KT-120s Tung Sol vs Psvane---anybody compare?

Don_S · « **on:** 15 Feb 2014, 12:20 am »

I would be interested in anyone's experience comparing these two tubes. Any other company manufacture KT-120s?

rpf · « **Reply #1 on:** 15 Feb 2014, 03:32 am »

I haven't compared the Psvane KT88s with the KT120s but I have compared the latter to the Genalex KT88s in my Rogue Cronus Magnum. The 120s are, of course, more powerful and this translates to greater dynamic range, dimensionality and bass. They also sound warmer, as if they have the mid-range of EL34s with better bass and, perhaps, better highs than the KT88s. All in all a superb power tube. IMS, of course.

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #2 on:** 15 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm »

I think Don's asking about the new Pavane KT120, not the KT88:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Matched-Pair-psvane-Hifi-series-KT120-Vacuum-Tubes-free-shipping-/291000558494?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item43c0fc239e

Canada Fuller now has a KT120:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RARE-DELUXE-Matched-Quad-4x-Full-Music-NEW-NIB-KT120-CNE-tubes-Carbon-Plates-/201030345772?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item2ece57a42c

I've only heard the Tung Sol so far, unfortunately.

Given the immediate success of the KT120 I'd imagine everyone is now/will be developing one.

rpf · « **Reply #3 on:** 15 Feb 2014, 01:55 pm »

Thanks, Eric, my mistake. I didn't know anyone else had come out with a KT120.

At $265/quad, the price is not outrageous. I'll try them when Grant Fidelity has them back in stock, if the price doesn't go up to what the above Ebay seller has them listed for. At $370/quad, I'll pass. Let alone for what the Fullers are priced at.

Don_S · « **Reply #4 on:** 15 Feb 2014, 06:32 pm »

Eric,

Thanks for the link on the Full Music KT-120s. Bit out of my price range but it is nice to see the KT-120s are attracting the attention of other manufacturers. That was one of the questions I asked.

Pete Schumacher · « **Reply #5 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 04:16 pm »

I just added a matched quad of Tung-sol KT-120 to my KT-88 Integrated. I could have left the bias alone too. After checking, 1 tube in each channel was just below spec and one tube was just above (53mA and 63mA). I've adjusted each pair to match at just below 60mA.

I'm pretty sure I hear what others have stated. Its just plain superior top to bottom than either the EL-34 or KT-88. For the price differential, it just makes sense to go with these over KT-88.

Now I'm curious about the KT-150.

Don_S · « **Reply #6 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 04:48 pm »

Quote from: Pete Schumacher on 16 Feb 2014, 04:16 pm

EDIT
Now I'm curious about the KT-150.

Me too.

paul79 · « **Reply #7 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 05:10 pm »

I have the KT120's (Tung Sol) in my mono amps. They are great tubes and they give you more juice and better slam, but I can not really say they sound better than KT88's. This will boil down to the amps themselves. With my amps, I notice very little difference in output tubes. The signal tubes are another story, however. These make a substantial difference.

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #8 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 07:29 pm »

I might recommend holding off purchasing for a while. I'll predict several KT120 offerings to be available within a year. If you wait there will be reviews and published comparisons. The 'best of the bunch' will be known then...but it's likely to not be cheaper than the current Tung Sol ($44 each at TC tubes no extra charge for matching)...quite a bargain currently, IMO.

Berto · « **Reply #9 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 07:40 pm »

I went from KT120s which I loved to KT150 for the TRL ST 100. Definitely recommended as it's like a 120 on roids. Fuller , more powerful, yet does delicate like a SET if you got a good source

Don_S · « **Reply #10 on:** 16 Feb 2014, 07:55 pm »

That's what I like to hear.

Quote from: Berto on 16 Feb 2014, 07:40 pm

I went from KT120s which I loved to KT150 for the TRL ST 100. Definitely recommended as it's like a 120 on roids. Fuller , more powerful, yet does delicate like a SET if you got a good source

Steve · « **Reply #11 on:** 14 Mar 2014, 11:51 pm »

Quote from: Ericus Rex on 15 Feb 2014, 12:18 pm

I've only heard the Tung Sol so far, unfortunately.

Given the immediate success of the KT120 I'd imagine everyone is now/will be developing one.

Ericus, have you, or anyone else, been able to compare the Tung Sol 120, Tung Sol150 to the Tungsol 6550?

If so, what are the sonic differences in terms of tonal balance between the 6550 and 120/150s?
Is one thinner sounding than another etc?

Thanks.

rpf · « **Reply #12 on:** 15 Mar 2014, 01:30 am »

Quote from: Steve on 14 Mar 2014, 11:51 pm

Ericus, have you, or anyone else, been able to compare the Tung Sol 120, Tung Sol150 to the Tungsol 6550?

If so, what are the sonic differences in terms of tonal balance between the 6550 and 120/150s?
Is one thinner sounding than another etc?

Thanks.

