Funny side note,

Received my order today from Wathen. Somehow I was sent EL84 instead of EL34. Called and got voicemail. Guess I'll give the 5AR4 a try. Oh well stuff happens I'm sure it will all work out.

Joseph

When placing my new tube order with Brent Jessee Recording Services I inquired about THEIR opinion of the Cryogenic treatment of tubes and its efficacy in improving tube performance and the science behind it.
Brent Jesse recording services has been in business for more than 25 years offering high quality testing, selection and grading of  tubes with excellent customer service and reputation.

As I mentioned earlier this subject is a merry go round that has through time come around once again to be discussed but this time with even less scientific evidence of its efficacy. Without quoting anybodies SUBJECTIVE but authoritative opinions promoting their use and encouraging people to purchase these tubes here on these pages I will repeat the reasoning and facts Brent Jessee offered to conclude using the same scientific theory and logic that it is their OBJECTIVE opinion that Cryogenic treatment has no effect on metal inside a vacuumThis was the same provable scientific fact that was used to repudiate Cryo treatment of electronic vacuum tubes as was used in the last century.

Unless anyone has scientific evidence that proves that Cryo treatment can permeate a glass vacuum effectually changing the metallurgic chemistry inside a vacuum I will remain unconvinced.

I have included their complete letter verbatim without any editing

{Hi Joseph,

We have all of the tubes you need.  The 6L6 are on our 6L6 web page.  The metal jacket RCA and GE are $65.00 per matched pair.

The standard 6SJ7 tubes of various brands are $5.00 each.  RCA are $10.00 each.  For the best, we recommend the instrument grade 5693 RCA “red” series in the red metal jacket.  They are far superior.  They are $90.00 each.

The RCA made 5U4G tubes are $99.00 each.

Quote:


Shipping insured is $17.00 in the USA, $31 to Canada, and $40 to other countries.

State of Illinois residents only,  add 10% state tax based on the cost of the merchandise.

The easiest way to pay is online with Paypal.  You can pay direct here:

xxxxxxxxxxxxx   

Just enter the total for tubes and appropriate shipping in the box in the center of the screen (if not appearing there already) and follow the on screen directions.   Select the “send” button.  It is recommended to enter your shipping address in the message section to confirm the shipping address.  Also list which tubes you want.                          

If the link does not work in your email, just copy it and paste into your web browser.  Please allow a few extra days for us to get the order out since we are operating with a reduced staff due to the pandemic, and most domestic and international shipping is experiencing delays.

Thank you!

Brent Jessee}

But don't just take their word for it as final here is a link to a scientific independent study

"CRYOGENIC TREATMENT OF TUBES: AN ENGINEER’S PERSPECTIVE by PHIL TAYLOR"

https://www.effectrode.com/knowledge-base/cryogenic-treatment-of-tubes-an-engine...

Well then please by all means let's have a link. I provided you with the verbatim opinion of Brent Jessee and a second article by an engineer.

If it is your opinion that "CRYOGENIC TREATMENT OF TUBES: AN ENGINEER’S PERSPECTIVE by PHIL TAYLOR" is not a scientific article, that you believe it is an opinion piece and not a scientific study by your standards then let's see what scientific studies you are referring to. Common sense that you would have one at you finger tips ready to support Your opinion that you so far have never published because you don't own any and have stayed out of because you have no experience with cryogenically treated tubes.

Which is it? Do you have no experience or you believe I quote
that "there is actually a published body of literature on the cryogenic treatment of non ferrous metals a vacuum"

Very well attack my scholarship, you just convinced me.
Cryogenics is the way to go

Quote:


Just so you know: a full-on rant against cryogenic treatment of tubes does not constitute "a study" in most people's estimation, nor would they read the numerous logical fallacies and non sequiturs derived from speculation and conjecture littered all through the article as being in any way "scientific."

That is not an opinion, it's an observation. So then, to the article -

- "I did, however, come across research papers describing how cryogenic treatment hardens aluminium though; perhaps it’s possible that the process will also harden copper, nickel and the other metals utilised in the construction of tubes too?"  - Followed later by - "But it should be kept in mind that cryogenic treatment is ordinarily employed to complete the conversion of austenite to martensite in hardened steel as described earlier; the metal electrodes, and other parts inside a tube aren’t quenched to make them super hard to begin with, which means there is no conversion to complete. So, if cryo-treatment doesn’t affect the hardness or stiffness of the electrodes then what benefits does it impart on a vacuum tube?" -  [Emphases added].

