

As for the rest of the tubes - I left the stock ones in, which were a mix of JJ and Ruby Select, IIRC...
Click to expand...

I believe you did - but after I took it off and returned it was okay - probably it wasn't sitting properly or something else)
 
  • Like
Reactions: mesaplayer83
#453
ValeriusCrow said:
Bump for necrothread :D Is there anybody who can tell me - will it worth it to replace JJ ECC83S in V2 & V3 with Tung-Sol 12ax7? I remind you that I got JAN Philips 5751 in V1
Click to expand...

IMO/IME, as long as the current tubes are functioning properly, *I* don't think there would be anything to be gained by it... I think swapping tubes in the V1 slot makes a difference - not so much with the others....
 
  • Like
Reactions: ValeriusCrow
#454
ValeriusCrow said:
Bump for necrothread :D Is there anybody who can tell me - will it worth it to replace JJ ECC83S in V2 & V3 with Tung-Sol 12ax7? I remind you that I got JAN Philips 5751 in V1
Click to expand...

mesaplayer83 said:
IMO/IME, as long as the current tubes are functioning properly, *I* don't think there would be anything to be gained by it... I think swapping tubes in the V1 slot makes a difference - not so much with the others....
Click to expand...

There was a thread from back when by @johnk_10 comparing the Streamliner to the Ampeg SVT7 Pro where he did roll (N)OS tubes into V1, V2 and V3. He posted sound clips and there was a somewhat noticeable difference IIRC. I don't remember what tubes went where and I wasn't in a position to experiment with Old Stock Mullards and RCA's etc at the prices they are/were commanding.
 
#455
The original JJ ECC83 in V1 was selected primarily for low noise, low microphonics, consistency, and high reliability. These tubes typically last from 5,000-10,000 hours in that position. It is a very high quality, fairly neutral tone tube with a proven reliability track record.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jeffmensch, 5StringPocket and ahc
#456
Ok Just a few questions - the grade or make of a tube performs better?
This seems to be the list I see posted for rolling tubes = Is this correct?

JJ ECC803s in positions 2 & 3 and a NOS 5751 in position

GE 5751 in V1
Phillips JAN 12AX7WA in V2
JJ803S in V3

V1.....NOS Phillips 5751
V2.....JJ ECC 82
V3.....JJ ECC 803S
 
#457
BassBeginer64 said:
Ok Just a few questions - the grade or make of a tube performs better?
This seems to be the list I see posted for rolling tubes = Is this correct?
Click to expand...

What is "correct" sound wise is pretty much a personal choice as long as it meets the technical requirements for the amp. I tried a Sylvania 5751 in V1 and I thought it did reduce a bit of the "bloom" on the bottom end. That tube died and I put the original tube back in and have been using it that way ever since.

A tube labeled "JAN" stands for "Joint Army Navy" and is a military spec tube. Whether or not it sounds any different from a consumer grade tube is an open question. There are other designations for mil-spec tubes but I don't know what they are.

Here's a thread with some sound clips:

my streamliner 900 V1 rolling experiments
 
#460
Finally got the time to try some tube rolling in my STM900, to my amazement there were some nice up graded tubes already in it, was a Tung Sol 12AX7 in the V1 and TubeStore 7025 in the V2, and a Telefunken ECC83 in the V3 - Keeping that tube ! Well went ahead and swapt out the tubes with JAN GE 5751 in the V1, and in V2 and V3 with RCA 12AX7, sounds the best I can say is (Not Cloudy) but Im not satisfied later on I might try RCA 7025 in the V1, and place that Telefunken back into the V3 and try it out, been saving the 7025 for my Ampeg PF-50T
STM900 V1.jpg
SML900 V2.jpg
SML900 V3.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: JEDI BASS

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back