TAD or JJ? 6L6GC

JackButler

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,822
Going to retube a SLO. I normally use JJ for all my amps when I retube, but had a set of TAD's in a Two Rock that sounded great. Yes, two way different amps of course, but any basic differences your guys' trained ears tell ya bewteen the two companies 6L6gc's?
Thanks
 

slider313

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
8,208
I find the JJ's have great bass and mids with a little sizzle on the top end. A good tight tube with good note seperation, a little bit of crunch and more of a "British" tone to my ears than a NOS type 6L6GC. The TAD, to my ears, have a softer bass with less note seperation, mid forward with a little bit too much "mush" in the mids and a soft top end. Good if you don't need the clarity and like early break up.
 

slider313

Gold Supporting Member
Messages
8,208
Haven't tried the JJ, prefer the Tung-Sol to the TAD.
I think the new Tung Sol 6L6GC STR is the best sounding new production 6L6 available. These sound amazing in Fenders; Tweeds, Browns and Blackface's. I find them to have a nice transparent "woody" tone that all the rest are missing.
 

rockon1

Platinum Supporting Member
Messages
12,981
Havent tried the TAD's but I have tried the JJ's. Nice tube with strong bass,decent mids. That said I recently put in a set of Winged C SED's I got from Mike at KCA and they seem a bit better all around . Good lows,mids and not harsh on the top. More than that they seemed fuller (more harmonically rich?)thanthe JJ's too. Both are nice but I'll probably order another set of the SED's for back up. Bob
 

Greggy

Member
Messages
13,440
I tried many of the new production 6l6s in my Soul-O 45 and the JJ 6l6GC is tremendous in that amp. As said above, tight pronounced bass. Also smooth top with just enough cut in the mix. Love 'em.
 

The Pup

No Complexity Without Value
Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,642
There is no real consensus ever with tubes.
 

Rosewood

Member
Messages
1,864
I like JJ's but has anyone ever noticed how much less bias voltage it takes for the same amount of current as other brands, why is that?
 

JackButler

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,822
So the JJ are louder tubes?

All good info and insight guys. Imagine I'll stick with JJ as they work well in the other one I have, but sorta curious if perhaps any of the others are worth a shot. The one description of "woody" would greatly be to my liking if it is indeed on the money.

I had the short bottle TAD's in the TR. Again, way different amps, but after trying various other brands and a few different sets of NOS in it I went back to those short bottles. I do not think they would be right in this amp, but the regualr bottles could be.

For my needs, more low is always good, not that this amp needs anymore. Less spikey highs in a tube and smoother topend is my quest as usual. Love fat low/mids as well.
 

Lex Luthier

Member
Messages
1,765
I find the JJ's have great bass and mids with a little sizzle on the top end. A good tight tube with good note seperation, a little bit of crunch and more of a "British" tone to my ears than a NOS type 6L6GC.
Would you say they had more of a Sylvania 6CA7 vibe to them?
 

eric-d

Member
Messages
3,409
I have the TAD short bottles in my Top Hat Super Deluxe - I like them. I might try a set or the full sizes later on....
 

gtr777

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
1,783
I just re-tubed my SLO-100 and tried Ruby, JJ and TAD's. During the "shoot-out" I had my buddy with me who'd opinion I trust and we both picked-the TAD's. They were just a little more "forward" sounding then the others.
 

JackButler

Silver Supporting Member
Messages
3,822
777, whatta ya mean more forward? Those are about the only ones I want to try in this SLO myself, but the JJ's have been working so well for me.
Can you direct compare say the lows, mids, and highs for me please?
 




Trending Topics

Top