The author can't even keep up with what he wrote just a few sentences before. Aluminum is not subjected to the same initial hardening process as steel, and he himself says that aluminum nevertheless is hardened by cryogenic treatment. But then he goes on to claim that other metals in tubes are not hardened by cryogenic treatment because they do not go through the same initial hardening process that steel does.

For cryogenic hardening of aluminum, he alludes to research papers. His claim that no such effect can be obtained for other metals in a tube does not reference any study, rather, his errant conclusion is clearly based on pure speculation, derived from misdirected conjecture.

Here is a statement from the author, which he apparently considers a "slam dunk" of some sort:

- "Tube manufacturers never designed or intended tubes to be stored at cryogenic temperatures." -

Here is another statement, from me:

"Tube manufacturers never made any proscription against cryogenic treatment of tubes."

Both statements are equally true. And - both statements are equally meaningless.

But the author's statement presents another issue that anyone paying attention can easily spot; he now refers to cryogenic storage, rather than cryogenic treatment or cryogenic process. And does the same later on:

- "It’s worth noting that electronics component manufacturers publish datasheets that specify temperature ranges for storing and operating their devices—none recommend storing their components at temperatures colder than a midwinter’s night on Mars." -

Either the author actually doesn't know that operation, storage, and process treatment are three different things, - with distinctly different considerations for each -, or - he is being intentionally deceptive by strategically conflating one with another. Take your pick.

- "cryo-treatment is liable to ruin a tube permanently and irreversibly unless precautions are taken to protect it from the stresses of the procedure. The temperature must be cycled (decreased and increased) slowly for the reasons outlined above and the humidity has to be maintained at near zero to prevent condensation forming and oxidising exposed metal parts. Additionally, the utmost care needs be taken when handling a tube whilst it is at cryogenic temperatures as the physical properties of the materials from which the tube is constructed alter." -

Which in fact describes generally all tube cryogenic treatments in practice, - and he knows this -. But that doesn't stop him from referencing how destructive a sudden dip to cryogenic temperature immediately destroys things, - so cryo is bad for tubes:

- "There’s a dramatic scene in the “Terminator 2″ movie where a single bullet fired by Arnold Schwarzenegger shatters the frozen T-1000 terminator into a thousand pieces!"  -  followed by a you tube link showing a room temperature item being dropped into liquid nitrogen.

At this point it becomes clear that the author's negativity-bias cup runneth over, and now he is just foaming at the mouth.

And on and on it goes.

So again, not everybody's idea of "scientific."

Yes attack the scholarship of the article. When are you gonna post the links saying that there is a technical cyrorogenic affect inside a vacuum. Every body conveniently ignores Brandt Jesse's statement,  skipping  past the freely given statement from Brandt Jessee. You can refute the article all you want but you still haven't put any evidence across that there can be a cry effect inside of a vacuum tube. Debate that article all you want until you turn blue.

Many of us have been purchasing power tubes, rectifier tubes, and preamp tubes from Brent for years.  I probably have 20 plus NOS Brent Jesse tubes on the storage shelf in my listening room; all have seen significant use in my gear. I currently have a great sounding Telefunken 6922 (bought from Brent) in the input position of my CSP3.  Brent has never steered me in the wrong direction; I have always been completely satisfied with every tube purchased from Brent.

On the other hand, I have been using Cryotone 6SN7-WC tubes in the driver positions and the input position on my Cary 300 SEI MK6 for a couple of months.  They’re great sounding tubes with a high degree of resolution, detail, and excellent musicality.  Is their ability to produce beautiful, real sounding music due to the cryogenic treatment?  I don’t know, and I really don’t care.  All I know is that the three Cryotone tubes I’ve been using for more than 300 hours simply sound right…..as right as any preamp tube I’ve used across almost four decades of tube preamp use.

I’m always curious about other’s experiences with various tube purchases.  BicycleJoe, can you describe your personal listening experiences with NOS tubes compared to highly specialized Cryotone treated tubes?  Not that I’m opposed to science, but the last time I purchased a piece of audio gear based on science was back in the late 70’s….maybe early 80’s.  Back then I couldn’t wait to get my annual Audio Magazine Equipment Directory in order to pick out my next piece of gear……based strictly on science and measurements of course. I still have several copies of the annual Audio Equipment Directory, and I smile when I see them.  

