Mullard RI 12AX7s (Paging ZP)

[zaphod_phil]

A) the LPS wasn't just blatant design plagiarism to begin with, and

That depends if anyone can confirm whether the LPS also has the ladderplate electrode structure or not..

B) the purchase of the Mullard brand avoided a lawsuit over it, and

I doubt that anyone at Phillips ever knew or cared whether someone else was using a similar electrode structure to a tube they had stopped making several decades ago.

C) the sellers of the Mullard brand used the windfall to resurrect the old Mullard factory.

We know that was not the case, since the sellers of the Mullard brand (ie Phillips) actually sold off their Blackburn factory to the previous management team of the same factory (aka TubeTech) which had been making cathode ray tubes in recent years. So Philips made money on both sales, and there wouldn't appear to be a way that Tube Tech would benefit from the sale of the Mullard brand name.

...what I have been unable to grasp, is why the "Mullard" brand has been licensed to NS everywhere but in the EU...

Probably because Philips is still selling cathode ray tubes, and possibly some other special purpose tubes (eg magnetrons, x-ray tubes, transmitter power valves, etc) in the EU under the Mullard brand. I've also heard that the Mullard brand license to NS doesn't cover Canada - I don't know how true that is. There used to be a Mullard Canada around in the past, and I don't know who inherited the rights to their name.

[WaZaK]

there wouldn't appear to be a way that Tube Tech would benefit from the sale of the Mullard brand name.

Very true - and on the contrary, I understand the Blackburn Management Team were disappointed that "Mullard" was never on the table - but benefited from the resultant significantly lower (and affordable) price tag on Blackburn - without the trade name. I am aware that launch resources were tight, with the economic climate - and lack of product recognition - keeping investor's hands in their pockets.

Anyway, we seem to have drifted away from relevance ......
Interesting though.

[rjgtr]

Ok, so I have real Mullards, GT Mullard copies, NS fake Mullards and Sovtek LPS tubes. So I compared them.

The Sovtek LPS and fake Mullard use the same construction with only the halo being the possible difference. The platres are identical in the LPS and fake Mullard.

I compared the fake and real Mullards and the fake Mullard doesn't have the same plate structure as the real Mullard.

The Groove Tubes copy does have the same plate structure as the real Mullard. It's a shame that the QC is bad and the reliability is also not too great. It's a shame since they sound fairly close to the orignal. Certainly better than any other new construction. If they could clean up the QC, I'd still be buying them.

So we're still waiting for a good Mullard ECC83 clone.

[Brewmaster]

The Groove Tubes copy does have the same plate structure as the real Mullard. It's a shame that the QC is bad and the reliability is also not too great. It's a shame since they sound fairly close to the orignal. Certainly better than any other new construction. If they could clean up the QC, I'd still be buying them.

So we're still waiting for a good Mullard ECC83 clone.

I held on to several GT Mullard reissues because when they were good, they were very good.

I agree that we are still waiting for a Mullard ECC83 *clone*. The *reissues*, just like almost every reissue guitar, amp or even car, have been reissues in name only. Some are good products in their own right but nothing near what has been promised.

[WaZaK]

Thanks for the comparisons rjgtr. Very helpful.
However, you did not mention how they compare to your ears, Richard!

nothing near what has been promised.

That confuses me. Who promised what? I know NS seriously intend to get as close as possible soundwise - but didn't promise anything. Having said that, I feel they are beginning to get da*m close!
Has someone advertised their intention to make the perfect clone, or are we all just hoping in vain?

[Brewmaster]

Nice cut and paste. Do you write political blogs?

Here is the full quote "Some are good products in their own right but nothing near what has been promised."

The promise is inherent in the term "reissue". Some folks use the term clone and reissue synonymously. Experience has taught me otherwise. As I already said, too many "reissue" products are reissues in name only, or to be more clear, of the name only.

I went ahead and ordered some of the NS Mullard 12ax7's and will compare them directly to the "good" GT Mullards I have . I also have a couple of Sovtek LPS laying around as well several old Mullards. I'll have some of the local musicians over or go down to the music store I frequent and invite some folks to listen along. The blind tests are always telling.

I find that listeningng tests are extremely subjective. I'm sure most agree on that point. What I hear will be different from what somebody else hears. The blind test removes all preconceived notions from aimless board bander that proliferates on the net.

[zaphod_phil]

I compared the fake and real Mullards and the fake Mullard doesn't have the same plate structure as the real Mullard.

That depends on what kind of real Mullard ECC83s you have, as they made several different kinds - eg long plate, ladder plate, box plate etc. . Like I said earlier the New Sensor "Mullard" 12AX7s seem to have the same ladderplate structure as my real Mullards and Brimar. If not identical, then pretty darn similar. I don't think they sound identical, without having done an A/B test so far, but the NS ones do sound real sweet to me.

