In retrospect it is easy to laugh at cryo-treated tubes. Of course I felt much the same way about spending a hundred bucks for an "audiophile fuse" until I did it, and really heard the difference. So I'm not sure where the that leaves me...

A huxter hoax was not my experience Brad. Early trials, in the few direct comparisons I did with the same power tube, one cryo'd and one not (both with close measurements), I definitely heard some more resolution and speed from cryo treatment. Whether it was better or not was a choice, but I preferred it.

Later, aside from new tubes, I actually had Ron at Cryoset cryo some VRs and input tubes I had used and was very familiar with, and it was not earth shattering, but notable, and to me worth the cost. I really liked the VRs! What I heard: the sound change is generally more clear, fast and solid ....less smeared.

Also as I recall, Ron was one of the least expensive power tube sellers (and by the way, Cryoset went out of business because Ron died, and he was cryoset). Similarly inexpensive, a big NOS tube seller in Spain seems to cryo most or all of his tubes and always has good buys...I am thinking Radio Antigua might be his company, but not positive.

I did not look at the videos you posted Brad, but I have observed that some engineers are fairly conventional and rule oriented people to start with, and at times these folks can be so prone to believing what they are taught, that often can't hear what they don't believe in. Also, if you do not have a well set up system and room that is highly resolving, you might miss a lot of what many of us hear.

On the other hand, many folks who cryo are also engineers or tech designers. I gather you have a fair bit of respect for Dave Elledge at Pi Audio Brad. Last I knew, he cryo'd lots of parts and wires.

But I have to go on what I heard, initially dipping my toe in, and then learning I liked cryo treatment. That said, I like well made tubes and wires, receptacles, etc without also. I just heard a positive difference from cryo treatment the times I was listening for the differences, so came to trust the sound in general.

My experience anyway.

Will

Brad, you have brought up a very interesting subject.

It is our very human nature to believe what we want to believe.
Some folks will go to their grave believing what they want to believe.
There are people who capitalize on this and make loots of money selling
absolute crap.  Think "Jeff Katz".

If this subject lasts, I will view it with amusement!

The real test of the cryo treatment is as Will has done: cryo treat a tube one has been using and is familiar with. I haven't done that.

I bought mainly from cryoset.com Russian input tubes that were cryo'd. And I did have very similar tubes bought elsewhere with no treatment. I will say in comparison there was what I perceive as a mellowed top end, just a hair difference. And I think there may be a longevity improvement. I used cryo'd tubes a long time, longer than I would the non-cryo'd similar, without any noise or hum issues or any lessening of characteristics.

The interconnects that I use in my main system are cryo'd. I haven't used the same non-cryo'd--they don't sell them that way--so I can't tell if there's a difference. They are damned kickass interconnects though. I also have three pair of cryo'd interconnects that cryoset.com sold not in use right now--those too are very very good interconnects; I can't know what the cryo treatment contributes.

Back in my Aerospace days I think I remember cryo treatment of electronics as a way of weeding out "infant mortality."

Double blind listening tests would take out half the audio industry!  

I've heard that cryoing is for tube life. I did get a cryo'd quad of GL KT66 from upscale that outlasted my Quad of KT66 non-cryo. I DO NOT think cryo vs non-cryo had anything to do with tube life. 3 Months vs 9 Months 10-16+ hours a day.

Anyone know where to send tubes to get cryo'd? I have a few pairs of Westinghouse OA3's. I would be interested in sending a pair out along with a pair of OC2 and 6922's. If the cost was reasonable.

Cryo does something, even if there is no perceivable benefit.

The major concern I have with blind or double blind testing is that a small "taste" doesn't always let you know how you will like living with something in your system. Yes, if there are differences they could be found. Is that difference something you want for hours at a time?

Remember the Pepsi Challenge and New Coke? short version, Pepsi did a blind taste test and people preferred Pepsi over Coke. Coke then did research, they found if they sweetened Coke, it would beat Pepsi in blind tastings. New Coke was introduced. It flopped! Why? For one sip people like the sweeter taste. Drinking a whole can wasn't as enjoyable as drinking the less sweet Coke, They scrapped New Coke. That is why it's now Coke Classic.

I've was once told by a speaker manufacture, if you want your speakers to wow the crowd at shows. Boost the treble, people will love it at shows, when they sit down to listen for hours they will get fatigued and not enjoy it for long listening sessions.

Sorry for such a long off topic on blind testing.

I was told by someone that cryo treatment was developed here in Peoria by Caterpillar Tractor Company.  Used to strengthen steel parts for tractors.  I have no doubt that it works well for that.  I have no doubt that if you do it to enough tubes, that eventually the majority of treated tubes might last longer.  

The first time I listened to a pair of Cryo'd output tubes in a Zen amp, I thought they sucked because the apparent high frequency extension was gone.  After I measured I found it was not gone, just free of some of the grain that puts an edge on higher frequencies.  After more listening I realized they probably did actually have more nuanced detail as a result.

