[JakeJ]

Bueno, thanks!

[SteveFord]

I'm getting some more time on it and just gave the Sundazed 180gm versions of The Airplane's Crown of Creation and Volunteers a spin and as predicted, the sound smoothed out and the soundstage deepend a bit - great stuff.  Spencer Dryden's drumming was a bit more pronounced and the background vocals were a bit better than I've ever heard before.
The devil really is in the details, isn't it?
One thing that I was really curious about was the possible extension of tube life but Ron's response was:

I haven't seems any hard evidence that cryoing extends tube life. There are some structural change at the molecular level and it is possible that the cathode coating may be more diverse and could extend tube life.  I do see a slight emission change after the cryo treatment and can only conclude some change has occured on the cathode.
I consider  cryo treatment more of a stress relieving process.

And to paraphrase (this is me again), I'm told that there's no evidence that using a tube weakens or reverses the process.  An interesting field of endeavor, for sure.
To conclude, I have to throw in the late Doug Kenney's beer joke: many are chilled but few are frozen.

[BPoletti]

It is critically important to use only organic vacuum for cryogenic treatment.  Synthetic vacuum degrades significantly when subjected to cryogenic treatment and eventually becomes infested with bad electrons. 

Cryophlagma crystal formation on the photomycondrels can lead to early degradation of the DC shift points across the entire DC spectrum.  This happens too often with synthetic vacuum to be ignored.  Therefore, only organic vacuum should be used in tubes and regularly cleaned with an anhydrous field rapulator. 

It's really the only solution.

As this is so obvious to even the most basic scientific thinking, no further explanation will be made.   

(      )

[TerryG]

I don't frequent this realm of the web that often, but I am a bit shocked at misconceptions of cryotreated tubes after all this time.

Ten years ago I belonged to the Decware Audio forum, I still do but rarely post there any longer.   But about 30 of us at the time decided to do a group deal on the SV83 tube for cryotreatment.  This saved us all a bunch of money as this way the cryo business could charge us a rate based on how much room we took up in the freezer rather than per tube, and per person.  Well everyone bar none agreed that this made a difference, and even two years after the fact we were comparing our cryotreated tubes that were still under use with untreated but burned in tubes.  And the cryotreated tubes still sounded different.  In what way different is immaterial the point is they did, so cryo treating them does something.  And using them which does heat them up does NOT undo anything about the treatment, if anything it further anneals them and makes whatever happened to them more permanent. 

Ok so we have at least 30 people I know of as witnesses that this happened and was real.  Whether all of them felt is was worth it or a positive benefit is a personal choice.  Therefore anyone that make a conjecture otherwise really just doesn't know what they are talking about. 

Do I cryotreat all my tubes?  No. 

Do I feel all tubes benefit in the same way or in a positive way from cryotreatment? Not necessarily. 

Would I try it with any tube?  Most definitely.  Why?  Because their are those tubes that it makes a night and day difference with.

Ok now for the tangable proof, and I suppose I could take a few weeks out of my life and do another experiment, but to go through all that for the benefit of the naysayers would then feel I must of done something wrong, or that it is all made up because they were not here personally to oversee the experiment is just not worth it.  Bascially if you make a test circuit, test a tube with a distortion meter, the distortion will be reduced after you get the tube back and have it burned in for about 10hrs.  That is it, no huge mysterious untangable thing performed by vacuum tube magicians.  There is more you can see with a spectrum analyzer, but is it really all that important.  Isn't it simple enough to know that it works and is only $7.50 per tube to have it done.  It has gotten a lot cheaper over the years, and I love the fact that is has, and that now there are people that sell them new for a decent price.

It is pretty simple that less distortion in an amplifier will help it sound better.  I consider it pointless my describing how any particular tube sounds when cryotreated.  Oh and a THD meter measures a lot of things, it is TOTAL harmonic distortion, so it is not uncommon to see a figure expressed THD+N%, as the meter is measuring noise as well as distortion, as well as other forms of distoriton.  It is a very general measurement that just helps you see a general benefit to something you do in the circuit.

Oh and I do NOT sell cryotreated tubes, so don't bother asking me.  You'll have to go to anyone that sells them to get you tubes.  I do make tube amps and sell them, so I have experience with tubes on that level.

I am so shocked after all these years the ignorance on this topic!! ORGANIC TREATMENT, give me a break!!

Terry

P.S. Sorry if this post offends anyone, this is the best I could do without flaming anyone.  I tried hard!

[BPoletti]

If you hear a difference, then a difference must exist.  But with all the other variables, I question whether it's a cryo process or something else. 

I still strongly recommend the use of organic vacuum.  There is a difference because I can hear it.    

