Russian made gear

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
I asked this question over at the A'gon forum: http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?aamps&1375112362&openflup&16&4#16

Got some very interesting replies and some links to some gear that I'm sure most of us ( perhaps all of us) have never heard of.
Many of the west's greatest amp designers are originally from Russia...I wonder how many are still left at home!
Anyone here have more info on Russian made gear? Speakers,amps, TT's or?? Digital gear?
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
I digress, but I have always wondered what might be buried over there. There are thousands of unknown Russian tubes, for example. Could there be some yet hidden wonders to be had? Do you think there may be tubes among those thousands which have no Western equivalents that sound as good as the most revered Western Electric and RCA tubes we have?
 

es347

VIP/Donor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
1,577
35
970
Midwest fly over state..
.."but I have always wondered what might be buried over there"...no kidding
 

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
Dave did you hear the russian NAT audio gear in the KT audio imports room at newport? i thought those big transmitting tubes were a gimmick but its the real deal and the construction looks top notch. sound-wise they projected the finest rendition of "good morning little school girl" ive ever heard.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
Dave did you hear the russian NAT audio gear in the KT audio imports room at newport? i thought those big transmitting tubes were a gimmick buts its the real deal and the construction looks top notch. sound-wise its probably the best ive ever heard good moring little school girl off folk singer

Rob,

Maybe those tubes aren't a gimmick. The whole Russian tube mystery is why I am fascinated with the Russian industry, although many of their tubes aren't quite as rugged and consistent as we might like. Still, I don't believe that treasure trove has even seen the light, yet. They have a seemingly unending number of untried combinations, and they are untried because the nature of their society didn't permit all the time that has been spent here sorting out the various famous US and European tubes that we take for granted in home audio.
 

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
the stories were just as intriguing, military spec tubes made for MIG fighters or to survive radiation from nuclear blasts. all i know is they have a lot of smart people over there competing with us during the cold war with a modicum of our resources.
 

DaveyF

Well-Known Member
Jul 31, 2010
6,129
181
458
La Jolla, Calif USA
Dave did you hear the russian NAT audio gear in the KT audio imports room at newport? i thought those big transmitting tubes were a gimmick but its the real deal and the construction looks top notch. sound-wise they projected the finest rendition of "good morning little school girl" ive ever heard.

Rob, I did not hear the NAT gear at Newport. I have heard it before and was impressed. However, I wasn't aware that it was Russian manufactured:confused:.
As to the different types of tubes from Russia, I too would be very interested to learn more about these.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2011
65
10
315
A comment from an "old cold warrior" who worked for DoD during the dark days.

When we began to "see" the Mig-25 (foxbat) flying over Europe at 100k+ feet and about Mach 2.5 our defense establishment became more than a little concerned.

We eventually induced a Russian "driver" to fly a Mig-25 to Japan and announce his intention to "defect" (that and a million in gold helped as well). Of course we could NOT fly the Foxbat back to Russia - it had to be taken completely apart and boxed for its return.

During the disassemble process we were amazed to find out that this fighter aircraft had a 600 KW radar - based solely on tubes. Of course our over-active imaginations began to suspect that this "tube" radar was designed so that the aircraft could "fight a nuclear" war (tubes are not bothered by huge doses of EMP).

Come the early '90s and we find out that our fears were completely misguided. The Russians used tube radars because their semi-conductor industry had not reached the stage of being able to produce solid-state, high frequency, high power devices.

In fact the entire 'raison d'etre' for the Foxbat was nothing more than a tribute to the inefficiency of the Russian DoD bureaucracy. The Mig-25 was built for only one reason; to knock down American B-70 "Valkyries" (an enormous 6 engine delta wing bomber that flew at 100K fet at a CRUISE speed of Mach 3 (> 2100 mph). We ended that project in the early '60s - the Russian aeronautical industry soldiered on making about 1500 copies of the Mig-25 - that NOBODY wanted. Not even the Russian air force.

The aircraft (Foxbat) was large, heavy and totally unwieldy - couldn't dog fight against another aircraft - it was designed to do one thing and only one thing. Fly up high, fly really fast and knock down enormous B-70 bombers - that were never made. In fact the Mig-25 had a special air-to-air missile designed for its role - designed to blow holes in the titanium wings of the B-70. (even though these wings were only partially titanium)

The reality is that the Russian tube industry survived and thrived because of the failure of their semi-conductor research and development. Not because they were planning on fighting a nuclear war.

