ARC Ref 3: Tung-Sol 6550 in power supply?

Thank you Rodman. As you know, I can only report what my ears tell me. And I try to report my observations in as descriptive manner as possible, so that other Audiogoners can draw their conclusions, based on my observations, not so much on my 'judgement'. And their conclusions are happily often opposite from myine. Terms better/worse are unfortunately not terribly useful in this business, being purely value judgements based on personal and too often unstated parameters. The only thing I can say at this point is that, between the factory supplied Winged C 6550 and the new production Tungsol 6550, I do prefer the Winged version for the musical reasons described in some details a few months ago. As for any other 6550 or KT88 version, I do not usually comment on devices I have no experience with. If some NOS 6550s or compatible serendipitously found their way into my system, I will report my observations accordingly.

Hi dave,
how about an early Jan 2008 NOS version of the TI Burr Brown OPA1632 differentially balanced OP amps in the linestage section?
I heard from a bunch of wild internet chipheads that it readily trounces the 2008 post march 31st current production. Best used after triple kryoing and slow warming up to room temperature in a tourmaline-based industrial drier. 77F Airflow with 45% humidity through a bed of crushed tourmaline minimizes residual Doppler effect by optical polirization of Oxigen 2O molecules. Current big issue is. . . what tourmaline variant to utilize: black Mexican, green (having the highest optical polarization index), or rose rubelite (being this last the most expensive jewelry grade variant, and therefore obviously the most desirable from a serious audiophyle point of view). The date of mining of the tourmaline may also have a considerable effect on the sound. . . Pre 1908 batches are the best, because they were extracted prior to the nepherious Tunguska event. . . provided you can find any. Hope this helps, G.

I agree Mr G- And I'll bet those "personal and unstated parameters" are too often one's familiarity with the real thing(live music). A subject that will get a post severly bashed in these forums. What a shame that we should take solace in those that disagree! I'm glad I've always considered myself simply a sound-tech/music lover and NEVER an "audiophile."

What can I say Rodman. . . I have listened and done live unamplified, acoustic music for almost 50 years and still have no idea what many are talking about when the whole issue of the realism of tube bloom arises. . . I'll try to listen to live music for a few more decades and hope to learn. . . Like Bart aptly suggests, there are a lot of audiophile with longer listening experience than I do. G.

That's what I inferred from your second post(describing what you were hearing). My own experience with the sound of live(and my love for it) has only been about 35 years as a musician/sound tech/electronics repairman and modder. Seems much of the "audiophile" thing is wrapped around the sound of equipment compared to the sound of other pieces of equipment. I remember one post in which the "audiophile" sited how many CES shows he'd attended, and pieces of gear he's listened to, in his "experience." The resistance to the idea that live music CAN be used as a reference is dismaying, but I suppose it's human nature to deny that from which you've alienated yourself. It's interesting that so many find it impossible not to argue their viewpoints with such vehemence. Perhaps they believe if they continually repeat the same error, loudly enough, it will become truth? Then again: "ain't" and "irregardless" ARE now in the dictionary(another example of our codependent society)! My take: Whatever makes them happy in their listening rooms IS right for them, and fine with me. Enjoy your music Mr G!!