[StarGeezers]

Might be advisable to set some Holy Grail tube parameters and work with the manufacturers directly towards that end... They obviously don't know what we want ... We want FREE KEN guitar amp tubes... That sound Killer like those "certain " old tubes , and are reasonably reliable ... affordable would be nice too !!!
Seems if we can build a telescope that floats in space and peers deep into the universe and time , somebody could make a Great 12AX7 Is it all really just about Money ???

[tkdrew]

... We want FREE KEN guitar amp tubes... That sound Killer like those "certain " old tubes , and are reasonably reliable ... affordable would be nice too !!!
Seems if we can build a telescope that floats in space and peers deep into the universe and time , somebody could make a Great 12AX7

Amen Brother!!! Having used both the NS and GT versions, I liked the GT better sound wise. Neither one held up though, both types went microphonic within a month of use. For my money the Sovtech 12AX7WXT is an awesome tube, nothing at all like the hash sounding ones they are selling now. They are getting harder to find but they sound great and seem to last forever, I've had some I've been using for years that are working/sounding fine.

[StarGeezers]

Drew, Whoa !!! Those are hard to find !!!!!!!!.... After looking everywhere, found a few on Flea Bay , but No returns policy prevented a purchase...

[rjgtr]

I compared the fake and real Mullards and the fake Mullard doesn't have the same plate structure as the real Mullard.

That depends on what kind of real Mullard ECC83s you have, as they made several different kinds - eg long plate, ladder plate, box plate etc. . Like I said earlier the New Sensor "Mullard" 12AX7s seem to have the same ladderplate structure as my real Mullards and Brimar. If not identical, then pretty darn similar. I don't think they sound identical, without having done an A/B test so far, but the NS ones do sound real sweet to me.

Yes the fake Mullards have a ladder plate, but it isn't exactly the same as the similar plate structured real Mullard I have that I compared them to. There's other details of the plate structures between the fake and real Mullards that are different, like the two open rectangles a side on the edge of the real Mullard's plate that are missing on the fake one. The GT's plate structure is very very close.

So I did a side by side listening test just now to be able to respond as accurately as I could. Of course this is subjective.

The real Mullard has a balance and openness that is un-matched by any new production. The low mids are clear and punchy. The high end is smooth.

The GT Mullard is close in overall tone to the real Mullard with a slightly harsher high end and not quite the firmness in the low mids. Not as three dimensional.

The NS fake Mullard sounds good, but isn't as even sounding as the real Mullard. There's an emphasis on the low end, which isn't objectionable, but not like the real Mullard. There's a slight cloudiness to the low mids that most of the Sovtek tubes have (the NS Tungsol seems to have a lot less of this issue).

In defense of the NS fake Mullard, it is a nice sounding tube, but I was also curious as to how close to a Sovtek LPS is was. So I also tried it against the LPS and the LPS sounded pretty much the same. The fake Mullard had more output. Could the fake Mullard just be a selected version of the LPS?

I also compared a NOS Tunsram I have and it was the most like the real Mullard, but not *quite* as smooth.

So I don't think the fake Mullard actually sounds like a real Mullard, but it is a nice sounding tube. It has a big low end that will sound great in a bright amp (like a late 70s Marshall). But it just doesn't have the even tone and low mid punch of the real Mullard.

To me the interesting thing about the ladder plate, box plate and long plate Mullards is that they all have a nice clear balanced tone. I have some Brimars and Phillips tubes that are pretty close in character. But unfortunately, to me, none of the new production tubes have the same quality of tone.

That's my .02 ...

[WaZaK]

(the fake Mullard will) sound great in a bright amp (like a late 70s Marshall)

That's maybe why a full set sounds so good in my SuperLite, and probably even better in my plexi when it's finished. (Lolol)
Thanks for the review. Excellent. Yes, I know your review is subjective, but I'm more than happy to accept your opinion - simply based on your experience and reputation in the business.

[insanecopilot]

Good info rjgtr. So the long and the short of it is the new mullards are a select Sovtek LPS then. Right? I may have to try a couple as i like the LPS Which is fuller sounding to me than the JJ, or Tung Sol. I have some ns Tung Sols which i still dont know if i really like that i have been using for a while now.
Righ now i am working on converting an old late fiftys, early sixtys Hammond organ amp into an 18watt lite. this is the tube lineup as i got it
Rca blackplate 5y3 / 2x RCA 6bq5's / 2x made in holland 12ax7's should sound sweet i hope.

[rjgtr]

The NS fake Mullard is a good sounding tube. I like the LPS also. Doesn't the LPS have issues in a Cathode follower position? The Mullard might also.