And yes; imo modern Russian tubes are the best that have ever been manufactured. Far surpassing any of the NOS glories that are out there (with their 50 and 60 year old inevitably leaky vacuum envelopes I might add). The tubes made in Saratov (not far from Stalingrad) are truly exceptional.
 

c1ferrari

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
May 15, 2010
2,162
51
1,770
And yes; imo modern Russian tubes are the best that have ever been manufactured. Far surpassing any of the NOS glories that are out there (with their 50 and 60 year old inevitably leaky vacuum envelopes I might add). The tubes made in Saratov (not far from Stalingrad) are truly exceptional.

What era would you describe as 'modern' :confused:
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
A comment from an "old cold warrior" who worked for DoD during the dark days.

When we began to "see" the Mig-25 (foxbat) flying over Europe at 100k+ feet and about Mach 2.5 our defense establishment became more than a little concerned.

We eventually induced a Russian "driver" to fly a Mig-25 to Japan and announce his intention to "defect" (that and a million in gold helped as well). Of course we could NOT fly the Foxbat back to Russia - it had to be taken completely apart and boxed for its return.

During the disassemble process we were amazed to find out that this fighter aircraft had a 600 KW radar - based solely on tubes. Of course our over-active imaginations began to suspect that this "tube" radar was designed so that the aircraft could "fight a nuclear" war (tubes are not bothered by huge doses of EMP).

Come the early '90s and we find out that our fears were completely misguided. The Russians used tube radars because their semi-conductor industry had not reached the stage of being able to produce solid-state, high frequency, high power devices.

In fact the entire 'raison d'etre' for the Foxbat was nothing more than a tribute to the inefficiency of the Russian DoD bureaucracy. The Mig-25 was built for only one reason; to knock down American B-70 "Valkyries" (an enormous 6 engine delta wing bomber that flew at 100K fet at a CRUISE speed of Mach 3 (> 2100 mph). We ended that project in the early '60s - the Russian aeronautical industry soldiered on making about 1500 copies of the Mig-25 - that NOBODY wanted. Not even the Russian air force.

The aircraft (Foxbat) was large, heavy and totally unwieldy - couldn't dog fight against another aircraft - it was designed to do one thing and only one thing. Fly up high, fly really fast and knock down enormous B-70 bombers - that were never made. In fact the Mig-25 had a special air-to-air missile designed for its role - designed to blow holes in the titanium wings of the B-70. (even though these wings were only partially titanium)

The reality is that the Russian tube industry survived and thrived because of the failure of their semi-conductor research and development. Not because they were planning on fighting a nuclear war.

And yes; imo modern Russian tubes are the best that have ever been manufactured. Far surpassing any of the NOS glories that are out there (with their 50 and 60 year old inevitably leaky vacuum envelopes I might add). The tubes made in Saratov (not far from Stalingrad) are truly exceptional.

Please tell me one high-power, high frequency radar in the U.S. inventory that is SS. There will be a SS radar in use fairly soon that will use SS T/R devices, but the platform it will be used on has not been put in service yet. If you are talking about high-power and high-frequency radars and jammers, they are all still microwave tube based and will be for years to come.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
And yes; imo modern Russian tubes are the best that have ever been manufactured. Far surpassing any of the NOS glories that are out there (with their 50 and 60 year old inevitably leaky vacuum envelopes I might add). The tubes made in Saratov (not far from Stalingrad) are truly exceptional.

I think you're in the minority on that. Could you explain why early '70s 6H30s sound markedly better than 6H30s made today?

BTW I've never had a leaky tube.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
A comment from an "old cold warrior" who worked for DoD during the dark days.

When we began to "see" the Mig-25 (foxbat) flying over Europe at 100k+ feet and about Mach 2.5 our defense establishment became more than a little concerned.

We eventually induced a Russian "driver" to fly a Mig-25 to Japan and announce his intention to "defect" (that and a million in gold helped as well). Of course we could NOT fly the Foxbat back to Russia - it had to be taken completely apart and boxed for its return.

During the disassemble process we were amazed to find out that this fighter aircraft had a 600 KW radar - based solely on tubes. Of course our over-active imaginations began to suspect that this "tube" radar was designed so that the aircraft could "fight a nuclear" war (tubes are not bothered by huge doses of EMP).

Come the early '90s and we find out that our fears were completely misguided. The Russians used tube radars because their semi-conductor industry had not reached the stage of being able to produce solid-state, high frequency, high power devices.

