Cryogenically treated cables

geoffkait,
I am new to this village, but one thing you learn when you travel a lot is every village has an idiot, everyone knows who they are, and they are usually easy to spot.

Do you ever have anything of value to add to threads, or just this running dialog with yourself? I am sure you find yourself amusing. I expect others, not so much.

And now, because you were not happy with just looking inane, you are going for deceitful? After I called you out on your non helpful tweets, you edited your initial post to look like you had something to add. You did that 20 minutes after the original post ... and after I called you out for it. I have highlighted what you added.


However, as opposed to adding anything to the conversation you pretty much illustrated that cryo in audio cables is for marketing only. However, I can only assume that your knowledge in this area is skin-effect deep since you would not send things to "the lab" for cryo, but to any number of companies that do cryo treatment of metals for physical properties as it is quite a common process and I certainly would not call these places "labs".

You may have garnered more respect if you had validated your statements against Wikipedia as opposed to making false statements, but it appears from a quick perusal of your posts that this is pretty much your modus operandi .... to accuse others of being Wiki smart when you cannot address their arguments in a logical and accurate fashion. That behaviour is childish and if you think it garners you respect, you would be the only one.

geoffkait17,927 posts11-03-2019 11:38amAnother fly! That’s lunch right there! No McDonalds for me today! I hate to judge before all the facts are in but this fly appears to be one of them Wiki skeptics. 😛

It seems highly unlikely that any harm can come to audio cables during or after cryogenic treatment since most high end cable manufacturers with any sense cryo their cables and many audiophiles send their cables into the lab for cryo. In fact, you must cryo your cables if you want to compete on the world stage. Better safe 🤗than sorry.

Do a Google search on something along the lines of "electrical conductivity copper cryogenic treatment". After you sort through all the results on thermal conductivity and electrical conductivity at cryogenic temperatures, perhaps you will find a paper or two about measured effects ..... and pretty much anything left will be consumer audio cables.

Perhaps, at this point, you will ask yourself why, when cryogenic treatment is only modestly expensive, are there not more articles, advertisements, etc. about cryogenic treated copper for improving conductivity and transmission in industries where they can both justify the expense (i.e. communications networks) and where they have the knowledge, expertise and equipment to quantify the differences?

Teflon and similar fluoropolymers can withstand cryogenic temperatures fairly well. PVC jacketing, and even the very common polyethylene insulation essentially becomes glass like, so any movement can induce fractures.

No, they are still laughing at you, most are just too polite to do it to your face.

geoffkait17,927 posts11-03-2019 11:50amWell, noone’s laughing now! 🤡

teo_audio,
The only thing scientific in my post was that Teflon insulation can stand up to cryogenic temperatures, PVC and polyethylene, not so much. I posted this as there were specific questions in this thread about whether cables could be damaged or not.

The rest of my post was to point out that highly critical industries don’t show much interest in cryogenic treatment of cables and you don’t have to be technical to draw a conclusion from that.

Contrary to your statement, I find that many in audiophile communities do actually want to learn and step outside their comfort zone of knowledge. That may require simplifying things more that many of us are used to, but the underlying science does not change. Based on how few people seem to actually post and how many active audiophiles their are, I would say the group that wants to learn is the silent majority and the group that wants to shut down discussion is the loud minority.

Whether geoff gave up or not, I do not know, but I know this is a discussion for a different thread and not where the op was trying to learn. I only responded to geoff in this thread as it was where he tried to negate my comment, not by adding any value or by negating what I said, but by negating me. I don’t stand for that here or elsewhere.

I am not sure where this came from

"So if you want to figure any of this out, it is ALL ON YOU. You can demand all you want but a sensible human being would ignore you.... and when you refuse and demand again, then expect to get smacked about. For all the right reasons."

or the rant w.r.t. patents?  How is that at all related to this topic and/or this thread or what transpired between geoff and I? 


What I really don't understand teo_audio, is why you are trying to shut me down?  What is your goal here? What are you trying to accomplish? It really makes no sense within the framework of this discussion.

This habit of yours to completely change the text in your posts ... significantly after you have posted it, really has to stop .... no worries, I was nice enough to capture the original post already.


I have a document that clearly says I am the world’s smartest and strongest dad. My son made it when I was about 5 years old. It carries about as much validity of me being the world’s smartest and strongest dad as the so called "documentation" you assert for cryogenic treatment in audio has audible improvements.

Many many many people, in many areas will swear that "something" does "something" when it does nothing or even does harm. Above average intelligence is not some magic shield for this either unfortunately.

geoffkait17,964 posts11-04-2019 10:38amSorry if I’m being too harsh but that last post is mostly pure speculation. The history of cryogenics for audio is long and colorful and well documented. There’s no reason to be so skeptical and reactionary. Heck, I broke three Laws of Physics today already and it’s not even lunchtime.

Cryogenic treatment of steel for mechanical properties and thermal properties is well understood, and applies to other metals, though they typically do not have the significant changes that steel does.


