Tung-Sol Lamp Works

---------------- On 7/6/2004 8:56:28 PM paulparrot wrote: Inman isn't actually gone anyway. He is back in neutered form under the new name Tung-Sol Lamp Works.---------------- Where is your proof?

---------------- On 7/6/2004 5:13:57 PM NOSValves wrote: This place is boring http://forums.klipsch.com/idealbb/images/smilies/2.gif"> Of coarse I misspelled arguing I didn't want to seem out of character ---------------- That's because you and your buddy b!tched to the moderators. I'd have to agree with you, this site IS boring. See what you did Trust me, you're not out of character, you used the wrong "coarse", should be course, of course I think your English teacher in HS was on PCP Lets have a nice "cathodyne is better than paraphase" argument, or the 299-B is too damn bright argument. Or the Sovtek 7199 is junk argument Buy Tung-Sol

---------------- On 7/6/2004 12:39:28 AM Piranha wrote: Is that why the term Super Tuner originated? ---------------- You talking about the Pioneer head units for automobiles? Those are the only types I've seen "super tuner" written on. The one I bought for my car five years ago is a super tuner III, it has excellent reception. Pioneer always made good tuners and receivers. TS

---------------- On 6/29/2004 9:54:54 PM dougdrake wrote: My Dad is in search of a ".1 mfd 600VDC capacitor" and he's checked Radio Shack and several other electronics stores in the Phoenix area to no avail. Anyone know any Internet or other sources that are likely to have such an animal? Doug ---------------- Doug, You left out one VERY important detail, what is this capacitor being used for? Radio, TV, Amplifier, Lighting Ballast, Motor, Line Coupling, Supression? This is extremely important, because if you use the wrong dielectric, a disasterous result could occur. For example, you'd never want to use a Mylar capacitor in a motor run circuit, as it would overheat and explode, same goes for line coupling. There is more to a capacitor than capacitance in microfarads and DC working voltage. If you can tell me what the application is, I can recommend an exact replacement, without the application, anything else is just a guess. TS

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3280&item=5705865427&rd=1 Another winner at a very reasonable price. Pristine condition.

Taylor, Save your money. Admiral made low budget consoles and table radios, none of them are spectacular or anything to get excited over. If you want a nice tube radio, save your money and get a Philco 90. The Admiral is either all tube or a hybrid (tube tuner and tube front end, with push-pull germanium transistor outputs). To my knowledge, the real Admiral never made an all solid-state console. RCA and Magnavox made better consoles. TS

---------------- On 6/24/2004 1:45:36 PM DaddyDee wrote: ---------------- On 6/23/2004 10:02:59 PM Tung-Sol Lamp Works wrote: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3280&item=5705414176&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW Bell's answer to Scott's 299-B. Was anyone looking for a 299-B? Try this Bell instead. No need to pay $300+ for a quality 7189/EL84 amplifier. ---------------- This amp looks like it would be a huge score, and not alot of bidding interest so far. I have to wonder about the description as "no hum or noise". The tubes alone could be worth the price. The way the seller has it laid out in the description certainly sounds nice. ---------------- Absolutely a huge score. While not really obvious by looking at the pics, the 7189's are Amperex Bugle-Boys, at least the one to the far right is. Bell used Amperex and Mullard tubes, I bet all tubes are stock. The tube complement in this Bell alone is worth more than $125 if they test good (which is almost always the case). However, I wouldn't buy the amplifier just for the tubes, if I were buying it, it would be for the amplifier! It's a nice one, similar in sound to the Scott 222-D but better (all triode front end, no pentode driver like the Scott). The all triode front end is also what makes the Eico HF-81 special. TS

---------------- On 6/23/2004 10:22:34 PM Audioreality wrote: About destroying it by driving it without modification..... I do understand conceptually why this is an issue, but if it was brought up slowly on a variac and benchtested by a tech for 3 hours, then isn't it safe to assume it's "ready for action", so to speak? Just curious. Regards, John. ---------------- John, I'd really like to tell you that the Bell will continue to be reliable, but I honestly can't. The Variac will only reform the electrolytics to a certain extent, it won't help the paper coupling capacitors or other parts. The best thing I could tell you is to keep an eye on it, watch the output tubes for red glowing plates, and to get it rebuilt as soon as possible. It's far too nice to destroy. A lot happened inside the Bell within the last 51 years! So, how does it sound? Do you have something else to compare it to (vintage Scott, Eico, Fisher)? Remember that what you're hearing is not an accurate representation of what it originally sounded like 51 years ago, but it could with a rebuild. TS

The sound quality isn't in the tube, but the circuit design. All of the tubes listed have operating parameters where they are most linear, and if they are designed to run in their design centers, they are all capable of great sound. It's all in the design, the tube does nothing more than control current. It is the engineers job to assure that the tube selected is run within it's limitations and parameters. Comparing output tubes is pointless except in terms of power output.