In fact the entire 'raison d'etre' for the Foxbat was nothing more than a tribute to the inefficiency of the Russian DoD bureaucracy. The Mig-25 was built for only one reason; to knock down American B-70 "Valkyries" (an enormous 6 engine delta wing bomber that flew at 100K fet at a CRUISE speed of Mach 3 (> 2100 mph). We ended that project in the early '60s - the Russian aeronautical industry soldiered on making about 1500 copies of the Mig-25 - that NOBODY wanted. Not even the Russian air force.

The aircraft (Foxbat) was large, heavy and totally unwieldy - couldn't dog fight against another aircraft - it was designed to do one thing and only one thing. Fly up high, fly really fast and knock down enormous B-70 bombers - that were never made. In fact the Mig-25 had a special air-to-air missile designed for its role - designed to blow holes in the titanium wings of the B-70. (even though these wings were only partially titanium)

The reality is that the Russian tube industry survived and thrived because of the failure of their semi-conductor research and development. Not because they were planning on fighting a nuclear war.

And yes; imo modern Russian tubes are the best that have ever been manufactured. Far surpassing any of the NOS glories that are out there (with their 50 and 60 year old inevitably leaky vacuum envelopes I might add). The tubes made in Saratov (not far from Stalingrad) are truly exceptional.

"The majority of the on-board avionics were based on vacuum-tube technology, not solid-state electronics. Although they represented aging technology, vacuum tubes were more tolerant of temperature extremes, thereby removing the need for environmental controls in the avionics bays. The vacuum tubes were also easy to replace in remote northern airfields where sophisticated transistor parts might not have been readily available. With the use of vacuum tubes, the MiG-25P's original Smerch-A (Tornado, NATO reporting name "Foxfire") radar had enormous power – about 600 kilowatts. As with most Soviet aircraft, the MiG-25 was designed to be as rugged as possible. The use of vacuum tubes also makes the aircraft's systems resistant to an electromagnetic pulse, for example after a nuclear blast.[23]"
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
Until this thread, I had never heard of the NAT brand, so I decided to look into it. It should be pointed out that it is Serbian made, and uses US tubes. It does appear to be very nice equipment, even though it was mistakenly fit into this discussion.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2011
65
10
315
mep,

Try this on for size;

The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a new development for the United States Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft, providing a high level of aircrew situational awareness. The beam of the AESA radar provides nearly instantaneous track updates and multi-target tracking capability. The APG-79 AESA uses transmit/receive (TR) modules populated with GaAs MMICs.[

From Wiki. (MIMICS" are solid state devices - using Gallium Arsenide.

The earlier APG-63/70 airborne series used - as you suggested TWAT (Traveling Wave Amplifier Tubes) - which while NOT glass bottles are tubes in the strictest sense of the word (steel tubes - high vacuum). But as the modern radars have evolved to phase array techniques they have moved toward solid state "exciters" on the antenna plane (since say the late '80s to be exact). To wit;

An active electronically scanned array (AESA), also known as active phased array radar is a type of phased array radar whose transmitter and receiver functions are composed of numerous small solid-state transmit/receive modules

All of your Aegis systems (shipboard) and many of the modern radars are in fact solid-state.

Time does move on dude. Move with it.
 

valkyrie

Well-Known Member
Sep 12, 2011
65
10
315
Mr. Astor,

I think you're in the minority on that. Could you explain why early '70s 6H30s sound markedly better than 6H30s made today?

BTW I've never had a leaky tube.


Couple of things - I cannot, and will not attempt to argue with a statement such as "sounds markedly better". Such is opinion. Do enjoy such - but such has no standing in terms of science and engineering at all.

A lot of the NOS furor is about nothing more - imo - than some folks who have invested in some old, worn out, tubes that are 60 years old - or 40 years old. Yes they sound different - but if you test them on a full up tube tester you will find that they are merely - well they are old, leaky, worn out tubes. Their sonic difference is more of a tribute to their poor performance than anything else (this is very strongly true in terms of output (power) tubes).

As for you claim that you have never had a leaky tube. Please. Every tube you have ever owned has been leaking from the day it was manufactured. The only question is how much it has leaked (you do know about "getter" correct?).

Vacuum tubes are leaky and by their very nature degenerative. They begin to wear out the moment they are powered up. They do not get better nor are they able to maintain any matching they might have been subjected to. A clumsy and sloppy technology. Sweet sounding at times - granted. But terribly inaccurate.

Tube guys - Luddites one and all.
 

puroagave

Member Sponsor
Sep 29, 2011
1,345
45
970
It should be pointed out that it is Serbian made, and uses US tubes.

I see that now. someone should tell Tom Vu he's got his serbias and siberias crossed cuz he did said "Russian" thanks for the clarification.
 

