Cryogenic treatment of lamps

I can help with cryogenic treatment of lamps.
As a result of cryogenic treatment, structural-phase transformations occur in the metal. The active resistance of the conductor is reduced to the lowest possible values, and the lamp equipment during audio testing demonstrates a qualitative improvement in the sound of musical works. The noise level of the audio system is noticeably reduced. Moreover, the cheaper the radio tube, the more pronounced this effect.
Comparative audio testing has shown that the sound, with all colors, tones, small details and dynamics, became clear and natural as a result of cryogenic treatment of radio tubes. Low and high tones were opened in a new way, filled with breadth and depth of sound.

 

Please provide some objective evidence of these claims. How does 'active resistance' differ from any other type of resistance. What evidence do you have that any changes in the metallurgy results in different operating conditions, and why should they be beneficial?

Please link to some properly conducted blind listening tests that bear out your claims.

S.

 

It will be easier for me to send you a couple of lamps without processing and a couple of lamps after processing for comparison. For example, I can do this with 6N2P lamps. And can I ask you, as a longtime forum member, to post some comparative results here?

 

I have no valve equipment I can use for tests, and anyway, any equipment I may be able to find will most probably use the 12AX7 (ECC83) as these are far more common, so not pin compatible with the 6N2P.

Furthermore, any possible difference will depend on the circuit it's used in, so that's a further variable.

In an event, there is a well known maxim that 'Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence.' You're making the extraordinary claim, that cryogenic treatment of a valve, without any reference to circuit it is used, in makes a positive difference, so please provide the evidence.

What you think you hear is mere anecdote, not evidence.

S.

 

I will try to provide test results as soon as possible.

 

Friends, who can make a comparative analysis of lamps? I can do cryogenic treatment, but there is no way to take characteristics. There is only subjective evidence that cryogenic treatment significantly improves parameters.

 

In other words, no evidence at all, just anecdote.

I heard it so it's true...

S

 

I found an amplifier with 6S2S in the driver. I will send them to the cryogenic processing plant. Then I will compare the characteristics on the amplifier.

 

Measure the valves themselves and the amplifier before the cryogenic treatment, then again after with the same valves and amplifier. That way, you will know what the cryogenic treatment actually does.

For the valves, measure all the normal parameters and get curves traced, for the amplifier measure frequency response, harmonic distortion at 100Hz, 1kHz and 10kHz frequencies into the recommended load and at maximum rated output level, and measure noise unweighted over a 20kHz and 100kHz bandwidth. This will give you a proper comparison of what valves do before and after the treatment.

Only then are you in a position to know what the benefits of the treatment are.

S.

 

Thank you!

 

Looking forward to seeing the results.

S.

 

It will not be as soon as we would like.

 

Next week I will receive the processed lamps and start measuring.

 

Hope you measured them before they were treated so you can get a fair comparison.

S.

 

Received measurements. Initial data:
1. We used a CE amplifier with a driver for the 6C2C and an output stage for the G807.
2. There is a 1/10 divider at the input of the counter.
3. Load 6 ohms.
4. Output power 1 W.
5. Lamps are replaced without additional cascade tuning.
First picture - without cryogenic treatment
The second image is cryogenic processing.
Conclusion - there is only a minor performance improvement.

 

Hi Yuriy,
Firstly, thanks for going to the effort of getting the valves cryoed and doing the tests. I'm assuming they are the same valves

I'm not a bit surprised at the results as there's no mechanism I know of that would result in an improvement.

The tiny differences seen above look to me just the run-to-run differences in measurement. If you did it again, you'll get very slightly different results again.

I'm also equally sceptical of valve-rolling, as it seems to be called. I've never ever found any correlation between the brand of valve, Mullard, AEG, or whatever, and the sound. An ECC83 is an ECC83 to the limits of its specification. A Mullard EL84 will be the same as another EL84 provided both are within specification.

What may vary is that a specific circuit is badly designed and will be sensitive to the actual specific valve parameters, like gm or Ra, but that's a problem for the circuit, not the brand of valve.

I accept that some (usually cheap, no-name) valves may have poor noise performance, but then that mostly falls outside the specification.

Those people who claim to have tried a Mullard, say, and it was so much better than a whatever, and therefore conclude that Mullard are better than whatevers, are plain wrong. One particular Mullard may be better in that circuit than one particular whatever, but unless one has 100 Mullards and 100 whatevers from different batches, and one is consistently better (then define 'better') than the other, it's wrong to make any generalisation.

Just as a limited example, I swapped some original Mullard and RCA valves in an amplifier I used to have here (Leak TL10) for some no-name equivalents with absolutely zero difference in performance in terms of distortion, power output, noise or frequency response. I hesitate to make any conclusion from a sample of one, but if there was a general truth about different valves sounding different, then I would have expected some difference in measured performance, however small.

S.

 

I decided to test this process in order to personally verify the inefficiency of the method. On the Internet, there are directly opposite opinions on this matter - for and against.

 

The big problem with internet posts is that there's no quality control. Anyone can post anything, and I'll bet that none of the internet posts praising cryogenic treatment of valves post any measurements supporting their contention. Only flowery words and 'everybody knows' and meaningless drivel like 'musicality'. Solid evidence like yours is very rare.

S.

 

Yes, I have met only subjective opinions - "sounds magical" or something similar.