Printable View
I'm fairly new to the world of valves, so I need a bit of advice on the whole area of buying valves but particularly in the area of matching. My KEL84 requires 4x EL84 and 2x ECF80 valves. So I'm guessing that a matched quad of EL84's and a matched pair of ECF80's would give the best results but how important is it to use matched pairs/quads? Also, if I don't use a matched quad, how should I arrange two matched pairs of EL84's?
Thanks. :)
This thread might well be of some use http://www.world-designs.co.uk/forum...ighlight=kel84
To sum it up, two matched pairs of el84s, one per side. no point or even any real chance of matching the ecf. No point in using a matched quad.
Ok thanks, that simplifies things a bit. :)
What are your opinions on cryo treated valves?
I don't have one that stands up to any objective analysis. A year or so ago I got a cryo company to agree to treat a batch of valves for a trade price, and I was going to send them round blind (with untreated ones in there) to folk and try and collate their findings. I never got round to it as I didnt have the spare cash to buy the valves to create a sample set.Quote:
What are your opinions on cryo treated valves?
I have some feelings about why it could improve things. It seems odd to me that in general older components seem to be better regarded. Of course it could just be selection bias doing that, but assuming there was some real difference, the thing to consider was why. Now clearly they had got very good making valves in the 50's, but not in the 20's, and even though they had got good at the process in the 50's the goals were not the sound we seek, it was reliability and consistency. So this makes me think that the reason we like old valves so much is because they are old, i.e. made a long time ago. And I wonder if the time since making has allowed the stresses of manufacture to be releaved. And I wonder if its the same thing that cryo treating achieves. It certainly seems to have uses in industries where it would not just be used because its the "new thing".
It is an interesting subject. I think think there will be a combination of factors that contribute towards valves from some of the older valves sounding better than current production. Like you say, in the 50's companies like Mullard had perfected the art of making valves and had found the best materials and manufacturing processes. A lot of the knowledge from then has been lost and modern companies are having the figure it all out again the hard way. Also, back in the 50's you could put pretty much whatever chemicals or metals you liked into products. Nowadays the restrictions on toxic materials don't allow that. So perhaps some of the magic ingredients simply don't exist in current production valves. From what I've read, modern valves are getting better all the time as the manufacturers improve their techniques. So while they may never be able to fully recreate the qualities of vintage valves, hopefully they'll get very close.Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
As for cryo treating, I've heard a bunch of stuff about all the areas it's supposed to improve but a lot of this seems to be tailored toward guitar players. Stuff like greater harmonic content etc which worries me from a hi-fi point of view. But I have heard that cryo valves have better dynamic range, lower noise floor, lower microphonics and more detail etc. So I don't know what to think really. :confused: I guess it's a case of "you don't know until you try", which is why I was hoping someone here had some experience. I haven't seen cryo valves mentioned much on hi-fi forums though, so perhaps it's something that hasn't caught on much in the hi-fi world yet.
Yes, but as I say, every time that is said, it misses the reality that the improvements that the likes of Mullard were aiming for were not the qualities that we value for audio use, and it seems a huge coincidence that what they were aiming for (consistency, less failures) should lead to the audio difference we hear in those valves. It also doesn't explain a globe 245 from 1930 sounding so great. Better in fact I would say than just about anything produced in Blackburn.Quote:
It is an interesting subject. I think think there will be a combination of factors that contribute towards valves from some of the older valves sounding better than current production. Like you say, in the 50's companies like Mullard had perfected the art of making valves and had found the best materials and manufacturing processes. A lot of the knowledge from then has been lost and modern companies are having the figure it all out again the hard way. Also, back in the 50's you could put pretty much whatever chemicals or metals you liked into products. Nowadays the restrictions on toxic materials don't allow that. So perhaps some of the magic ingredients simply don't exist in current production valves. From what I've read, modern valves are getting better all the time as the manufacturers improve their techniques. So while they may never be able to fully recreate the qualities of vintage valves, hopefully they'll get very close.
Maybe you are not looking where I look, but cryo "just about anything" seems to be available for hifi use, including valves.Quote:
I haven't seen cryo valves mentioned much on hi-fi forums though
I see what you're saying. I think it's just one of those things that can't be explained fully. I've usually found that when something is over-engineered it tends to work better, not just for longer. Also I've often heard people say that military spec valves sound better than standard models as they suffer less from microphony etc. I guess that some of the things that make a valve more rugged also make it sound better. Tighter manufacturer and testing tolerances will also have something to do with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
I said that I hadn't seen people talking much about cryo treated stuff, not that I hadn't seen it for sale. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
Yes, but Mullard were not "over enginearing" the valves, they were trying to do what any production process does, optimise yield, reduce waste and improve consistancy. Making valves for mil use may be different as the increase acceleration and temperature requirtements would clearly help matters, but only at the expense of production cost, so Phillips would have only done what they saw as benificial to their profits in producing standard valves. I don't see that directly improving what we want from them. And it doesn't address the 1930's valve being so good.Quote:
I see what you're saying. I think it's just one of those things that can't be explained fully. I've usually found that when something is over-engineered it tends to work better, not just for longer. Also I've often heard people say that military spec valves sound better than standard models as they suffer less from microphony etc. I guess that some of the things that make a valve more rugged also make it sound better. Tighter manufacturer and testing tolerances will also have something to do with this.