It makes sense to me that cryo-treated wire should also make a difference if any of this crap about pure crystal copper and pulling techniques have such an effect to make to wire cost the price of jewelry.  I believe it probably does.  Reason, Cryo has a physical effect that can be seen under magnification.

I'm not saying all Cryo treated audio gear sounds better.  There are over 100 ways to cryo something wrong.  It takes years to develop the perfect temperature over time ramps for a given product, so it's not shocking that there would be a lot of BS cryo audio products hit the scene.

Know what doesn't have a measurable physical effect under magnification? Quantum tunneling. A marketing term used to describe hooking a Tesla coil to a piece of cable and watching it somehow make the wire become worth over 10 times what it actually cost. But then as far as the cable industry goes, it likely has as much chance of altering the sound of the wire as any of the other 400,000 reasons why brand X wire sounds better than brand Y.  

At Decware we're working on a way to incorporate anti-gravity, quantum tunneling and cryo-treatment into a single process by freezing the amplifier, then firing it from a cannon into the air like a giant piece of dry ice and at the exact point where it stops ascending we zap it with a Tesla Coil and then let it fall back to earth and catch it in a pure cotton net that has been treated with a special anti-static coating.

I hope this was helpful.

Steve

I tried an anti-gravity platform for my TT but I couldn't get the cart to track properly.    

I too cryo'd but it was not expensive.  A place here in the Chi-town area. $5 an item.  I can't remember what all I did.  Some outlets for sure.  A couple of tubes.

The delay from the last listening session to putting the cyo'd stuff back in was a week so I don't know if I could hear anything any different, but I felt pretty cutting edge and audiophile.

The first time I ever heard of Cryo treatment was when I bought a fancy German geologist pick.

They had imagery that showed what happens during their processes. It wasn't a one time thing though. It was a series of improvements that had shown up as a result of the "cryo tempering" process applied to a damn hammer. It was similar to what racers do with high stress engine parts, but far more complicated.

The changes in copper are widely documented, but so are a few changes noted in harder metals, even iron.
Does it make it better? Subject to what?
If it's a damn hammer and if it holds an edge better because of Cryo tempering, then the evidence for a change after cryo treatment can be measured. Right? We all like measurements.

Does it sound better? I think, maybe so, but I might be biased, becasuse the damn thing holds an edge better than any I have owned. I've had several; I usually lose them.

Just a fun aside ...  

Cryo is real guys, but whether it makes your sound equipment better is up to each of us to decide on our own.

I've only bought four cryo'ed 6N15N and four outputs, so my experience is limited. They are different, but better?
Can't say, yet.

I hate to always be the thread ender.
I sum up my experience, which is usually quite limited in this whole sitting down and listening realm, and it seems to end a popular thread more often than not.

I want to show just how much more I need to know before any understanding can set in.

You have my thoughts. I am a hard sell, but I still believe my damn cryo'ed hammer sounds better than the non-cryo'ed ones I've had.

Please, continue with your perspectives, guys!!

Just that I want the conversation to continue and not end, just because I posted a bit of comedic nonsense.


Oh, my first exposure to cryo treatment which I related is real.
I got the hammer.

I want to know more about tube tech.

Please, continue.

Well need some back up EL34 tubes so why not. If they are matched and passed their standards. Maybe some 5AR4's to boot.


Same Old DD,

Replaced the GE 5U4 with the 5c3s Black Plate. It's been a great move. Have many more rectifiers to test out. Think I'll leave these in for a while.


Joseph

Thanks, Joseph,
I'll have to try those. Seem very affordable. Where did you find yours?
(I found some in the UK, right away)
Always looking for a good tube seller.

Same Old DD,

Ukraine 12 months ago, Added them to an order luckily. Sad time for that part of the world.

Joseph

Same Old DD,

Have no concern, my post is written with a healthy dose of good cheer.

The glaring contradiction was too much to pass up, and shared in a playful chiding fashion.  It’s very far from being a “calling out”. It’s more a poke in the ribs with a slap on the back, and a haha.

I was rather surprised that no one picked up on the great irony of Brad’s post.  Of course it’s possible he is referring to some other era of cryo treated tubes.  But even that begs the question that if Brad has such strong opinions about the hustle nature of cryo treatment, then how does he reconcile that with his enthusiasm for Cryotone tubes?  Not saying it can’t be reconciled, just that it has not yet in his posts.

Is the Cryotone process dramatically different from all other cryo treatments?  And is that manufacturing difference provable by someone independent of Cryotone?  Or is this a classic case of the audiophile placebo effect?  Has Steve’s enthusiasm for Cryotone bewitched Brad?  Or is there something fundamentally different with Cryotone?

