Cryo Treatment: does it provide improvements in sound or longevity?


I'd be interested in hearing from audiophiles that have actually tried Cryogenic treated tubes and listened to them vs non-treated. 

I would really prefer not to hear from folks from a theoretical point of view, or that have no experience.

The last time I bought a set of tubes for my amp, just for fun I got the Cryogenic treated ones. They are replacements on my Audio Research Ref 160s. My KT150s were approaching the end of life and I heard them getting hard sounding. So I switched them out. The new tubes immediately restored the amp to its beautiful normal sound. I heard no difference from Cryo... although if it was subtle... no way I would... this was no purposeful comparison. I guess I'll have to wait 3,000 hours to see if they last longer. 

Just wondering if someone with good equipment and a trained ear has done listening tests (not measurements) and made a conclusion. 

ghdprentice

I bought the same exact pair of tubes, one pair cryo'ed and the other not.  The pairs were matched as close as possible, well within +/-1% of each other.

These was NO sonic difference in the pairs that I could detect.

Not sure about longevity, but SQ wise, a waste of money...

 Not a supporter in Cryo treatment.  I owned 2 really highly regarded NOS Phillips rectifiers.  1 was Cryo treated by Upscale Audio and the second one was not Cryo treated.   Both rectifier’s sound quality were the same.  Now maybe some Cryo processes (such as Cryotone tubes) are superior to others but I have no interest in finding that out now.

The tire store put nitrogen in my new set of tires and now my car stereo sounds much better.