Like I said, I don't think it can be fully explained. At least not yet. We'll just have to hope that the sound quality of modern valves will gradually increase. Perhaps now that all the R&D is being but into that one area we'll eventually get valves that are even better than vintage ones. Like you said, many older valves weren't even developed for audio use. It would also be good if some new valve designs were developed using modern principles. Then a whole new type of valve amp could be designed. We've already proven that modern amp designs can outperform those from the time when valves were supposedly at their best. So maybe a whole new type of valve is the next step. :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by lurcher
There already is & you're not going to like it :eyebrows:Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFidelityGuy
Mosfet ;)
Then I shall go forth and purchase some of these new fangled Mosfet valves that you speak of and insert them into my valve bases. I am sure the results will be spectacular. :wowzer:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant
Indeed, but only when you switch it on :lolsign:Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFidelityGuy
In reality a Mosfet operates on a similar principle to valves, it's voltage controlled rather than current controlled as per transistors...
I'll leave you to get back to proper valves, apologies for the interuption Dave ;)
Its voltage controlled I agree but there the difference ends. The important feature is the electrons are not traveling in a vaccum.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reid Malenfant
This is closer to a new type of valve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindt_tip
Yes, i'd agree with you there 100% ;) Never come accross those before or even heard of them, well they say you learn something new every day :)
I like the bit about how they could be used as "space-vehicle neutralisers". :eyebrows:
Imagine the space age version of the Shake And Vac advert :-)Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFidelityGuy
Interesting discussion, chaps :)
I think that there's quite a lot of hoodwinking going on in high-end audio, when it comes to the cryogenic treatment of things like valves and cables.
I mean, when it comes to valves, since that's what we're discussing here, how do you know for sure that they've actually been cryo'd? You've only got the word of the company who sold you the product, right?
Well, there is a way round this, and it's something I have direct experience of....
Anthony TD has bought valves in the past from Watford Valves, and tested them before they've been cryo'd (noting certain test parameters on his test equipment) and then sent them back to Watford to be cryo-treated by the supplier they use (I think it's Frozen Solid).
Then when he gets the same valves back, after having been cryo'd, he tests them again to see whether any of those parameters (you can ask him what exactly they were) have changed.
He tells me that every time he does this, there is a marked difference in the 'before & after' results, so therefore a measurable change is happening. Furthermore, when the valves are tested sonically, in equipment, they also sound different to how they did before the cryo treatment, with the cryo'd valves performing much better.
I've experienced these sonic differences myself, when comparing cryo'd and non-cryo'd Svetlana KT88s directly against each other in the Copper amp, in my own system, and the difference isn't subtle!
The cryo'd valves sound smoother and more refined, losing the slightly brightly-lit 'etched' quality one gets with brand new valves. The soundstage is wider and deeper, and tonally, all areas of the frequency range are more extended. Overall, there is simply a significant sonic improvement.
Therefore, in my experience, cryo-treating valves works, and gives some considerable sonic benefits, *BUT* you need to make sure that you know that the valves you're buying have definitely been cryo-treated in the first place, and that it's not just some marketing hype you're paying for.
Marco.
Thanks Marco, that's just the sort of info I was looking for. Very interesting stuff! :cool:
I've decided that I fancy trying some EL84M's next and Watford do some nice looking Sovtek's. So I've emailed them to get a price. :eyebrows:
EDIT: For some cryo treated ones I mean.
Yep, I have a box of cryo treated ecc83's somewhere that World Designs sent me to listen to. Problem was the treated and untreated valves were clearly different types so it was a pointless comparison.
Does this mean I need to store my stash of valves in the freezer instead of in with the skivvies? (...somewhat serious question...)
Only if your freezer happens to be filled with liquid nitrogen ;) Well i'm assuming they use Nitrogen? :scratch:
Put it like this, you want to be somewhere below -150C :eyebrows:
So, I should put them in the bed. NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Kidding... :lolsign:
I can see how cyro might improve solder joints but i dont understand its benefits in any other application.
There's a bunch of info on the Watford website that says it affects all metals on a molecular level or something. Some of the stuff I've read sounds like bollocks to me but if someone like AnthonyTD has said it works then that's good enough for me.
I got an email back from Watford saying that they don't cryo treat their Sovtek EL84M's because their cryo Harma vintage valves are the same thing. But it's those Harma's that apparently have "the highest mid-range distortion", so I've asked for their recommendation for Hi-Fi use. It can be tricky to separate the valves that are good for Hi-Fi from those that are more tailored for guitar amps.
I got another reply from Watford. I'd been looking at the wrong valves. It's THESE E84L Harma cryo valves that I've been recommended. The price is pretty good so I'll order a set of them soon.
Whilst it's always good to have matched push pull output pairs, changing the small signal valves always gives a more noticable change.
As well as the Harma's I'd recommend replacing the ECF80's with E80CF's
A couple of years ago I gave a mate of mine a pair of Philips Miniwatt's from the same batch as the one's in the pic below for his WAD amp. The improvement was astonishing. You also get the benefit of lower microphonics and a 10,000 hour lifespan.
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...5/IMG_0922.jpg
Nice one, Dave - let us know how you get on :)Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFidelityGuy
Andy, those look nice!
Marco.
Thanks for the advice. I've read some good stuff about E80CF's so I'll definitely give some a try fairly soon. I decided to try some different output valves first as the input valves I have are already Mullard's, so they should be pretty good in comparison the EI's that come with the amp as standard. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by BTH K10A
Thanks, will do. :cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Marco