I have no opinion one way or the other. I’m just happy to have worked Clayton Bigsby into a post….

No score D.S. your free to do whatever. Everyone has their own thing.


Joseph

DS,
Your shit is funnier than mine and I really like that!
But if your references can reach Brad with that pat on the back that you suggested, without Brad stabbing your brain through the neck, then Godspeed to all of us.

We have a chance!

You've said this more gently than I did, yeah!
Thanks, Joseph.

I am almost always amazed at how easy it is for us humans to modify reality to suit our desires and preferences, while ending with hard lined opinions that are formed at least in part of limited and edited information. Relative to audio, I guess this amazement is because I am always trying to read causes and effects in an unbiased and holistic way toward better musical experiences. And every sonic change I make changes everything else I hear, making absolutes seem foreign in my experience...

The whole idea for me (and I think most others) is to gradually learn more of how to hear the balances of balances, as well as the sonic influences of parts, wires, power qualities, etc, and thus grow more able to efficiently create a more complete sound. And personally, even seeking to understand my most "trusted" audio friends, I might end up close to them, but no matter how close, there is always a twist as to how it applies in my room and system, and usually these twists are informative for both of us toward better understanding.

This is one reason I rarely read articles like Brad posted at the beginning of this thread, the flavor of his post making it appear that the "facts" from these links might be biased against cryo. And when I consider that everything is in part personal listening skills, and in part system/room dependent, why would I want to fill my head with more "authoritative" views that are likely to be way outside my experience.... I knew from personal tests that cryo treatment can clean and smooth things, so why waste energy on yet another blast of ideology that has nothing to do with my experiences from my own listening tests?

Which leads to what I do listen to....

Talk, posts and articles of folks I have come to believe I can gain real pointers from are actually fun for me. They stimulate creative drive. And though many times, I am not necessarily in full agreement, by investigating how I interpret a "trusted source," I almost always learn. On the other hand, those who set out to disprove what others with better systems and perception hear, sometimes based in "science," often appear not to be seeking insight and truth, but seeking more to discredit and to be "right." Whereas, folks seeking to learn new things, almost always reveal a more open mind, a more responsive and flexible mind, minds that cultivate positive change rather than trying to kill it.

So, toward an objective for making the music more real and entrancing, rationalizing ideologies or the opinions of others is often not at all useful to me. And unfortunately, I suspect a lot of "information" on the web is parroting others more than based in personal experience.

Whereas, for me, a whole lot of the attraction is the fun of discovering what I hear, and adjusting my systems accordingly. Then, as things get better and better... seemingly perpetually, with no end in sight.... I also get a little better at hearing and facilitating it all getting better... With more complete balances and nuances, the musical experience is more complete, balanced, and complex... just like the music. With this bottom line, I really can't see any benefit from "psycho-acoustic" "beliefs" that support "acting like I am right" when something isn't right... So it is hard for me to practically imagine this theory... I just don't get the point....

When I am experimenting, often I find breakthrough openings complete enough that they can contribute to new ways of hearing it all. Many modifications and adjustments might be heading in the right direction overall, but by uncovering more than the initial hopes would have implied, beautiful combinations of revelations can easily show me new ways of hearing and perceiving what makes up the whole sonic experience.

Top to bottom resolution increases are primary for me... As it all opens smoothly, with better speed, and less smearing, less spectral imbalances causing masks, and much more harmonic complexity making it all richer and realer... I can get further into the music. And as new musical information is revealed and integrated, I also hear more of what makes natural musical complexity... opening new listening skill "horizons."

After years of this, someone saying they can't hear this or that does not tend to influence what I listen for or hear. Equally, I like pointers to new ways of perception and revelation, but it means little to me unless the pointer is personalized and realized in my own experience, and in my system. And this is likely not so different than naysayers... except that if they don't hear something, they tend to deny what I do hear as delusional "snake oil" or whatever. Where I tend to feel sorry for those who's system/rooms or body/minds can't uncover a lot of what can be conveyed in more complete system/rooms.

So in seeking the real causes and effects as observed in as unbiased a fashion as possible, I am confident that I do not have it all right at any given moment, but I am also confident that my baselines for perceptions and realizations are always improving... And luckily, I am confident enough in musical perception and experiences not to be held back by some absolutist bullshit that says what I hear is not real.

The "proof" can of course be from "blind testing," but does "blind testing" necessarily solve any of these "controversies?" If a system or a body can't reveal and perceive all that is possible, and a blind test "proves" this.... is that a real test of whatever was being tested? And as bad, to me, most absolutist's "proofs" are designed to disprove what others hear, and not to discover new information. And I always wonder.... how can "absolute" fit in a living thing like a great audio system? As far as I can tell, my sound has never been the same... it is always evolving... never static, creating one absolute I can agree with... everything is in a state of transformations, and hopefully good ones!

