I recently purchased a new BHK250 which will soon accompany a new DSJ. As you may surmise, I’m new to both P.S. Audio and the forum. I ask you to bear with me if this question has already been discussed.
I’ve been interested in trying the Tungsram PCC88 given it’s recommendation earlier in this topic forum. While shopping for the tubes, I’ve found that at least two different online tube vendors have taken opposing viewpoints on the value of cryogenic tube treatment. I’ve also come across conflicting analyses on the subject. With respect for the science relating to this process, I feel the need for empirical viewpoints. Has anyone had experience with cryogenically treated tubes, both in terms of performance and longetivity? Thanks in advance.
Well the number one tube seller in the USA, offers cryogenic treatment for some of the rarest tubes available. I doubt he would offer them if he didn’t believe there were benefits.
Now my local dealer claims that one of his customer had some power tubes done and they took a long time to break in.
I am on my second set of 6H30s from Cryoset, and I found them to sound good right out of the box, get a bit bright around 50 hours, and by 100 hours they were stable. The 6H30 is a tube known for long life. I put 7000 hours, on the first pair from Cryoset, and I think they could have gone a few 1000 more hours. So for small signal tubes, I will buy cryoed tubes, every time I need tubes.
Cryogenic treatment of steel increases the percentage of martensite in carbon steel. I have brake rotors for my Corvette Z06 cryogenically treated as this greatly increases their longevity on a race track.
Cryogenically treated steel, copper and other metals in tubes may similarly physically change in a fashion which improves conductivity, decreases resistance, etc.
I’ve been using cryo’d tubes for a number of years. In comparison with very similar tubes non-cryo’d I find that they gain longevity and may sound a bit better. So far I have only used new production tubes that have been treated.