time to discuss kt-88's

Hey Basement - you can also verify with Kevin @ Upscale Audio, but I do think I was told 400+ hours on the KT-90's... and that is not the easiest amount of time to log on tube amps! However, when you do reach that point over 400 hours, you will know it. It was not a subtle difference. The somewhat "closed in soundstage" will also tend to open up as well. It may not be the best in the regards, but much more open as compared to when they are new. The mids and highs remain neutral, however seemingly silky smooth & clean. The bass will seem to have more "punch" and refinement as well when you cross the break in thresh hold.

Please keep us posted. Good luck!

Tubes taking 400 hrs. to burn in? That is completely ridiculous. Electrons traveling in a vacuum don't "burn in." If you argue that cathode & anode burn in, that is going to happen within a few minutes from new. You're probably just getting use to the sound of the tubes, or they are changing in sound because they have already aged in 400 hours.

As far as comparing KT-88s, this will differ from amp to amp. You need to get recommendations from Quicksilver owners, or from Quicksilver themselves. In the ARC VT-100 Mk II, I found the Svetlana to have a beguiling sound with some pleasant 'tube fog' in the midrange. Decent, but not outstanding bass, silky treble that does not have the ultimate in detail however. The EH KT-88 is a very good tube, as is the JJ KT-88. I would try those in the Quicksilvers, as Quicksilvers have had a reputation for a very midrangy, bloomy sound that could use some bass tightening and high end extension.

Yes, 400 hrs for a tube to burn in IS rediculas, but I have experienced rediculasly long burn in periods in other areas.
I did call upscale to ask about this, and they more or less confirmed this, saying about 300 hrs, and that they have an "unusally" long burn in.
My assesment of the svetlanas is not nessesarily different, but in the quicks, what I heard was definitely a very 'clear' midrange, in fact, was able to pick up a lot of the harsh, buzziness that a real trumpet or saxaphone sounds like. Synergy is sometimes matching strenghts and weaknesses, and sometimes it is just a unique situation. It is worthwhile to note or discuss what tubes work well in what amp, and of coarse while assesing a tube the amp it is in must be considered, but there are still differences in tubes and brands that make them stand out or just be so-so. It is interesting that the svetlana, that seems to have such a glorious midrange and soft and soggy highs and lows would not balance out in an arc, but this could be telling, too.
The kt-90's ARE changing to me, which I will comment on later, and I should also note that in my experience, the quicksilvers to me are not amps that have long burn in periods with different tubes or long warm-up times.
I will continue to burn these tubes in and report back soon.

Kevziek- I tend to agree with you with just about any tube... a good 15 to 40 hours and they are good to go. The Ei KT-90 Type III is the ONLY exception I have had in over a decade of tube rolling. I thought I was being fed a line when I was told 400 hours, and like I posted above I was ready to throw the tubes out at about 380 hours. However, with the money invested and the time, I pushed on past 400+. Let me state again, the transformation was NOT subtle. THE transformation appeared about 410 hours or so... everything improved, and when using electrostats it was very clear what changed, air, openness, transparency, transients, etc.

Again, I too would agree that this sounds totally crazy and would think it is nothing but bull$hit, until of course I went through it myself...

I wouldn't want to have tubes that take over 400 hours to burn. Based on an estimated useful life of 1,500 hrs., 1/3 of the tubes' useful life will be gone before it is burned in.