Last I checked, my cryo'ed hammer sounded better than the other non cryo'ed hammers I have, I think.

We're in the weeds here guys.
I said it a different way before, but the only opinions that affect your situation are your own. Don't give license for another "audio" opinion to affect your digestive processes when it comes to what audio you consume.
Make your own way.

Let the fun continue, though. I'm up for it. I'll put my cryo'ed hammer up against all others and your tubes!

Quote:



DD,

Have JJ 6SN7's, JJ EL34's and on order JJ 5AR4's. If these stock tubes are same source as Cyrotone  should be able to do a little A/B testing.


Joseph

At home testing is still subjective testing it is not a scientific opinion, if it were only that simple
MannytheSeaCow didn't like the link I provided in addition to Brandt Jessee's  opinion
Edited:


Another point I have been waiting to put forward since we know Cryotone uses rebranded JJ tubes for their special process (Is it patented?) tailored to each tubes specific needs why hasn't JJ gotten into the CRYO Business? or any of the other Russian or Chinese manufacturers gone this route?

I've presented the book Cryogenic Process Engineering
By Klaus D. Timmerhaus, Thomas M. Flynn

Where they cover CRYOGENIC process's in detail without covering the phenomena of how to affect Metal parts of diverse metallurgic structures inside a VACUUM, must of slipped their minds.

So as the article is still the majorities favorite reason why Cryogenics are valid scientifically because the article isn't up to their standards instead we get obfuscation and resistance to the opinion of the Industry.

Manny the sea cow said he could use google scholar.
I wish he would or someone would, anyone. Mr. Thomas perhaps?
Because using google scholar I can find none except the above referenced book
Cryogenic Process Engineering
By Klaus D. Timmerhaus, Thomas M. Flynn

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=RfzlBwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=cryoge...
#v=onepage&q&f=false

Manny the sea cow said Quote:

Quote:


Well said, Ells. I really don’t care about the science either. Bottom line is, do these tubes sound better than others YOU'VE tried in YOUR amp, and will they outlast others that YOU’VE tried. Only time will tell the latter.

But, for a start, if these cryoed tubes sound great in your amp, you are on your way.

Just my 2 cents…

Geno

Quote:


Yes Lets Throw Science And Logic Right Out The Window And Drink The Chateau Margaux Koolaid

If it's good enough for Ted Williams its good enough for me.

Tooppy
Quote:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ted-williams-frozen-in-two-pieces/

Now I Didn't invoke Steve's name out of respect because he would never offer such weak illogical reasons why there is no need for scientific explanation. Nor do I believe he would intentionally obfuscate my main points as many here have clumsily done with rhetoric, hyperbole and subjective opinions.

I truly believe Steve has demonstrated to the full extent of his abilities why he believes the 18 dB difference between two signals demonstrate the superiority of the Cryo tubes when a left and right channel is compared as a A/B test.

While not exactly the scientific method it is enough to convince many people because they want to believe it (as amply demonstrated above) no matter what others say.

I still think the jury's out on that exercise as proof positive. One would need to go further in their examinations to be conclusive. There may be other causes for those discrepancies. Steve's best effort experiment didn't strictly follow the scientific method examining all the questions surrounding the efficacies of cryogenically treating the bits and pieces of a electronic tube inside a vacuum envelope. He did demonstrate to the best of his ability with the equipment at hand that when compared on the scope there is an 18db gap between the two measurements.This is the only objective result that supports his overall belief which when examined still remains a subjective opinion and does not prove that Cryogenically treated Vacuum tubes are affected in anyway. Comparing them to the high value Chinese tubes or the stock tubes that Decware ships as OME doesn't seem to me the same as comparing them to vintage hand selected NOS tubes. And more information would be needed about the hand selected tubes process on both sides of the fence. Does the hand selection process include testing and is measurement a part of that testing, furthermore  are the 2 sections of each triode tested for balance, are they matched on both sides of the amp?
Is channel A tube matched to it's equivalent Channel B tube ?
These are all things that need to be included in the scientific method.

Now Flat Earther's aside I for one would repeat my solicitation of a study reflecting the opinion of Industry Leaders; Mechanical & Electrical Engineers and Scientists. Either way one that confirms or denies that diverse metallurgic components inside a vacuum envelope are improved upon by Cryogenic treatment. To be clear not anecdotes that are strictly hearsay but real data, real facts, real science.

