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
Have you compared the Gold Lion reissue KT-88 vs. the Treasure?
I have not.  The reason for the post is it you go on the grant fidelity website, they have reviews by supposed audio reviewers regarding nos and the treasures.  They state that they are just as good if not better.  Well, maybe the reviewer had wax in his ears or something.  If you have good nos power tubes, do not let someone talk you in to these.  There truly is no comparison, do not be fooled.
That is called puffing, they can make any claim away from the the sale and then not have to support the information they provide.  Always audition or get other "real" audiogon opinions before.  I have learned this the hard way over the years!
"The treasures are not as clean sounding, but considering what is available today, they may be the closest to NOS."  No- regarding what's being manufactured today, the closest to the original Tung-Sol, is the EAT KT-88.  Nothing else comes close, but- you're going to pay for the presentation.
I agree.  I was duped but at least I still have my tung sols.  They do not give you a money back like synergistic research does.   Everyone was saying that I just did not have enough hours on them.  I have had them since last October.   
That is the thing, other audiogoners are enamored with the treasures.  Maybe they just have not heard how good many vintage tubes really are.
@rodman99999 I disagree to a point. I have EAT's and TS solid black and grey plates. The reason I disagree is to me both of those tubes are extremely different sounding. EAT's have the best clarity and detail from top to bottom I ever heard. Original Marconi/GEC/Gold Lions are pretty close to the EAT's with a hair less clarity. Almost SS sounding where the TS is a much warmer/tubey sound. The TS IMO have more emotion with music.

Now that said it really depends on the speaker. When I had Dyn C1's the TS were the best sounding. But when I upgraded to Raidho D1's the TS didn't sound good at all and the EAT was much better.

Where I do agree with rodman99999 since EAT's are still being produced nothing comes close in sound quality by today's standards. I never heard the black treasures or Psvane.
@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?
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, 
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
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


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,