Some of the properties that are stated for steel after cryogenic treatment, i.e. transformers, are not as well accepted, at least whether the cost justifies the improvement or if it can be accomplished by other means. Even small improvements in electrical transmission efficiency can justify fairly significant equipment cost increases, at least for transformers.


We do know that cryogenic treatment of copper does increase the conductivity, depending on the initial copper quality and processing method, from 2-4%. That would of course be the same as increasing the cross-section 2-4%, or in the case of high frequencies, increasing surface area 2-4%.

If a cable vendor has a very specific construction, that they claim has some specific impedance control, whether we believe that is effective or not at audio frequencies, then cryogenic treatment of those cables is going "break" that design by changing the properties of the conductors.

The corollary is that all those implied "impedance controls" don’t really do anything at audio frequencies at least if cryo-treating the copper always has a positive effect ..... well that or the cryo-treatment provides no audible benefits.

millercarbon1,879 posts11-04-2019 1:26amCryo is another one of those things that have been around and known to work for a very long time now, and yet still it goes on on an the people who haven’t yet learned. My first cryo was brake rotors on my 911. They modulate better at threshold, respond more consistency at temp, and last a lot longer compared to identical factory non-cry rotors.

Which is interesting because when I went looking for someone local to try cryo with my stereo the closest one turned out to be a shifter kart racer who me being a PCA track Instructor we hit it off and he told me all about his business.

Feel free to point out what specifically as "jibber jabber". Your post is jibber jabber. You are trying to dismiss my arguments out of hand, but you cannot even address them. Why is it that you cannot actually address my arguments? Is it that you cannot? That makes your post text-book jibber-jabber.


I am neither skeptical nor reactionary. Again, based on your last post (and others before), I would say you are projecting your own emotional mindset on me. Addressing my arguments would go a long way to prove I am not right. So have at it ... address my arguments.

What you call skepticism, I call reality. Given the number of industries and scientific endeavours that require signal transmission properties far stricter than audio, surely there must be a body of work discussing the benefits of cryogenic treatment of cables for signal transmission?

You like quotes, here is one for you:

“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

– Mark Twain

geoffkait17,964 posts11-04-2019 10:38amSorry if I’m being too harsh but that last positive a whole lotta jibber jabber. If you don’t know just say you don’t know. There’s no reason to be so skeptical and reactionary. There is no basis whatsoever for your speculation except you skepticism. No offense to you personally.

You say stubborn, I say not gullible.

geoffkait17,965 posts11-04-2019 12:03pmI have 30 minutes to edit my posts. I sometimes take all 30. It would be wise to wait the customary 30 minutes before responding. Besides, you recent spate of responses has taken the tone of a stubborn pseudo skeptic. You need to open your mind but mYbe not so open that your brain falls out. That’s messy and hard to clean up.

If you cannot collect your thoughts before attempting to put them down into words, maybe it is the thoughts that are at issue?
Pseudo science is making claims, that you are not able to back up with anything approaching typical standards for evidence, then claiming everyone who disagrees with you is lying, stubborn, "does not understand", etc., and yet never actually addressing any argument presented against your case.
I am still .... after what ... 5 or 6 posts, waiting for anything at all that is not ad-hoc to support your position and/or make anything other than a straw-man against what I have posted.
It is rather funny, as the pile-on that is starting is just more of the same ... ad-homs, straw-mans, etc.  .... but no one actually putting forth anything beyond ad-hoc evidence and no one addressing arguments .... that would be poster child activity for pseudo science.

geoffkait17,968 posts11-04-2019 12:10pmYou say not gullible, I say pseudo scientist. You’re also stubborn for not letting me finish editing my posts. That’s rude, dude!

Ah look. More straw-man arguments.

You seem to have a problem with engineers? I am going to assume you are not one? Engineers with a graduate degrees are one of the most prolific generators of patents, and patents is something you appeared to indicate you place intellectual value in?

Engineers with advanced degrees, and certainly PhDs are involved in research as much as anyone, "exploring" to your verbiage. Your comment about "making" versus exploring has little to do with what field you are in, and far more to do with your roll in that field. Few doctors "explore". They explore far less than the average engineer in electronics. But just like engineering, some doctors focus on research and some engineers focus on research.

There is no "engineering" maxim of negative proofing, no more than any field within the sciences. The only aspect of "negative" proofing that ever comes into play is turning a "theory" into a law in the scientific sense.

What I see more at play here is an attempt to remove the concept of falsifiability to a topic in order to shield it from criticism. That is most definitely not science. That is classic dogma. Classic dogma attempts to shield itself from criticism by never addressing evidence against it, but by attacking its critics, but never their arguments.

So, if you want to get back to science, then address my arguments, or I will assume the only dogma in this discussion is coming from those attacking the person, not the arguments.

teo_audio1,195 posts11-04-2019 12:11pm@atdavid:
The gullibility wording thing, as a way of expression...is tied to the engineering maxim of negative proofing.

Negative proofing belongs to the engineering mindset and mental type ---and engineering is very much ---not science.

Negative Proofing is very much a expression of the underlying aspect of engineering which is purely, intentionally -dogmatic. Dogmatism is all about ensuring that the future is the same as the past, and so on, re the nature of dogmatism as expressed throughout the ages. This is an excellent choice for what engineering is intended as and meant for. Engineering is for making, not exploring.