---------------- On 6/23/2004 8:45:32 PM leok wrote: One thing I am checking out is the possibility that the problem with the Meshplates may be parasitic oscillation. There is no grid resistor in the Moondog design. I thought, with no feedback and the low gain of the 2A3 that it wouldn't matter. Anyway, I'll try adding a grid resistor and see if that cleans up the Meshplate performance. ---------------- Which resistor is omitted from the design, grid leak (from grid to ground), or grid stopper (in series with signal to grid)? I find that both are important. I take it by grid resistor, you are refering to the stopper? If yes, try a 1K Ohm series resistor and see if it clears up the parasitic oscillation. With such a high input impedance, the 1K resistor isn't much of a compromise, certainly not audible. Did you get a chance to view the oscillation on the scope, and if yes, what was the frequency? By parasitic, I would assume that it is not constant, but occurs in quick bursts.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=3280&item=5705414176&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW Bell's answer to Scott's 299-B. Was anyone looking for a 299-B? Try this Bell instead. No need to pay $300+ for a quality 7189/EL84 amplifier.

You picked a true winner! The Bell 3DT was made in 1953, and produces 10W per channel. It was one of the first, if not the first true stereo amplifier ever produced. What seperates this amplifier from your typical Scott is build quality. The Bell used 30W Stancor output transformers in a 10W design, absolute overkill and permits unbelievable frequency response, absolutely dead flat from 20-20,000 cycles. The preamp, and phono stages are cascaded class A amplifiers, followed by a long tail phase inverter. Quality paper capacitors were used throughout, along with Ohmite carbon resistors and Sprague electrolytics. What you have is one of the finest examples of a vintage integrated, the Bell will blow the doors off of a Scott 299-B or comparable model. The only problem you will be faced with is 50+ year old components, what was once state-of-the-art will be useless and defective today. Do not run the Bell in stock form, you may destroy it. It will need to be updated with modern Polypropylene Film/Foil coupling capacitors, new Electrolytics, and possibly some new resistors. The parts are really cheap, and the end result will be worth it. The Bell 3DT is not your typical 60's integrated, it is a much earlier design from a period when stereo was science fiction, a real innovation that set the standards for the later Scott and Fisher stereo models. There weren't many good 6V6 hi-fi amplifiers produced, and by the 1960's, less and less were made. It is a damn fine audio tube. It was used primarily in guitar amplifiers. The Bell was the best. The 10W Bell run through Klipsch will give you stunning results.

---------------- On 6/22/2004 11:53:07 PM glen wrote: I have a wulitzer tube amp I'd like to convert into a guitar amp. My friend whose a klipsch fan said someone might be able to help me, or lead me, into the right direction. I'd appriciate any thoughts. Thanks ---------------- The amplifier probably has enough gain to amplify the pick-up signal from your guitar. You'll need to add a 1/4 inch jack at the input of the amplifier. If there is not enough gain, you need an extra 12AX7 gain stage, a fairly complex modification. I bet it has enough gain, I'd try it. For best results, use a full-range guitar speaker, not a conventional hi-fi speaker. What is the tube complement, and what type of input jacks currently exsist on the amplifier? If it doesn't have a power switch, you'll need to add that also.

I have two questions for you, Guy: (1) Where did you purchase the awesome component rack? (2) What were you thinking when you replaced the Scott 4310 tuner with that Pioneer tuner?! Did something happen to the 4310? That is a world class tuner you have! TS

I would strongly recommend the band "Disturbed" or "Audio Slave", both are sure to liven up your listening experience. TSLW

---------------- On 6/17/2004 8:19:12 PM wrench_peddler wrote: It is in a small console, has 2 tweeters and 2 woofers with only a turn table. The amp has the controls coming down into the side of it from above and the tubes (3 or 4) were all 6*##'s. It had one power tran and one output tran with, I think 2 caps. Had extra inputs on the back end for tuner and tape with an extra phono plug that said something about stereo output. Hope that is enough info for someone to know what it is. One of the woofers has the wires pulled off the coil and the phono arm is missing the needle. I can go get pictures and numbers off the amp if that would help get an idea of what the amp is and if it is worth fixing. The tag on the back of the cabinet says, Victorola, Rca Victor. Cab is about 30" wide, 22" deep and about 30" tall. Grill cloth covers the front with about 5 strips of wood runnning from bottom to top. Thanks. ---------------- Sounds like a typical RCA stereo (push-pull) 6BQ5 amplifier. There should be four 6BQ5's. Are you certain that there aren't TWO output transformers? If you've got a pic of this amplifier, please, post it. It would give us a better idea as to what you have. At any rate, you're talking about an easy amplifier to repair. It will have very few parts that need replacing. Under the chassis you'll find wax/paper capacitors (yellow in color), and possibly one or two "can" type electrolytic capacitors. Some of these also used what is known as a "dry electrolytic" capacitor, a tubular cap with a cardboard jacket. Replace these, check the tubes, and you're ready to rock. These are easy to adapt for hifi use. Simply mount a power on/off rocker switch on the chassis, along with some RCA jacks. Installing a 1.5A SLO-BLO fuse and fuseholder in series with the mains in also a good idea. While these aren't particularly "high-end" units, they sound very presentable. Response is typically flat from 50 - 15,000 cycles @ 1W output. Certainly worth the effort to repair. This is a $20 job if you DIY. I've probably got the Photofact for the set, I have most of them for the RCA units. If you can provide a chassis # (like RCV-1234), I'll take a look. XL