7591 Alternative

jaymanaa

RIP 1961-2018
I think this subject has come up in other threads, but never really got discussed. I'm trying to figure out what would be a good substitute for the 7591. Most of the good pentodes get excluded by heater current, but the 6L6 looks like it might work.:scratch2: I'm not the best at comparing tube data so I thought I'd run it by you guys. Any thoughts on this or other candidates? Thanks, Jay
 
To the best of my knowledge the original is now once again available, but the price is close to a kidney or spleen for a pair.

Back in the day when they were temporarily not available at any price I switched in 6L6s in dozens of those old units with success. The only bugaboo is that the 6L6GC envelope is quite proud of the original, which may preclude reinstalling the chassis back in its case. All but a few customers said go ahead and they'd just use it without the case.

Socket rewiring is required, as there are some differences in the basing (in more modern parlance "pinout") scheme.
 
Yeh, I just never cared for the sound of the tube. I've got some iron from 7591 amps and was trying to figure out a tube that might sound better, with more rolling possibilities.:yes:

oooohhh, I thought you were looking for something with minimal work to stick in an existing amp that uses 7591...but in this case, you got some more options:D. Do you know the primary impedance? I would guess 6.6k, but if its closer to 7.6k, you could build an amp that uses the new 6973, I've always wanted to do that. Lots of reserve in the transformer then for ba-bass, as trannys for 7591s are usually medium to biggerish...
 
oooohhh, I thought you were looking for something with minimal work to stick in an existing amp that uses 7591...but in this case, you got some more options:D. Do you know the primary impedance? I would guess 6.6k, but if its closer to 7.6k, you could build an amp that uses the new 6973, I've always wanted to do that. Lots of reserve in the transformer then for ba-bass, as trannys for 7591s are usually medium to biggerish...

What's this 6973? Never heard of it, but I'm very interested. I've got iron out a Fisher KX200 (no screen taps) and some on the way from a Heath 100 with screen taps. How do I go about figuring the primary Z?
 
The KT90s might be a little much for a transformer designed for the 7591.

6973s are mini power pentodes similar to the EL84 but lower distortion. Electro-harmonix makes them new now, but I haven't tried them yet. I have an old GE amp that uses them and I have RCAs, which sound great. There are no UL curves for it, so you would be breaking new ground if you went that route. Vg2max is 330V, which is not bad, but you would have to run a B+ of 330 max, preferable closer to 300V. If you ran pure pentode, it would still sound sweet, you could use B+ of 400V, screen of 300V.

http://datasheets.electron-tube.net/sheets/049/6/6973.pdf

Anyway, see what you think :thmbsp:
 
What's this 6973? Never heard of it, but I'm very interested.

Very familiar tube to jukebox guys (the ones with the last stereo amps, anyway...). They were apparently RCA's last serious tube development effort before transistors started to make inroads. Low-distortion beam-power pentode in a tall 9-pin envelope (the repros that have recently come on the market are in a much shorter envelope, I remain skeptical that they match the originals at 12 watts plate dissipation). Seeburg, Wurlitzer, and AMI all used them, I think Rockola went a different path using 7868's. I think there were some guitar amps that used 6973's, as well as some Ampex amplifiers used in consoles. Before the re-issues came on the market, NOS 6973's were often fetching $70 to $90 on that auction site. Thankfully, I have a small stash of RCA's and GE's for my Seeburgs!
 
Yes, thank goodness for the new 6973's...they have all worked great in Wurlitzer amps.
There were some Sylvania and other brand 6973's which used the shorter envelope in the original days of 6973 production so I don't think the fact that the Electro-harmonix ones are shorter than RCA's were is an indication they are less power capable.

I used 6L6GC in a Heathkit PA amp which originally used 7591. This was before new 7591's were being made. Just rewired the sockets and it worked great....not saying of course that this would work in all cases without other modifications though.
This amp had no tubes when I got it, so I also rewired the 7199 socket to take 6U8 and the 6EU7 socket to take 12AX7. The Heathkit designers must have really had a thing for "new" tubes in this amp.
 
Last edited:
So... I am not the only one who's not that crazy for the 7591/7868 sound...
Funnily enough, though, I think I have at least 5 amps/receivers that use 'em. Nope, make that 6.
 
So... I am not the only one who's not that crazy for the 7591/7868 sound...
Funnily enough, though, I think I have at least 5 amps/receivers that use 'em. Nope, make that 6.

