|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
76.17.168.187
In Reply to: RE: Cryo Treated posted by TubeAcolyte on October 11, 2015 at 23:56:46
- quote- "" To expand on the article, I think about the money. Most tube resellers will test tubes to their own standards and batch them accordingly for microphonics, performance, and consistency across test points. Out of that, you'll have the duds, the middle/good batch, and then the cream. Tube Depot for example has the JJ 6550 for $35 each, and $130 cryo-treated. Let's say in a fresh box from the factory, 10-20% are duds, 60-70% are good, and 10-20% are amazing. ""
TubeAcolyte: So based on this information, theory, etc. Then the companies are taking the cream and supposedly cryo treating them? But in reality, if they are the cream off the top, they would need no cryo treatment? Because they are top notch to begin with? If this is so, then it raises another question-
Why doesn't The Tube Store offer a cryo treated tube? What are they doing with their cream? Maybe selling it to Cryoset? As I notice Cryoset sells only cryo treated power tubes.
Also if it is true that a batch of tubes has varying degrees of tube quality. Then my guess is most of the new current issue tubes selling on ebay are not the cream, and may not even be the middle. Perhaps they are the duds. Especially some of those that are being sold out of China. Lots of folks selling Shuguang Treasures out of China. Wonder if those are the tubes Shuguang rejected?
Follow Ups:
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my post.Starting back at the tube, top-10% new production (NP) tubes should perform as well as a NOS tube: on spec, 110% emissions, low noise margins, steady performance across the curves, etc. Given the equipment and stringent standards of yonder days is long past, such tubes are somewhat of a rarity in my opinion. If I had such a tube in hand, versus a NP tube which could feature a range of performance quirks (and there are, hence why we buy into matching, testing, and guarantees), how do I market it? I sprinkle glitter on it. If you want advertise the creme-de-la-creme, cryo it. It will market well to an established niche which is willing to spend the money. So why not?
As for the Tube Store and them not cryoing tubes, that's evident by the article I linked earlier. They probably don't buy it, and they don't believe we should, either. That could play both ways, for the consumer, and against competing businesses. Either way, it's a great double-play in advertising for those who are reading.
Ultimately, I'm not approaching this as a purest. I'm approaching it as a business man. If I wanted to market a top-10% tube and sell it for top dollar, I'd cryo it. It'll sound amazing before treating it and have all the more appeal afterwards. And if people want cryo-ed tubes because they believe in it, then cryo their tubes.
And Winston, yes, data is crucial, and I can supply it - check the link below. Someone took the time to review some tubes, and REALLY review them by measuring their operation and performance in a circuit. Look through each table. There are a LOT of interesting tubes under the scope, good evidence to support the idea of batching, and a very different opinion about cryo'ed tubes. And, I quote directly from the article linked:
"The lower the gain the lower the noise. Cryo treatment does not make a tube more quiet. Cryo treatment in my testing has resulted in shorter tube life for me and more brittle internals which result in a tube being more prone to physical microphonics."
"Bottom line: Low noise was accomplished by having low gain. These were no different than non treated Sovtek 12AX7LPS. They were no quieter when compared to tubes of the same gain of the same LPS type. They were no more consistent than any graded or selected tube. These did not handle over voltage or over current any better than non treated tubes.These are roughly twice the cost of a standard Sovtek 12AX7LPS which you can get from a good tube vendor in a nicely tested state."