Not really, but I have compared the Tung Sol KT120s to NOS GE 6550s in my Rogue Cronus Magnum. The GEs had a gloriously three dimensional and textured mid-range but were lacking in extension relative to the KT120s. And obviously the latter - with almost twice the power - had much more slam and better dynamics.

Fwiw, I compared the new issue Tung Sol 6550 to SED 6550 several years ago and preferred the latter (in a CJ MV60SE or pair of Quicksilver Mono 100s, can't remember which). As I remember the SEDs were richer. And later, the NOS GE 6550s were, of course, much better in all ways than the SEDs.

Ericus Rex · « **Reply #13 on:** 15 Mar 2014, 11:59 am »

Quote from: Steve on 14 Mar 2014, 11:51 pm

Ericus, have you, or anyone else, been able to compare the Tung Sol 120, Tung Sol150 to the Tungsol 6550?

If so, what are the sonic differences in terms of tonal balance between the 6550 and 120/150s?
Is one thinner sounding than another etc?

Thanks.

Not yet. Only heard the TS KT120 so far.

My past impressions of the 6550 (Svetlana in this case) were that it's best to let the guitarists have them. But that was a long time ago. Maybe they're better now?

Octadyn · « **Reply #14 on:** 18 Mar 2014, 12:55 am »

I have the original TS 6550 both solid grey and black plates. I also have an Octave V110 designed for the KT120. And SED 6550's. My opinion is the TS 6550 black plate is the most musical tube. Mid range to die for (like EL34's on steroids) but do lack the very highs and have very good lows. Grey plates very similar but with a more pronounced mid range (but not as good as the black plates). SED is super linear with a slight dryness - better high end extension. TS KT120's are very similar the the SED 6550 but do have more power all around (because I can't run the other tubes in the high 110W setting - have to kick it back to the 70W - Yes the Octave has a switch on the back to enable the higher or lower plate and grid voltages). No dryness with the KT120 but to me it doesn't sound natural - and worse in 70W setting. I would love to try the TS KT150 some day.

That said and since this a thread concerning the TS and the Psvane KT120's I thought this to be a bit odd. It's an ad on A'gon for a Psvane amp that uses KT120's and look who makes the tubes pictured

https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/XkKO9b5cR32TcXZ4nBdf+TC-5%20with%20Tungsol%20tubes.jpg/convert?w=840&h=630&fit=max

marvda1 · « **Reply #15 on:** 18 Mar 2014, 02:21 am »

grant fidelity was having quality issues with the psvane kt120 and pulled them from their amps and replaced with tung sol kt120.
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=581074

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=568579

Captainhemo · « **Reply #16 on:** 18 Mar 2014, 02:43 am »

Quote from: marvda1 on 18 Mar 2014, 02:21 am

grant fidelity was having quality issues with the psvane kt120 and pulled them from their amps and replaced with tung sol kt120.
http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=581074

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=568579

Been following that as well, kind of a mess . Hope the TS KT120's are an impovement for those who purchased the new Psvane TC5

-jay

mendel · « **Reply #17 on:** 11 Mar 2016, 03:33 pm »

Wanted to revive this thread. I recently received a quad of the Psvane KT120s for my Rogue Stereo 90. I am still breaking them in, but after only a few hours, I think they are far superior to the Tung Sol KT120s in my amp. They are the best power tubes I have used.
They have a very holographic midrange, the music just floats between the speakers. Bass is very powerful, but without any bloat in the upper bass registers. Highs have a nice, clean shimmer to them. In comparison the Tung Sol KT120 sound "dry" in the midrange and more electronic.
For reference, I have used Tung Sol KT120, Psvane KT88 greyglass, Penta Labs KT88SC, Gold Lion KT88, EH KT88, EI KT90 type2, GEC KT66, Treasure 6CA7, EH 6CA7, Mullard EL34 xf2, 6P3S-E, GE 6L6GC and others. The Psvane KT120 black glass beats them all in my amp in my system (driving Acoustat Spectra22).
Your mileage may vary.

mendel · « **Reply #18 on:** 11 Mar 2016, 03:52 pm »

Sorry, the tubes I was referring to in my last posts are Treasure KT120z from Rachel at Grant Fidelity. The have the black glass.

Steve · « **Reply #19 on:** 13 Mar 2016, 04:53 am »

The reviews of the Tung Sol 6550s were interesting. I compared them to Winged C 6550s, and EH, SED (new Sensor), JJ, and Winged C KT-88s and found the TS 6550 to be the thinnest sounding of all the tubes I tested. The amplifier circuitry is different, tends to cancel all common mode differences, which could explain the different results I suppose.

I am wondering if the "SED" is from New Sensor or the old originals? I also agree.

As far as Winged C's 6550s (late 90s, early 2000s) being for the guitar guys, I had to do a double take, respectfully, they are certainly world class natural, accuracy in the circuits designed I used around them.

Thanks Gents for your time and efforts.
Steve