When I was in the thick of sometimes 5-10 modifications in a day, I did enjoy a version of "blind testing" with my wife. She has really good listening discernment, and it was almost always the case that she liked changes I liked, though she had no idea what I had done, or when, or why specifically. For years I was so careful with my modifications, trying to keep a stable reference with my room and gear setup over time, and trying not to shift the balances Steve designed in except with great care that it did not mess up the whole of the balances. So I was/am very careful to avoid getting "off." Supporting this, another critical reference for me was/is maintaining or improving balances from within the broader balances so that my system sounds really good across most recordings. Throughout, my wife's comments, solicited and unsolicited, have been a corroborating reference to help keep me on track... a sort of comfort.


Looking at tubes and cryo, in a fully resolving system and room, obviously everything matters, especially if that complete sound we seek is in fact extra resolving and complex. Not masking, but embracing very fine detail and space musically, I find more fine detail in clear space (right down to rich harmonics and decays) can be way more musical than less. But in a tradition of fears of "detail" being harsh, etc, seeking and finding the fine stuff musically is probably one the the most difficult tuning tasks for me.

I resent how so many makers over decades tried to bridge transparency with "forgiveness," often defaulting to "musical warming/masking" that kills/smears critical aspects of subtle beauty that can make music feel real. And now, really in a new age of home music, refined resolution within open space is more of a realistic goal, so we are learning that resolution with excellent space can be "transparent" without being painful...

But still I fear many developers have yet to integrate smooth revelation and really good timing fully as a measure to create a realistic and more complete musical experience. With fuller resolution comes better timing and space, also revealing naturally fast micro-micro to macro speeds across the spectrum, and if spectrally balanced in all ways, while being unrestricted in musical complexity (resolution and space)... it can be crazy good. Yet in my sheltered world, most sources I have heard kill a bunch of this important information right off... and though these sources can appear to sound pretty right in many ways based on traditional development, they can be missing too much subtle beauty due to designer's tendencies to run from hardness by dulling it rather than making it more musically complex.

So we all hear things based on our wildly variable systems and rooms, but also, we all have different hearing abilities and listening skills.... Under these conditions, even if we can't hear this or that in our system, does that make it an absolute, proving that others can't hear the same things we can't???

Maybe a decade or so ago, my buddy who developed the Tranquility DAC had four primary reference systems to do blind testing with, as well as a bunch of pop DACs (mainly under 5K at the time) to try to do better than... And this guy, and the developers he worked closely with, did blind testing for design and parts parameters when creating this DAC. Here were some guys trying to make a NOS $1K DAC sound better than many "hi-res" DACs costing 2-5 times as much... so guessing it is not glamour or pretense they were after, but real sound that is as affordable as possible... My question becomes, why should blind testing in this case matter unless it helps to give us sound we are after. The safeguard here to me is that this was a creative blind testing process, designed to discover what we don't yet know, to discover beauty. Whereas blind testing designed to disprove something could potentially be another matter... more about discrediting than expanding knowledge.

So "blind testing" can be used a lot of ways....to prove "snake oil" being one. And people prone to mistrust of others, and perhaps not very confident in their own discernment abilities, seem more vulnerable to shouts of "snake oil." I also guess some folks attracted to discrediting this or that are often speaking more about what they have read than what they personally discovered. Or it could be a combination, especially true if whatever it was they tested did not have obviously good effects in their systems and rooms. But again... what of all the countless variables that would allow hearing something or not? If a system and room are held back by design, and/or by room issues... there can be a whole lot on the recording that we can't hear! And obviously we are all different in our musical path, some of us more or less discerning. But with luck, improving discernment can help us solve subtle masks, veils, and imbalances... and in turn make our systems more revealing, so potentially hearing more yet.

I can also imagine, that even if a system has quite good balances and resolution, some tubes may be so well designed and made that cryo may not effect them obviously. I wonder if this might be a possibility with the famous metal based Mullard GZ34s Brad so loved. Seems plausible that they are so good that the particular cryo treatment that was done on one of them may not have done much to improve it? Or maybe the samples were a little different vintage (or whatever), and the cryo'd one would have sounded a little worse without cryo because of subtle variations in parts and construction? No telling really, but to me not hearing a difference between the cryo'd and non-cryo'd tube was not a conclusive argument for throwing out cryo as bunk!

The Cryotone cryo systems, by appearances, are developed specially for each tube they work on...  would they be able to do something more for the metal base... we don't know. But Brad's going from a hard core NOS tube guy with some of the more high tone/rare tubes... and having one test that seemed to show cryo did not work for him, isn't it possible that some time later, when he finally tried Cryotone tubes that he changed his mind? And from my experience with JJ tubes being OK, but not brilliant, it seems pretty likely that Cryotone is really onto a good cryo method. But whatever the final reasons, some pretty serious tube heads claim Cryotones are some of the best sounding tubes many on that thread had heard.