I'll candidly admit I have never paid into trying cryo'ed tubes, but if there was real evidence of it REALLY working we would have been doing it a long time ago, it would have become common practice, and it would be as well-advertised as the need for good matching and a reseller's guarantee.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
Edits: 10/13/15
More than 20 years ago, I had access to Liquid nitrogen at work. It was kept in a large round tank. So, I would sneak in and cryo'd some of my 12ax7 to compare vs. non cryoed. I would leave them in just above the liquid for 24 hours then gradually raise them higher over the next couple of days. While admittedly not as precise as a the cryo companies, I think I approximated the effect fairly well. The results were not good in some and better in others. Some tubes became microphonic while others were maybe better. So, I thought it was not worth it and probably the effect was associated with the individual tube. A good tube was still good and a borderline tube was not made appreciably better. Again not a scientific experiment other than I worked with matched pairs of 12ax7. regards, Dak
... to my response posted a while ago, that I completely concur about meticulous testing and matching to both weed out crappy performers, and to balance the paired tubes' outputs for the most pin-point, realistic imaging possible. NOTHING can replace that, ever. We agree on that. Poorly matched and tested tubes will usually yield shitty sound. Not always, but usually. And it is SOUND we are after here, not numbers on a tester, ultimately.
And as for business versus sonics, who cares? The OP asked a specific question about SOUND which I answered. Yours goes off track completely. Marketing? Who cares about how to market tubes? If the OP asked, "How do I maximize my profits from selling tubes....", then cool, your post is spot on. Otherwise, don't twist things way out of context. It's about SOUND QUALITY, and what I HEARD comparing identical tubes, one set cryo'ed, one not, AND I was very skeptical going in. And I heard a positive difference in BOTH tube sets tested. Get over it.
Anybody who completely relies on someone else's data without testing it in their own system at least once to verify by critical listening what is being stated as a sonic fact, is practicing audio religion, not science. And if you think such bench 'testing' will ever replace the human ear for the finest determinations, well, you are simply out to lunch, sorry to say. Do you listen with your 'scope'? (Maybe you do.) It's what you hear, not what you measure, that really counts in the final analysis.
But at least we agree on something, and common ground is always good. Let's stay in that territory.
Let's not convolute our common language. To rely on others' experiences and data is NOT religion - that's called a 2nd opinion via third party experiences, which is exactly what we both offered the OP. Science is based on good method, experimentation, and both qualitative and quantitative data. As far as the OP, we've both done our jobs by supplying/inundating him with information to think about.
I think the marketing element is VERY important. It drives us to buy things with varying degrees of blind faith in the product. Look at Volkswagen! They continued to market their cars regardless of the well-known emissions issues, and people trustfully bought their cars believing in the quality. Just as well if they didn't market cryo tubes, we wouldn't be asking for them. Plus, the standing interest of making money has little to nothing to do with listening impressions. I'm not saying these resellers are shysters. Again, between batching, matching, and burn-in, that's a lot of work. And, if the cryo data says it's up in the air and up to the listener, well, why would the reseller even argue with that? Just cryo the tubes. Just like people might still buy or keep a Volkswagen...
If you can hear it, you can measure it at the output with some frequency analysis at different operating points: a rise or fall on a microvolt or microamp, increased or decreased distortion levels, background noise, a small change in transfer characteristics, small changes in the effective plate resistance, etc. I really believe that if cryoing tubes really had merit, I think manufacturers would have adopted the process to reduce reject rates, increase yields, and reap more profits from their already limited production runs. The second someone puts out solid data proving the margins, I'd gladly agree that cryotreating tubes works, and you will likely see manufacturers join the game. Even if it was a 1-5% change at the scope'n'calc, it's definitely something a trained ear can pick up. It's like using a 5751 in a 12AX7 circuit; it increases the tube's bandwidth potential, which is both measurable and audible. Until then, the subject is confused at best and we must wait evermore for the final word/numbers on the effects of cryo.
And not to poopoo the parade anymore than I have, there some who would say the airiness, spaciousness, and warmth you mentioned is effectively euphonic distortion associated to microphonics. Consider again the gentleman who reviewed all those 12AX7 tubes, from the regular stock, to the cherry-picked gold pin stuff, to a few sets of cryo'ed tubes. He says cryo treatement rendered the internals of his tubes more brittle and subject to microphonics. So, are the listening impressions you've shared a fact of controlled microphonics? And not to get deeper into this rabbit hole, but if you could evaluate opinions, why is yours more valid than his? And to further my point, the results will vary on the setup and listening levels. It's very possible someone with a very isolated system would hear no difference, yet someone without the isolation and dampening will hear a considerable difference. And from what I have read, that's the kind of variability that exists. One guy's setup is like this, another's is like that. One guy has the amp set aside in a separate room, another has his on a concrete slab footed with tennis balls. Some use a cage. Some use dampeners. Some use fancy cables. I guess my point is: do we really know what our ears are hearing, and how do I know what your ears are hearing?
