ARC VS-115 Amp with new KT-120 Tubes


This post is for the benefit of ARC amp owners who are thinking about replacing the Winged C 6550 SED tubes with the new Tung Sol KT-120 tube. Discussions and caveats concerning the technical attributes of the KT-120 tube appear in others posts here on A'gon. I will not repeat, other than to say check with your amp manufacturer before doing a drop in.

The purpose of this post is to advise other ARC amp owners who may be thinking about a KT-120 tube drop-in about my experience with my ARC VS-115. I will update this OP with any additional comments as the new KT-120 tubes break in.

As a threshold matter, I called ARC to confirm that I could drop the KT-120 into my VS-115 amp without the need for a mod. No problem with this amp, however, as further discussed in other posts, some ARC amps will not take the tube without a mod, if at all.

I purchased the KT-120 tubes from Upscale Audio for $45/tube. The price seemed fair compared to other on-line tube vendors. I chose UA because they burn in their tubes for 72 hours before testing and matching and then match based on three variables: bias, transconductance and G2, whatever all that means.

At this point, I have just about 5 hours on the tubes. Biasing was a snap -- no problems yet. So far, there doesn't seems to be any unusual overheating problems with the power transformer - at least that I can detect. All tubes seem to be working -- no apparent arcing. That is a concern because of the possibility of burning resisters.

I understand that the tubes will need about 20 hours to break in. The tubes are already starting to sound better than when originally installed. Initial reactions: better dynamic range than the 6550s; my sense is that there is less distortion on dynamic transients when playing classical music (e.g., Stravinsky, Rites of Spring; Mahler, 1st Symphony - The Titan), possibly because of greater dynamic headroom - but let's face it, who really knows; bass seems a little tighter; overall seems to be better sounding than the 6550s.

That's all for now. If the situation changes, I'll report back. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that none of the new tubes will blow.
bifwynne
It sounds pretty amazing. I wonder if I could put hte KT-150 tube in and expect more. The Midrange is magical.

So I went and met Kevin Deal- nice guy, opiionated- but with good reason.

I bought replacement 6550s to replace my non winged 6550s. Went for the cryro treatment.

OK on leaving Kevin said I should try running them at a lower bias.

Now, As my tubes aged I found the highest I could run the lowest measuring tube was 57milliamps. So i set all the tubes there- and to my surprise the amp still sounded really really good.

So I was still excited to get better Cryoed SED 6550c wing tubes and run the bias back up to 65milliamps.

Kevin asked what I was running at before and I said 57 milliamps which I thought was low, he said "No actually that should sound pretty good".

When I got the new tubes from Kevin - Kevin said I should run them at 57 Milliamps. And at 65 milliamps I would just burn them out sooner and that hte amp sounds better at lower bias.

Of course...the doubting idiot in me thought... "How would Kevin know, he is not an ARC dealer....maybe his tubes can not handle 65milliamps...and besides...I want the best sound...so screw it if the life might be shorter."

So I got them biased the amp to 57 milliamps and it sounded really amazing. After about 20 hours- my main transformer was buzzing from an unrealted issue. I sent the amp back to ARC.

It came back with the tubes biased at 65milliamps. After warm up... it really did not sound as fluid and amazing as before.

So rebiased to 56 milliamps....and it sounded sorta uncontrolled... I thought...well then 57 milliamps likely isn't the sweet spot. So I tried 58.4 milliamps... too controlled, then 57.4 milliamps...still too controlled- WTF???- , then back to 57 milliamps and all was blissful again. Wow.... how can such a tiny adjustment make that sort of difference? I guess I should have tried 56.5milliamps... but frankly I was heated up over this tube amp- and it sounded so good I did not feel a reason to tweek any further.

How Kevin remembers all this stuff is a mystery to me... I won't bother wasting MY time or his time doubting him again. I think he knows his stuff and if he isn't sure ...he doesn't bullshit you...he will just say he doesn't know.

I'm not sure I should change anything because with my Chapman T-9MKII and this GNSC modded ARC VS-110 amp and GNSC Modded Wadia 860x it just sounds ridicoulously real with quite a few recordings... but alas..I had to give up my MIT cable and I have some DH Labs Q-10 stuff which is looking to be promising...getting it back from a cryro in a few days.

Why continue?? ... well I know that the better the system gets you end up with even more recordings that sound absolutley real. right now it sounds like 5-10% of what I play sounds real, I would like to up that to around 20%...whcih probably is about the limit of recorded good material.

So other possible upgrades are the Bob Carver Black beauty modded 305's- possibly The top of the line synergistics cable, and an EAR preamp.

But the tubes seem like something easy to try. Does anyone have a set of KT-150 they might want to try out in my system if I paid a 2 hour rental fee for your hassle? Seems silly to just toss a few hundred buck out just to try them.
My vsi 60 came with the new kt120 . Sounded harsh at first then mellowed after 25 hrs, I'm using revel performa 3o and naim cd 5xs with nordost heimdall 2 and kimber 8 tc , voodo wave power cord . I want to try gold pin tube , has anyone heard this to compare with the standard tube ? Cheers sti
If you check your owners manual you will find that the tubes should be biased to 65mV. The amp will sound it's best with the tubes running at 65mV not 57mV.