A plan to bring back Mullards, Help solve the mystery

[Bunnest]

No reason to bring them back, even if it were possible, which it isn't...they last almost FOREVER!!!

spend a grand, get like 8 or ten NOS ones, and don't worry, be happy...or wait 5 years and spend $2k, and so on and so forth...

[somethin'else]

Ah, in search of the Eternal, never changing Mullard

... and you're gonna need all that Physics to build the Time Machine as well as a DNA Blueprinter Thing to go back to the day that the song in mind was recorded, how it was recorded, pressed, and how it was broadcast via radio frequency types when you first heard it and it sounded so good (cause mp3s are different), the guitar, the player (and what he/she was wearing I dare say, and what they were "on" ), the amp, the circuitry, the glass, the alloys... and the "cosmic circumstances" surrounding the particular track and tone you're after.

Replicate all that, and I'll see YOU in Fiji!

Seriously, it's like, what? 2011? Even if you had All of the real deal, it's gonna track and mix differently anyway! And be heard differently! Our EARS are even different now, genetically and experientially ... Wow I digress... my bad!

No reason to bring them back, even if it were possible, which it isn't...they last almost FOREVER!!!
spend a grand, get like 8 or ten NOS ones, and don't worry, be happy...or wait 5 years and spend $2k, and so on and so forth...

Best idea here ... get the real ones, and bury a couple quads for your great grandchildren!

[slashsound]

You dont need to know anything about tube construction to know that physics is the same regardless of what device you are talking about. If say for example material x has a capacitance, resistance, impedance, density, heat capacity, and so and and so forth ....then there are many many ways to achieve the same or practiacally the same properties from engineered materials. This is fact, dont dispute it. Everything is reproducable if you have enough information... variations in missing elements ( such as those that contain toxins no longer allowed by law) can be mimiced through modern materials. Have an electrical engineer dispute this... they wont. Your opinions are still appreciated.

[OnTheFritz]

Slashsound,
If it was done once, and we have the data, old tubes to deconstruct etc, it could be done again.
But..........
There's no market for this, no huge Government contracts, no incentive whatsoever irrespective of EPA regulations or any other potential obstacle(s).
Back when these beauties originated, everything used tubes.

Those of us that appreciate tubes, most notably the audiophiles, are not even a blip on the radar in this day and age.

[Scumback Speakers]

You dont need to know anything about tube construction to know that physics is the same regardless of what device you are talking about. If say for example material x has a capacitance, resistance, impedance, density, heat capacity, and so and and so forth ....then there are many many ways to achieve the same or practiacally the same properties from engineered materials. This is fact, dont dispute it. Everything is reproducable if you have enough information... variations in missing elements ( such as those that contain toxins no longer allowed by law) can be mimiced through modern materials. Have an electrical engineer dispute this... they wont. Your opinions are still appreciated.

I'm afraid your experience in this subject isn't going to sway me...since you have none.

Ha! I hate to tell you this, but I've posed questions to engineers about sound/speaker failures/etc. several times on the TGP forum. Of course their theories/physics/etc. couldn't explain them. In theory (or physics) there's no reason for certain things to happen, but they do. It comes down to experience. They knew theoretical practices that "should" result in something. However, actual practice/use/failures didn't match their predictions/theories/assumptions.

It's the same thing with old tubes, certain reactions occur based on the materials used, and how they interact with each other under certain conditions. Change one piece of that interaction and the result changes slightly. You can't argue the sound/impact of a tube's construction when it's built one way 50-60 years ago, then try to "approximate" or "mimic" it with modern materials without being able to reverse engineer the critical design features/materials/etc.

The problem with your physics, practically speaking, is that they can't reproduce that interaction. So your "facts" do not relate, nor do they have any relevance or bearing on the materials, gases, and sonic textures imparted inside of a vacuum tube, unless they account for all of the related parts, gases, and results of those old parts.

So, in fact, I can dispute this, because you can't reproduce many of the materials that went into an old vacuum tube due to EPA/environmental restrictions, and those properties can't be "replicated" practically speaking, or hearing...yet.

You've got a whole shitload of research to do on this, and frankly, until you've got a few million bucks behind you to get it done, this isn't something you should be posting on, IMO.

As someone who has done some research on replicating certain tones, I can tell you this much...you might be able to get damned close if you are diligent, and have enough pristine/excellent samples to use as tone targets for tubes. But then are you willing to buy enough known good tubes, then can sacrifice them for examination (something I did for speakers) by someone qualified to replicate them? I'm willing to bet you haven't got those resources.

As I said, many have tried before you, and failed. But by all means, if you really want to pursue this, do what you have to do! I'll outline it for you, which is what I did to replicate the old pre rola Greenback tone.

1) Go on a mission, get fanatical. Learn enough about what you're replicating to have a serious understanding of your final product.
2) Be prepared to buy hundreds of old Mullard EL34 XF2's and 12AX7's (and whatever other tubes you're thinking of reproducing).
3) Have a discerning enough ear to know what's truly exceptional, and what just "passes tests" as new. That's a difference that will be super critical to the success of your quest. You'll likely need help which you'll have to pay for.
4) Find the funding to buy 4-500 old tubes, plus the proper amps to figure out which ones are the best. That should set you back around $100k right there. (I spent $77k doing this over 6 years ago on speakers, by the way.)
5) After you've found the holy grail tubes to replicate, find enough qualified tube people that agree with your ears findings to lend their talents to the task. Trust me, this will be really tough, and expensive. You're treading on ground others have gone down with no success.
6) After finding your holy grail tubes, find some tubes you can/will autopsy (sacrifice) that are built within the same tolerances, ridiculously close manufacturing time frame (typically within weeks,or two months), and materials as your holy grails that can be used as donor tubes for someone to measure and figure out all of the materials after taking them apart. Date codes on tubes will likely be something you need to learn.
7) Then pay someone with the "physics" to replicate it to the nth degree. I'm figuring this will be a huge dollar figure.