Mosin

[Industry Expert]
Mar 11, 2012
895
13
930
I see that now. someone should tell Tom Vu he's got his serbias and siberias crossed cuz he did said "Russian" thanks for the clarification.

Well, it was a minor oversight. Try to find one of us who hasn't made some sort of online error. I'd like to bury all of mine! :D
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,236
81
1,725
New York City
Mr. Astor,

I think you're in the minority on that. Could you explain why early '70s 6H30s sound markedly better than 6H30s made today?

BTW I've never had a leaky tube.


Couple of things - I cannot, and will not attempt to argue with a statement such as "sounds markedly better". Such is opinion. Do enjoy such - but such has no standing in terms of science and engineering at all.

A lot of the NOS furor is about nothing more - imo - than some folks who have invested in some old, worn out, tubes that are 60 years old - or 40 years old. Yes they sound different - but if you test them on a full up tube tester you will find that they are merely - well they are old, leaky, worn out tubes. Their sonic difference is more of a tribute to their poor performance than anything else (this is very strongly true in terms of output (power) tubes).

As for you claim that you have never had a leaky tube. Please. Every tube you have ever owned has been leaking from the day it was manufactured. The only question is how much it has leaked (you do know about "getter" correct?).

Vacuum tubes are leaky and by their very nature degenerative. They begin to wear out the moment they are powered up. They do not get better nor are they able to maintain any matching they might have been subjected to. A clumsy and sloppy technology. Sweet sounding at times - granted. But terribly inaccurate.

Tube guys - Luddites one and all.

Puhleeze spare me the condescending attitude. So in your little world, just because it's new, it's got to be better? Because it measures better, it has to be better? It's painfully obvious that you've never spoken to anyone who has had dealings with the Russian tube manufacturers. Nor anyone involved in tube manufacturing in from yesteryear. And over the years, I've never found any particular tube measurement to have any bearing on how the tube sounds. Tubes can measure perfect and have lost dynamics.

You should also do a search here for the the post on the Russian tubes from a quite renowned microphone manufacturer who details the issues with Russian tubes, particularly the coating issue. You should also talk to the manufacturers who find that the rejection rate from Russian tubes is just as great, if not more, than older tubes. Or how 3/4 JJ Russian tubes failed w/in 100 hrs. Or how these wonderful tubes go noisy within a hundred or so hours. Or just simply DIE for no reason within a hundred or two hours. Where's all that wonderful engineering statistics that you so want to quote now? Oh BTW, never had those issues with older tubes.

Now if you want to argue that most tubes that are sold as NOS are just OS, that's another thing.

As far as the leakage. You know darn well that I was referring to testing with everything from a Hickok to a George Kaye to a Tektronix tube tester.

And my question is still waiting to be answered. Or haven't you ever compared NOS and new Russian tubes. Or any tubes? And in what equipment. Personally, I don't care if you prefer the newly minted tubes but right now it seems like you're trying to be the teflon man. Or ever compared a Telefunken 803S, 802S or 801S (or plain Telefunken ECC83) to any newly minted tube. Or for that matter early Tesla ECC83s to new JJ tubes. Or a Mullard CV4024 to any 12AT7 currently made.

No we're basically stuck with having to use Russian or Chinese tubes by default.
 

Bill Hart

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2012
2,683
174
1,150
I'm hoping Lamm introduces a new missile guidance system. I need one for my personal drone.
 

mep

Member Sponsor & WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
9,481
17
0
mep,

Try this on for size;

The AN/APG-79 Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar is a new development for the United States Navy's F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growler aircraft, providing a high level of aircrew situational awareness. The beam of the AESA radar provides nearly instantaneous track updates and multi-target tracking capability. The APG-79 AESA uses transmit/receive (TR) modules populated with GaAs MMICs.[

Key words being "new development."


The earlier APG-63/70 airborne series used - as you suggested TWAT (Traveling Wave Amplifier Tubes) - which while NOT glass bottles are tubes in the strictest sense of the word (steel tubes - high vacuum).

And what about the APG-65/73??

All of your Aegis systems (shipboard) and many of the modern radars are in fact solid-state.

Time does move on dude. Move with it.

Valkyre-I don't know where you obtained your information about the Aegis radar being SS, but I know for sure it didn't come from personal experience. I live in that world daily and I can tell you that you are 100% incorrect so please don't try to tell me times move on and that I need to move on with it when you really have no idea what you are talking about. As for high-power, high frequency radars that are SS, I wasn't referring to aircraft radar. I'm talking about shore based radar systems and shipborne radar systems. Think megawatt and not kilowatt.
 
Last edited:

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing