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
Post removed 

@pindac - I've seen more than a few League 1 and FA Cup matches played in quagmires! laugh

It absolutely does not change the sound or longevity and anyone who says it does is either lying to make a sale or ignorant of metallurgy. 

Thank you for all the great responses. I suspected that at best the difference would be very small. I’m still surprised that cryogenic treatment doesn’t destroy a lot of tubes.

It makes sense that if cryogenic treatment helps align the internal structure of wire it would reduce smear and improve the sound. If I didn’t have my ideal interconnects and cables and was experimenting to save money… I would experiment. But I’ve left the research up to Transparent. They did what they had to do to create the amazing interconnects and cables I enjoy daily.

I purchased some cryo'd EL34 some years ago, these were hand picked SED.  They were superior to my regular SED and Svetlana, cryo or hand picked meaning better spec and match, can't say which was most responsible.