[BPoletti]

I am so shocked after all these years the ignorance on this topic!!

Terry

P.S. Sorry if this post offends anyone, this is the best I could do without flaming anyone.  I tried hard!

So what are the MEASURED results.  If you don't want to be offensive, produce measurable and repeatable proof.     

[SteveFord]

If I may butt in for second, why not try the experiment for yourself?  I was pointed to a good vendor and it won't cost you very much and you can draw your own conclusions which is how it should be.
I can say that today was the first day I've actually been 100% satisfied with the 3.7 system downstairs.  There was no this could be better or maybe that could be better - it was just this sounds great which is a good thing.

Please, everybody knows that synthetic vaccum only works with solid state components but that deserves it's own thread.

[BPoletti]

Please, everybody knows that synthetic vaccum only works with solid state components but that deserves it's own thread.

Only as a last resort.  I've performed serious research on vacuum.  I can tell you honestly that the effort is draining. 

If synthetic vacuum is to be used, it must first be liquified.  A nanode tribestic applicator is preferable to the more common monobestic applicator since the voltages are stabilized and the vacuum can be injected without much risk of contamination. 

With the discovery of anti-vacuum, it becomes even more important to use organic vacuum wherever possible.  If anti-vacuum is mixed with synthetic vacuum, quark valences are generated that can produce bad electrons if used in analog audio systems. 

[BPoletti]

If I may butt in for second, why not try the experiment for yourself?  I was pointed to a good vendor and it won't cost you very much and you can draw your own conclusions which is how it should be.
I can say that today was the first day I've actually been 100% satisfied with the 3.7 system downstairs.  There was no this could be better or maybe that could be better - it was just this sounds great which is a good thing.

I've heard difference is system that have been cryo treated vs systems that have not.  However, the question is whether the differences were a result of the cryo treatment or some other factor.   With the high variability in tube performance, even across the same brand / model / batch, it would be exceedingly hard to do an effective a/b comparison. 

The only way to determine the difference is to very carefully measure the performance of a dozen tubes, cryo treat and measure the same tubes again.  The measurements fo the tubes after the treatment should be different if in fact the cryo treatment does anything. 

[JakeJ]

@ BPoletti - I have a hunch you are being both pragmatic and humorous at the same time in your posts.  Please understand that not all participants will fully perceive your juxtaposition on this subject.  You are most certainly entitled to your opinion but your position may not be understood as well as you might think.  For example you have used the smiley icon    in two of your posts but I perceived the application to mean you were jesting and I think the  or  icons would have conveyed the gist of your humor better.  Please correct me if I am wrong.  Also I think TerryG did not perceive your posts in the same manner I did and thus contention has raised its ugly head here.  Spoofs and humor are definitely welcome in my circle, just be aware that some people may not "get it".

@ TerryG - I can understand your position that certain technologies have existed and been in use for a decade or more but you must understand that not all "audiophiles" are completely versed in all aspects of this hobby.  I myself have been involved in the serious endeavour of music reproduction in the home environment for the better part of three decades.  Do I think I am an expert?  Hardly!  At times I am indeed an expert in one or another aspect of the hobby but in other areas or facets I am but a newbie.  I have not dabbled in cryogenics of tubes, capacitors, resistors or even complete electronic assemblies (as some members have) and know nothing of the benefits or pitfalls of such treatments.  I, like many, see this as a "tweak" and, good lord, the snake oil surrounding tweaks is the most questionable part of this hobby!  So, to address your first post in this thread, you are shocked at a person's ignorance?  It isn't ignorance, it is at best a lack of education and at worst a closed mind that inspires a post (or posts) like Mr. Poletti's.

@SteveFord - I thank you for your level-headedness (if that's a word) throughout this entire thread.  You first questioned, then researched, next conducted your own experiment, and finally concluded that you perceived not only a difference but, in fact, a benefit from the application of cryogenic treatment to one small part in a complex circuit that effected (affected - SP?) your entire system and its ability to do its job.  Really, my hats off to you, sir.  I would like to buy you a beer, someday, sometime, if it ever becomes possible.

I did take a look at the Cryoset website and found no offer or information about having one's own tubes cryo'd, so based on your quotes on pricing and the fact that my current system has 22 tubes in use between the preamp and power amps it would cost me ~$165.00 plus shipping (I can only hope that would not be at the $5.00 per tube rate for all 22 tubes,  I jest  )  At this point (or price) I could buy a new set of already cryo'd tubes for the preamp or one quad of cryo'd output tubes for one of the two monoblock amps in my system, which to me, seems the more efficient and financially prudent thing to do.  Frankly if I do decide to pursue this course of tubular action I would consult the folks at Cryoset about what would be the better approach, to retube the preamp or the power amps, to get the most "bang for my buck" cryogenically speaking.