Let me know when you'll be offering up your Mullard clones, I've got some beauties that I've stashed (no you can't have them for your research!) for comparison. I even have the amps to test them in (no you can't have the amps, either!). If you pull it off, I'll buy your tubes, assuming they don't cost what real NOS glass costs (Mullard XF2 NOS EL34's are something around $350-500 per pair, I believe).

Get started, let me/us/the world of guitar players who relish these tubes know when you've got it done.

Once you find out just how daunting this task is, I won't be surprised if you don't take it on, can't get the funding, or just plain give up due to the complexities involved. And then, sir, your physics will let you down in a big way. I think until you come up with said tube, you should probably quit posting about this as something you have a handle on, because it's clear to me you are not learned enough in this subject yet.

But here's to your efforts. Good luck!

[demonufo]

2) Be prepared to buy hundreds of old Mullard EL34 XF2's and 12AX7's (and whatever other tubes you're thinking of reproducing).

See there's the thing. There are more tubes than just Mullard's that are great anyway. The search doesn't end there at all.
Plenty of other GREAT flavours out there.

It's the UNKNOWNS that will be impossible to replicate, and most of them will remain unknown. If it were that simple scientists could exactly recreate anything they wanted. How often does that ever happen?

Far too many variables here. Even weld types/temperatures/current may impart a certain amount into the mix. How the heck are you gonna recreate that?

There simply is no MODEL for obsolete technology such as this.

The most important thing though is that it CAN'T happen because it couldn't possibly be cost effective. There are too few that care for all the money that would be wasted setting the whole thing up.

[Scumback Speakers]

Exactly. You'd have to spend a whole shitload of cash to get this done. People thought (still think!) I was nuts for doing what I did to replicate the old pre rola tones. Celestion & Eminence didn't see a market for it, and even told me that when I contacted them years ago (I've since proven those thoughts wrong obviously since they brought out their own lines/versions). Even now, with sales reaching about 25-35k per month, it's not the kind of numbers (around 150-250 speakers per month) that most people/investors would consider enough to pour in a boatload of cash/effort/time to get going, considering the return on investment. Hell, that $77k I spent on the whole project took me six years to pay off using my own credit cards to finance it. I shudder to think what the real cost was after finance charges.

[slashsound]

Thanks for the advice.

[Smokin Tone]

Techtube recently tried something similar. They didn't stay in the game long.

[Scumback Speakers]

Techtube recently tried something similar. They didn't stay in the game long.

Yep, I bought two of their tubes. Didn't sound like Mullards, sounded like a cross between a Telefunken and a Mullard. Had vibrational issues/pinging noises. They sent you a tube condom to put on them made of silicone to kill the tube rattle.

Then they went out of business due to no sales to justify the costs. Think they were based at the old Mullard UK plant, weren't they?

[demonufo]

Well the old Blackburn plant isn't standing anymore, but I guess it was somewhere close. Again though, as mentioned earlier, it was never an attempt to recreate, purely an attempt to design something completely new, but still compatible.

I've never really given my two a good proper workout, since they were a little microphonic, but, they were awesome playing bass in the lo input of my 4104 when used in v1 and v3.

[Bunnest]

i CAN SEE IT NOW, IN 5 YEARS, NEW MULLARD 12AX7s, $2k a pop, or get A real NOS one, 200 a pop... They may even be VERRRY close TONEWISE...

[Mr. Mullard]

Just as an aside (and this kinda goes contrary to both positions here) a European company named EAT Tubes is repopping several "holy grail" audiophile tube types, which I believe includes and is limited to the GEC/Marconi/Osram KT88 and some Western Electric types; with rave reviews from cork-sniffer hi-fi writers I might add...so they CAN make them like they used to, however the prices for these are quite absurd and exhorbitant...a quad of the KT88s retail for at least $1300 US on sale, typically out of the reach of an average Joe and surely a trial for the company as well to justify (economically) production with such limited customer base.

[demonufo]

It's very easy to "buy" your average journalist though. I doubt in reality that these stand up to the originals in either operation OR longevity. Conveniently priced out of range of anybody other than those who have ridiculous amounts of money to waste, and probably don't even appreciate the difference.

Or maybe I'm just a cynical prick.

I'm pretty certain I could get a good quad of NOS GEC KT88's for quite a bit less than $1300. Even less than $1000.

[Kevin]

The new wannabe "Gold Lion" KT88s have also gotten really good reviews on various audiophile boards – some have claimed that they’re as good as GECs. It could be that it is simply easier to reproduce a vintage KT88. In any case, I’m still not convinced that they can make them like they used to.

I think that a good part of the fact that the audiophiles are happy with these tubes might be that they don’t really rely on them for distortion. To my ears, the difference between shitball new production tubes and good old tubes really becomes obvious when you bridge the channels and run the amp on 8 (or whatever you like to do). Audiophiles tend to laugh about the fact that guitarists pretend to be discerning when it comes to tubes, but I actually think that we’re more demanding in some sense…