This is science. Exploration. (no facts, only theory)

So drop the gullibility horsemanure.......

Funny, it is dogmatic attachments to faith that normally allow people to attach onto concepts that they cannot offer any proof for. Hence, they tend to attack their detractors, not the arguments offered by their detractors just as you are doing here.

I am quite willing to discuss a competing theory when it actually becomes a "theory", heck, I would even be willing to consider a well thought our "hypothesis".


I consider it rather comical that you accuse me of insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations when it is exactly those things that have been thrown in my direction, and yet still, not one well thought out or reasoned refutation of what I have wrote. You are the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. Some may come to the conclusion that the lack of reasoned arguments and the jump to attacking the person, not the arguments may be indicative of something, but what could that be?

clearthink966 posts11-04-2019 12:20pm
atdavid"You say stubborn, I say not gullible."

Those who have attained rigid, absolute, unqualified beliefs often resort to claims of superior knowledge, education, and/or experience to justify, rationalize and defend they’re beliefs which in fact are only beliefs and the refusal to entertain, consider, or even evaluate competing theories without resorting to insult, innuendo, and self-important proclamations reveal that underlying the "reason" is really "Faith".

Oh look, more ad-homs (and inaccuracies).
1) Engineering has no laws since Engineering is predominantly an applied science and hence does not specifically deal with fundamental properties of the universe, though it will use those properties and it will often be used to both verify and falsify those properties. As well, Engineers, just by virtue of title and schooling path, do often get involved in fundamental science.

2) Fundamental science has many soft-laws, and a few somewhat hard laws, pretty much always defined by a mathematical equation, i.e. E=MC^2, which is well defined and bounded. This why when you hear Joe's Law, Joe is pretty much always defined as a scientist, not an engineer, again, because laws are pretty much always framed around fundamental science and never engineering.


"Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals. " .... while there is truth to advancements in science (not so much engineering) that often it is death that advances science, this statement, when it cannot be backed up by sound and logical arguments for what you are promoting, just sounds like sour grapes.

teo_audio1,196 posts11-04-2019 1:15pmI don’t think you know the history and meaning of engineering.

and importantly, science has no laws. that’s an engineering thing and is a human weakness issue.

Laws are for punishing people who do not fit the societal ideals.

Laws have no place in science whatsoever.

While repeating the same thing over and over again may make it true on an internet forum, for at least a few people, it does not change reality geoff.

When my index of patheticity peaks and I start channelling popular movies I will let you know.

What I have discovered is that geoff, you are unreal.

Oh come on geoff, you must have been exposed to thermal analysis for cold temperatures in your Nasa days? I know I certainly had to do some crash course schoolin when I had to put something in space.

Space is of course much worse due to rapid heat/cooling, but at cryo temps, you are going to induce microfractures (feel free to Google), and can break bonds between dissimilar materials ...not to mention no guarantee of changing properties for good or bad.

Geoff, do you have detachment from honest discord. If we are to believe what you meant on this last post (which you will probably edit), then the statement below is false, since they don’t use cryogenics they use cryo treatment which you have now differentiated as not the same ..... ooooops.

geoffkait18,021 posts11-06-2019 6:01amAdvanced audiophiles have been using cryogenics for twenty-five years. No big deal.

geoffkait18,021 posts11-06-2019 8:32amI said LIGO uses cryogenics. Don’t get your bowels in an uproar or put words in my mouth. I just had breakfast.

If you want to make a bet about whether the majority of cables in Ligo were cryogenically treated (and not just used at cryogenic temperatures), I will gladly take that bet.

What are you willing to wager?

p.s. CRYCONNECT specializes in cabling and other assemblies that --operate-- at cryogenic temperatures, not treatment for room temperature use. Read more ..... post less.

geoffkait18,018 posts11-06-2019 6:01am Or maybe go to CRYOCONNECT.COM for Cryogenic Cables & Harnesses For Ground Based & Space Applications. Did LIGO use cryo? Bet they did.

Look, if we want to argue about 18 year old threads we will! ... but thank you for reminding us what idiots we are. I will go and hang my head in shame now .... over and out (of this thread).

thecarpathian702 posts11-06-2019 7:58pmYou guys realize this thread is 18 years old, right? And since the OP hasn’t posted anything new anywhere since 2001, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say he’s pretty much moved on......probably in more ways than one.

There have been papers, by real scientist (no for real), that have shown a several percent increase in conductivity in copper conductivity at room temperature after cryogenic treatment. What I don't remember (was a while ago), was what the initial purity of the copper was. I would not be surprised if the results are dependent on copper purity, hence if you are starting pure, there may be virtually no change. No indication this had any affect at all on high frequency, or any other useful property.

glupson2,772 posts11-06-2019 9:38pm

"...the electrical activity in copper when brought back to room temp will not be any better than with no treatment."

Finally! Thank you!

I have been trying to gently imply that warming it up may negate any possible benefit from cooling but to no avail.