Apologies for the long-winded post.  I felt compelled to respond to what I perceived as a contentious scent to the true intention of Mr. Ford's original post and the goal of this thread.

[Ericus Rex]

I, too, thank Steve for his experiment.  But Jake, I don't think the test is concluded at all.  What I'm waiting for is the second A/B where Steve puts the non-cryo'd tubes back in the system after 100+ hours.  I suspect the difference between the cryo'd and non-cryo'd tubes will not be as great (or even present at all) as when the cryo'd tubes were first put into the system.  This hunch stems purely from an elementary understanding of metalurgy and the effects of heat on the structures of metal.  If Steve's results are the same after the 2nd A/B test then I will most certainly be a believer in the process.  But right now, I have what I consider a healthy skepticism on the subject.  And I totally agree with you, Jake, that a bit of sketicism, especially in the field of tweaks, is a very good thing.

[jtwrace]

This hunch stems purely from an elementary understanding of metalurgy and the effects of heat on the structures of metal. 

Well, the heat that the tube generates will not have an effect on the metal post cryo process. 

[SteveFord]

I wasn't planning on posting at all for another month or so when I put the old Secret Weapon tube back in, see how that sounds by comparison and then get the cryo'd tube retested to see if there's been any sort of unusual performance degredation.

My biggest concern was/is tube failure which one member reported so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that it was the result of the cryo operator's error.

I knew that BPoletti was kidding and he does a really good job of it, too.  I jumped in so the thread wouldn't get binned.  It seemed like some sort of crackpot idea to me when I first heard of it.
I'd be interested in seeing measurments, too, but it looks like TerryG is a very infrequent contributor.  Maybe he'll come back?
For variables, those orange lettered RCAs sound within a whisker of one another so an A/B comparison will be slow but it can be done.  I got lucky in the deHavilland UltraVerve3's sound can be changed by that one tube so this is easy to do.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other how this goes, it's not like I'm a secret stockholder or anything.  I just got curious about the whole thing and decided to see if there was anything to it and here I am. 
The older I get the more I realize how little I really know in comparison to what there is to know.

As much as it pains me to do so, I'm afraid I must turn on the stereo and continue this experiment.  The torture never stops.

[JakeJ]

@ Ericus Rex - Agreed, I also await a further post from Steve giving us details of an A/B comparo.  I didn't think I the test was over, I just felt there was some contention stirring and perhaps was a bit "trigger happy" in my post to quell that.  Steve did catch the mild ribbing that BPoletti had added to the thread.  Maybe TerryG caught it as well but I was unsure.

I also agree with BPoletti that some hard evidence in the form of measurements would be an excellent confirmation to validate the process.  Actually I would think that should be prominently featured on Cryoset's website as well as any other companies providing this type of service.  Just my .02 on that.

I don't see this thread being binned and when Steve can stand more torture we'll all be reading his report. 

I think we're all on the same page on the subject, basically, and there is certainly nothing wrong with skepticism when it comes to parting with one's hard-earned money regardless of whether it's a tweak, a new piece of gear, or the media we are using all this stuff to enjoy.

[SteveFord]

I'm still being tortured and the cryo'd RCA is still going strong which is a good thing.
This experiment has been pretty gruelling but no sacrifice is too great for the membership of Audio Circle so I shall carry on. 

[BPoletti]

I'm still being tortured and the cryo'd RCA is still going strong which is a good thing.
This experiment has been pretty gruelling but no sacrifice is too great for the membership of Audio Circle so I shall carry on.

A couple of posts ago, you indicated that those RCAs sounded very close so they should be a good indicator of whether there is any real difference or not.  Is there anything to report or is it a bit early in the process?  Would be beneficial to be able to post measurements if any are available. 

[SteveFord]

I'm still trying to put as many hours as possible on the cryo'd tube so I won't do an A/B for another few weeks and then I'll get the tube retested.
The sound changed a bit during the first week and has sounded consistent since.
The tube tester that I used is nothing really fancy - it's an Eico which just gives a scale of 0-100 but this one hit 96.   

[BPoletti]

The tube tester that I used is nothing really fancy - it's an Eico which just gives a scale of 0-100 but this one hit 96.

And the other one?  Do you have measurements before the cryo treatment?

[SteveFord]

Same tester, it hit 100 which is why it's the Secret Weapon.

[BPoletti]

Same tester, it hit 100 which is why it's the Secret Weapon.

So it has come down to 96 since cryo treatment?