I am just suggesting that Brad's turn from looking at cryo as another thing to be pissed off at, and later coming to love Cryotone tubes, may be just plain old learning through research and listening, resulting in more realizations of what he likes.

I am surprised he has not responded to all this speculation, maybe he lost a bunch of thread notifications with his name changes on the forum.

Anyway, it is all a lot of fun to me!

Wow, artfully laid out Will, and applicable to so much than just tubes. I’ve tired to always operate from a perspective that what I know, or think I know could be, or is wrong.

The scientific method is rarely applied correctly, and even if it is, the motives should always be considered.

Thank you for taking the time to contribute more than just a knee jerk reaction.

I think the last three sentences might sum it up.

JOMAN, what did the wathen-cryotone 5ar4 do that the gz34 did not or were there any differences?

Spyder1, I 100% agree with your request and sentiment. Succinct, concise and brevity are writing styles I appreciate, otherwise I lose interest. I still consider audio a casual hobby that brings me peace and comfort. I'm not willing or interested in reading long explanations like I would for other interests: communication development, leadership, and theology. That's me...no judgement on anyone else.

Will, if it's in your writing repertoire, a summary of your longer narrative at the beginning of your post would be most helpful.

Quick update.  I'm only understanding you guys 42% of the time.

Will,

Your posts aren't offensive to me. They're way too long for me to stay interested. Others love your detailed explanations. I was just asking for a brief summary of the tidbits, then go into the explanation... Cliff's Notes so to speak.

I apologize for not communicating that more clearly.

Until next time...

Hey Safebelayer,

When you said you "100% agreed" with Spyder1's snarky comments, that got me thinking you agreed in general with him. Your more personal explanations I got too, but the theme appeared pretty close... Sorry if I got that wrong. It did get a little weird for me when you both had instructions for how you want me to be different than I am in my writing, presumably since you are not interested, or are unwilling to use your time to try to learn from my stories as I tell them. That is just fine with me if you are not up for reading my posts, but that you are advising me how I should think/post I find a little bizarre.

I am also sorry it is difficult to hold attention and interest enough to read my admittedly long running posts. But as you know, it is hard to get into the deeper stuff that can help create a more enjoyable musical experience without meaningful context. Sure we can pass around quick opinions posing as "facts" but do you ever learn much from them??? And like I alluded to earlier, I do this deeper posting in part because I had to struggle so much in the past, and made loads of mistakes in starting to find my own musical path... a big reason for this being that many posts generally did not go much past the surface back then.

If we really want to get good sound, clearly it takes deepening knowledge and experimentation. Otherwise, without a lot of luck, with fastlane cursory involvement, we will still be buying loads of tubes, cables, wires, front ends.... more or less staying full blown players on the perpetual audio merry go round. Since this is not my thing... other than the occasional tube, wire, or parts needed to take experiments deeper, it often takes months, or even years for me to buy something new. I just keep making what I have better instead, and learn a lot from this which you really can't learn in many other ways. So just hoping to help others figure out their own paths with less mistakes, based in real experience and real theory, and hoping to support more enjoyable musical experiences.

I get it though... in this world of texts, facebook, and hyper anxiety, including hyper time anxiety, thoughtful discussion is more and more often shunned. Being a bit of a throwback myself, I do find this conceptually defeating, that a post that might take 15 minutes or so to read is too long to settle down enough to try to learn from.... especially if it might present real potential for enhancing the music! But that is of course me.

I guess (hope) I will always reject cultured anxieties that tend to keep people hyper-reactive and unable to "take the time" to learn and grow more optimally, and in turn, to do more optimal work with less mistakes. Tricky times for sure, but to me that makes it all the more important to try to solve.

And my final apology, these posts take a lot of energy and thought to put together, and though I will keep your thoughts in mind, I am not inclined to go to more work than I already do on my posts in order to provide you with a summary.


Thanks Joman,

And I am sorry to hear we may be losing you, but I get it.... I guess you noticed you are not seeing a lot of Lon and I these days either... as well as a number of other thoughtful posters who are becoming more absent...

I too am sorry to see this forum that once stood above many others in terms of respect and passing realer information, degenerate with the influences of glib/anger/hatred/fear patterns promoted in culture by so many these days. I have been reluctantly coming around lately if I felt like I could contribute something meaningful, but, fewer and farther between for me. I almost quit a number of times so far over the last year or so, but I learned a lot from this forum and I guess I still feel a little more reciprocation is a good idea with hope it may grow healthier again.

But when getting on the forum is a bummer too much of the time, eventually, I can imagine myself growing totally over it. Over time, as you are aware, many of us have tried to "fight" sort of typical forum degeneration with relative respect and care for one another, while nurturing the forum's support of making audio better! But this has become harder and harder to hang with and I am sorry to hear that you too seem close to giving it up. As we all can see, the vibe of a healthy forum is innately fragile with so many people involved, and without respect for the cause of audio and each other, I guess there is likely little real hope for healthy forum survival.