Yeh, is it maybe too laid back ya think? However, I did like Terry's Sherwood after an overhaul and using EH 7868s.:music: It had lot's of crisp detail that my Fisher using 7591s seems to lack. I just wish I could find a short bottle tube that could be wired to work without changing anything else. I do have "some" 6L6s that are short, but most are too tall to get a cover over (like old1625 said).
 
Back in the days when there was no new production 7591, the 6GM5 was recommended as a replacement... pinout is different, but I am not sure it would sound much different.

I am asking the local tube gurus and I'll report back.
 
Back in the days when there was no new production 7591, the 6GM5 was recommended as a replacement... pinout is different, but I am not sure it would sound much different.

I am asking the local tube gurus and I'll report back.

The reason the 6GM5 could be recommended is that it's actually a 7591 internal structure placed in a special envelope with a noval 9 pin (like 6BQ5) base. The internal structure of the couple I have look EXACLY like a Westinghouse 7591 (one is even branded W too), and tester setup is same apart from pinout. Tube manual specs are same too.

Since objective specs are same, the 6GM5 is considered a plug-n-play replacement if the socket is changed or an adaptor is used (AES used to sell adaptors till 6GM5s got expensive too).

Although I can't imagine there being any sonic difference betw a 6GM5 and a 7591, I'm sure under the right circumstances some will report just that.
 
Back in the days when there was no new production 7591, the 6GM5 was recommended as a replacement... pinout is different, but I am not sure it would sound much different.

I am asking the local tube gurus and I'll report back.


I'll check my pile.:yes:
 
So... I am not the only one who's not that crazy for the 7591/7868 sound...
Funnily enough, though, I think I have at least 5 amps/receivers that use 'em. Nope, make that 6.

Wow me too, But I been avoiding saying that for about 2 years now for fear of being tared and feathered here.
 
Yeh, is it maybe too laid back ya think? However, I did like Terry's Sherwood after an overhaul and using EH 7868s.:music: It had lot's of crisp detail that my Fisher using 7591s seems to lack.

If your not happy with the sound of those 1960's production integrated amps that use 7591 (or 7591A's), it's not only these tubes that are giving you what you're hearing.

The stereo amps designed in the 1960's were designed to offer a particular sound. Even if you restore those amps to operate as designed, you still may not like the overall sound.

You won't get changes that are leaps and bounds audibly different by simply retooling to use 7868's or 6GM5's. Initially, that's because they're basically tubes with the same specs. Second, the signal feeding them contains the same info from the same circuit path using the same electronic components as it did before.

If you really want a noticeable audible change in those amplifiers using 7591's, rework the coupling cap stage to try to get the sound you're looking for. Polyester/foil caps will generally leave it with that original vintage feel, and are usually very cost effective (CDE, Mallory). If you're looking for a tiny bit brighter sound, use metallized polyester film caps like Illinois MWR series (a very good cap and highly cost-effective). If you want it a bit brighter, use polypropylene film and foil such as Sprague 716P, Hovland Musicaps, or MultiCap PPFX-s series. Stepping up a bit more bright, you'd be using metallized polypropylene like Solen PB series, Illinois MPW series, AuriCap, MultiCap PPMFX series, (many, many others).

The Sonicap (Gen I) cap is one of the brightest on the market, but can easily be bypassed with their Gen II series which pops the mids up, and cuts the harshness without losing detail.

If your wallet allows for excellent 'designer' caps, I'd recommend Jensen or AudioNote paper and oil with copper foil. You can also get these from Angela Instruments with their own brand labeled on them; but I've heard they're made on the same production line by Jensen in Denmark. Of course, there's also the Mundorf Silver/Gold metallized polypropylene in oil; as well as a few brands of nice teflon/foil caps out there, too.

YMMV.

Oh, and be sure to connect the inner foil side to the grid side of the tube. This has a direct effect of the frequency response being passed through those coupling caps (it's a reactance/impedance issue). Some may not hear much of a difference, but it sure looks a LOT better on a scope.

. . Falcon
 
Oh, and be sure to connect the inner foil side to the grid side of the tube. This has a direct effect of the frequency response being passed through those coupling caps (it's a reactance/impedance issue). Some may not hear much of a difference, but it sure looks a LOT better on a scope.

. . Falcon
Eddie, this final statement intrigues me. What technique are you using to identify the "preferable" grid side of the capacitor??
Thanks
WOT
 
Back
Top Bottom