By this time it's been 48 hours since I was told there is a body of work on the subject on Google scholar, I have not been able yet to find even one and MannyTheSeaCow has not produced one explaining

Quote:


Just one is necessary Manny, cut and paste if you must, now don't be confused. We are not talking about Cryogenically treating metal inside a vacuum environment such as is used to weld Titanium. We are exploring the efficacy of Cryogenic Treatment on diverse metal parts inside a vacuum sealed glass envelope from the outside.

Until someone cares to produce one of these reports from the vast bodies of work available addressing these exact concerns in support of either position I will leave this topic alone and consider the argument tabled until such time.

"Thank you for choosing JJ ELECTRONIC!

We do not offer cryogenically treated vacuum tubes.

Best regards,
Julia Jurcova
sales manager
--
JJ ELECTRONIC, s.r.o.
A. Hlinku 3
ZIP: 022 01
Cadca, Slovak Republic
tel.: +421 41 4304 120
fax.: +421 41 4304 130
info@jj-electronic.com
www.jj-electronic.com"

Edsonic said:
This is too funny -

- " and later performed audio listening tests [of cryo'd tubes] using a Fender ‘Deluxe Reverb’ guitar amp." . . .  "The amp didn’t sound more “holographic” or ” possess more subtle inner resolution”. " -

You've never spent the better part of some terrible nights running around backstage dealing with a prima donna guitar player, have you?


I have considered keeping a cattle prod for those players. If I had one on a wristband watch or pager looking thing (Possible, these days!), I would have. Then USE it and respond, "What was that? Damn! Was that you? Please don't do that AGAIN!"
... and then buzz them again. "I asked you not to do that! Please stop. Fix your cords, man!"
Then walk away, cautiously, leaving them to wonder what they had done with their guitar rig that shocked them, again.   



A hard like, here, Ed.

But, yeah, hard to find any parallels there with what we seek and the simple questions not yet addressed, let alone something  answered.

I logged on to answer a couple of pm's and I decided to see if anything had changed in the tenor of the forum.  Sad to say it has, it's worse as shown by this thread!  It has prompted me to one final post, this it.  Let me make something clear, this post is not intended as an effort to change anyones mind, here's why:

Quote:
. Manny you are correct!  So this is for those who refuse to let those whose credentials have closed their minds limit the thinking ability of those who remain open minded:

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/quantum-jitter-lets-heat-travel-across-vacuu...

Interesting science do you not THINK!  Heat can travel through empty space by means of radiation and now some thing new that always has been...  Evidently "In quantum mechanics empty space can never be truly empty"..." heat transfer is the result of the Casimir effect" and a rather interesting experiment verified the theory.  Imagine that, THINK about this: Quantum jitter lets heat travel across a vacuum!

Does this prove that cryogenic treatment works through a vacuum?  NO! But it certainly gives question to the assertion that it doesn't!  The more we discover the less we know.  

What we do know is the for every effect there has to be a cause.  In this case the effect is found in Cryotone tubes.  My ears tell me that and I will not deny my senses.  So what is the cause?  I don't know.  I'm not a physicist.  But that doesn't mean there isn't one.  It just means we haven't found it YET!  Evidently there are those with credentials that in time may provide an answer.

Is Science News credible?  Look it up and decide for yourself.

As far as Steve goes... it's through my connection with him and the posts of those who are respectful and open minded in their posts that I have been able to put together a very satisfying system.  Don Wathen's efforts as commented on by Steve went a long way to me being able to achieve that.

Now for the next step on the journey... streaming.  I'm about to take possession of the new Lumin U2 Mini.  

Onto other things and it's been a slice!  Stay safe, everyone.

Two additional Cryotone tubes were added to the mix this evening.

An ECC88 as input tube in my CSP3, along with a 5AR4 rectifier.

I really like the Cryotone 6SN7’s driving the WE300B’s in my power amp, but the immediate difference made by swapping in these two new tubes in the CSP3 was stunning.  There was a huge increase in those things that make music sound like live music versus a recording.  I listened to only one recording—the SHM CD version of Handel’s Water Music as played by Pinnock and The English Concert—and it sounded way better than I’ve ever heard it.

The recording space seemed significantly larger.  The positioning and size of the various string sections became very clear…..like never before.  Bass notes were presented with more far more clarity than I’ve ever experienced.  Though I have listened to this recording hundreds and hundreds of times, I heard all sorts of intricate details in the recording that I never knew were there; and that was a thrilling experience.  And the realistic timbre of the instruments was incredible.