Tube choice for me really depends on the amp. The old Tesla ECC83 was a great tube in bright amps, too. The newer JJ seems to be a more even tube, but with a controlled low end. It sounds to me like they voiced it to make a Mesa sound firmer.

My take on all these tubes is that some are great in some amps and some are better in others. This is true of NOS tubes too.

I'm not a fan of all NOS tubes in any amp either. I find that some RCA and GE tubes sound great in Fenders (big lows, nice highs) but not so great in Marshalls (not enough mids). But there's european tubes, like RFTs and Brimars that I like more in Marshalls than Fenders.

It's all individual taste and the good news is that while no one tube is perfect in every amp (although the real Mullards are pretty close for me), you can mix and match tubes to get the result you're after. I like to use the NS TungSol in V1 followed by JJs in some amps, because I like the result.

Chinese 12ax7 tubes are great in a dark amp, but can be shrill in a bright amp. I think if you mixed some of the NS fake Mullards in V1 with a Chinese in the PI, this might get you the best of both worlds. The Chinese Rev9 12ax7s are really good tubes and they seems to last too. Plus the Chinese make the best sounding KT-66 in current production.

In NOS, I like to use RFTs as V2 and V3 in a high gain channel because they distort in a nice way. Put a Mullard in V1 and you get a really rich tone.

Let's face it, when NS got the rights to the Svetlana name in US, they didn't create a reproduction of the original. They just slapped the name on their own design (thank goodness that SEDs are still around-if they only made an EL-84...). NS are doing the same with TungSol and Mullard. Fortunately, the new tubes are good designs, but not really reproductions of the originals. Why these couldn't be marketed as EH or NS, I don't know.

[morcey2]

The NS fake Mullard is a good sounding tube. I like the LPS also. Doesn't the LPS have issues in a Cathode follower position? The Mullard might also.

I can't speak for the NS Mullard, but the LPS and the Tung-Sol reissue both require an elevated heater supply because of the cathode-heater voltage spec. I think it's only +-100VDC for both of those. The CF on most 18-watt TMB's sits at around 130VDC quiescent IIRC, so it'll toast them pretty quick. Elevating off the power-tube cathode resistor isn't high enough so adding a voltage divider off B+ is usually the right way to do it. 200k -> (47k||10µ) is what I do most of the time.

Matt

[kd]

The new NS Svetlana el34 tubes are not bad tubes depending on what you want. I read a review of them and decided to give them a try. Turns out the review was actually accurate as far as I can tell. They are mid heavy, don't have big bottom end and the highs are pleasant and rounded without being piercing or shrill. They are not what would be called a well balanced tube, if that is what you want, look elsewhere. As the review said, these tubes are more for the ZZ Top type of sound.I actually like the tubes, but, this is my amp, speaker combination, guitar and ears. Take it with a grain of salt.

Ken

[rjgtr]

The real Svetlana (SED or Winged C) EL34s are a balanced tube that compares favorably to NOS Seimens and other NOS tubes. This is what I use for EL34s, but I'll keep the NS in mind too. Like I said, if only SED had EL84s!

I do find it interesting that when Marshall wanted to get an EL34 tube to replace the Tesla EL34s they had been using that they worked with Svetlana Eletronic Designs (SED) in St. Petersburg and not NS/Sovtek. Reportedly they got Svetlana to duplicate the xf2 Mullard as closely as possible. I don't know how close they actually sound to the xf2, but they do sound good to my ears.

[kd]

The NS Sveltlana tube is not going to be for everybody and I sure wouldn't recommend them in general to folks unless they were looking for this type of tube. I've heard so many good things about the SED Winged =C= I guess I'm going to have to give them a try.

Ken

[GUITARmole]

Turns out the review was actually accurate as far as I can tell. They are mid heavy, don't have big bottom end and the highs are pleasant and rounded without being piercing or shrill.

?? -Sounds like you're describing a Marshall amp!

Seriously, I think the NS Svets are pretty good tubes and compare favorably to my limited NOS experience with EL34s (Siemens/Tesla). The fact they DON'T have big bottom and piercing highs is exactly what makes them a "balanced" tube IMO. They seem very neutral where other tubes can sound hyped in the high/low frequencies and scooped in the mids.

They're also extremely similar (nearly the same?) in appearance/tone to the Mullard reissues which are my current new production favorites...and they're inexpensive.

[kd]

?? -Sounds like you're describing a Marshall amp! icon_lol.gif

True, they make a Marshall sound like a Marshall IMHO. Bought some from Music 123 when they were giving 20% off. I payed around $20 a set, so I can't go to far wrong with that price.

Ken