So take care John and please keep up the deeper music study you are always in!

Will

Quote:


No sweat at all. Its very simple:

1. My original stance was based on 2 internet articles and nothing else. I had no personal experience with cryo tubes, other than one GZ32 in those days. I noticed no differences in my CSP3, then again I couldn't make anything close to a valid comparison because I had no other GZ32 rectifiers. So, in effect I was merely stirring things up and being a smartass. Every once in awhile it's fun to have a bit of a jolt here instead of sleepwalking through the day.

2. Indeed, Steve's input on Wathen Cryotone made enough of an impact that I ordered a few [5AR4, 6SN7, 12AU7 long plate, ECC88's]. The CSP3 received the full complement, the ZR2 got the 12AU7 long plate. I previously had a 1958 Mullard GZ34 fat base, 1944 RCA VT-231 gray glass, and a 1969 Amperex 6922. [No, I didn't bother to take the iterative approach, I want to hear full impact or go home]. Within 30 secs. I noticed a whallop of a difference, made me sit straight up. Everything was smoother with more detail, top to bottom. No sharp edges anywhere. Clarity very noticeably increased. All that in itself helped check off my goal.....Now this is with a Chinese Line Magnetic 34ia integrated [preamp bypassed] that's been temporarily sitting in ever since the Taboo Mk 4 simply had to go....I can't wait for the Torii MK 5 to arrive for some more Wathen influences.

Brad

Scott, Nice post.  

I, too, appreciate the valuable posts from Will and have benefitted from his perspective and experience.  Occasionally, I have printed out his entire post, which aids my focus and understanding - though it impacts my ink supply.
 
Your post was said so well, concise and supportive without shading anyone that I wanted to say thanks.

Thank you, Will for helping some of us on the fringe catch a glimpse of the inner glow.

I don't always take the time to read longish posts, but yours, I do.
I am rewarded if I can grasp even a bit of what you express.
Light a candle and bless those who live by Cliff's Notes, because they often miss the best parts.

Honestly, thanks for sharing your thoughts.

***If I wanted to read someone's "Dissertation," I'll do a GOOGLE search!

Thank you Old DD, I am glad these experiential stories and thoughts can be useful!

Safebelayer, I get your idea, but also guess that is how your forum might be. Probably not mine though, especially when you can skim a long post to see if there are things you are interested in, or not read it at all. But I get what you were trying to convey.

And especially for Spyder, it sounds like I am somehow abusing you by writing as clearly and informationally as I can... And I don't get it... Do you feel like my making a more inclusive and complete post is forcing you to take maybe a quarter hour of your time to read it? As it has been said, if you don't want to read a long post, or if you do, isn't that up to you? Couldn't it just be letters on a virtual page if you don't want to devote your time to see if there are some useful ideas for you?

For me it is good to write. In the context of a writing thought process, stuff often comes out of mind that I had not fully explored or integrated. So I learn while writing, while hoping whatever discoveries I find might help others find their own discoveries.

Also for me, a more complete and natural musical experience is "medicinal" and "healing." And pretty much all of us old audio heads who have dug into putting together extra good system/rooms know, it can take decades of effort to find musical beauty that is realer, more fulfilling, and more entrancing across recordings.... So I hope we can help each other to get there easier. The basis of this forum to me.

Sorry, I have no idea what you are disputing about what I said.

safebelayer,

Show some respect. Will is a talented and giving person, imparting wisdom on those that are willing to receive. If you are not interested then don't take part.
Too many immature people joining and staining this forum.

JD

Some people are in a hurry and some are not. And sometimes the same person is in a hurry and other times not. There is no right or wrong here.

It is possible to put together a great system in a short span of time and with limited funds. I can certainly speak to the limited funds part (as I buy most of my components used). I enjoyed my early system immensely. However, as I have learned more and more over the past decade, my system has gotten better and better. Hobbies do take time and that is part of the fun.

We don't have to agree with everything, but decorum and kindness are always welcome.

As a side note, if one is looking for a non-tracking browser and search engine combo, I recommend Brave and Duck Duck Go. Cheers - Scott

Hey Scott,

What did you have before the Denafrips Ares? How do you like it compared to vinyl playback?

Safebelayer,

Seems like our incompatibility in communication abilities and preferences are not just in how we put words together, but perhaps also in what the words mean to us. And especially within the very specific context of this forum.... potentially very high quality audio, where the same word can give a little different impressions than in other contexts. Relative to very high quality audio, words that express exceptionally real, complete and entrancing feeling musical experiences, to me, have a flavor that can fit musical experiences well, and mean a lot. Or they can be over-used in contexts that are more superficial seeming, and have little meaning.

