JJ,

yes, I got Hal-O dampers a few years ago and I do use them but it would require more say then just “I use” them.

I have them for a long time. I initially bought then to use with 7788 tubes that I am employing as an input tubes in my phonocorrector. As you understand at that location a tube with 50.000 mS transconductance needs as much help as it can get. At least it was what I thought intellectually. The 7788 sits at the shock-absorbing socket and with 2 Hal-O dampers.  Do the dampers work in there? I do not know as after I picked the tube comforted it in there with all “help” I did not use it without the dampers. I have no microphonics and no parasitic oscillations in my phonocorrector.

Then, when I built the first Milq I figured out that since it uses a very fast 250mHz driver I need to get tube dumpers for it as well. Then the audiophile Moronity stroked me and I got the dumpers for all Super Milq tubes. Why do I call it the “audiophile Moronity”? Certainly I do not imply that the Hal-O dampers are bad solution. However, I did buy all those dumpers and up now I do not know if they have a positive impact to Sound - I still debate it with myself. A right tube (my Milq driver tube might have tendency to be microphonic – but WAY less then 437A-417A - I would say one of twenty 6E5P might be to “live”) does not need any dumpers – it sounds good “as is”. A bad tube could not be also helped by the dumpers. I hardly feel any differences when I use a good tube with or without the tube dumper. Well, I might hear “some” difference (though practically none) but I absolutely defiantly would NOT say that with the dumper the tune sounds “better”.

So, if I use or not use the dumper is does not really matter and if I use them then it is just because I already have them. Reading it, one must understand that in the super Milq the tube sockets are mounts directly on the chassis and the chassis is VERY thick. (~25 pounds barebone, without anything on it). Also there is absolutely nothing inside the Super Milq’s amplifier chassis that might be a source of vibrations – no chokes, no transformers – and when I get the stethoscope and lay it down to the Super Milq’s chassis   then it responses with a silence of a gravestone (the cooling fan is another matter). So, perhaps the Super Milq is not the best amp to observe the Hal-O dampers contribution. I do not know how the vibrations of the tube’s glass important as if it is then it would be tube to tube related. BTW, my driver tube according to the specialists has a huge space between the cathodes (I need to post picture) and the tube creates (reportedly) the shape of electronic cloud like no other 9-pin tube. Perhaps it makes the tubes intestines to “talks” with the tube’s glass differently….

The photograph is not mine. The image courtesy to "Real Big Sushi"

From the other side I do feel, not confirmably, that the use of the class dampers minimizes the longetivety of the tubes. I do not know if the dampers were guilty but I have seen in my own practice that the tubes with dampers were turning darker faster then the tubes without dampers.

That brings me to a qestion if I am willing to use the dampers on my 6-chennal new amp. The difference is that on the new amp is that I embraced use of Absorb-GEL device, that I found VERY good and that I feel works better then anything else that I have seen.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=3487

When I apply nose to the amp chassis (badly mounted fan) that is well registered via a stethoscope then the noise is not transmitted to the tube then the tube sits on the Absorb-GEL. Still, I did not detect any influence to Sound even then the tube picks the vibration from the fan’s rotation.

What would be more interested if you JJ would point out what to pay attention when I am trying to detect the sonic benefits of the Hal-O dampers? Perhaps I just do not look in the right direction when I listen the results…

Thanks, JJ.

I do not necessary feel that it should be any difference between the early Hal-O production and the new version – they are essentially are the same products with different descriptions.  For new dampers should be better only for large tube as the metal rings might be bend to straighten the tube’s grip. For the small tube the type of the griping ring is absolutely should not be relevant. So, sorry, I do not buy into the differences between the Teflon, Blackberry and UltraSonic rings. They can come up with any imaginary name combining the Greek Gods with cryogenics but it would not drive my tail….

The output tube is a different matter. I never use it and your post might be a good motivation to try it. It is kind of not really necessary for me as now since big tubes do not care HF signal anymore but I still would like to try it on my Injection Channel, the one that works full-range. Also, you say that is “improvements at lower frequencies as well”,  so why not….

I ordered today from them the 6C33C dumpers and spoke with someone in there. Forthrightly speaking it sounded kind of ugly when the guy on the phone insisted to call the pads as the “anti-vibration instruments”. BTW, I did ask him directly if there is any difference from sonic point of view between the new dampers and old.  He said that there is not, though frankly he did not sound intelligent and it was very apparent that he pulled phrases out of his ass. So, I did not ask him about his “upgrade program”.

That all shell not defeat the idea of the tube dumpers. I do feel that the tube dumping effect would greatly depend from the construction of a specific tube, the tube made, the given tube sockets, chasses design the state of the given tube. In different cases it might work differently and I do not know if to change of the tube resonance is the only factor in the play. Only God knows what works and why in those circumstances...

Sure, I am not apologetic that I have those dumpsters in fact I have some others. In fact my very first Hal-O-like dampers I bought in 2000 in Tokyo, which was 1-2 years before the Hal-O come to existence. They were virtually identical….

If would be nice if someone would combine glass damping, the tube cooling and shielding.

JJ Triode wrote:

Hi Romy, Well, I see in the photos what look like the newer Herbie's Hal-Os with the titanium rings on 2 of the 6C33Cs. Have you made any observation of the sonic effect of these things yet? Rgs, JJ