2. amps-preamps
  3. 124695-3034

treasure kt 88 vs vintage tung Sol 6550

Well, I have been trying to give these treasure kt88 a fair shake for a while.  I have read many that say they cannot hear a difference in these grant fidelity choice tubes and vintage nos.  All I can say is do not take any wooden nickels.  There really is no comparison, the vintage tung Sol 6550 just blew away the treasure kt 88.  Not even close, in bass, texture, clarity, well, everything.  One thing I will say about the treasure kt 88 is I did find them forgiving.  As far as CDs are concerned, the tung sols are not.  If you have a CD in with the tung sols, you will know it.  If you have vinyl on, same thing.  If is a quality recording, you will hear it regardless if it is digital or analog. The treasures are not as clean sounding, but considering what is available today, they may be the closest to nos.  However, any claim that they are as good or better than nos really is not very honest.  IMHO.
tzh21y
rodman99999
6,158 posts
 
@xti16 -  The clarity and lack of unnatural coloration are exactly why I prefer and have all NOS tubes such as Siemens, Telefunken, Sylvania, and Tung-Sol in my system.  presently- I have(what were NOS) 1970's GE 6550A's, performing the output duties, with EATs up to bat next.   The, "warmer/tubey sound"  doesn't appeal to me, as I listen to way too much live music to appreciate it.   That's just my personal preference and in no way an attempt to denigrate anyone else's taste in musical presentation.   I did previously let that get in the way of an unbiased reply though, didn't I?
charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Over and over again it has been demonstrated that personal preference is just that , personal. In one amplifier or system to a specific individual the Tung Sol  could be clearly superior.  Now placed in another system and different listener the Treasure KT 88 would be declared equal or superior sounding. I find that proclamations are rarely universal in audio, simply too many variables at play. If you find a terrific fit for your system that's a beautiful thing,  but extrapolation is difficult. 
Charles, 
tzh21y OP
1,654 posts
 
I just put the treasures back in.  They are definitely veiled in comparison to the tung sols.  I feel like I have to turn it up louder to hear what I am missing, that can not be a good thing
almarg's avatar
Ag insider logo xs@2x
almarg
9,670 posts
 
Charles1dad 5-14-2016
In one amplifier or system to a specific individual the Tung Sol could be clearly superior. Now placed in another system and different listener the Treasure KT 88 would be declared equal or superior sounding. I find that proclamations are rarely universal in audio, simply too many variables at play. If you find a terrific fit for your system that’s a beautiful thing, but extrapolation is difficult.
+1. Very well said, Charles.

And I would expect that to be particularly true with regard to extrapolations from the OP’s MC275 Mk IV. My impression is that all of the various incarnations of the MC275 have considerably lower output impedance, considerably higher damping factor, and use greater amounts of feedback than the great majority of other high quality tube amplifiers. There are undoubtedly many other differences between those amps and most other tube amps that could also invalidate extrapolation of the performance of a given output tube in those designs to performance in other designs. Not to mention variables involving the listener, the speakers, and the rest of the system, as you said.

Best regards,
-- Al


charles1dad's avatar
charles1dad
10,250 posts
 
Hi Al,
I wasn't aware that the MC 275 amplifier relied on generous use of negative feedback (NFB) in its circuit. This is an obvious example of influential variables I had mentioned earlier. I once used a push pull amplifier that had adjustable settings for NFB. You could alter your preference for choice of cables or tube rolling based on which NFB amount /setting was chosen. 
Charles, 
More to discover