So I guess I am not talking about how "fulfilling" a system can be coming from little or no historical reference to real sound in great music rooms where most every aspect of the music is present... like great performances in great sounding chapels and churches.

I am also not talking about very high end systems that can cost 100k or more and sound pretty bad in a bad room/setup.

That said, I have heard of people putting together very resolving and real systems (based on deeper audiophile standards) pretty quickly, but usually with very well thought out gear (that is often costly), and a room very well designed for bringing out that particular system (also often pretty costly).... And these choices made and implemented by people who have enough experience (decades usually) to pull this off. And even then, to get entrancing, complete, balanced and real sounding music across recordings is a notable rarity in my experience...

Then there are the many more of us who go along as we can, trying to build up an exceptional system and room over time, in part as a means to get more from less cost, and hopefully making it better and more complete as we go. My path for sure. And yes, my first steps into Decware's inner space and smooth detail were revelatory, but my system and room now are way beyond that in lots of important ways, and especially in terms of most things I put on working very musically and feeling complex and complete.

Look at Steve's development threads.... on my... so verbose.... and oh my, if he can keep making stuff that sounds that much better to him, why do that if there is not more to find, more to make the musical experience more fulfilling, more real, more captivating. I find we humans tend to stop trying if we think we "are there." And if we are still trying in higher end audio, it is probably still not complete, not fulfilling, not entrancing enough for us, so we seek more. And of course, in a broad sense, what that means to a person can vary, but in the world that we are in in this forum... hopefully less so.

So in my world of language and audio, and that of my most serious audio buddys, I hold to this line as real:

"And pretty much all of us old audio heads who have dug into putting together extra good system/rooms know, it can take decades of effort to find musical beauty that is realer, more fulfilling, and more entrancing across recordings...."

I have always been able to get some recordings to sound good once I got into pretty nice stuff in the 80s, but to get system/room resolution, space, speed, with all the subtle balances, to be as good or better than music in really good rooms, and entrancing across lots of recording styles... still working on that... but getting there.

WILL,

TLDR.  

If you're going to write to someone specifically, who has expressed that brevity is appreciated, how does it make sense to do otherwise?

TLDR eh? Just ignore his posts then if they are too long to read. Will's posts are one of the reasons I come to this forum.

Though I don't come as often as I used to.  TATS. (Too argumentative/aggressive to stay).

Okay, to bring this around to cryogenic treatments again, I'm using the Cryotone 6SN7 and have managed to "manage" the brighter than neutral (by my standard) sound by changing others in the tube complements and by using the Cryotone 6P15 tubes Steve supplied them. The latter have finally opened up and they are a bit richer than the "stock" which helps to alleviate the 6SN7 tone. And a pair of Westinghouse 0B3 are giving them just the right support as well. I also added an Audio Magic M-1 fuse in my regenerator which all the cool kids over at the PS Audio forum are trying out and have to say that is the best (and most expensive) fuse I've ever used and the nice icing in the system cake here.

So. .. as this all seasons in and settles in I'm getting the benefits of the Cryotone tubes and a tone signature that is almost just right. When I pop in my other favorites I get a bit better tonal balances, but a bit less clarity and dynamics, so there's always trade offs.

Next week or possibly this weekend. . . I'm going to swap out the Tesla regulation tube 0A2 variant I am using for the input tubes with a pair of RCA 0B2. I haven't messed with these input tube regulation tubes for over a year, maybe near two. It's time, and that may be the "ticket." One never knows, do one?

I have been working on my system for going on three decades. . . and it gets incrementally better as Will notes. And . . . I think the Sarah 300B when it arrives moons from now (this week I am going to write a check to pay off my house so that will help it be financially possible in the future) there will be new sonic mountains to climb.

Will, just keep on sharing your insights, they are invaluable to many of us here on the forum. I have benefited immensely from your deep dives and years of experience.

FWIW, I am enjoying a few of the Cryotone tubes in my 25th Anniversary modified CSP3. Should be receiving a pair of OA3 regulator tubes to try out in the Zen Mystery Amp next week.

Enjoy the ride folks and insights of others.

HK

Hey Will,

Though I’ve been posting here for only a couple of years, I’ve been soaking in your thoughts and ideas for many years.  Guys like you have motivated me to continue moving my system forward a little bit here and little bit bit there.  I’m even thinking about popping the hood on my CSP3 and doing some tinkering……..we’ll see.

Anyway, thanks for all of your outstanding posts over the years.  

I was seriously considering petitioning Steve on the possibility of adding a new section on this forum, “The Crying Room”, where feelings reign supreme and are the determinant of outcomes.

Unfortunately not a good idea though.

I find thin skin beyond exceedingly annoying and actually a threat to national security, as it is what it is.

Brad

Quote:


In that direction, an alternative most pertinant to the situation obtaining on the forums in the last year or so would be to have a "Romper Room for young teens with behavioral issues - who are in fact just ill mannered grumpy men."