Ultimately, It's like you say, YMMV. But, given the variability of our ears, gear, setups, room acoustics, whatever, the only thing that will really settle the issue is to isolate the issue and dig for hard data. Personally, my listening impressions can vary with the humidity in the air, whether I blew my nose earlier, and if I cleaned my ears in the last 48 hours. I've adjusted small settings back and forth on my setup a thousand times and found an improvement, only to flip back because I found I was just habituated to a certain tonal signature.
So, sorry, I cannot "get over it" just by washing my ideas in some anecdotes - THAT would be unscientific.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
...but you wasted all that time writing something I didn't bother reading. Too bad.
Believe what you want, no problem.
But when you go around telling people they didn't hear what they reported, well, it's time to say, adios, amoeba!
(Must burn your butt to know I got the last word, and you didn't Hee-hee!)
"But when you go around telling people they didn't hear what they reported, well, it's time to say, adios, amoeba!"I can sympathise with your feeling, but how would you counter the observation that there clearly exist people who sincerely believe that they hear phenomena that are imagined? A look at the "Tweakers' Forum" will show that there are people who have convinced themselves that they hear differences that are not real. How is an outside observer, who quite properly approaches the subject with a healthy scepticism, to weed out the chaff from the wheat?
The answer clearly cannot be that one should never reject claims unless one has tried them oneself. If I make an obviously ridiculous claim, such as that the soundstage is improved by burying a teapot at the bottom of the garden, you would not, I hope, feel that you would have to test it yourself before rejecting the assertion? It is reasonable to apply some measure of common sense, and make use of the accumulated understanding of basic physical principles, in order to decide sometimes that a claimed effect does not need to be tested in order to be rejected without testing.
Some of the claims on the "tweakers' forum" are almost as manifestly absurd as my manufactured example above. And yet, those who make those claims are, I presume, sincere in their belief that they really do hear a difference. Thus, the mere fact that somebody asserts that they hear something and they "trust their ears" cannot, of itself, be sufficient as an argument to expect others to accept it. And, indeed, since it is well established that the brain can easily be fooled into perceiving sensations that are not real, even the person reporting the effect should be willing to admit to themselves the possibility that they are imagining what they think they hear. Double-blind testing seems to be about the only way to eliminate these possibilities.
Chris
Edits: 10/17/15
Wait, what? What was that? I couldn't hear you over the money I saved not turning my tubes into icicles.
And I'll bet you did read it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
May your tubes be lively, warm, and long-lasting. Holy be thy heater.
If it measures the same, it sounds the same. Uh-huh. Yeah, sure.
You have NO personal experience. You admit that.
I do have personal experience. And I trust my ears, period. I was VERY skeptical, and would only believe it IF it was shown in my system, to my satisfaction. It was.
Believe what you want, as you obviously do. No problem.
I don't 'believe'. I actually did the experiment, like a REAL scientist. I know what I heard.
You didn't. Instead, you take the word of others, and let that be your reality.
'Nuff said.
Winston,
I'm not for or against Cryo treating. Just wondering about it, as soon I will purchase tubes. Hard to argue your listening experience. I do wish you had tired it on power tubes though. I must say though, seems you have a working relationship with Ron at Cryoset, you would be slightly bias towards Cryo then. That is no to say Cryo treatment doesn't work. And I know nay sayers will always be there for anything. I recall when I was a young man, I tried to convince my father to run that new " synthetic motor oil " He told me it was garbage and not safe for an engine. Huh? Seems real good now dad!