I am floored by what I heard tonight.  Even if the Cryotones don’t have the long life spans that they are said to have, I’m 100% sold on their sound.  They are fantastic music makers in my system, in my music room, heard by my ears.  I won’t be going back to all of my trusty NOS favorites of the past, nor to my former favorite current production rectifier, the Sophia 274B Aqua.  

I agree, DD. I usually hesitate to post and am now sorry that I ever entered this debate. I come here to learn not to fight.
Thanks for sharing your experience, Doug. I look forward to my tubes arriving and doing some critical listening too.
I guess that is what has drawn me back to tubes after all these years- it always amazes me how much we can change our systems just by swapping tubes. And it doesn’t always have to be better or worse, sometimes just different flavors for different recordings or cartridges. But sometimes those great ones grab us by the ears!

Mannytheseacow,

Wish you did post about the baffles you built. Interested on your thoughts, something to add to your thread: Lii F-15 Open Baffles.


Thanks,

Joseph

Quote:


I agree with this totally. Except my threshold of hearing is below 12k. Oh! The issues of the aged!

So the JJ El34s are similar to the El34-WC in appearance. However they sound much different sonically. Mostly how clean they sound especially in the mid-range. Smooth, detailed and they moved the needle towards what I was hoping for.

"Soft and powerful"  is how I described the music my young ears heard almost fifty years ago. Now with my older ears and better gear It's 1973 and I'm home again. Can't believe I did it. The search is finally over.

Am I happy with the Cryotone tubes? Yes! Will I purchase more? Yes

Joseph

Johnny Copy wrote Quote:


Right now I am trying to learn what the advantage is to not having a crossover and using a full range speaker with a separate sub woofer and plate amp.

I read about the Hawthorne and from what I understood there is a crossover with that system although I am not positive all the different models employ a crossover.

I like the idea of open baffle and I like both the multi driver OB as well as the single FFR  Lii drivers I have heard especially the silver 10 that Steve recorded with the tascam digital recorder. It's hard for me to appreciate audiophile recordings that are made just to showcase the tricks that a sound field presents rather than a composition from a musician concerned with his own composition, melody, emotions and message.

So what I'm trying to figure out is with this relatively new or reinvented open baffle sound reinforcement is "what is the advantage of not having crossovers"

The JBL 250 Ti was top of the line when I bought the 240Ti and it had a 4 way crossover.

I decided to have my three-way JBL restored with an upgraded crossover, inspecting the coils , checking voltages inside my square box. I will be looking for a more efficient speaker but right now I think it's more prudent to repair my vintage equipment to modern specs and then consider these new types of single driver full frequency range open baffle speakers. My experience if anything had the JBL's pumping more bass compared to other three-way systems from the golden age of the west coast speaker sound.
They would never need a sub woofer.

But I've never driven them with only 6 W

If anyone can explain the new direction to me and its advantages to me I would appreciate it

BicycleJoe,

Here are a couple pics of the hawthorne reference trios

You can see the big Mundorf caps in the xover and it’s only servicing the tweeter and midrange.

The 4 bass drivers are fed directly from 2 rythmik amps with its own eq.

The tweeter is concentric, screwing directly into the centre of the midrange.  One of the mods to that tweeter was removing its back cover, making it basically open baffle as well.

Even though the xover parts are premium it is still a little more complex load for an amp to manage than 1 full range driver in the Lii audio reference.

Has anyone tried the Wathen 6SN7 in place of their ECC88?

I had been using an RCA smoked glass 6SN7 in my Zen, but replaced it with a Wathen ECC88, and I like the Cryoed tube better. So that has made me want to try one of their 6SN7's too.

Thanks,

Geno

This is the ebay sellers upgraded xcrossover compared to the stock JBL xcrossover along with the JBL 240Ti's, each one is built by hand there is a three month backlog on getting these upgraded crossovers built by this gentleman on eBay loudspeaker-chef. That's why my rig is temporarily down.

Geno,

Thanks for your note, I'm doing great. Looks like things have "toned down" a bit here on the forum, which is a good thing IMHO.

I checked in a few times during my forum sabbatical and was happy to learn about the Sarah 300b amplifier Steve has been building. Intrigued me enough to put in a pre-order to get in the que.

Hope to see it sometime in 2024😎.

HK