Those chafing under the tyranny of adult civility and social decorum, those who are so directly 'in touch with their inner 13 yr. old brat,' would have a place to go where they can carp and whine and shoot spitballs and throw chairs to their puerile heart's content, with out suffering the annoyance of having others in the audience telling them to sit down and be quiet, because the rest of them are trying to pay attention and learn something.

Hey Joseph,

Sorry, Ive only tested the 5AR4 in my CSP3. I had liked the Mullard GZ34 fat base for its liquidity particularly in the midrange, so it was reasonable to follow up with the Cryotone 5AR4. I did purchase a pair of Cryotone 5U4G’s, but I have those set aside for the arrival of the Torii.

Thanks for asking, again I’m sorry I can’t answer this one.

to those that choose to "argue" about opinion's - it's an OPINION and everyone is entitled to their own!  If you don't agree - OK, but that doesn't make either party right or wrong - it's an "opinion".

the other point some folks on this forum seem to miss from time-to-time, is that there are no absolutes when it comes to "hearing" (or most things for that matter).  
Hearing is a "perception".  And furthermore, it is an individual perception.  Everyone hears a little bit different and has different bias', priorities, things they consider important, specific things they listen for, etc.  This alone insures that we are not all going to hear the same thing.  You can not tell somebody that they do not hear something, if they think they do.  If they think they hear it - they do.  You cannot tell them they don't - it's a perception.  And there are just as many reasons why double-blind testing is not 100% reliable as there are reasons for justifying it.  It's kind of like an "eye witness".  History, statistics and facts have shown time after time, that eye witnesses are very unreliable.

And as for cryo treatment... it is a real science.  It has been used for years (and still is) to treat gears and other metal components in internal combustion engines, transmissions, axles, etc. as well as countless other components.  The before and after results of cryo treatment can be documented under a microscope.  Vacuum tubes for sure have metal components in them, along with glass and various materials for the base.  I'm sure they are subject to the same "changes" when they are cryogenically treated.  Does it make them sound different?  Only the individual listening can answer that question.

I suspect, that a lot of the mistrust and bad rap given to tube cryo treatment, is due to outright lies about actually having cryo'd the tubes and/or the cryo treatment was not done properly.

You can't just dip a component in a vat of liquid nitrogen for a few seconds, pull it out and say it was "cryogenically treated".  The component being treated has to be brought down in stages in a controlled manner; x amount of time at x temp, then lowered another x amount and held at that temp for a certain period of time until you reach the desired negative temp.  Same thing applies when the component is being brought back up to room temperature - it must be done in a controlled fashion over some period of time.  And the process is different for each component being treated - if it is to be done right and produce the desired alteration to the metal involved.

In the case of vacuum tubes, to be ideal, there is likely a different process for each tube type, i.e. 6922, 12AX7, EL34, KIT66, etc. because each has different amounts of various metals.  Developing the individual process for each tube type and the actual process of cryo treating takes time and time = $$.

I bought a ton of tubes from Ron at Cryoset before he passed on.  I have only had 1 tube, purchased from Cryoset go bad prematurely.  One time  I tried to engage Ron in the discussion about cryo treatment on tube sonics.  Ron was too smart to fall into that trap!  He did tell me one time, that he believed cryo treatment weeded out bad tubes that might have bad or weak joints.  As for what I would hear... well I would have to decide that for myself.  Ron was a smart man!

So take a chill pill dudes and dudettes.  If somebody starts a thread with "everybody who fell for that...... is an idiot".  They're obviously looking for a fight/argument.  It's so easy to be argumentative and combative in virtual space - much tougher to do when eye-to-eye and toe-to-toe.  We should all honor that person by politely ignoring their post and not responding at all - they'll get the message eventually...

Cryo treatment.

It's a process that affects the structure of metal and affects the other non metallic parts. I think we all agree with that, yes? Steve directed us to a study that explains the process. Btw, saying something is a science doesn't make it fact, just that something is being observed and conclusions drawn (generally, as a best guess). Hopefully we can all agree on that too.

What certainly is not fact is whether it improves anything in the vacuum tube arena. This is the science. We are individually experiencing/observing the sound and durability. It's perception. To that end, this thread and others, are useful to this listener to the extent whatever is stated resonates with me. Thank you to each person who has contributed their experience. Unlike our venerable leader, no one claimed expertise, just personal experience. Great stuff.

Maddog, I believe this thread did not start with "whoever fell for the cryo craze is an idiot." It started with just a question.

Has anyone directly compared the cryotone 6922 to an amperex 7308 or equivalent Mullard? What was your experience with sound differences? What type of sound presentation do you want?

Thanks

Awesome! I look forward to reading about your observations. Have you ever tried the nos SED 5u4c? I find it gives clarity and richness.

Thanks