On the other hand- Ran across a web site attempting to convince me to cryo my brake rotors. Really? Might be getting a bit carried away with it.
I do know there is snake oil in the high end audio world. Where ever there are people willing to spend money, there are crooked and dishonest people taking advantage of them. Do know if the story " My cat tore up my Virtual Dynamics 3 " ever made it to audio asylum, but it was big news on other forums. Tell me VD wasn't cranking out the snake oil.
Who knows? I might give the cryo a try, and then find this thread and let you know.....
...any such tubes, please let us know your opinion. Direct observation is best.
No, I am not 'biased' towards cryo treatment. I heard a positive difference, so I bought more cryo'ed tubes. But I also buy LOTS of NOS tubes that are not cryoed, as well. I just love tubes.
The original post simply asked if anyone had actually DONE the side-by-side comparison, and lots of posts later, it was clear that everyone was just speculating, with no real first hand experience. I had exactly the experience that was sought, so I posted what I found.
But I admit I hesitated, knowing that certain folks would be silly and criticize my judgements, when they had absolutely NO experience in the area directly, which is not only foolish, it is obnoxious. Egos around here are hard to deal with sometimes. Speaking from experiential ignorance to contradict someone with first hand experience is absurd, yet people do it.
It really pisses me off when some bone-head in government decides for us what is needed to 'protect us' from ourselves. Same here in audio circles. If I want to spend my hard-earned money on something you don't think is worth it, who the hell are you tell me not to, or criticize me for it? The money police? STFU, and let freedom ring, puh-leez!
But Tube Acolyte's post is VERY correct when he says that meticulous testing/matching is really critical. Absolutely! More than cryo? Well, if I had to choose between a cryo'ed pair of poorly tested and matched tubes and a non-cryo'ed pair of superbly tested and matched tubes, I would opt for the testing/close matching, as that is really critical for optimal playback, IMHO. It's importance for superb tube performance really cannot be overstated, actually. At least IMHO. Again, YMMV.
I grilled Ron at Cryoset about his tube testing/matching. I was impressed. Apparently, if what he says is true, he meticulously matches them up after a long break-in, so they settle down and stabilize nicely before he tests and then matches. I would not buy tubes from anyone who does not do that, cryo'ed or not.
I also note Jim McShane is supposedly fanatical about tube matching, too.
So the good guys selling tubes really know that this is where much of the game is played out, in testing, close matching and balancing. Which is why you want to keep patronizing these guys, as we need meticulous sellers taking good care of us, whether they cryo or not.
Cheers,
WS
You know it's hard to find what people write in an orderly manner here at AA. People are able to respond to one particular post. Don't really care for Audiogon as they turned into money making power freaks. ( At least those in control ) but at least the posts are much more orderly. Here they jump all over the place. Maybe should start another thread for that I guess.
Anyway, Winston, perhaps bias is not the exact word I was looking for. But just thought you would be a bit inclined to lean towards " Ron @ Cryoset " Since you have been in touch with him obviously more than once. For lack of a better phrase " you have come to the defense of cryo treatment. " While others ( or at least on poster is on the other side of the fence shooting arrows. Just the way I'm reading the post folks. Don't get to excited. Just don't want anyone getting lost in their position, and forgetting I just wanted some simple feedback. " Lets not get caught up in our words " Leave that to the politicians :)
Anyway I appreciate all the information from everyone. It has been an education!
BTW, I purchased a VD power cable when they first came out. Let me friend listen to it. He came back a week later with a DIY power cable at 1/3 the cost. Blew the VD cable away. Ouch!
Okay, so I realize you didn't ask me, but I think I may have the answer to your basic question, which is: Why don't all tube sellers offer cryo-treatment?The answer is devilishly simple. Just like tube users do not all agree on the efficacy of cryo-treatment, neither do tube dealers.
Edits: 10/13/15
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: